Lets pretend the X Factor was around years ago and these 3 artists auditioned....
Bob Dylan
David Bowie
Cliff Richards
Which one would be kicked of straight away for having a poor voice?
Which one might make it someway, but only as the wacky comedy act?
Which one would win because mostly he's good looking (but dull)?
And that is the problem right there with these 'talent' shows...
Lets pretend the X Factor was around years ago and these 3 artists auditioned....
Bob Dylan
David Bowie
Cliff Richards
Which one would be kicked of straight away for having a poor voice?
Which one might make it someway, but only as the wacky comedy act?
Which one would win because mostly he's good looking (but dull)?
And that is the problem right there with these 'talent' shows...
wow, i didnt realise there was more then one cliff richard...
But why is it wrong? Life is easier in so many areas of life and this is just one of them. It's progress you might not like it but it is what it is . We have social media and talent shows so why shouldn't musicians take advantage of it . The old saying they have to pay their dues before they can become famous is so old hat!
That isn't what "paying your dues" is about at all.
Paying your dues is about doing your apprenticeship and learning your craft.
Perfect example for you, three bands I have seen who have had power failures during their set, Suzi Quattro, Magnum, and Razorlight.
Suzi and her guitarist got hold of a couple of acoustic guitars and did some acoustic-jam versions, completely unrehearsed, of a couple of songs whilst the.problem was fixed.
Magnum did the same.
Razxorlight stormed off the stage and once the problem was fixed rattled through the remainder of their set in a strop, no encore, end of show.
The first two had "paid their dues" and could deal with it in a professional way, the third band hadn't the experience to deal with it and reacted accordingly. In addition the first two bands took the audience with them because they appreciated what they were doing, the third killed all the atmosphere and excitement of the gig stone dead.
The thing is, if you let all these competition entrants and winners loose in a room full of musical instruments I doubt whether they will know how to play any of them!!:eek::eek:
To be fair, if you're a singer, you're a singer, not a piano player.
But anyway, the rock community are the only people that seem "threatened" by the X Factor. Maybe because that genre is seeing little commercial/mainstream success at the moment and they just want something to blame it on? I don't know. But I can say in other genres nobody cares about X Factor, nothing to do with them. Just an entertainment show. It's nothing to get wound up about.
The rock community can keep blaming the current state of music on the X Factor, and nothing will happen, because that's not the problem. X Factor and other talent shows could end and the radio, charts, music industry, etc. would be exactly the same. Honestly, Timbaland is more to "blame" than Simon Cowell is.
To be fair, if you're a singer, you're a singer, not a piano player.
But anyway, the rock community are the only people that seem "threatened" by the X Factor. Maybe because that genre is seeing little commercial/mainstream success at the moment and they just want something to blame it on? I don't know. But I can say in other genres nobody cares about X Factor, nothing to do with them. Just an entertainment show. It's nothing to get wound up about.
The rock community can keep blaming the current state of music on the X Factor, and nothing will happen, because that's not the problem. X Factor and other talent shows could end and the radio, charts, music industry, etc. would be exactly the same. Honestly, Timbaland is more to "blame" than Simon Cowell is.
In what way are the Rock community threatened by the X Factor?
Dave Grohl was asked in an interview what his thoughts were and he gave them. What was he supposed to do, ignore the question?
As for the lack of perceived commercial/mainstream success for Rock music, who cares? The reality is that Rock music is still the most commercially successful genre in terms of total sales, which would include CD/vinyl sales, tours, merchandising, etc, globally so in that respect Rock music doesn't really need commercial success. If anything the commercial sector is the poorer because of the lack of Rock music, but don't expect too many Rock bands to compromise soon just for the sake of a little commercial success.
But anyway, the rock community are the only people that seem "threatened" by the X Factor. Maybe because that genre is seeing little commercial/mainstream success at the moment and they just want something to blame it on?.
i think its more of a sadness that such cheap tacky material can appeal to so many. i remember the monkees being ridiculed for being 'manufactured', being created by money making old men was simply not credible. twas bloody watermans mob who changed that perception, and manufactured music has been seen as acceptable ever since.
To be fair, if you're a singer, you're a singer, not a piano player.
But anyway, the rock community are the only people that seem "threatened" by the X Factor. Maybe because that genre is seeing little commercial/mainstream success at the moment and they just want something to blame it on? I don't know. But I can say in other genres nobody cares about X Factor, nothing to do with them. Just an entertainment show. It's nothing to get wound up about.
The rock community can keep blaming the current state of music on the X Factor, and nothing will happen, because that's not the problem. X Factor and other talent shows could end and the radio, charts, music industry, etc. would be exactly the same. Honestly, Timbaland is more to "blame" than Simon Cowell is.
I'm not sure rock fans or musicians are feeling threatened. What they are feeling, though, is that music is being devalued by crass commercialism, that it's being cheapened. Music matters to people who appreciate "real" music (whatever your definition of real is - in the broadest sense meaning non-manufactured).
