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.
Sorry I think you didn't understand, I wasn't calling THOSE originals insipid. I was saying I would rather hear a great cover version (like many of those you listed) than many of the insipid originals that we hear in today's pop charts. It seemed to me that you were using the idea of cover versions as evidence that the 80s were unoriginal and short of ideas, but a cover version can be innovative in its own way.
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.
.
.. but theres always been great music outside the charts, its not a new phenomina, id suggest that when there was something happening in music, a new style, there was a buzz that transcended music. we all knew about it whether we liked it, or even understood it.. it was manifest in the charts as an advert to the bigger picture. i fail to understand why this shouldnt be the case now, why hide all the good stuff?
i just think its all abit of a cop out saying 'theres loads of great music thats not in the charts'...
.. but theres always been great music outside the charts, its not a new phenomina, id suggest that when there was something happening in music, a new style, there was a buzz that transcended music. we all knew about it whether we liked it, or even understood it.. it was manifest in the charts as an advert to the bigger picture. i fail to understand why this shouldnt be the case now, why hide all the good stuff?
i just think its all abit of a cop out saying 'theres loads of great music thats not in the charts'...
Yes of course there was, but it was also in the charts as well, so that they were some sort of representation of what was going on, but now they just mostly seem to be made up of club tracks or boyband stuff aimed at 13 year olds.
Sorry I think you didn't understand, I wasn't calling THOSE originals insipid. I was saying I would rather hear a great cover version (like many of those you listed) than many of the insipid originals that we hear in today's pop charts. It seemed to me that you were using the idea of cover versions as evidence that the 80s were unoriginal and short of ideas, but a cover version can be innovative in its own way.
Cool. Gotcha. :cool: I'm not taking credit for the list though, it wasn't mine.
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 have nothing against One Direction at all, I don't particularly like what they stand for (X-Factor et al) but it is undeniably fun music. The little girls always need poster boys, and I'd sure rather them have Harry Styles on their wall than Chris Brown etc.;-)
Maybe I've got the likes of the Mumfords and the Killers wrong, but it seems odd to me that they are so often hailed as 'proper music', fighting against this storm of crappy pop artists, when in reality they are quite worryingly ordinary and unoriginal! People seem to think 'they play their instruments, they must instantly be good'.. and yet Mumford And Sons is the sort of average folk I could hear anywhere in the country.
I just wonder myself, in 20 years time or so, who will we look back on as a true legend, a true musical pioneer of this generation? There's not much I can think of at the moment.
I have nothing against One Direction at all, I don't particularly like what they stand for (X-Factor et al) but it is undeniably fun music. The little girls always need poster boys, and I'd sure rather them have Harry Styles on their wall than Chris Brown etc.;-)
Maybe I've got the likes of the Mumfords and the Killers wrong, but it seems odd to me that they are so often hailed as 'proper music', fighting against this storm of crappy pop artists, when in reality they are quite worryingly ordinary and unoriginal! People seem to think 'they play their instruments, they must instantly be good'.. and yet Mumford And Sons is the sort of average folk I could hear anywhere in the country.
I just wonder myself, in 20 years time or so, who will we look back on as a true legend, a true musical pioneer of this generation? There's not much I can think of at the moment.
But how can you know that? Can anyone ever tell right now what is going to become legendary in later years?
But how can you know that? Can anyone ever tell right now what is going to become legendary in later years?
No, but I don't hear much that is totally original, that sounds like it could define our generation. Of course there is a lot of music that you only appreciate many years on for how good it was, but .. still. The signs aren't good in my opinion.
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
I listened to some of the 'Folk Metal' and I was thinking I had heard some of this before but it wasn't Tull, it was The Horslips with Dearg Doom (O'Neill's March)
That's a bit closer to your Folk Metal. There were a few outstanding songs on the lists above but there were some laughable things too, I'm afraid.
If you listen to their Book of Invasions, you'll find that Horslips were into their concept albums and were one of the precursors to symphonic rock/metal as well.
how can they if theres none breaking new ground now?
Oasis didn't exactly break any new ground, but their first two albums have become legendary now. Could we have known that at the time they were released? I don't think so.
Also artists from the 60s, 70s and 80s that have since become icons, only appear that way, because we are looking at them in retrospect. Even the Beatles themselves thought they would have a short career, if you listen to their early interviews. For all anyone knew in 1963, Beatlemania could have been a passing fad. No one knew how respected and admired they would still be 50 years on.
