The sad state of British music [Archive]

Dobbo

11-11-2002, 09:23 AM

Had the misfortune to watch Top of the Pops last Friday (two young sons being my excuse). What crap !! Sounded more like an edition of a Jamie Oliver prog, with talentless "singers" mumbling about gravy, flava & ketchup. What the hell is going on - the only decent acts on display were Tom Jones & Madonna, (combined age 100 years ?). The whole Top 20 included only one band (the excellent, but veteran U2). Have the singles buying public been totally brainwashed by boy bands, products of misnamed TV "talent" shows and unintelligible rap singers ? Where have all the good bands gone ? Please enlighten me.

Baloo

11-11-2002, 11:53 AM

I read a refreshing article in Friday's Standard by one of the chaps who compiles the singles chart, saying how it is full of utter crap, and is effectively a chart for the best promoters and marketeers rather than for the best music.

He said reviews are being undertaken to improve the quality of the charts, which may include incorporating the number of downloads. Not sure how that will work in practice, and I suspect it will come to nothing.

I haven't listened to the charts for years, although I was unfortunate enough to hear that Westsh!te have yet another number 1, which is yet another drippy ballad, and which will also be forgotten in 2 months time.

Gooders

11-11-2002, 11:55 AM

Dobbo, you're not wrong mate.

I'm 43 and therefore perhaps I'm not allowed to comment but I still buy quite a lot of current music, as my postings on the "What are you listening to" thread will attest to.

The charts, now, are the worst I have ever heard. Almost exclusively populated by talentless people sampling or covering old songs, badly.

I blame "popstars".

anti-addick

11-11-2002, 12:10 PM

It's OK guys, this may well be 'the charts' but one thing they don't show is a comparison of sales compared to years ago. Singles on vinyl from proper bands years ago, formed not from good looks but from talent and being mates anyway, easily sold more singles than todays flash in the pans.

I prefer to look beyond the charts where you will still find such bands making their own music as they did years ago, Travis and Coldplay to name 2 brits, even more from the US at present. Ultimately it is these bands that are the stars and rise beyond screaming 12 year olds, and the album charts are a better guide to music anyway. It's not so bleak when you turn off BBC and watch VH1 or MTV instead.

Ian of Chatham

11-11-2002, 12:15 PM

I'm sure a lot of people would blame hip hop and rap and "R and B" for the sad state of music today but whey are partly at fault I don't particularly single out one particular genre. I blame the hype surrounding many pop acts today, such those groups or individuals who create hype by criticising everyone else and/or getting into scrapes or getting involved in incidents for example Oasis, Eminem and So Solid Crew, also those singers and groups who like to pad their personal and love lives and making every little thing about their lives public, such as Atomic Kitten and the Appleton sisters, also our national obsession with the looks of popstars who are the opposite sex and buying their records because of that alone, The fuss people make about S Club or Kylie's bum are two good examples of that, also catchy slogan used by bands designed to fool the gullable persons buying the records into thinking that doing that is something that is meaningful and will change their lives, eg the Spice Girls' Girl Power slogan. Also all these Popstar type programmes. I particularly despise this Popstars the Rivals programme, firstly, because Geri Halliwell is on it and the who idea of creating a fake rivalry between two bands and fixing the Christmas No. 1 is very very sad indeed.

Baloo, I don't like the idea of downloads counting towards the charts though. If you have not paid a penny to aquire your favourite music in any shape or form including recording your friends' CDs or by downloading or by the old practice of "taping off the radio" then I think you should have no say in determining the charts.

DANGERMOUSE

11-11-2002, 12:17 PM

Originally posted by Gooders
The charts, now, are the worst I have ever heard. Almost exclusively populated by talentless people sampling or covering old songs, badly. Was horrified over the weekend to discover that Atomic Kitchen's 'new' song includes sampling the strings, and nicking a line, from E.L.O.'s 'Last Train to London'.

Jeff Lynne must be spinning in his perm...

It's true about the promotion, the charts are just a stitch-up - wasn't the recent Elvis revival deleted whilst it was no. 1 so that the scheduled Will Young and/or Gareth Gates single could claim that position. Disgusting.