If you look back at, say, those old editions of Top of the Pops on BBC4, currently in 1978, you can't really say that the Dooleys or Brotherhood of Man were really any better or worse than today's pop stars because it's almost impossible to compare the two because music has changed a great deal. What is evident, though, in the time between then and now is the lack of warmth, of any real sound. Modern pop feels, to my ears at least, not only synthetic but soulless. It's production line pop.
Simon Cowell isn't the cause but he is part of the problem. Shows like X Factor wouldn't exist if it weren't already for a culture of cheap pop, arguably ushered in during the late 80s by the likes of SAW and made worse over the years by waves of pop impresarios and their pet projects, always after a quick buck and seldom about providing the public with great songs.
The rise of the DJ as producer has exacerbated the situation, by waves of Cubase coders knocking out pre-programmed rhythms and roping in guest vocalists to sell their cheap wares, always with one eye on their own ego and status as producer.
What Cowell et al have done, though, is to commodify music even more, reducing it to a get-rich-and-famous-quick scheme, a fleeting shot at the big time. It's been made disposable like so much else in the modern world; use once, then discard. It's turned the process Grohl was talking about upside-down. Instead of a long, slow gestation and gradual and hopefully sustained success it's all about instant success with little longevity and that's not just a disservice to music fans, it's also a very poor deal for the artists themselves.
I'm not sure rock fans or musicians are feeling threatened. What they are feeling, though, is that music is being devalued by crass commercialism, that it's being cheapened. Music matters to people who appreciate "real" music (whatever your definition of real is - in the broadest sense meaning non-manufactured).
If you look back at, say, those old editions of Top of the Pops on BBC4, currently in 1978, you can't really say that the Dooleys or Brotherhood of Man were really any better or worse than today's pop stars because it's almost impossible to compare the two because music has changed a great deal. What is evident, though, in the time between then and now is the lack of warmth, of any real sound. Modern pop feels, to my ears at least, not only synthetic but soulless. It's production line pop.
Simon Cowell isn't the cause but he is part of the problem. Shows like X Factor wouldn't exist if it weren't already for a culture of cheap pop, arguably ushered in during the late 80s by the likes of SAW and made worse over the years by waves of pop impresarios and their pet projects, always after a quick buck and seldom about providing the public with great songs.
The rise of the DJ as producer has exacerbated the situation, by waves of Cubase coders knocking out pre-programmed rhythms and roping in guest vocalists to sell their cheap wares, always with one eye on their own ego and status as producer.
What Cowell et al have done, though, is to commodify music even more, reducing it to a get-rich-and-famous-quick scheme, a fleeting shot at the big time. It's been made disposable like so much else in the modern world; use once, then discard. It's turned the process Grohl was talking about upside-down. Instead of a long, slow gestation and gradual and hopefully sustained success it's all about instant success with little longevity and that's not just a disservice to music fans, it's also a very poor deal for the artists themselves.
You make a well reasoned and valuable point however if you take it back further pre stones and Beatles there were no Nirvana type bands.
We had Elvis a musical puppet surely who didn't write any of his songs (I think?) and on this side of the atlantic Cliff again singing songs written for him. Non of the motown groups wrote their own music but were basically singers singing other people's songs. Same with the rat pack.
I guess what I am trying to say is music is cyclical and eventually what you call throw away pop will be out of fashion and singer songwrtiters will be back in fashion . Oh wait haven't we already got Ed Sheeran and another guy whose name excapes me (won BBC newcomer award)
As for X factor I do think there are acts there who are musically gifted. Maybe not my cup of tea but they are there. Matt Cardle is a singer songwriter (co-writes) and although not stratospheric success he is doing fine as is Rebecca Ferguson
...
If you look back at, say, those old editions of Top of the Pops on BBC4, currently in 1978, you can't really say that the Dooleys or Brotherhood of Man were really any better or worse than today's pop stars because it's almost impossible to compare the two because music has changed a great deal. What is evident, though, in the time between then and now is the lack of warmth, of any real sound. Modern pop feels, to my ears at least, not only synthetic but soulless. It's production line pop.
...
What strikes me when watching those shows on bbc4 is how bad so much of it seems. There was good, interesting music being made, stuff that still seems good today, but there were only glimpses of it in TotP.
Similarly, I think there's good music being made now, though a lot of the commercially successful stuff isn't.
So I'm not sure things have really got worse overall.
We had Elvis a musical puppet surely who didn't write any of his songs (I think?) and on this side of the atlantic Cliff again singing songs written for him. Non of the motown groups wrote their own music but were basically singers singing other people's songs. Same with the rat pack.
