search it out?.... good comedy?... surely by definition if its good it would be known, talked about, copied, become part of the whole psyche of our nation in the same way those exampled comedies i mentioned are.
nope as times have changed, as i mentioned before
unlike music, comedy is easier to quantify...it either makes you laugh or it doesnt.
just like music, which you either like or you don't
how can a comedy be truely 'great' if it only has a niche market?
ask a teacher at your school or look at a dictionary
i do not believe we are in a golden age of EITHER music or tv. theres no evidence to support this at all.
wrong. there is. just look at the tv forums like i mentioned earlier or google golden age of television and read the articles about the new golden age of television
mind that involves having to do a tiny bit of searching, which would leave you with less time to moan and complain about things you are wrong about as you don't bother looking for them. which is probably a good thing
wrong. there is. just look at the tv forums like i mentioned earlier or google golden age of television and read the articles about the new golden age of television
mind that involves having to do a tiny bit of searching, which would leave you with less time to moan and complain about things you are wrong about as you don't bother looking for them. which is probably a good thing
nope... not rising to your bait. you might insist on trying to create a bicker-fest by dissecting every line to put it out of context in order to create an argument to satisfy your own special needs requirements. (which is a conclusion made by several years now of observing your repetitive style of seeking out arguments to belittle people, and im by far not the only one of your victims, just look at your posting history.)
there is NO evidence of a golden age in tv/comedy or music. i do not buy it at all, if its that golden you wouldnt need to search it out, times might have changed but i dont entertain that theres anything great going on because by definition there no new youth movement or great comedy going on as i highlighted previously.
now i dont give a flying fornication whether you agree or not... ive made my point on the matter and explained why i hold the views i do. with the absence of any compelling evidence to the contry id suggest we both agree to hold different views.
there is NO evidence of a golden age in tv/comedy or music. i do not buy it at all, if its that golden you wouldnt need to search it out, times might have changed but i dont entertain that theres anything great going on because by definition there no new youth movement or great comedy going on as i highlighted previously.
Well that is complete bollocks and speaks to an entitled mind that wants everything spoon-fed to them with minimal effort.
utter nonsense.
the great musical styles and great comedy programmes didnt start mainstream, but built from a low profile as they became more popular and THEN became visible in the mainstream. youth movements grew, grew because they had mass appeal to a generation who understood what it was about and all this in a time when there was no internet. quite an achievement id suggest.
their very evolution and the way 'the kids' bought into it, evolving it, making it their own with their own fashions and social comment, things what have impacted and resonate today....is what made them great.
can anyone actually say that this is happening today, in music or comedy? i cant see it, and its not a case of expecting an entitlement, we never expected that in the past, it just happened whether we bought into it or not.
Saying there's great music out there but "you just have to search it out" is like those pubs and restaurants that call themselves "the best kept secret in town".
Of course they're not the best kept secret in town. If they were, they would go out of business. it's just a marketing ploy.
As is "you just have to search it out". If you really have to search it out, they're doing it wrong.
Is this a golden age of TV? It's actually hard to say. The quality tv series coming from the US have gradually mounted up following on the success of 'The X-Files' (1993 - 2002), 'Friends' (1994-2004), 'The Sopranos' (1999 - 2007) and 'The West Wing' (1999 - 2006) for example.
'The Wire' (2002 - 2008), which followed on from 'Homicide: Life on the Street' (1993 - 1999, very influential series), 'The Shield' (2002 - 2008) and 'Breaking Bad' (2008 - 2013) now vie for which is the greatest TV show of all time.
Add in 'Battlestar Galactica', 'Game of Thrones', 'Boardwalk Empire', 'House of Cards', 'Orange is the New Black', 'Homeland' and many more. I would describe these as quality 'boxset' TV. The quality is not in their diversity, the quality is in the writing and the production values.
They are nearly all US productions but that's not a problem, it's a culture which most of us feel a part of. You could add in the Nordic Noir starting with the 'The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo' films and books which has sparked series like 'The Killing' and 'The Bridge' which have also raised the standards in TV series. These kind of long form tv series with their relatively slow plot expositions are in stark contrast with the effects-driven superhero movies which also seem to proliferate.
US comedy too has been very good with 'The Simpsons', 'The Big Bang Theory', 'How I met your mother', 'Two and Half Men', South Park', 'Family Guy', 'Parks and Recreation' etc. etc.