I listened to some of the 'Folk Metal' and I was thinking I had heard some of this before but it wasn't Tull, it was The Horslips with Dearg Doom (O'Neill's March)
That's a bit closer to your Folk Metal. There were a few outstanding songs on the lists above but there were some laughable things too, I'm afraid.
If you listen to their Book of Invasions, you'll find that Horslips were into their concept albums and were one of the precursors to symphonic rock/metal as well.
Again, that's rock, not metal & it's from times gone by. All the tracks I posted are from within the past ten years.
Just out of interest, which songs did you find laughable? I'm interested because not all of them are meant to be taken seriously.
ETA All but one of those bands are European, rather than British. They're mixing Metal with their own Folk sounds. One of them's actually a Folk Metal cover of an 18thC trad Folk tune.
I listened to some of the 'Folk Metal' and I was thinking I had heard some of this before but it wasn't Tull, it was The Horslips with Dearg Doom (O'Neill's March)
Wow..someone else in here has heard of Horslips...Tull were more medieval influenced I think
Again, that's rock, not metal & it's from times gone by. All the tracks I posted are from within the past ten years.
Just out of interest, which songs did you find laughable? I'm interested because not all of them are meant to be taken seriously.
ETA All but one of those bands are European, rather than British. They're mixing Metal with their own Folk sounds. One of them's actually a Folk Metal cover of an 18thC trad Folk tune.
Yeah, I'll go back and get the titles but they seemed like parodies with all the seemingly mystical imagery. Don't get me wrong some of that was great. It was the first list.
But Metal is a form of Rock, it's not something entirely distinct.
The Strawbs were really good at that sort of folk/rock/symphonic thing too at times....Ghosts
And The Strawbs and The Horslips are equally as European being English and Irish and mixing their folk traditions with rock and doing a long time before the other Europeans!
Show's you how innovative the British and Irish always have been.
Yeah, I'll go back and get the titles but they seemed like parodies with all the seemingly mystical imagery. Don't get me wrong some of that was great.
But Metal is a form of Rock, it's not something entirely distinct.
The Strawbs were really good at that sort of folk/rock/symphonic thing too at times....Ghosts
And The Strawbs and The Horslips are equally as European being English and Irish and mixing their folk traditions with rock and doing a long time before the other Europeans!
Show's you how innovative the British and Irish always have been.
Metal is a genre of Rock (as is Indie, Prog etc) but they're distinct from each other. All Metal is Rock but not all Rock is Metal.
The Strawbs, Jethro Tull & Horslips are nothing like Metal.
Also Metal was pretty much in its infancy in the early 70s
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.
The lack of data is actually quite frustrating. I have a theory that lots of people simply don't feel the need to buy singles any more because there are so many ways of listening to the songs without buying them. Or that they would rather buy an album instead (I do think that more artists have become "album artists" in that they can sell a decent amount of albums without having a top 40 single). I see a lot of artists giving away a new song or two for free (or indefinitely streaming them) as a way to promote a new album, maybe because they know so few people are willing to buy a single these days that it's not even worth trying to sell them. Also, it wouldn't surprise me if illegal downloading is much more widespread than people realise, especially among younger people with limited money/income. Of course it's one of those things that's difficult to measure as people rarely admit to doing it.
The large number of artists out there who don't feature in the chart but who can still continue to make music and forge a career would suggest that people are listening to them and supporting them. People always say that for most artists to make money (i.e. survive) these days they have to do it through playing live rather than selling records (probably always been the case for a lot of artists but even more so today).
What a lotta nonsense...there's no rule book for this.
Can we not just enjoy the music? Whatever it maybe?
:rolleyes:
Of course there are 'rules', otherwise it would all just be 'music'.
And yes, just enjoy the music. Absolutely agree with that.
Anyway, my Folk Metal postings were in response to someone asking for modern music that they might like. so that's what I did. I'm not sure why people are coming back at me with 70s Folk Rock
Metal is a genre of Rock (as is Indie, Prog etc) but they're distinct from each other. All Metal is Rock but not all Rock is Metal.
The Strawbs, Jethro Tull & Horslips are nothing like Metal.