... and that is an uncomfortable truth that retro fans like me try to overlook in order to promote their/our/my pov. it does though underline the impact the beatles had, pre beatles = mostly 'manufactured', post beatles = largely 'real' artists producing their own music. until waterman...
as for motown, you are right, they pre-dated saw's hit factory by 2 decades. but look what great artists motown spawned, marvin gaye, stevie wonder, etc, artists who went on to forge their own identities, creating their own sounds. no saw artist has done that (kylie is still a puppet, perhaps not as much as she was but cannot be compared to stevie wonder for eg).
That isn't what "paying your dues" is about at all.
Paying your dues is about doing your apprenticeship and learning your craft.
...
Is it? Then how come poverty, hardship and rejection so often feature so prominently, for instance in this explanation of "how you start out in music":
Well, look how Prince started out!! First of all he didnt have a very good home life with his parents seperating and eventually divorcing and he moved around from family member to family member, cos he hated his new stepfather, then he eventually lived in the basement in the home of one of his schoolfriends, Andre Anderson(who later on Prince renamed Andre Cymone), and they jammed together there, but it always got flooded out after the heavy snow melted every year!! It was in Minnesota, after all!! Anyway, after Prince left school he headed straight for New York and banged on every record company door and met with rejection after rejection, so he eventually headed back home and signed with a local Minneapolis Record Producer!! Prince said in an interview that as a young kid, he used to stand outside burger joints and live on the smells coming from the kitchens cos he couldnt afford to actually buy hamburgers and fries to eat!
THATS how you start out in music!! Its so ****ing easy now for kids to find fame!! They either go on singing competition shows or just put a video up on You Tube and, hey presto, they are famous!! Its all wrong!!!:mad::mad:
And remember the sneer in 'Tell that Girl to Shut Up', "to be a musician she goes to school"?
Similarly, Grohl doesn't seem to see any role for lessons or courses or even apprenticeship. No, you're supposed to learn by messing around in a garage.
Is it? Then how come poverty, hardship and rejection so often feature so prominently, for instance in this explanation of "how you start out in music":
And remember the sneer in 'Tell that Girl to Shut Up', "to be a musician she goes to school"?
Similarly, Grohl doesn't seem to see any role for lessons or courses or even apprenticeship. No, you're supposed to learn by messing around in a garage.
I have absolutely no idea what on earth you are on about in this post. Sorry.
You make a well reasoned and valuable point however if you take it back further pre stones and Beatles there were no Nirvana type bands.
We had Elvis a musical puppet surely who didn't write any of his songs (I think?) and on this side of the atlantic Cliff again singing songs written for him. Non of the motown groups wrote their own music but were basically singers singing other people's songs. Same with the rat pack.
Rock n Roll didn't start with Elvis.
Try digging around some of the old 'race' records from the 40s and 50s and you will find that the spirit has been around for a long time. You can even trace it back to the old Delta Blues singers as well.
There have always been people genuinely expressing themselves through music; what has generally been lacking is an audience for them.
You make a well reasoned and valuable point however if you take it back further pre stones and Beatles there were no Nirvana type bands.
Well to be fair before The Beatles and Stones there was no Nirvana, there also wasn't any Beatles or Stones either, and yes both bands had significant influence on what happened after them.
We had Elvis a musical puppet surely who didn't write any of his songs (I think?) and on this side of the atlantic Cliff again singing songs written for him. Non of the motown groups wrote their own music but were basically singers singing other people's songs. Same with the rat pack.
You are missing out a lot here. Actually before The Beatles you
had a whole plethora of influential American artists like Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Bo Diddley, Jerry Lee Lewis, John Lee Hooker, Woody Guthrie...and more who were all originators and defined much of the music that followed (Beatles, Stones, Nirvana included).
The current crop of 'singer-songwriters' are not pioneering in the same way and are hardly breaking much in the way of new directions. It's all much too retro for that. Music is only cyclical to some degree.
I guess what I am trying to say is music is cyclical and eventually what you call throw away pop will be out of fashion and singer songwrtiters will be back in fashion . Oh wait haven't we already got Ed Sheeran and another guy whose name excapes me (won BBC newcomer award)
Music is never completely cyclical, the cycle can devolve downwards just as much as upwards. With punk there was a rediscovery of early rock sensibilities but it added a bit of politics and edge. Upwards? Is modern dance music as soulful or as musically rich as the disco music of the 70s? Downwards?
As for X factor I do think there are acts there who are musically gifted. Maybe not my cup of tea but they are there. Matt Cardle is a singer songwriter (co-writes) and although not stratospheric success he is doing fine as is Rebecca Ferguson
As I restate like Grohl, this is about balance and there are too many talent shows producing very little talent and are really just singing competitions. Pop music is about great pop songs created by great artists not production line pop. These shows will never produce a Kanye, a Jay Z, a Prince, a Bob Marley..so why bother with them? They are just about relatively cheap television and making money for impresarios like Fuller and Cowell. It really is time to get real about this.
... and that is an uncomfortable truth that retro fans like me try to overlook in order to promote their/our/my pov. it does though underline the impact the beatles had, pre beatles = mostly 'manufactured', post beatles = largely 'real' artists producing their own music. until waterman...