I'm not sure we could point to as many UK comedy shows but Ricky Gervais's works have been great 'The Office', 'Extras' and 'Derek'. I'm not sure there is any comedy series in UK tv that would be as popular as 'Only Fools and Horses' or 'Dads Army' but 'The IT Crowd' 'Black Books' and 'The Inbetweeners' were great. Channel 4 has pioneered some great drama like 'Skins', 'Misfits' and 'Black Mirror'.
The only difficulty I have with the current era in TV being described as 'golden' is that when I have referred to such eras in popular music I get the response that there has always been good and bad music in any era. So if there is always good and bad tv why would any era of tv ever be 'golden'?
Saying there's great music out there but "you just have to search it out" is like those pubs and restaurants that call themselves "the best kept secret in town".
Of course they're not the best kept secret in town. If they were, they would go out of business. it's just a marketing ploy.
As is "you just have to search it out". If you really have to search it out, they're doing it wrong.
That kind of undermines the popular in popular music.
nope... not rising to your bait. you might insist on trying to create a bicker-fest by dissecting every line to put it out of context in order to create an argument to satisfy your own special needs requirements.
(which is a conclusion made by several years now of observing your repetitive style of seeking out arguments to belittle people, and im by far not the only one of your victims, just look at your posting history.)
not only wrong, but having to result to making personal insults just demonstrates you can't discuss things reasonably on these forums
there is NO evidence of a golden age in tv/comedy or music.
wrong again. it's been pointed out several times to you where there is evidence of a golden age of tv. all you need to do is google. but that's your problem in a nutshell, you simply won't look for things. you will spend/waste time moaning about things instead of using that time productively and positively to resolve the issue you have. and that's what other people do, and that's why people don't agree with you, and why they can find music, comedy, movies, whatever that they like, and enjoy all that's available through a multitude of forms instead of moaning about things
i do not buy it at all, if its that golden you wouldnt need to search it out,
you don't need to seek anything for there to be a golden age of anything
times might have changed but i dont entertain that theres anything great going on because by definition there no new youth movement or great comedy going on as i highlighted previously.
well that's your problem. you clearly don't seem happy with what you currently experience, yet at the same time you don't seem interested in taking time and effort to seek it out. it's right there all around you happening without you seeking it. whether you want to experience it or not is entirely up to you, but it might take just a few seconds of seeking to discover it. such as having a look in the tv forums on this site, or using a popular website called google
now i dont give a flying fornication whether you agree or not... ive made my point on the matter and explained why i hold the views i do.
you are free to agree or disagree as you like. i don't care. clearly you aren't happy with the situation and that's why you make so many posts and threads moaning about things. people take time to point out to you why you are wrong, and explain what is right, and point you towards the truth and facts and how to find out and discover things, it's ultimately your choice whether you choose to do that or not. if you don't do that, then ultimately it's your problem. if you don't want to make a change you aren't going to find new things and experience new things that you may like
in this day and age of the internet and the many options it brings, and digital multichannel television and radio, there's a considerably wider variety and choice of things that most everyone will find that is both to their personal taste and not to their personal taste. if you aren't happy with the top 40 singles or albums, or what you hear on the same radio stations you listen to, or whats on a small selection of tv channels you watch, such as bbc1/2 and itv/c4, then you only have yourself to blame if you don't like what you come across, as there's a huge world of entertainment available right now from the likes of sky and virgin tv services, or online services like netflix, spotify, youtube, itunes, and social media and forums and websites such as this one that discusses media in it's many forums, including the available services and how to get them and how to use them, and the media itself. it's up to you if you want to be open minded about things and seek and find out for yourself what is available and discover things both new and old that you may like, or be stuck in your old ways and refuse to do it. i don't care what you choose, and i doubt anyone else will care as it's your choice and your life. people have tried to help you out by pointing all these things out to you. perhaps instead of arguing about it and saying things don't exist, just be honest and say you aren't interested or don't care if that's the case
with the absence of any compelling evidence to the contry id suggest we both agree to hold different views.
obviously we have different views, but contrary to what you say, there is plenty of evidence that even you would surely find compelling if you bothered to look for it, and starting in the tv forums on this very website you will find plenty of evidence
the great musical styles and great comedy programmes didnt start mainstream, but built from a low profile as they became more popular and THEN became visible in the mainstream. youth movements grew, grew because they had mass appeal to a generation who understood what it was about and all this in a time when there was no internet. quite an achievement id suggest.
their very evolution and the way 'the kids' bought into it, evolving it, making it their own with their own fashions and social comment, things what have impacted and resonate today....is what made them great.