Music has always ebbed and flowed in terms of style (and how it appeals or not to older people such as you, and frighteningly, I) but the difference now is that it is decided by a couple of record company execs, who then scour the drama schools for young things who'll do what they're told. Time was when the companies looked for markets for the acts; now they look for acts for the markets.

What I can't understand is why Britain seems to be the only major chart in the world where the companies employ the straight-in-at-number-1 tactic with such success. Clearly America is too huge for that to work, but apparently it doesn't happen in the rest of Europe, whose markets are smaller than Britain's. Any theories on this?

Gavin Axten

11-11-2002, 12:23 PM

Given up watching Top of the pops ages ago,will not watch it again until some proper bands are back in the charts.

Skin Up

11-11-2002, 12:26 PM

My theory is the top record companies and promoters are too scared to take a chance on any marerick artists and prefer to play it safe with bland inoffensive stuff.

Baloo

11-11-2002, 12:31 PM

Originally posted by Ian of Chatham
Baloo, I don't like the idea of downloads counting towards the charts though. If you have not paid a penny to aquire your favourite music in any shape or form including recording your friends' CDs or by downloading or by the old practice of "taping off the radio" then I think you should have no say in determining the charts.

Neither do I. I was just reporting what this bloke said in his article.

If you're looking for someone to blame for the state of "popular" music today, look no further than Pete Waterman. He IS Satan. :veryangry :veryangry :veryangry

Scoot

11-11-2002, 12:32 PM

I blame the 70's Glam era for ultimately signalling the death of decent chart music.
This is hardly new, just look at the Stock Aitken and Waterman era of the 80's ... total pop pish. Trouble is that these two bob pretty boys make the likes of Simon Caroll and Pete Waterman huge sums of money and all the time they continue to do so, they will not give a sh!te about what it sounds like. Thank christ we have the likes of Paul Weller, Travis, Coldway, Stereophonics, Oasis to keep us going.

ozeagle

11-11-2002, 12:36 PM

did anyone see that sad f%&ker Robbie Williams on t.v last night

- I tell you, if Noel had seen it, he would have smashed the telly. In fact, I reckon he bought an extra 5 or so t.v's, just so he could smash them up every time he saw Robbie's sad, my life's a mess, face.
oxo Robbie.
anyway, the Roses have released a best of, so life can't be all that bad !
:p

Psychokiller

11-11-2002, 12:39 PM

The following people deserve to be shot for what they've done to a once great British music scene:

Pete Waterman
Simon Cowell
Simon Fuller
Louis Walsh
Take That
The Spice Girls
Westlife
Boyzone
Anyone who's ever auditioned for Popstars
Anyone who's ever auditioned for Pop Idol
Anyone who's ever auditioned for Popstars the Rivals
Anyone who's ever auditioned for Fame Academy

There are hundreds more.

Del Gland

11-11-2002, 12:39 PM

Having had tthe pleasure to discover, and consequently buy, loads of new bands via the internet, I am horrified to hear of plans to sell CD's which cannot be copied. Quite amusing if you have bought a Sony CD Recorder!!

This is going to suffocate new talent by ensuring that money and energy is only given to surefire hits, i.e. packaged product!!

My Top Ten of bands discovered on the internet...in no particular order is

Avalanches
The Datsuns
Lemon Jelly
The Vines
Ben Kweller
Dave Matthews Band
Osymyso
Royksopp
Kings Of Convenience
Nonpoint

and yes, I did go out and buy the official product!

Baloo

11-11-2002, 12:40 PM

Originally posted by ozeagle
anyway, the Roses have released a best of, so life can't be all that bad !
:p

Correction: Silvertone have released ANOTHER best of, so the Roses themselves are unlikely to receive any royalties (although it's likely to be better than previously, as some arrangement must have been reached with Geffen (who released Second Coming) in order to allow a few tracks from that album).

Much better to get the albums, anyway (but then I would say that). :p

Ruskin Old Boy

11-11-2002, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by Dobbo
Had the misfortune to watch Top of the Pops last Friday (two young sons being my excuse).

