The importance of a strong indie scene is massively understated in music discussions nowadays.. the strength of British indie when I was growing up was the whole thing that got me into music... made me a fan.. if I was growing up today I think I'd have given up altogether and become a video game addict instead!
I don't see what point you're trying to make. I'd rather hear a cover that completely transforms a song (as most of those 80s covers do) than an insipid original.
Many of those are insipid covers of absolute classics.
I thought one of your arguments was that chart music used to be more diverse and cater for more tastes for all sorts of people, not just one narrow section of the public? Now you're telling me that it's all about what mid-teens are listening to? I mean WTF? Who cares what they like, kids always have terrible taste in music because they don't know any better.
'young' people to me are also late-teens/early 20's. I'm much more interested in what they're listening to than young kids.
no, i said MAINLY mid teens, not exclusively. whether thats true or not isnt something that can be proven, its my perception.
whether its mainly mid teens or late teens/early 20's that buy chart music, or did back in the early 70's (the period i cited) how does that contradict what i said? i said that uni students were not the ones who by and large bought chart singles back in the early 70's... it was the ordinary guys in the street (and judging by what charted in the early 70's it was certainly mid teens if not younger who bought singles).
the facts are that there was more diversity in the singles charts before c 1990 then there is since, and more then ever now.
Duran Duran look positively godlike in comparison to the Killers.
But then, they're a quality, under-rated pop act, and the Killers are a standard indie borefest.
Saw them live once and the only track worth hearing was a Joy Division cover.
The Killers are derivative of everything whilst failing to have any notable identity of their own.. they started out as an early 80s synth pop tribute band.. then seemed to decide they liked the idea of being the new U2.. and are now a Coldplay-esque bombastic stadium rock act.
I'm not particularly worried about the Killers as I didn't like them much in 2005 either, but it's typical of the modern bands.. no sincerity, all they truly want is to be playing unoriginal garbage music in a big soulless football stadium.
Many of those are insipid covers of absolute classics.
no, you're wrong. the only ones of those that can be called insipid are Micky and I Think We're Alone. The others are all completely different to the original song and are worth the time. In today's chart they would sound like the second coming of Beethoven.
And besides, what does it matter? Just look how many different styles of music you names in that post alone. We had the faux-reggae Blondie song. The Flying Lizards daring cover of Money (way too bizarre to have a chance in today's generic charts) , Naked Eyes' out of the blue synth pop cover of Burt Bacharach, and needless to even explain Soft Cell's classic take on Tainted Love.
What do we have now? Endless Guetta and Harris inane dance 'bangers', endless inane pop rap 'party anthems', endless boy and girl groups singing songs that sound the same.
Tbh, your post caught me off guard. I was expecting to be chided for posting 'entry level' songs & thought that was going to be something really badass
Originally Posted by Electra: Yeah but the older generation are supposed to be shouting at the youngsters to "turn that bloody racket down!" not rolling their eyes at them because modern music's so bloody tame.
I'm not so sure that they are "supposed to" but certainly, there is a history of such behaviour. I remember that my mum was not especially enamoured with the Sex Pistols and the Dead Kennedys which I spent considerable time listening to. i suppose the flip side would be that many of the kids at my school were listening to lame pap like Haircut 100 or Spandau Ballet.
mumford and son sound like someone dug them out of a ditch and they are crying about the death of their goat whilst playing a washboard. i expect kayne west is a huge fan and he will collab on his next album
I may be glad that I'm largely unaware of their works.
Originally Posted by Electra: Yeah but the older generation are supposed to be shouting at the youngsters to "turn that bloody racket down!" not rolling their eyes at them because modern music's so bloody tame.
Can't you see the difference?
I'm not so sure that they are "supposed to" but certainly, there is a history of such behaviour. I remember that my mum was not especially enamoured with the Sex Pistols and the Dead Kennedys which I spent considerable time listening to. i suppose the flip side would be that many of the kids at my school were listening to lame pap like Haircut 100 or Spandau Ballet.