can anyone actually say that this is happening today, in music or comedy? i cant see it, and its not a case of expecting an entitlement, we never expected that in the past, it just happened whether we bought into it or not.
just because you don't see something doesn't mean it's happening. i think "the kids" can see it, and many others too who bother to look for it
just have a read and think about what you are saying. kids making things their own - you aren't a kid, the kids aren't making things for you but for themselves. but there are plenty of people other than kids making things for a multitude of audiences in a multitude of ways. some of those ways are the things of the past such as the 4 or 5 main terestrial tv shows or radio 1. if you don't like what they offer you can move to freeview or sky or virgin tv or dab, if you don't like that you can move to netflix or spotify or itunes or youtube, if you don't like what you find there you can use google to be specific and search for what you do like
but if you did bother with netflix and spotify i'm sure even you could find plenty of things you would enjoy, and plenty of them being new things you hadn't heard before. there's an absolutely massive world of media out there for all tastes. even someone very open minded like myself would only appreciate a small percentage of it as there is simply so much variation in different styles, but of course that means there is so much for whatever specific tastes an individual may have. if you like comedy theres the comedy channel, theres plenty of cartoon channels, movie channels, music channels, art channels, history, biography, you name it
little tiny kids under 5 can amuse themselves by finding things they like on table computers or home media setups. if they can do it then so can any able bodied and able minded person
All you guys are expressing is a purely consumerist view of pop music. Like all that really matters is what you like.
Irrespective of whether there is such a thing as a truly personal, unmediated choice, how do you assess the artistic or aesthetic worth of this music?
Based on the melody, lyrics, arrangement, instrumentation and quality of vocal but this will all just fall under the umbrella of "do I like this" after listening for half a minute or so. We also allow decoys such as video, photography, wardrobe, choreography ie. image/visual presentation colour our assessment of what we 'hear'. Of course none of this is experienced by hearing a tune on the radio by an artists unknown to us.
For music consumers all that really matters IS what they like. They buy the music that appeals and get on with enjoying it. Collecting information about the artists or recordings can be a bonus to help with our knowledge and understanding but it shouldn't really matter what sort of review a journalist gives an album or what our peers are listening to.
My best friend listens to noisy, angsty garage rock quite frequently where I'll be playing something entirely different; reggae, soul, hip hop.
He likes Public Enemy, Disposable Heroes of Hiphoprisy, Solomon Burke, Irma Thomas, Jamaican Ska, 50's R&B as do I but you wouldn't catch him listening to Chic, Thomas Mapfumo, Sarah Vaughan, D'Angelo or Salsoul and you probably wouldn't find me playing the Monomen, Supersuckers, Monster Magnet or Slint.
Of course we both have awesome taste ( ;-) ), are super-opinionated ( :cool: ) and have our own clear musical prejudices. Music journalists would encourage listening to all of the above I'm sure but most of us mine a seam because we have our preferred styles/ what we reach for on our shelves most / a limit of listening time and disposable income.
In those pre-internet days (for me), unfortunately I never seemed to make it to Sterns when visiting the capitol, not carrying their address with me. I should have!
Saying there's great music out there but "you just have to search it out" is like those pubs and restaurants that call themselves "the best kept secret in town".
Of course they're not the best kept secret in town. If they were, they would go out of business. it's just a marketing ploy.
As is "you just have to search it out". If you really have to search it out, they're doing it wrong.
BUT: "you just have to search it out" is not a marketing ploy: it's not what an artist states about their own works, it's what music fans are saying in response to the lack of room within mainstream media for a variety of music. You have to seek it out because the handful of majors aren't spending a fortune plugging it to the lowest common denominator.
Of course the truth is that you always had to seek out music but perhaps within other time periods, the pop charts seemed more representative of a wider range of what music was actually out there. Being a top 40 follower or any era, of course, gives people an extremely skewed view of music and causes them to draw conclusions on the history of popular music in a very blinkered way as we see on this board quite often.
The only difficulty I have with the current era in TV being described as 'golden' is that when I have referred to such eras in popular music I get the response that there has always been good and bad music in any era. So if there is always good and bad tv why would any era of tv ever be 'golden'?
that's simple. whilst there may be always good and bad, recently the quality of the good has been exceptional, with big name actors and director and producers and writers and budgets for tv series that can be greater than the budget for a movie
I have bought upwards of 40 new albums so far this year spanning genres like rock, metal, jazz, folk and Irish traditional; all of them have been hugely enjoyable and have received multiple listenings.
Fair dues you won't have heard of most of them but they are all excellent in their own right.
I feel tv is way better than Music at this place and time like what other have said.