And Pan's people weren't on it;)

Seriously the charts changed years ago and a timely exhibition is on at The British Library, details below, with the opportunity to win a Gibson Les Paul Classic Reissue Deluxe gold-top guitar.

50 Years of Number Ones
11 October 2002 - 7 January 2003
The first ever UK pop singles chart was published by New Musical Express on 14 November 1952. To celebrate the 50th anniversary of the chart, the British Library’s National Sound Archive presents a special interactive exhibition. Visitors can touch a screen to listen to any of over 900 Number One Hits - from Al Martino's 'Here in My Heart' in November 1952 to the current chart-topper. It’s a great opportunity to 'wander down memory lane'.

The list of Number One records illustrates the diversity of styles and artists that have, at one time or another, been the British record-buyers’ favourites. It's a fascinating barometer of public taste in popular music over half a century. Cool cats - from Kitty Kallen to Atomic Kitten - they’re all there.

Accompanying the sounds are pop memorabilia from the Library’s collections, along with a large screen displaying a montage of pop pictures and questions, prompting visitors to explore the Number One database. There is a 6 x 2 metre wall displaying the name of every track.

Alongside the exhibition there is the chance to win a Gibson Les Paul Classic Reissue Deluxe Gold Top guitar. This instrument is a replica of a 1968 Gibson Les Paul Deluxe Gold Top with mini-humbucker pickups. Les Paul was a leading innovator in guitar and electronics design. The Les Paul model manufactured by Gibson Inc. USA debuted - just like the Official UK Singles Chart - in 1952. Many chart-topping artists have played Gibson Les Paul guitars.

El Aguila

11-11-2002, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by anti-addick
It's OK guys, this may well be 'the charts' but one thing they don't show is a comparison of sales compared to years ago. Singles on vinyl from proper bands years ago, formed not from good looks but from talent and being mates anyway, easily sold more singles than todays flash in the pans.

Crass sold nearly 100,000 of one of their singles.

El Aguila

11-11-2002, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by DANGERMOUSE
What I can't understand is why Britain seems to be the only major chart in the world where the companies employ the straight-in-at-number-1 tactic with such success. Clearly America is too huge for that to work, but apparently it doesn't happen in the rest of Europe, whose markets are smaller than Britain's. Any theories on this?
What's the question? We've put a few singles in at number one in Spain (if this shiftless, workshy, collection of siesta-taking lispers counts as a country in your book, Mr. President of the Phil Collins fan club).

henryhallandhisbasque

11-11-2002, 02:22 PM

I gave up watching TOTP about five years ago. I now seek the refuge of the middle-aged (40) music fan with a fix of TOTP2.

When I started buying singles in around 1975/6, selling 30,000 copies would struggle get you a place in the Top 50. Nowadays, you get a No.1 record selling that amount.

What saddens me is groups of 'singers' being called bands. To me, a pop band should be something that contains musical instruments, played, or at least attempted to be played by the members.

I think there should be TOTP 2 type show with an actual current chart to go with it. Perhaps it could be called an MOR chart, or be reflective of the musical tastes of people over about seven years old. Maybe an OVER35 chart, though how that would work in reality, God only knows - maybe basing it upon a Radio 2 Top 40??

DANGERMOUSE

11-11-2002, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by El Aguila
What's the question? We've put a few singles in at number one in Spain (if this shiftless, workshy, collection of siesta-taking lispers counts as a country in your book, Mr. President of the Phil Collins fan club). I really touched a raw nerve with you on that one, didn't I?

My point was that I've read articles which say that only Britain amongst the major charts has a situation where the first week of sales is also the greatest. In former times, the Guinness Book of Hit Singles used to asterisk singles which went straight in at number 1; now it asterisks ones that don't... :rolleyes:

anti-addick

11-11-2002, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by Psychokiller
The following people deserve to be shot for what they've done to a once great British music scene:

Pete Waterman
Simon Cowell
Simon Fuller
Louis Walsh
Take That
The Spice Girls
Westlife
Boyzone
Anyone who's ever auditioned for Popstars
Anyone who's ever auditioned for Pop Idol
Anyone who's ever auditioned for Popstars the Rivals
Anyone who's ever auditioned for Fame Academy

There are hundreds more.