I may be glad that I'm largely unaware of their works.
guess we differ on this, to me that lot are most unremarkable, generic, heard their sound all before so they have to produce something pretty damn good to get my attention. i do like mumford, but have been listening to folk since the early 70's, so whilst its nice to hear it in mainstream, its still nothing special to me.
Everything is influenced by something. After over 50 years of pop and rock music, it is very unlikely that any record will sound absolutely nothing like any other record that has ever been made. And even if it did, there would be a strong chance that it would be experimental for the sake of it, rather than a well crafted song.
Everything is influenced by something. After over 50 years of pop and rock music, it is very unlikely that any record will sound absolutely nothing like any other record that has ever been made. And even if it did, there would be a strong chance that it would be experimental for the sake of it, rather than a well crafted song.
This is true. I didn't dislike The White Stripes for being derivative. It's not the greatest crime given we are post-everything.
perhaps new music isn't aimed at people your age and you are looking in the wrong place. maybe young people don't want you involved. would you have like it if there was a load of people approaching 60 jumping around when you were at a punk club or gig?
While I laughed at that, it does tend to reinforce the stereotype of the older person as 'uncool' and someone who should be listening to 'uncool' music or have given up enjoying 'proper' music and switched over to the 'uncool' stuff. As we all know it's not reality; just the way many teens would think, just as many of us older types might assume the teens all listen to disposable crap or have little knowledge of the music of previous decades.
Everything is influenced by something. After over 50 years of pop and rock music, it is very unlikely that any record will sound absolutely nothing like any other record that has ever been made. And even if it did, there would be a strong chance that it would be experimental for the sake of it, rather than a well crafted song.
Of course, there is nothing wrong with being inspired, in fact it would be distinctly odd if an artist didn't admit that they were influenced by something. The problem is that there is too much music that is a pure rehash of other material rather than being influenced as well as having fresh ideas and a sound that is distinctive to them!
no, because that's not my point. the music was derided by people, and that was their opinion. but they weren't proven wrong
wouldnt the fact that dark side of the moon is considered a classic, whilst long haired lover from liverpool is seen as a complete (bad) joke prove that those who think lhlfl is better are wrong?
you had as much diversity of musical styles, if not more, from the late 80s onwards.
and thats where we fundamentaly disagree.
i think you should best listen to the guy that spoke about dubstep and new styles above. the dubstup from the 90s is about as far away from dubstep of the 00's in the same way as the original techno music from detroit is to the techno most people think of. just like there are all sorts of offshoots of rock music.
grime was another great british genre before it was commercialised
yep, and?
perhaps new music isn't aimed at people your age and you are looking in the wrong place. maybe young people don't want you involved. would you have like it if there was a load of people approaching 60 jumping around when you were at a punk club or gig?
you cant be much younger then me if all your claims to have worked here with this geezer and that geezer are truthful.
whats age got to do with it? i dont have to like it, i dont have to get involved, to recognise there is something happening. i wasnt into house, rave, heavy metal, etc but knew of there existance. but i cannot see any parralels between dubsteps popularity and say grunge, trance, britpop, in fact indie is possibly a stronger genre in current times.
a true music fan would welcome anyone to enjoy any style of music regardless of age, sex, ethnicity.
i was referring more to commissioned advert music for crappy ad's for banks and cleaning products than stylized ad's using the levi's type formula to create a "cool" ad. when a new genre becomes popular, the music makers start reaching for the sample loop discs and plugins. again it's been the same through the years, disco style ad music back in the 70s
no shit sherlock...back at you.
that's one thing that has changed, as at your age, what your parent's listened to was very different to what people have experienced since then. they wouldn't likely be used to loud amplification in clubs and gigs and a diverse range of music dating back a number of decades nor have a huge and comprehensive music collection of varying styles of music from around the world. i guess that's another sign of getting old
you must be desperate if you have to keep making snide comments about my age... just how old are you?
no, you're wrong. the only ones of those that can be called insipid are Micky and I Think We're Alone. The others are all completely different to the original song and are worth the time. In today's chart they would sound like the second coming of Beethoven.
