The Strange Case of the "Radio Record" (aka Why the Hell did I buy "You" by Ten Sharp??)

You may have heard radio DJs over the years make a particular and remarkable statement when interviewing a musician or pop group.

What happens is that a DJ will play an artist's new single and, as a prelude to the interview, will tell the artist that their record "sounds great on the radio".

Notice the statement isn't "Your record sounds great", but that it sounds great on the radio. There is a difference, and this phenomenon has a name.

This, surely the ultimate in backhanded compliments, is known in the music industry as a "radio record".

What that means is that it's a record people listen to - and like - when it's played on the radio but totally loses its effect when the listener person actually buys and plays the record for personal enjoyment.

It's an odd phenomenon but it does exist.

Indeed, I have fallen victim to this seditious foe myself, most notably when I, er, bought "You" by Ten Sharp back in 1992. The song was not exactly my usual preferred style, but this rising, piano-led ballad did indeed sound great on the radio.

Guess what? I bought the CD single, took it home, played it once... and hated it. The CD single has remained unplayed since 1992.

Undoubtedly the best example of the radio record phenomenon must be the complete works of Keane. I'm not a fan of Keane and I wouldn't choose to listen to them, but I have to admit their records sound okay on the radio. (I certainly don't rush to change the station as I would if "All For Love" by Sting, Rod Stewart & Bryan Adams came on). I bought "Everybody Changes"... only to discover I'd been duped again. One play, then instant retirement for the offending CD single.

So, what is a radio record? How can one record have two totally different effects on the same listener?

Surely it can only be a situational difference; most radio listening is passive,  therefore it acts almost as a backdrop to whatever else you're doing at the time. And given most radio stations play the same songs in heavy rotation, any new song that is reasonably well-crafted will attract the attention.

However, if you choose to play a song at your leisure, when commuting or when exercising, your attention is focused on the music -- therefore greater scrutiny is applied to whatever you're listening to -- and this surely is the litmus test of any song. If you like it, you listen. If not, then you listen to something else.

Problem solved. Case closed. But no, here's the thing.

I recently heard "You" again on the radio and despite my continued dislike, I paradoxically thought it sounded good on the radio!

Whilst I still support the situational theory posited above, I have to further conclude that there is another aspect to the radio record; one that could explain why only some but not all records are radio records.

I'm talking style over substance.

I'm not talking about the age-old argument of throwaway pop versus "proper" music; hell, many of my favourite records are considered throwaway pop, but I would wager there's more musical complexity in, for example, the chord and melodic structure of many Stock Aitken Waterman records than there is in most so-called "classics".

What I mean here is that radio records have a particular gloss or sheen to the arrangement and production but underneath the musical complexity is not there.

And that in itself is not a bad thing, but that is the only explanation I can come up with to explain how a record can sound great on the radio but fail to bear closer scrutiny.

Finally! An explanation as to why I don't like Keane...!