Quite right with the exception of take that lead man Gary Barlow who actually has talent - can write, sing and play a few instruments. Then again, he wasn't employed for his looks unlike the other was he.

I'm going to laugh when Robbie "i love myself and go on and on about my money" Williams dies of a drug overdose. Tosser.

Psychokiller

11-11-2002, 02:45 PM

I'm going to laugh when Robbie "i love myself and go on and on about my money" Williams dies of a drug overdose. Tosser.
Preferably with a dead Michael Barrymore's fist inserted firmly up his rectum.

El Aguila

11-11-2002, 02:46 PM

Originally posted by DANGERMOUSE
I really touched a raw nerve with you on that one, didn't I?

My point was that I've read articles which say that only Britain amongst the major charts has a situation where the first week of sales is also the greatest. In former times, the Guinness Book of Hit Singles used to asterisk singles which went straight in at number 1; now it asterisks ones that don't... :rolleyes:
Depends how hard you go for it, really. People don't take all that much notice of the sales charts over here (and I doubt if they do very much in the U.K., either). When I was working in London and we had a number one or the possibility of same, chart return shops were shamelessly prioritised, which then led on to shops bribing Gallup (allegedly) to get chart return machines. Over here it's far less important and the techiniques for getting high chart placings are far less sophisticated. My company has had three or four number one singles but without really trying - the album chart is a different kettle of fish and we did pull out all the stops to get our solitary number one there.
But I think, yes, singles in most places peak first week. If you want a track that's going to be on an album anyway you need to be a pretty obsessive fan and you want the record the day it comes out. This was true fifteen or twenty years ago - we knew that If we didn't get a Smiths record in the top five, first week, then it would never happen - most of their records tended to be sold on the first day to twenty year olds who had queued up all night to get the record.

DANGERMOUSE

11-11-2002, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by El Aguila
But I think, yes, singles in most places peak first week. If you want a track that's going to be on an album anyway you need to be a pretty obsessive fan and you want the record the day it comes out. This was true fifteen or twenty years ago - we knew that If we didn't get a Smiths record in the top five, first week, then it would never happen - most of their records tended to be sold on the first day to twenty year olds who had queued up all night to get the record. But the Smiths or the Jam, say, were very much in the minority of chart acts. It used to take weeks for a record to get to number 1, and then it would stay there for an average of 3 weeks. Now we have a never-ending procession of 1-week number ones - over 40 a year. This means being a number one is largely meaningless, as it is no indicator of true popularity amongst the public, rather that the act's record company has marshalled its fan base to maximum effect. The single that hangs around is a rarity, and number ones are easier to achieve.

A Wooden Fish On Wheels

11-11-2002, 03:07 PM

I used to shout at the telly in the late 70's when they didn't play punk but instead had a load of american disco wank. I don't think it's really changed.

El Aguila

11-11-2002, 03:08 PM

Originally posted by DANGERMOUSE
But the Smiths or the Jam, say, were very much in the minority of chart acts. It used to take weeks for a record to get to number 1, and then it would stay there for an average of 3 weeks. Now we have a never-ending procession of 1-week number ones - over 40 a year. This means being a number one is largely meaningless, as it is no indicator of true popularity amongst the public, rather that the act's record company has marshalled its fan base to maximum effect. The single that hangs around is a rarity, and number ones are easier to achieve.
Well, there you go. Innit. I would suggest the best thing to do with the singles chart is ignore it. It really isn't such a prize, after all, considering that most labels probably lose money on number ones, and, (obviously), the days are gone when anyone in their right mind wouild buy a record because it was number one.The (unpopular but true) fact (for all the download moralists out there) is that albums are much cheaper now, compared to people's purchasing power, than they were thirty years ago, so people just buy albums, rather than singles.

GUCCI Eagle

11-11-2002, 03:09 PM

Originally posted by A Wooden Fish On Wheels
I used to shout at the telly in the late 70's when they didn't play punk but instead had a load of american disco wank. I don't think it's really changed.

That's the best description of 'punk' I've ever heard.