And besides, what does it matter? Just look how many different styles of music you names in that post alone. We had the faux-reggae Blondie song. The Flying Lizards daring cover of Money (way too bizarre to have a chance in today's generic charts) , Naked Eyes' out of the blue synth pop cover of Burt Bacharach, and needless to even explain Soft Cell's classic take on Tainted Love.
What do we have now? Endless Guetta and Harris inane dance 'bangers', endless inane pop rap 'party anthems', endless boy and girl groups singing songs that sound the same.
I did like 'Get Lucky', though ;-))
agreed... often retro covers used to be daring , mentioned earlier was captain sensibles 'happy talk', and preludes brilliant 'after the goldrush'..
The Killers are a bastard hybrid of Coldplay and Duran Duran.. Mumford and Sons is a scarily average folk band .. I don't mean to be obnoxious here but is this really the best we have to offer in 2013? I'd genuinely rather listen to One Direction. At least they wilfully admit their poppiness and make sure it doesn't take itself too seriously.
I was watching Mumford and Sons' headline set at T, and Marcus Mumford made a comment about how everything they do is analysed, but all they really want to do is have fun with the music they make. I'm not convinced that either the Mumfords or the Killers take themselves all that seriously really. I think they are just aiming to make their music the best it can be, which is not actually the same thing.
And why all this focus on One Direction? Yes, they are hugely popular with a certain audience, but what does that prove? The Bay City Rollers had loads of obsessed fans, but we don't look back at the 70s, and pick them out as the highlight, do we?
Everything is influenced by something. After over 50 years of pop and rock music, it is very unlikely that any record will sound absolutely nothing like any other record that has ever been made. And even if it did, there would be a strong chance that it would be experimental for the sake of it, rather than a well crafted song.
i accept that argument, which will make it increasingly hard for an older bugger like me to get enthused by more modern music, or even respect it (ok it could be argued that todays youth havent heard original so modern takes on older styles are for them).
i do like some modern music... disclosure, naughty boy, daft punk, have got past my grump defences! ive liked the wombats too... strange, but several of their tracks have hit me right.
This is true. I didn't dislike The White Stripes for being derivative. It's not the greatest crime given we are post-everything.
love the white stripes... not bothered if they are devivative, the great ex yardbird jeff beck has played with them so with an endorsement like that they cant be bad!
Of course, there is nothing wrong with being inspired, in fact it would be distinctly odd if an artist didn't admit that they were influenced by something. The problem is that there is too much music that is a pure rehash of other material rather than being influenced as well as having fresh ideas and a sound that is distinctive to them!
exactly! and thats gist of my dislike for modern music, especially chart music.
Tbh, your post caught me off guard. I was expecting to be chided for posting 'entry level' songs & thought that was going to be something really badass
Not all, no chiding intended...there's a bit too much 'metal' in those other ones, but then Tull are one of my fave ever bands.
There was a bit of a stir way back when they won a Grammy for best Metal album or similar, the Metallica people were most miffed
no, i said MAINLY mid teens, not exclusively. whether thats true or not isnt something that can be proven, its my perception.
whether its mainly mid teens or late teens/early 20's that buy chart music, or did back in the early 70's (the period i cited) how does that contradict what i said? i said that uni students were not the ones who by and large bought chart singles back in the early 70's... it was the ordinary guys in the street (and judging by what charted in the early 70's it was certainly mid teens if not younger who bought singles).
the facts are that there was more diversity in the singles charts before c 1990 then there is since, and more then ever now.
You seem to be tying yourself in knots over this. Surely the diversity you talk about was precisely because the chart wasn't made up of mainly what mid-teens like? Or are you saying that back then mid-teens liked all sorts of different music and the problem these days is that mid-teens aren't like that? Because that doesn't really wash with me. I think it's much more likely that today's chart music lacks diversity because it doesn't reflect what many people are actually listening to, it only reflects what a narrow section of the public are listening to. The fact that there is huge diversity outside of the charts is probably evidence of this.