See point above about what actually pre-dated The Beatles, Stones etc. Much of it was not manufactured. Which goes back to Grohl's point, what were the kids listening/getting in to in the 50s?
as for motown, you are right, they pre-dated saw's hit factory by 2 decades. but look what great artists motown spawned, marvin gaye, stevie wonder, etc, artists who went on to forge their own identities, creating their own sounds. no saw artist has done that (kylie is still a puppet, perhaps not as much as she was but cannot be compared to stevie wonder for eg).
Ok, Motown was a hit factory but I agree look what it produced. You also always need to point out that Motown was part of a wider social agenda relating to African Amercans getting some rightful recognition/ recompense for their contribution to US music. Not something we can say for SAW or Cowell.
none of the talent show singers will have a lasting career, even the successful ones so far are on the way
leona lewis - b grade whitney houston with zero personality who can hit the high notes but cant bring any feeling to the rest of the song - on the way out
olly murs - crap robbie williams knockoff with zero talent - still having some succcess
alexandra burke - average pop star who is failing also
Maybe (in my opinon) the issue is that mainstream music is becoming more and more bland. Just because we have more technology to create does not mean that actual quality is being produced. Its become easier to make music and stick it up everywhere on the internet for everyone to see, and originality is beginning to die off.
The music industry is about making money if bland middle of the road sells 10 to 1 compared to something else then bland wins all the time.
Also how far can music production go? Have we reached its pinnacle of concepts? Being that all genres are now accessible via the interweb. Therefore its easy to grab samples, learn about other types of music. Where as you had to travel to those countries with a reel to reel to get what you wanted and people were like "WOW" that's amazing...
Bland will always win why do you think Heart FM has expanded so well across the country, you have to ask; whats its typical audience? I bet that audience also watches those talent shows.
However the shelf life of people on talent show tv is short, the managers, companies cash in then cash out as soon as the next shows appear and once in a blue moon the winners survive.
HOWEVER I would like to point out wining a tv talent show does not make you a superstar, music legend etc.. that takes years years and years and years.
Also look at how music and albums are promoted on tv.. the voice over always says "smash hit album, you want to buy this, amazing new single"... I respond by shouting at the TV "Stop telling me what to think about music".
So what do I know about music ? I'm a musician, I've written music for people, i'm classically trained, I've worked in the music industry for the big corps, some of my friends are A&R men. It is about money with the dominant record companies, but generally not with the smaller ones.
The reason why these shows survive is because its easy entertainment, you don't have to think while watching them. They feature people with heart ache background stories of struggle and dedication to family members etc, personal fights to gain respect for their talent and to win the shows. In reality its no different to the story lines that go on in Eastenders or WWE. We as people are interested in other people and other people's lives we all have voyeuristic tendencies, without the scripting, story lines heartbreak etc etc the shows would not last as they would have nothing to draw us in, to attach us to the character. In its simple form its just clever marketing to sell us a product at the end based around a story and someones talent.
My only gripe with these shows and all panel based shows is that it is breeding a culture of judgement. There is nothing wrong with someone trying to prove themselves, however you do not have to go on a tv show to prove it and be judged by a panel and the general public. For example I now work in the mental health employment sector and have seen a rise of apprentice style interviews since that terrible show appeared on tv... An increase of a judgmental society creates a drop in confidence, which intern can have a dramatic effect on someone.
Also you can generally tell when someone is washed up as the have to constantly feat' some one on thier songs, I think most artists in the charts have feat' each other - its like some inbred disgusting trailer trash family
Anyway way I'm waffling now, however I am actually related to Simon Cowell...So I do have a actual axe to grind against this stupid talent show thing.
But why is it wrong? Life is easier in so many areas of life and this is just one of them. It's progress you might not like it but it is what it is . We have social media and talent shows so why shouldn't musicians take advantage of it . The old saying they have to pay their dues before they can become famous is so old hat!
They don't.
How many musicians become successful by going on these television talent shows?
These shows aren't something to go on if you want to develop musicianship or creativity.
You say 'it's progress'.
Not it's not. How on earth are these talent shows progress?
They're even an old format in themselves which has been around for literally decades.
Why do these xfactor/bgt/big brother/rihanna/pop fans all insist that we are all the same as them? Some of us (like Grohl) have what we call self respect.
It's like they can't understand why singing talent shows aren't for everyone.
It's a mindset.
To some people an act who has been on a television talent show would appear to possess more credibility than a real artist who creates.
Talent shows have always been around. I'm sure that if Dave Grohl would have gone on a talent show...then that's what he would have done. He would have looked for a talent show to appear on. But he didn't.
Some people naturally believe that they need to learn how to get good at something before they are seen to be a musician or artist who deserves to earn a living doing it.
It's probably a much healthier state of mind to be in.