Del Gland

11-11-2002, 03:09 PM

I think Robbie Williams is a sick fecker and I am really disappointed that he gets away with a reputed track about his night with Nicole Kidman. This apparently contains strong direct sex references and yet I bet that it has no warning label and that any 10 year old can walk in and buy it.

OK Robbie, so you got some, you ego monster w@nker!

And now he reckons that he wants to do some stuff with Eminem, another saddo who just redeems himself with his sense of humour, but is still a first class tw@t.

What is it about this country and it's tolerance of talentless cr@p like Robbie, Geri, etc.etc.etc.etc!!

:veryangry :veryangry :veryangry

LLCOOLSTEVE

11-11-2002, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by Ian of Chatham
I'm sure a lot of people would blame hip hop and rap and "R and B" for the sad state of music today

Why??? :confused:

Gooders

11-11-2002, 03:29 PM

'cos it's bollox?

Oz_da_Eagle

11-11-2002, 03:55 PM

Originally posted by ozeagle
did anyone see that sad f%&ker Robbie Williams on t.v last night

- I tell you, if Noel had seen it, he would have smashed the telly. In fact, I reckon he bought an extra 5 or so t.v's, just so he could smash them up every time he saw Robbie's sad, my life's a mess, face.
oxo Robbie.
anyway, the Roses have released a best of, so life can't be all that bad !
:p

What's going on oz?
We're starting to agree on things.

Well said, couldn't agree more.

ROSES!!! ROSES!!! ROSES!!! (them were the days)

LLCOOLSTEVE

11-11-2002, 04:01 PM

Originally posted by Gooders
'cos it's bollox?

Hmmm id say it was the most popular genre of music around the world.

Gooders

11-11-2002, 04:08 PM

The prosecution rests, m'lud. ;)

DANGERMOUSE

11-11-2002, 04:21 PM

Originally posted by Gooders
The prosecution rests, m'lud. ;) Er, motion seconded (if I may mix metaphors).

Tim of the 80's

11-11-2002, 05:24 PM

Well the defence would state that there have been and continue to be decent R&B and rap records. Unfortunately, most witless, accountant driven, lowest common denominator tripe can also be found within those genres, probably because worldwide, they probably have the widest audience. Quite possible to find rotten music in all genres - for every Gram Parsons, there are probably half a dozen Billy Ray Cyrus's. I am pushed to think off a good UK Garage song though...

I'll put my hand up and say I don't mind some of Robbie William's stuff too. Never actually bought any (not for me anyway) but it's pretty well crafted pop (which there's always been) reasonably well performed by someone who at least does have a couple of ounces of charisma. In the past though, someone like him would have been part of a varied pop scene (a bit like Lulu) rather than dominating it.

(Probably sounding a bit like Albert Trotter here " During the War" but...) Music's just not as important anymore as it was to people of my generation (I'm the same age as Gooders). When a single went gold, it had to sell 1,000,000 copies. Big selling singles sold over 2 million copies. You could make a career selling far less. Now's there's only far less left and a bunch of accountants are fighting over it. Not a good environment for anyone to want to take some risks.

The crapness of TOTP and singles in general is not the fault of Robbie Williams or of the persons who invented R&B and hip hop (James Brown?)
but a natural phenomena brought about by culture change. Frightened record companies are digging the hole deeper and the unspeakably odious Pop Idol people (Waterman excepted for Never Gonna Give You Up and Roadblock) and their ilk are lending them the shovels.

Baloo

11-11-2002, 05:40 PM

I might as well confess that I actually like most of Robbie Williams' stuff.

Yes, there's always been some dross on his albums, catering for the teenies who wouldn't understand a decent song if they heard one, but he generally manages to craft decent guitar-based pop songs.

I was quite proud of the fact that I bought his first album when it was first released, when no one else bought it until Angels was released some months later. Tracks like South of the Border, Old Before I Die and Let Me Entertain You struck me as a very welcome departure for an ex-Boy Band member. The first album had balls. It is a shame that he has allowed himself to be sucked into the more formulaic pop of recent radio play trends, although not totally - Rock DJ was pretty original compared to most dross out at the time.