This is exactly the argument that myself, and others have been making on this thread....and I have tried to explain why I think this is (basically the effect the Internet has had on fragmenting everything and changing the way people find/listen to/consume music).
Of course, there is nothing wrong with being inspired, in fact it would be distinctly odd if an artist didn't admit that they were influenced by something. The problem is that there is too much music that is a pure rehash of other material rather than being influenced as well as having fresh ideas and a sound that is distinctive to them!
From the bands that I listed earlier, I would say Kasabian are the best example of this. They have a very distinctive sound, they are always trying something new, without it becoming too experimental to be listenable, and each album I am always impressed by how much they have taken their music to a whole new level. I think Serge Pizzorno doesn't often get the credit he deserves. He doesn't come across all that well in interviews, but I think he has an extraordinary song writing talent.
no, you're wrong. the only ones of those that can be called insipid are Micky and I Think We're Alone. The others are all completely different to the original song and are worth the time. In today's chart they would sound like the second coming of Beethoven.
And besides, what does it matter? Just look how many different styles of music you names in that post alone. We had the faux-reggae Blondie song. The Flying Lizards daring cover of Money (way too bizarre to have a chance in today's generic charts) , Naked Eyes' out of the blue synth pop cover of Burt Bacharach, and needless to even explain Soft Cell's classic take on Tainted Love.
What do we have now? Endless Guetta and Harris inane dance 'bangers', endless inane pop rap 'party anthems', endless boy and girl groups singing songs that sound the same.
I did like 'Get Lucky', though ;-))
Where it matters to me is your referral to 'insipid originals' in the context of that list of cover versions the poster compiled. Many of the updates may be completely different to the originals but certainly not superior or even anywhere near as good. Barrett Strong, Howling Wolf, The Paragons and Gloria Jones are not artists I would accuse of being insipid.
Covers of songs are not by default better than other covers of the same songs because they represent a bigger departure from the original. Some of those originals are vastly better than their pop updates.
exactly! and thats gist of my dislike for modern music, especially chart music.
I think the main difference between music today and in the past, is that the charts aren't very relevant anymore. They simply don't represent the best music, most of the time. In the 90s, I used to always listen to the charts or look them up, but now I usually don't even know what the current number one is, unless it happens to be by an artist that I am a big fan of, which is very rarely. If I do glance at the singles charts, I will usually be able to pick out about 3 or 4 tracks out of the whole top 40 that I actually like, sometimes less.
If we take the charts as the guideline, then yes music is pretty rubbish now, but why do we need to rely on the charts, when there is so much great music outside of them? Possibly the album charts are important still, but I don't think the singles one is any more.
Unless you listen to Radio 1 or Capital, most of what you hear on the radio is not high in the charts, if it is even there at all.
. Surely the diversity you talk about was precisely because the chart wasn't made up of mainly what mid-teens like? Or are you saying that back then mid-teens liked all sorts of different music and the problem these days is that mid-teens aren't like that?
just look at that chart from 72, who do you think bought most? its clear its younger people who are the main purchasers. but yes, in essence there was more variety for the singles buying public to buy.
Because that doesn't really wash with me. I think it's much more likely that today's chart music lacks diversity because it doesn't reflect what many people are actually listening to, it only reflects what a narrow section of the public are listening to. The fact that there is huge diversity outside of the charts is probably evidence of this.
This is exactly the argument that myself, and others have been making on this thread....and I have tried to explain why I think this is (basically the effect the Internet has had on fragmenting everything and changing the way people find/listen to/consume music).
i accept your point, id question though do we actually know that people are listening to music that isnt included in the chart placings?
plus why? if music gets chart placings /airplay , doesnt it sell more? i just dont get why in this uber commercial age people arent making money from music by courting the singles chart in the way they used to.
