Posted by Joe Marchese on August 13, 2007 at 17:39:43:
In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wolfman Jack Was Better posted by Mike Piazza on August 13, 2007 at 16:58:24:
I know what you're getting at, Mike, but we're getting into semantics when we spend paragraphs deciphering the meaning of the word "great", one defintion of which is merely "very good" according to the American Heritage Dictionary (!). For the purposes of a lot of listeners last night, I stand by my original statement that Randy Davis is a great (to many listeners, any former CBS-FM jock is considered a great!) though categorically *not* a legend, and was a perfectly acceptable choice for this program. Perhaps he's not a great in the strict definition many radio connoisseurs on this list employ, and I respect that. (To use a theatre analogy, Nathan Lane is indeed a great to many audience members. Box office receipts prove this, not to mention critical acclaim. But to others, usually but not exclusively of an older generation, "great" would only be ascribed to a Mary Martin or Kim Stanley. Semantics, same as here. I don't put Davis in the category of any of the greats you mention, but I still don't see why CBS-FM can't call him a "great".) I believe the program with Randy was enjoyable for a great deal of the general public, and I wouldn't mind seeing jocks of his caliber, both from the old 101.1 and elsewhere, return to the show, along with airchecks. I think many would agree. That said...I'm so glad we're spending so much time debating this program because the amount of interest clearly proves SOMETHING's working! :-)