Unfortunately, people can't think of RW without also thinking about, and being sickened by, his ego. But then a bit of personality behind the singer is to be favoured compared to the faceless conveyor belt corporate hybrids inflicted upon us by Waterman and co, even if RW's personality is rather objectionable.

I foresee yet another dip in my musical credibility stakes... :(

Noodles 42

11-11-2002, 05:42 PM

I agree totally. However, when I say the sort of things that you have written here I do feel like my dad. He would say the same things to me when I was a kid, and yes, I'd laugh at him. After all, what did he know?

He used to listen to Radio 2 ("poor sod", I thought), but now so do I. In particular Steve Wright. I'd listen to Steve on Radio 1 in years gone by and thought that both he and the music were 'fab & groovy, baby'. He still plays these 'Golden Oldies' and I love it. (Does that make me a sad old sod?)

Perhaps these things go round in circles.

Will any of todays 'top hits or bands' still be around in 20 years or so?. Maybe they will, but only kept alive by the youth of today. My kids think that U2, Genesis, The Stones, The Who et al are craparoonie . Christ almighty, they've never even heard of The Jam! :eek:

P.S. Boy bands? I thought a band consisted of instrument players of some kind.

LLCOOLSTEVE

11-11-2002, 06:44 PM

Originally posted by Tim of the 80's
I am pushed to think off a good UK Garage song though...

Id agree with that......the one that i did like was 'Rewind' feat. Craig david, but that had a bit more of an RnB feel to it.

TAK

11-11-2002, 07:00 PM

Originally posted by Baloo
I might as well confess that I actually like most of Robbie Williams' stuff.

Go and sit in the Phil Collins corner with Dangermouse and don't come back out until you say you are sorry.

Sir.S.C Remembered

11-11-2002, 08:07 PM

It makes it hard for me to find good music not having anything but the basic 5 channels and not wanting to explore forever. However I have found a few bands I like and tend to listen to band based things at home but do appreciate some songs from even the most terrible genres and don't usual see them as proper music as such but more as catchy. I also feel there is a time and place for everything including all types of music. However the chart is for real music and should be plus a few songs from other forms of music. I must confess that I believe that Dance music has a good effect in clubs for its purpose and I like a bit of everything including RnB, pop etc but mostly band based things from Coldplay to CKY

Kids have the monopoly these days

Gooders

12-11-2002, 07:43 AM

Originally posted by Baloo
I might as well confess that I actually like most of Robbie Williams' stuff.

:eek:

jempie

12-11-2002, 08:19 AM

Originally posted by Dobbo
Had the misfortune to watch Top of the Pops last Friday (two young sons being my excuse). What crap !! Sounded more like an edition of a Jamie Oliver prog, with talentless "singers" mumbling about gravy, flava & ketchup. What the hell is going on - the only decent acts on display were Tom Jones & Madonna, (combined age 100 years ?). The whole Top 20 included only one band (the excellent, but veteran U2). Have the singles buying public been totally brainwashed by boy bands, products of misnamed TV "talent" shows and unintelligible rap singers ? Where have all the good bands gone ? Please enlighten me.

I'm 20, and have to agree with you.
Most of the problem is that the new "groups" (cos they are not bands), do not write their own songs. The odd cover can make a change, or get you in to the limelight, but I don't think these groups should personally exist.

The idea of music is that someone has written something - that is special to them.

Someone mentioned that the likes of Travis and Coldplay are the major "real bands". Totally agree.

The problem is, with these poxy popstars programmes, the type of music is only going to get worse.

Virgin Radio is good for playing decent music.

Baloo

12-11-2002, 08:24 AM

TAK and Gooders, you're both b@stards. :o

(Nothing wrong with a bit of brutal honesty ;) )

Psychokiller

12-11-2002, 08:29 AM

What is there to like about Williams? He can't sing, he can't write songs and he's an utter ****! If those songs weren't given to him they'd have been given to some other stuffed mannequins such as Blue!

People like Williams are the reason why the once great British music scene is now a joke.