Also Metal was pretty much in its infancy in the early 70s
To be fair to Jethro Tull, they did a whole range of styles including metal, that would be 70s type metal. The Strawbs and the The Horslips would be hard to describe as metal, fair enough. And because 70s metal was in its infancy doesn't stop it being metal.
This folk/trad/rock is very close as they both mix folk with rock and the themes are simliar. The Horslips work was full of Celtic mysticism. Also the excellence in musicanship is clear in both the old artists and these newer euro metal bands.
I think it's worth listening to the older stuff to see if it has developed that much.
Of course there are 'rules', otherwise it would all just be 'music'.
And yes, just enjoy the music. Absolutely agree with that.
Anyway, my Folk Metal postings were in response to someone asking for modern music that they might like. so that's what I did. I'm not sure why people are coming back at me with 70s Folk Rock
And I thought if they liked that, they may like it's predecessors.
The large number of artists out there who don't feature in the chart but who can still continue to make music and forge a career would suggest that people are listening to them and supporting them. People always say that for most artists to make money (i.e. survive) these days they have to do it through playing live rather than selling records (probably always been the case for a lot of artists but even more so today).
Yes, that's probably why chart success is not that important when live work will bring in the money to survive and maybe prosper? The original OP was about live music I think...back to the star.
To be fair to Jethro Tull, they did a whole range of styles including metal, that would be 70s type metal. The Strawbs and the The Horslips would be hard to describe as metal, fair enough. And because 70s metal was in its infancy doesn't stop it being metal.
This folk/trad/rock is very close as they both mix folk with rock and the themes are simliar. The Horslips work was full of Celtic mysticism. Also the excellence in musicanship is clear in both the old artists and these newer euro metal bands.
I think it's worth listening to the older stuff to see if it has developed that much.
Oh don't get me wrong. I quite like 70s Folk Rock. In fact JT's Living In The Past is one of my all time favourite songs. I also bought The Strawbs Part Of The Union because I loved the B side - Will You Go.(?)
Tbh, when my daughter first started talking to me about Folk Metal, last year, I was insistent that she'd got it wrong & the sub genre was Folk Rock. Then she played me some & I had to concede that they were, indeed, very different.
That's what it is...it doesn't really need labels.
BTW, where are the 'rules'?
They're kinda unwritten really, aren't they? However, most of us can tell the difference between eg Rap & Blues or Soul. etc. I guess genres are really helpful, shorthand descriptions.
Comments
Sorry I think you didn't understand, I wasn't calling THOSE originals insipid. I was saying I would rather hear a great cover version (like many of those you listed) than many of the insipid originals that we hear in today's pop charts. It seemed to me that you were using the idea of cover versions as evidence that the 80s were unoriginal and short of ideas, but a cover version can be innovative in its own way.
.. but theres always been great music outside the charts, its not a new phenomina, id suggest that when there was something happening in music, a new style, there was a buzz that transcended music. we all knew about it whether we liked it, or even understood it.. it was manifest in the charts as an advert to the bigger picture. i fail to understand why this shouldnt be the case now, why hide all the good stuff?
i just think its all abit of a cop out saying 'theres loads of great music thats not in the charts'...
Yes of course there was, but it was also in the charts as well, so that they were some sort of representation of what was going on, but now they just mostly seem to be made up of club tracks or boyband stuff aimed at 13 year olds.
Cool. Gotcha. :cool: I'm not taking credit for the list though, it wasn't mine.
I have nothing against One Direction at all, I don't particularly like what they stand for (X-Factor et al) but it is undeniably fun music. The little girls always need poster boys, and I'd sure rather them have Harry Styles on their wall than Chris Brown etc.;-)
Maybe I've got the likes of the Mumfords and the Killers wrong, but it seems odd to me that they are so often hailed as 'proper music', fighting against this storm of crappy pop artists, when in reality they are quite worryingly ordinary and unoriginal! People seem to think 'they play their instruments, they must instantly be good'.. and yet Mumford And Sons is the sort of average folk I could hear anywhere in the country.
I just wonder myself, in 20 years time or so, who will we look back on as a true legend, a true musical pioneer of this generation? There's not much I can think of at the moment.
But how can you know that? Can anyone ever tell right now what is going to become legendary in later years?
how can they if theres none breaking new ground now?