Because the amount of people who have become famous and successful just because they went on a Simon Cowell show is microscopic compared to the amount of successful musicians and singers who didn't.
To be fair, if you're a singer, you're a singer, not a piano player.
But anyway, the rock community are the only people that seem "threatened" by the X Factor. Maybe because that genre is seeing little commercial/mainstream success at the moment and they just want something to blame it on? I don't know. But I can say in other genres nobody cares about X Factor, nothing to do with them. Just an entertainment show. It's nothing to get wound up about.
The rock community can keep blaming the current state of music on the X Factor, and nothing will happen, because that's not the problem. X Factor and other talent shows could end and the radio, charts, music industry, etc. would be exactly the same. Honestly, Timbaland is more to "blame" than Simon Cowell is.
This is what I meant in my post above. A mindset where some people have great difficulty in squaring the fact that many people don't think in the same way as them.
Why do you assume that the rock community are 'jellus' just because they don't see a lot of commercial mainstream success? Is that what you truly believe rock fans want?
Have you considered that mainstream success is not on their list of priorities and that many rock acts are achieve commercial success by playing concerts and playing gigs?
I see this mindset on the music forum from many people who stress so much importance on who's number 1, and ask inane questions such as 'Is Rihanna the New Madonna?', or is 'Lady Gaga the New Queen of Pop?', 'Has Katy Perry stolen Beyonce's crown as the new Princess of Pop?'. These are genuinely really representative of some of the threads that get started on there.
There are so many fans of different genres where these questions aren't even important, and all the music fans are interested in is hearing good music and having a good time.
This almost Darwinian race to get 'somewhere' and remain there, and be the most popular and most financially successful act before the start of the new tax year, isn't even on their radar.
See point above about what actually pre-dated The Beatles, Stones etc. Much of it was not manufactured. Which goes back to Grohl's point, what were the kids listening/getting in to in the 50s?
Ok, Motown was a hit factory but I agree look what it produced. You also always need to point out that Motown was part of a wider social agenda relating to African Amercans getting some rightful recognition/ recompense for their contribution to US music. Not something we can say for SAW or Cowell.
tbh i cant be sure about music pre 1960 as my knowlege of it is sketchy away from the basics. i think alot of it was 'manufactured', not sure how much input acts like little richard, eddie cochran, buddy holly etc had into their material... i understand that elvis was basically a karaoke singer! lol.. well, he did have talent and a way of interpreting songs that appealled to people. but whether elvis, lr, ec bh composed their music or not, it was influencial... probably because it was new.
Try digging around some of the old 'race' records from the 40s and 50s and you will find that the spirit has been around for a long time. You can even trace it back to the old Delta Blues singers as well.
There have always been people genuinely expressing themselves through music; what has generally been lacking is an audience for them.
And that's sad.
Yes, it is important not to undersell the 1950s as similar to today. Rock n Roll emerges from African American musical influences going back to the 19th century (even earlier). It reaches a critical mass/breakthrough in the 1950s and Elvis was at least a catalyst for the new pop music as a white guy who could sing like a black guy and so made the music available to a wider audience.
tbh i cant be sure about music pre 1960 as my knowlege of it is sketchy away from the basics. i think alot of it was 'manufactured', not sure how much input acts like little richard, eddie cochran, buddy holly etc had into their material... i understand that elvis was basically a karaoke singer! lol.. well, he did have talent and a way of interpreting songs that appealled to people. but whether elvis, lr, ec bh composed their music or not, it was influencial... probably because it was new.
I wasn't disputing that there were many manufactured stars before The Beatles etc, there were...Elvis included. But it wasn't as now. The 50s was when modern pop music really started and it was largely 'manufactured' pop stars who were successful at the time but the music produced was fresh and new and it was largely built on African American music roots.
Elvis did write some of his lyrics and was a gifted singer who could sing in different styles but perhaps most importantly, he was a rebel or at least symbolised youth rebellion...pop music is so inane these days, so wrapped up in celebrity culture, it's music comfortable with the way the world is, there's no rebellion in it. Symbolised by the talent show, I would say.
Grohl is being nostalgic too, he would have to acknowledge that the garage band has moved to the bedroom and technology can be liberating. But he is right that being part of a band, being a good guitarist is more like a musician than being a good sound technician largely using software. However, consider The Edge in U2, not as technically gifted as Jack White or Jimmy Page but equally as creative and mainly through the use of the right technology.
And U2 did do battle of the bands at one stage (don't think they won). But U2 learnt their trade through endless gigging throughout the UK and most importantly the US building an audience through contact, impressing listeners with their own songs which deal with subjects out with the traditional love song... which culminates at one point with their book of sound poems to America, The Joshua Tree, one of the greatest albums ever made. Just not going to happen with Leona, JLS, Olly Murs....but if you said Kelly Clarkson, Carrie Underwood..might be different, probably not,
Comments
Bob Dylan
David Bowie
Cliff Richards
Which one would be kicked of straight away for having a poor voice?