Comments
look at the indie charts between 2004 and 2008..
then compare with this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_UK_Indie_Chart_number-one_singles_of_2012
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_UK_Indie_Chart_number-one_singles_of_2013
The importance of a strong indie scene is massively understated in music discussions nowadays.. the strength of British indie when I was growing up was the whole thing that got me into music... made me a fan.. if I was growing up today I think I'd have given up altogether and become a video game addict instead!
no, i said MAINLY mid teens, not exclusively. whether thats true or not isnt something that can be proven, its my perception.
whether its mainly mid teens or late teens/early 20's that buy chart music, or did back in the early 70's (the period i cited) how does that contradict what i said? i said that uni students were not the ones who by and large bought chart singles back in the early 70's... it was the ordinary guys in the street (and judging by what charted in the early 70's it was certainly mid teens if not younger who bought singles).
the facts are that there was more diversity in the singles charts before c 1990 then there is since, and more then ever now.
The Killers are derivative of everything whilst failing to have any notable identity of their own.. they started out as an early 80s synth pop tribute band.. then seemed to decide they liked the idea of being the new U2.. and are now a Coldplay-esque bombastic stadium rock act.
I'm not particularly worried about the Killers as I didn't like them much in 2005 either, but it's typical of the modern bands.. no sincerity, all they truly want is to be playing unoriginal garbage music in a big soulless football stadium.
No no no no....THIS is folk metal
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Jsj-_334kY
no, you're wrong. the only ones of those that can be called insipid are Micky and I Think We're Alone. The others are all completely different to the original song and are worth the time. In today's chart they would sound like the second coming of Beethoven.
And besides, what does it matter? Just look how many different styles of music you names in that post alone. We had the faux-reggae Blondie song. The Flying Lizards daring cover of Money (way too bizarre to have a chance in today's generic charts) , Naked Eyes' out of the blue synth pop cover of Burt Bacharach, and needless to even explain Soft Cell's classic take on Tainted Love.
What do we have now? Endless Guetta and Harris inane dance 'bangers', endless inane pop rap 'party anthems', endless boy and girl groups singing songs that sound the same.
I did like 'Get Lucky', though ;-))
Folk Rock
Tbh, your post caught me off guard. I was expecting to be chided for posting 'entry level' songs & thought that was going to be something really badass
Yeah but the older generation are supposed to be shouting at the youngsters to "turn that bloody racket down!" not rolling their eyes at them because modern music's so bloody tame.
Can't you see the difference?
I'm not so sure that they are "supposed to" but certainly, there is a history of such behaviour. I remember that my mum was not especially enamoured with the Sex Pistols and the Dead Kennedys which I spent considerable time listening to. i suppose the flip side would be that many of the kids at my school were listening to lame pap like Haircut 100 or Spandau Ballet.
I may be glad that I'm largely unaware of their works.
Blasphemy! Haircut 100 were terrific
Everything is influenced by something. After over 50 years of pop and rock music, it is very unlikely that any record will sound absolutely nothing like any other record that has ever been made. And even if it did, there would be a strong chance that it would be experimental for the sake of it, rather than a well crafted song.
This is true. I didn't dislike The White Stripes for being derivative. It's not the greatest crime given we are post-everything.
While I laughed at that, it does tend to reinforce the stereotype of the older person as 'uncool' and someone who should be listening to 'uncool' music or have given up enjoying 'proper' music and switched over to the 'uncool' stuff. As we all know it's not reality; just the way many teens would think, just as many of us older types might assume the teens all listen to disposable crap or have little knowledge of the music of previous decades.