Daddy Long

12-11-2002, 08:38 AM

There's plenty of decent music out there, you've just got to look for it. The top ten has been a joke as long as I can remember (and I'm only 25). Some of my earliest TOTP memories are of Rick Astley at Number 1 - shame.

DANGERMOUSE

12-11-2002, 08:40 AM

Yet again I'm tarnished with the Phil Collins brush: it's just so unfair...
:sob: :sob: :sob:

Actually I think Robbie Williams is a breath of fresh air - you've got to put things in perspective, and compare him to Ronan Keating, Gary Barlow, Westlife and other total non-entities. So what if he's a big ego - his songs are generally okay and he clearly has charisma, and is virtually the only star that has at the moment that does.

I don't actually mind Pete Waterman either - if you think of the P.W.L. singles, or more recently Steps, they are generally well-crafted, hummable pop songs sung by artists who are told what to do - fairly analogous in fact to the glory years of Motown.

The real enemies are rap/so-called 'R&B'/garage/whiney American guitar bands/over-emotive bland boybands.

El Aguila

12-11-2002, 08:45 AM

Oh Dangermouse. You don't know what you're saying. Prepare to be tarred for life.
It's not the whiney American bads that bother me (although I'm not keen on their British equivalents), it's the nu-metal stuiiff that really bugs me. By the way - in the last three weeks I have seen one magnificent band (Luna), one extremely entertaining band who could become great (British Sea Power) and one very good one (Jon Spencer Blues Explosion).

Gooders

12-11-2002, 08:46 AM

I guess a lot of us dislike RW purely through jealousy (you know the sort of thing...thick, talentless, not-particularly-good-looking bloke with all those women!)

That may well be true of me, but I still kid myself that I honestly believe him and his music to be overrated tosh.

Mind you Baloo bearing his musical soul gives me an idea...

DANGERMOUSE

12-11-2002, 08:50 AM

Originally posted by El Aguila
It's not the whiney American bads that bother me (although I'm not keen on their British equivalents), it's the nu-metal stuiiff that really bugs me. Two sides of the same coin, as far as I'm concerned. They're just the 21st century equivalent of the '80s perm rock, who wailed, postured and noodled like a third-hand Zep impersonator whilst totally missing the point.

Psychokiller

12-11-2002, 08:50 AM

I don't believe it! DM has just compared STEPS to MOTOWN! As for Pete Waterman - if he was murdered I'd LAUGH!

DANGERMOUSE

12-11-2002, 09:04 AM

Originally posted by Psychokiller
I don't believe it! DM has just compared STEPS to MOTOWN! As for Pete Waterman - if he was murdered I'd LAUGH! Clearly, P.W.L. in its heyday wasn't as good as Hitsville, U.S.A. in its, but the methods of the two are comparable.

Rest assured I would never knowingly insult Motown - they are to record labels what Cosgrove Hall are to children's T.V.

Smurph

12-11-2002, 09:08 AM

Originally posted by Psychokiller
...As for Pete Waterman - if he was murdered I'd LAUGH!

Fair enough, but wouldn't that be your reaction to the murder of almost anyone, especially those in the public eye?

Psychokiller

12-11-2002, 09:12 AM

Fair enough, but wouldn't that be your reaction to the murder of almost anyone, especially those in the public eye?
No, only those who deserve it. I wouldn't laugh if, say, Bob Monkhouse or Geoffrey Hayes was murdered. I'd actually feel quite sad.:(

Eagle Kneevil

12-11-2002, 09:18 AM

I don't see how people can criticise hip hop yet recall wistfully the influence of punk. Ignoring disco-ey tracks like Rapper's Delight and Apache (and Blondie's humourous attempt on Rapture), hip hop's roots were similar to punk: a rebellion against an unfair society and popular music at the time. It was as creative and influential as punk, and the lyrics are arguably better. Yes, it's been commercialized to some extent - watch Louis Theroux's weird weekends among the gangster rappers to see that. But it still breaks new ground and remains a vehicle for expressing the views/concerns of those that find it difficult to find a voice in other, established media.

The problem is that music bosses have hijacked hip hop and mutated it for pop acts. They tried to do the same with punk - check out such rubbish as The Knack - and it didn't work. Unfortunately with hip hop it works better.