Which one might make it someway, but only as the wacky comedy act?
Which one would win because mostly he's good looking (but dull)?
And that is the problem right there with these 'talent' shows...
wow, i didnt realise there was more then one cliff richard...
That isn't what "paying your dues" is about at all.
Paying your dues is about doing your apprenticeship and learning your craft.
Perfect example for you, three bands I have seen who have had power failures during their set, Suzi Quattro, Magnum, and Razorlight.
Suzi and her guitarist got hold of a couple of acoustic guitars and did some acoustic-jam versions, completely unrehearsed, of a couple of songs whilst the.problem was fixed.
Magnum did the same.
Razxorlight stormed off the stage and once the problem was fixed rattled through the remainder of their set in a strop, no encore, end of show.
The first two had "paid their dues" and could deal with it in a professional way, the third band hadn't the experience to deal with it and reacted accordingly. In addition the first two bands took the audience with them because they appreciated what they were doing, the third killed all the atmosphere and excitement of the gig stone dead.
To be fair, if you're a singer, you're a singer, not a piano player.
But anyway, the rock community are the only people that seem "threatened" by the X Factor. Maybe because that genre is seeing little commercial/mainstream success at the moment and they just want something to blame it on? I don't know. But I can say in other genres nobody cares about X Factor, nothing to do with them. Just an entertainment show. It's nothing to get wound up about.
The rock community can keep blaming the current state of music on the X Factor, and nothing will happen, because that's not the problem. X Factor and other talent shows could end and the radio, charts, music industry, etc. would be exactly the same. Honestly, Timbaland is more to "blame" than Simon Cowell is.
In what way are the Rock community threatened by the X Factor?
Dave Grohl was asked in an interview what his thoughts were and he gave them. What was he supposed to do, ignore the question?
As for the lack of perceived commercial/mainstream success for Rock music, who cares? The reality is that Rock music is still the most commercially successful genre in terms of total sales, which would include CD/vinyl sales, tours, merchandising, etc, globally so in that respect Rock music doesn't really need commercial success. If anything the commercial sector is the poorer because of the lack of Rock music, but don't expect too many Rock bands to compromise soon just for the sake of a little commercial success.
i think its more of a sadness that such cheap tacky material can appeal to so many. i remember the monkees being ridiculed for being 'manufactured', being created by money making old men was simply not credible. twas bloody watermans mob who changed that perception, and manufactured music has been seen as acceptable ever since.
I'm not sure rock fans or musicians are feeling threatened. What they are feeling, though, is that music is being devalued by crass commercialism, that it's being cheapened. Music matters to people who appreciate "real" music (whatever your definition of real is - in the broadest sense meaning non-manufactured).
If you look back at, say, those old editions of Top of the Pops on BBC4, currently in 1978, you can't really say that the Dooleys or Brotherhood of Man were really any better or worse than today's pop stars because it's almost impossible to compare the two because music has changed a great deal. What is evident, though, in the time between then and now is the lack of warmth, of any real sound. Modern pop feels, to my ears at least, not only synthetic but soulless. It's production line pop.
Simon Cowell isn't the cause but he is part of the problem. Shows like X Factor wouldn't exist if it weren't already for a culture of cheap pop, arguably ushered in during the late 80s by the likes of SAW and made worse over the years by waves of pop impresarios and their pet projects, always after a quick buck and seldom about providing the public with great songs.
The rise of the DJ as producer has exacerbated the situation, by waves of Cubase coders knocking out pre-programmed rhythms and roping in guest vocalists to sell their cheap wares, always with one eye on their own ego and status as producer.
What Cowell et al have done, though, is to commodify music even more, reducing it to a get-rich-and-famous-quick scheme, a fleeting shot at the big time. It's been made disposable like so much else in the modern world; use once, then discard. It's turned the process Grohl was talking about upside-down. Instead of a long, slow gestation and gradual and hopefully sustained success it's all about instant success with little longevity and that's not just a disservice to music fans, it's also a very poor deal for the artists themselves.
You make a well reasoned and valuable point however if you take it back further pre stones and Beatles there were no Nirvana type bands.
We had Elvis a musical puppet surely who didn't write any of his songs (I think?) and on this side of the atlantic Cliff again singing songs written for him. Non of the motown groups wrote their own music but were basically singers singing other people's songs. Same with the rat pack.
I guess what I am trying to say is music is cyclical and eventually what you call throw away pop will be out of fashion and singer songwrtiters will be back in fashion . Oh wait haven't we already got Ed Sheeran and another guy whose name excapes me (won BBC newcomer award)
As for X factor I do think there are acts there who are musically gifted. Maybe not my cup of tea but they are there. Matt Cardle is a singer songwriter (co-writes) and although not stratospheric success he is doing fine as is Rebecca Ferguson
What strikes me when watching those shows on bbc4 is how bad so much of it seems. There was good, interesting music being made, stuff that still seems good today, but there were only glimpses of it in TotP.