No, but I don't hear much that is totally original, that sounds like it could define our generation. Of course there is a lot of music that you only appreciate many years on for how good it was, but .. still. The signs aren't good in my opinion.
I listened to some of the 'Folk Metal' and I was thinking I had heard some of this before but it wasn't Tull, it was The Horslips with Dearg Doom (O'Neill's March)
That's a bit closer to your Folk Metal. There were a few outstanding songs on the lists above but there were some laughable things too, I'm afraid.
If you listen to their Book of Invasions, you'll find that Horslips were into their concept albums and were one of the precursors to symphonic rock/metal as well.
Oasis didn't exactly break any new ground, but their first two albums have become legendary now. Could we have known that at the time they were released? I don't think so.
Also artists from the 60s, 70s and 80s that have since become icons, only appear that way, because we are looking at them in retrospect. Even the Beatles themselves thought they would have a short career, if you listen to their early interviews. For all anyone knew in 1963, Beatlemania could have been a passing fad. No one knew how respected and admired they would still be 50 years on.
Again, that's rock, not metal & it's from times gone by. All the tracks I posted are from within the past ten years.
Just out of interest, which songs did you find laughable? I'm interested because not all of them are meant to be taken seriously.
ETA All but one of those bands are European, rather than British. They're mixing Metal with their own Folk sounds. One of them's actually a Folk Metal cover of an 18thC trad Folk tune.
Wow..someone else in here has heard of Horslips...Tull were more medieval influenced I think
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=1851816
The music I may have appreciated more when I was 15.
Yeah, I'll go back and get the titles but they seemed like parodies with all the seemingly mystical imagery. Don't get me wrong some of that was great. It was the first list.
But Metal is a form of Rock, it's not something entirely distinct.
The Strawbs were really good at that sort of folk/rock/symphonic thing too at times....Ghosts
And The Strawbs and The Horslips are equally as European being English and Irish and mixing their folk traditions with rock and doing a long time before the other Europeans!
Show's you how innovative the British and Irish always have been.
Metal is a genre of Rock (as is Indie, Prog etc) but they're distinct from each other. All Metal is Rock but not all Rock is Metal.
The Strawbs, Jethro Tull & Horslips are nothing like Metal.
Also Metal was pretty much in its infancy in the early 70s
I'm just getting a blank white screen there.
The large number of artists out there who don't feature in the chart but who can still continue to make music and forge a career would suggest that people are listening to them and supporting them. People always say that for most artists to make money (i.e. survive) these days they have to do it through playing live rather than selling records (probably always been the case for a lot of artists but even more so today).
What a lotta nonsense...there's no rule book for this.
Can we not just enjoy the music? Whatever it maybe?
:rolleyes:
Of course there are 'rules', otherwise it would all just be 'music'.
And yes, just enjoy the music. Absolutely agree with that.
Anyway, my Folk Metal postings were in response to someone asking for modern music that they might like. so that's what I did. I'm not sure why people are coming back at me with 70s Folk Rock
To be fair to Jethro Tull, they did a whole range of styles including metal, that would be 70s type metal. The Strawbs and the The Horslips would be hard to describe as metal, fair enough. And because 70s metal was in its infancy doesn't stop it being metal.
This folk/trad/rock is very close as they both mix folk with rock and the themes are simliar. The Horslips work was full of Celtic mysticism. Also the excellence in musicanship is clear in both the old artists and these newer euro metal bands.
I think it's worth listening to the older stuff to see if it has developed that much.
And I thought if they liked that, they may like it's predecessors.
Yes, that's probably why chart success is not that important when live work will bring in the money to survive and maybe prosper? The original OP was about live music I think...back to the star.
Oh don't get me wrong. I quite like 70s Folk Rock. In fact JT's Living In The Past is one of my all time favourite songs. I also bought The Strawbs Part Of The Union because I loved the B side - Will You Go.(?)
Tbh, when my daughter first started talking to me about Folk Metal, last year, I was insistent that she'd got it wrong & the sub genre was Folk Rock. Then she played me some & I had to concede that they were, indeed, very different.
That's what it is...it doesn't really need labels.
BTW, where are the 'rules'?
They're kinda unwritten really, aren't they? However, most of us can tell the difference between eg Rap & Blues or Soul. etc. I guess genres are really helpful, shorthand descriptions.
You may be right...and there seem to be enforcers of the 'rules'
.
Nice work if you can get it