And Top of the Pops is bog awful (although I haven't seen it for two years). I find the dance choreography more nauseating than any drippy ballad by troupes of faceless nonentities, the majority of whom hail from Ireland.

El Aguila

12-11-2002, 09:27 AM

When you going to give me some time, Sharona?

El Aguila

12-11-2002, 09:28 AM

Originally posted by Eagle Kneevil
I don't see how people can criticise hip hop yet recall wistfully the influence of punk.
You can't accuse Dangermouse of that. He thinks punk was useless but he likes Phil Collins and Steps.

DANGERMOUSE

12-11-2002, 09:30 AM

Originally posted by Eagle Kneevil
Ignoring disco-ey tracks like ... (... Blondie's humourous attempt on Rapture), In my opinion, the best rapping was done by white people in the early '80s - Debbie Harry on 'Rapture', George Michael on 'Young Guns', Kenny Everett on 'Snot Rap', that sort of thing. Everything else is just a corruption of the form.

DANGERMOUSE

12-11-2002, 09:33 AM

Originally posted by El Aguila
You can't accuse Dangermouse of that. He thinks punk was useless but he likes Phil Collins and Steps. Exactly. Besides you can't get much better social comment than Supertramp's Crime of the Century album - 'School' and 'Bloody Well Right' are particularly searing indictments of the education system.

Psychokiller

12-11-2002, 09:35 AM

It's strange - I went to the same school as DM (albeit 2 years above him), yet he's come out of it liking Phil Collins and I've come out totally balanced and reasonable?:confused:

TAK

12-11-2002, 09:35 AM

Originally posted by El Aguila
You can't accuse Dangermouse of that. He thinks punk was useless but he likes Phil Collins and Steps.

And thinks Robbie Williams is a breath of fresh air mind you after Steps I supose he is, it's all a matter of scale or is that taste?

DANGERMOUSE

12-11-2002, 10:18 AM

Hang on a minute - what is it with this character assassination?? I've got a very credible taste in music, thank you very much. All I'm doing is going beyond what the N.M.E. says is 'cool' and admitting exceptions to the supposed rule - you've got to give credit where it's due, otherwise generalisations don't hold up. That's why I say that Steps have done some good singalong pop songs (they are basically ripping off Abba, after all) and compare them favourably with, oh, acts like Atomic Kitchen, whose songs aren't that great. You've got to compare like with like - you wouldn't discuss the merits of Steptacular and Revolver in the same breath!

Polish Prancer

12-11-2002, 12:20 PM

Blimey there are some right music snobs on here
I like Robbie Williams, I like Hard House, Hip Hop,bands likeTravis Cold Play etc, I like loads of stuff,I am currently listening to a lot of Thai and Laos music.
How often do foreign acts get promoted here ????
What about opera? I like that or is that too poncy ? I hear some people complain about Pavarotti etc saying that is opera for the masses and somehow inferior.
Just remember the Nazi's never liked Swing music and tried to stop people listening to it :rolleyes:
It is exactly the same with Theatre,critics praising some new obscure piece which is a flop at the box office because basically it is crap.

NME reader normally = freak

pete eagle

12-11-2002, 04:52 PM

I'm willing to bet that most of you have at one stage sung along with a Steps,S Club 7 or other pop tune (Lou bega - Mambo no.5 for example). It's not designed to be critically acclaimed as the finest piece of music and lyrics ever written, it's there to be catchy and a bit lively, something that people sing along with and always dance to at parties with disco's,etc.
I have a very wide taste in music - i'm not averse to the ood bit of pop but i will be just as willing to listen to something at the other end of the spectrum. Pop has its place in the music world, granted at the moment it has gone a bit too far, Westlife really do take the pi$s but you can't compare Steps with Guns + Roses, they are completely different

Al From Bromley

12-11-2002, 05:01 PM

I too have a wide taste in music but stopped watching TOTP long ago. I was lucky enough to get to see the show recorded live at Elstree quite often back in the early 90's when there were a few good turns on, including Bowie making his first live appearance on the show for some 23 years. It doesnt get any better than that so I don't bovver watching now.