Similarly, I think there's good music being made now, though a lot of the commercially successful stuff isn't.
So I'm not sure things have really got worse overall.
... and that is an uncomfortable truth that retro fans like me try to overlook in order to promote their/our/my pov. it does though underline the impact the beatles had, pre beatles = mostly 'manufactured', post beatles = largely 'real' artists producing their own music. until waterman...
as for motown, you are right, they pre-dated saw's hit factory by 2 decades. but look what great artists motown spawned, marvin gaye, stevie wonder, etc, artists who went on to forge their own identities, creating their own sounds. no saw artist has done that (kylie is still a puppet, perhaps not as much as she was but cannot be compared to stevie wonder for eg).
Is it? Then how come poverty, hardship and rejection so often feature so prominently, for instance in this explanation of "how you start out in music":
And remember the sneer in 'Tell that Girl to Shut Up', "to be a musician she goes to school"?
Similarly, Grohl doesn't seem to see any role for lessons or courses or even apprenticeship. No, you're supposed to learn by messing around in a garage.
I have absolutely no idea what on earth you are on about in this post. Sorry.
http://www.nextavenue.org/blog/why-harry-connick-jr-couldnt-sit-idle-during-idol
Good on ya, Harry!!!:D:D:D
Rock n Roll didn't start with Elvis.
Try digging around some of the old 'race' records from the 40s and 50s and you will find that the spirit has been around for a long time. You can even trace it back to the old Delta Blues singers as well.
There have always been people genuinely expressing themselves through music; what has generally been lacking is an audience for them.
And that's sad.
Well to be fair before The Beatles and Stones there was no Nirvana, there also wasn't any Beatles or Stones either, and yes both bands had significant influence on what happened after them.
You are missing out a lot here. Actually before The Beatles you
had a whole plethora of influential American artists like Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Bo Diddley, Jerry Lee Lewis, John Lee Hooker, Woody Guthrie...and more who were all originators and defined much of the music that followed (Beatles, Stones, Nirvana included).
The current crop of 'singer-songwriters' are not pioneering in the same way and are hardly breaking much in the way of new directions. It's all much too retro for that. Music is only cyclical to some degree.
Music is never completely cyclical, the cycle can devolve downwards just as much as upwards. With punk there was a rediscovery of early rock sensibilities but it added a bit of politics and edge. Upwards? Is modern dance music as soulful or as musically rich as the disco music of the 70s? Downwards?
As I restate like Grohl, this is about balance and there are too many talent shows producing very little talent and are really just singing competitions. Pop music is about great pop songs created by great artists not production line pop. These shows will never produce a Kanye, a Jay Z, a Prince, a Bob Marley..so why bother with them? They are just about relatively cheap television and making money for impresarios like Fuller and Cowell. It really is time to get real about this.
See point above about what actually pre-dated The Beatles, Stones etc. Much of it was not manufactured. Which goes back to Grohl's point, what were the kids listening/getting in to in the 50s?
Ok, Motown was a hit factory but I agree look what it produced. You also always need to point out that Motown was part of a wider social agenda relating to African Amercans getting some rightful recognition/ recompense for their contribution to US music. Not something we can say for SAW or Cowell.
leona lewis - b grade whitney houston with zero personality who can hit the high notes but cant bring any feeling to the rest of the song - on the way out
olly murs - crap robbie williams knockoff with zero talent - still having some succcess
alexandra burke - average pop star who is failing also
etc
The music industry is about making money if bland middle of the road sells 10 to 1 compared to something else then bland wins all the time.
Also how far can music production go? Have we reached its pinnacle of concepts? Being that all genres are now accessible via the interweb. Therefore its easy to grab samples, learn about other types of music. Where as you had to travel to those countries with a reel to reel to get what you wanted and people were like "WOW" that's amazing...
Bland will always win why do you think Heart FM has expanded so well across the country, you have to ask; whats its typical audience? I bet that audience also watches those talent shows.
However the shelf life of people on talent show tv is short, the managers, companies cash in then cash out as soon as the next shows appear and once in a blue moon the winners survive.
HOWEVER I would like to point out wining a tv talent show does not make you a superstar, music legend etc.. that takes years years and years and years.
Also look at how music and albums are promoted on tv.. the voice over always says "smash hit album, you want to buy this, amazing new single"... I respond by shouting at the TV "Stop telling me what to think about music".
So what do I know about music ? I'm a musician, I've written music for people, i'm classically trained, I've worked in the music industry for the big corps, some of my friends are A&R men. It is about money with the dominant record companies, but generally not with the smaller ones.
The reason why these shows survive is because its easy entertainment, you don't have to think while watching them. They feature people with heart ache background stories of struggle and dedication to family members etc, personal fights to gain respect for their talent and to win the shows. In reality its no different to the story lines that go on in Eastenders or WWE. We as people are interested in other people and other people's lives we all have voyeuristic tendencies, without the scripting, story lines heartbreak etc etc the shows would not last as they would have nothing to draw us in, to attach us to the character. In its simple form its just clever marketing to sell us a product at the end based around a story and someones talent.