I feel there is no movement in music like there once was in the mainstream anyways,and lack of working class people doing music now just the old people Noel.
I blame X Factor and greedy record labels for that.
Now underground act DIY can only make some noise from the Internet soundcloud and tour small gigs.
What part of agree to disagree dont you understand? I will NOT be drawn in to a petty bicker fest to feed your need. Go and argue with someone else, i have no desire to play your game.
I will of course discuss anything with anyone else, just not you.
just because you don't see something doesn't mean it's happening. i think "the kids" can see it, and many others too who bother to look for it
just have a read and think about what you are saying. kids making things their own - you aren't a kid, the kids aren't making things for you but for themselves. but there are plenty of people other than kids making things for a multitude of audiences in a multitude of ways. some of those ways are the things of the past such as the 4 or 5 main terestrial tv shows or radio 1. if you don't like what they offer you can move to freeview or sky or virgin tv or dab, if you don't like that you can move to netflix or spotify or itunes or youtube, if you don't like what you find there you can use google to be specific and search for what you do like
but if you did bother with netflix and spotify i'm sure even you could find plenty of things you would enjoy, and plenty of them being new things you hadn't heard before. there's an absolutely massive world of media out there for all tastes. even someone very open minded like myself would only appreciate a small percentage of it as there is simply so much variation in different styles, but of course that means there is so much for whatever specific tastes an individual may have. if you like comedy theres the comedy channel, theres plenty of cartoon channels, movie channels, music channels, art channels, history, biography, you name it
little tiny kids under 5 can amuse themselves by finding things they like on table computers or home media setups. if they can do it then so can any able bodied and able minded person
Now this is a different proposition.
How can something be happening if i cant see it? Who could not see all the great youth movements from rock n roll to ukgarage? All the great, truely great, movementswere not invisible to the oldies.
Plus you have young people on here agreeing theres nothing much of interest happening and are happily delving into retro music for their enjoyment. Of course this isnt anything new but when we did it we updated it and span our version of it, incorporating it into our styles... Thinking new wave, ska, britpop, glamrock n roll etc.
I fully get that theres great music, variety too, to be discovered by searching the net. But there aint a great new original youth movement going on, nor any golden age of great music.
Of course the truth is that you always had to seek out music but perhaps within other time periods, the pop charts seemed more representative of a wider range of what music was actually out there. Being a top 40 follower or any era, of course, gives people an extremely skewed view of music and causes them to draw conclusions on the history of popular music in a very blinkered way as we see on this board quite often.
Hmmmm but you miss the point that music covers a broad range and caters for a wider fan base. Many are happy just being chart followers, others wouldnt be seen dead following the charts. Whos right? Both are!
But what gets remembered, what goes down in music history, is the trends in music that fix it to a particular era.... The fashions, styles, and they are inextricably linked to chart music at the commercial end of the spectrum. The more obscure do not fit this.
I feel tv is way better than Music at this place and time like what other have said.
I feel there is no movement in music like there once was in the mainstream anyways,and lack of working class people doing music now just the old people Noel.
I blame X Factor and greedy record labels for that.
Now underground act DIY can only make some noise from the Internet soundcloud and tour small gigs.
Those small gigs are the best way to experience a band or artist live because they are more intimate and have a better atmosphere. Arena/stadium gigs often bore me stupid.
Based on the melody, lyrics, arrangement, instrumentation and quality of vocal but this will all just fall under the umbrella of "do I like this" after listening for half a minute or so. We also allow decoys such as video, photography, wardrobe, choreography ie. image/visual presentation colour our assessment of what we 'hear'. Of course none of this is experienced by hearing a tune on the radio by an artists unknown to us.
Well that is some attempt at assessing artistic worth even if it concentrates on the musicianship rather than the creativity or innovation. I think popular music is a multimedia experience which stretches beyond the music so I have no problem with the imagery and dance etc.
For music consumers all that really matters IS what they like. They buy the music that appeals and get on with enjoying it. Collecting information about the artists or recordings can be a bonus to help with our knowledge and understanding but it shouldn't really matter what sort of review a journalist gives an album or what our peers are listening to.
My best friend listens to noisy, angsty garage rock quite frequently where I'll be playing something entirely different; reggae, soul, hip hop.
He likes Public Enemy, Disposable Heroes of Hiphoprisy, Solomon Burke, Irma Thomas, Jamaican Ska, 50's R&B as do I but you wouldn't catch him listening to Chic, Thomas Mapfumo, Sarah Vaughan, D'Angelo or Salsoul and you probably wouldn't find me playing the Monomen, Supersuckers, Monster Magnet or Slint.