Of course, there is nothing wrong with being inspired, in fact it would be distinctly odd if an artist didn't admit that they were influenced by something. The problem is that there is too much music that is a pure rehash of other material rather than being influenced as well as having fresh ideas and a sound that is distinctive to them!
wouldnt the fact that dark side of the moon is considered a classic, whilst long haired lover from liverpool is seen as a complete (bad) joke prove that those who think lhlfl is better are wrong?
and thats where we fundamentaly disagree.
yep, and?
you cant be much younger then me if all your claims to have worked here with this geezer and that geezer are truthful.
whats age got to do with it? i dont have to like it, i dont have to get involved, to recognise there is something happening. i wasnt into house, rave, heavy metal, etc but knew of there existance. but i cannot see any parralels between dubsteps popularity and say grunge, trance, britpop, in fact indie is possibly a stronger genre in current times.
a true music fan would welcome anyone to enjoy any style of music regardless of age, sex, ethnicity.
no shit sherlock...back at you.
you must be desperate if you have to keep making snide comments about my age... just how old are you?
agreed... often retro covers used to be daring , mentioned earlier was captain sensibles 'happy talk', and preludes brilliant 'after the goldrush'..
I was watching Mumford and Sons' headline set at T, and Marcus Mumford made a comment about how everything they do is analysed, but all they really want to do is have fun with the music they make. I'm not convinced that either the Mumfords or the Killers take themselves all that seriously really. I think they are just aiming to make their music the best it can be, which is not actually the same thing.
And why all this focus on One Direction? Yes, they are hugely popular with a certain audience, but what does that prove? The Bay City Rollers had loads of obsessed fans, but we don't look back at the 70s, and pick them out as the highlight, do we?
i accept that argument, which will make it increasingly hard for an older bugger like me to get enthused by more modern music, or even respect it (ok it could be argued that todays youth havent heard original so modern takes on older styles are for them).
i do like some modern music... disclosure, naughty boy, daft punk, have got past my grump defences!
love the white stripes... not bothered if they are devivative, the great ex yardbird jeff beck has played with them so with an endorsement like that they cant be bad!
exactly! and thats gist of my dislike for modern music, especially chart music.
Not all, no chiding intended...there's a bit too much 'metal' in those other ones, but then Tull are one of my fave ever bands.
There was a bit of a stir way back when they won a Grammy for best Metal album or similar, the Metallica people were most miffed
This is exactly the argument that myself, and others have been making on this thread....and I have tried to explain why I think this is (basically the effect the Internet has had on fragmenting everything and changing the way people find/listen to/consume music).
From the bands that I listed earlier, I would say Kasabian are the best example of this. They have a very distinctive sound, they are always trying something new, without it becoming too experimental to be listenable, and each album I am always impressed by how much they have taken their music to a whole new level. I think Serge Pizzorno doesn't often get the credit he deserves. He doesn't come across all that well in interviews, but I think he has an extraordinary song writing talent.
Where it matters to me is your referral to 'insipid originals' in the context of that list of cover versions the poster compiled. Many of the updates may be completely different to the originals but certainly not superior or even anywhere near as good. Barrett Strong, Howling Wolf, The Paragons and Gloria Jones are not artists I would accuse of being insipid.
Covers of songs are not by default better than other covers of the same songs because they represent a bigger departure from the original. Some of those originals are vastly better than their pop updates.
I think the main difference between music today and in the past, is that the charts aren't very relevant anymore. They simply don't represent the best music, most of the time. In the 90s, I used to always listen to the charts or look them up, but now I usually don't even know what the current number one is, unless it happens to be by an artist that I am a big fan of, which is very rarely. If I do glance at the singles charts, I will usually be able to pick out about 3 or 4 tracks out of the whole top 40 that I actually like, sometimes less.
If we take the charts as the guideline, then yes music is pretty rubbish now, but why do we need to rely on the charts, when there is so much great music outside of them? Possibly the album charts are important still, but I don't think the singles one is any more.
Unless you listen to Radio 1 or Capital, most of what you hear on the radio is not high in the charts, if it is even there at all.
just look at that chart from 72, who do you think bought most? its clear its younger people who are the main purchasers. but yes, in essence there was more variety for the singles buying public to buy.
i accept your point, id question though do we actually know that people are listening to music that isnt included in the chart placings?
plus why? if music gets chart placings /airplay , doesnt it sell more? i just dont get why in this uber commercial age people arent making money from music by courting the singles chart in the way they used to.