My only gripe with these shows and all panel based shows is that it is breeding a culture of judgement. There is nothing wrong with someone trying to prove themselves, however you do not have to go on a tv show to prove it and be judged by a panel and the general public. For example I now work in the mental health employment sector and have seen a rise of apprentice style interviews since that terrible show appeared on tv... An increase of a judgmental society creates a drop in confidence, which intern can have a dramatic effect on someone.
Also you can generally tell when someone is washed up as the have to constantly feat' some one on thier songs, I think most artists in the charts have feat' each other - its like some inbred disgusting trailer trash family
Anyway way I'm waffling now, however I am actually related to Simon Cowell...So I do have a actual axe to grind against this stupid talent show thing.
They don't.
How many musicians become successful by going on these television talent shows?
These shows aren't something to go on if you want to develop musicianship or creativity.
You say 'it's progress'.
Not it's not. How on earth are these talent shows progress?
They're even an old format in themselves which has been around for literally decades.
It's like they can't understand why singing talent shows aren't for everyone.
It's a mindset.
To some people an act who has been on a television talent show would appear to possess more credibility than a real artist who creates.
Talent shows have always been around. I'm sure that if Dave Grohl would have gone on a talent show...then that's what he would have done. He would have looked for a talent show to appear on. But he didn't.
Some people naturally believe that they need to learn how to get good at something before they are seen to be a musician or artist who deserves to earn a living doing it.
It's probably a much healthier state of mind to be in.
Because the amount of people who have become famous and successful just because they went on a Simon Cowell show is microscopic compared to the amount of successful musicians and singers who didn't.
This is what I meant in my post above. A mindset where some people have great difficulty in squaring the fact that many people don't think in the same way as them.
Why do you assume that the rock community are 'jellus' just because they don't see a lot of commercial mainstream success? Is that what you truly believe rock fans want?
Have you considered that mainstream success is not on their list of priorities and that many rock acts are achieve commercial success by playing concerts and playing gigs?
I see this mindset on the music forum from many people who stress so much importance on who's number 1, and ask inane questions such as 'Is Rihanna the New Madonna?', or is 'Lady Gaga the New Queen of Pop?', 'Has Katy Perry stolen Beyonce's crown as the new Princess of Pop?'. These are genuinely really representative of some of the threads that get started on there.
There are so many fans of different genres where these questions aren't even important, and all the music fans are interested in is hearing good music and having a good time.
This almost Darwinian race to get 'somewhere' and remain there, and be the most popular and most financially successful act before the start of the new tax year, isn't even on their radar.
Thanks for that link. It was a very good read.
tbh i cant be sure about music pre 1960 as my knowlege of it is sketchy away from the basics. i think alot of it was 'manufactured', not sure how much input acts like little richard, eddie cochran, buddy holly etc had into their material... i understand that elvis was basically a karaoke singer! lol.. well, he did have talent and a way of interpreting songs that appealled to people. but whether elvis, lr, ec bh composed their music or not, it was influencial... probably because it was new.
Yes, it is important not to undersell the 1950s as similar to today. Rock n Roll emerges from African American musical influences going back to the 19th century (even earlier). It reaches a critical mass/breakthrough in the 1950s and Elvis was at least a catalyst for the new pop music as a white guy who could sing like a black guy and so made the music available to a wider audience.
I wasn't disputing that there were many manufactured stars before The Beatles etc, there were...Elvis included. But it wasn't as now. The 50s was when modern pop music really started and it was largely 'manufactured' pop stars who were successful at the time but the music produced was fresh and new and it was largely built on African American music roots.
Elvis did write some of his lyrics and was a gifted singer who could sing in different styles but perhaps most importantly, he was a rebel or at least symbolised youth rebellion...pop music is so inane these days, so wrapped up in celebrity culture, it's music comfortable with the way the world is, there's no rebellion in it. Symbolised by the talent show, I would say.
Grohl is being nostalgic too, he would have to acknowledge that the garage band has moved to the bedroom and technology can be liberating. But he is right that being part of a band, being a good guitarist is more like a musician than being a good sound technician largely using software. However, consider The Edge in U2, not as technically gifted as Jack White or Jimmy Page but equally as creative and mainly through the use of the right technology.
And U2 did do battle of the bands at one stage (don't think they won). But U2 learnt their trade through endless gigging throughout the UK and most importantly the US building an audience through contact, impressing listeners with their own songs which deal with subjects out with the traditional love song... which culminates at one point with their book of sound poems to America, The Joshua Tree, one of the greatest albums ever made. Just not going to happen with Leona, JLS, Olly Murs....but if you said Kelly Clarkson, Carrie Underwood..might be different, probably not,