Of course we both have awesome taste ( ;-) ), are super-opinionated ( :cool: ) and have our own clear musical prejudices. Music journalists would encourage listening to all of the above I'm sure but most of us mine a seam because we have our preferred styles/ what we reach for on our shelves most / a limit of listening time and disposable income.
But this is simply a restatement of the consumerist view. And you are right consumerism is simply about purchasing things that you like. You are also right that ideas of taste and opinion are entirely personal. If people choose to listen to the Top 40 and Radio one, that's perfectly fine and all this nonsense about being spoonfed etc is just that, nonsense.
I have bought upwards of 40 new albums so far this year spanning genres like rock, metal, jazz, folk and Irish traditional; all of them have been hugely enjoyable and have received multiple listenings.
Fair dues you won't have heard of most of them but they are all excellent in their own right.
That's just a personal opinion about what is excellent. It's all just music that you like. Others may well like it too., in itself that doesn't make it good. The consumerist argument is simply that those who only listen to the top 40 and/or radio 1 are limiting their choices.
Hmmmm but you miss the point that music covers a broad range and caters for a wider fan base. Many are happy just being chart followers, others wouldnt be seen dead following the charts. Whos right? Both are!
But what gets remembered, what goes down in music history, is the trends in music that fix it to a particular era.... The fashions, styles, and they are inextricably linked to chart music at the commercial end of the spectrum. The more obscure do not fit this.
Popular culture and music is a broad church. Music that has to searched out most often but not always gets lost when the history of popular music gets written. The Velvet Undergound's banana album sold about 11,000 but it's influence on others stretches way beyond that number because of the way VU have been accepted as important within the history of art and pop. I presume that those who seek out new music and artists suggest others should listen and the music of these new artists will get heard. That's what I do.
Pop music is much more about the long tail of consumption than it used to be.
is that a serious question? if you are in a room with the curtain closed, or lying in your bed with your eyes closed, you can't see what is outside the room. do you think nothing happens outside the room?
this is the perfect example of small minded thinking
Who could not see all the great youth movements from rock n roll to ukgarage?
literally most people, if not everyone on the entire planet
All the great, truely great, movementswere not invisible to the oldies. [/quote
that's just generalising and therefore wrong
Plus you have young people on here agreeing theres nothing much of interest happening and are happily delving into retro music for their enjoyment.
that's an opinion, and not a fact
Of course this isnt anything new but when we did it we updated it and span our version of it, incorporating it into our styles... Thinking new wave, ska, britpop, glamrock n roll etc.
similarly there were plenty of people in the world unaware of those things and/or didn't like those things. old people in particular may not be particularly interested
I fully get that theres great music, variety too, to be discovered by searching the net. But there aint a great new original youth movement going on, nor any golden age of great music.
that may be your opinion, but perhaps at your age, what the youth are into is probably completely bypassing you, especially if you are sticking to looking at the charts and main telly and radio channels for your window into the world, and don't bother seeking anything out
throughout the world there are millions of things going on that you won't know about, but you could if you looked
Is this a golden age of TV? It's actually hard to say. The quality tv series coming from the US have gradually mounted up following on the success of 'The X-Files' (1993 - 2002), 'Friends' (1994-2004), 'The Sopranos' (1999 - 2007) and 'The West Wing' (1999 - 2006) for example.
'The Wire' (2002 - 2008), which followed on from 'Homicide: Life on the Street' (1993 - 1999, very influential series), 'The Shield' (2002 - 2008) and 'Breaking Bad' (2008 - 2013) now vie for which is the greatest TV show of all time.
Add in 'Battlestar Galactica', 'Game of Thrones', 'Boardwalk Empire', 'House of Cards', 'Orange is the New Black', 'Homeland' and many more. I would describe these as quality 'boxset' TV. The quality is not in their diversity, the quality is in the writing and the production values.
They are nearly all US productions but that's not a problem, it's a culture which most of us feel a part of. You could add in the Nordic Noir starting with the 'The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo' films and books which has sparked series like 'The Killing' and 'The Bridge' which have also raised the standards in TV series. These kind of long form tv series with their relatively slow plot expositions are in stark contrast with the effects-driven superhero movies which also seem to proliferate.
US comedy too has been very good with 'The Simpsons', 'The Big Bang Theory', 'How I met your mother', 'Two and Half Men', South Park', 'Family Guy', 'Parks and Recreation' etc. etc.
I'm not sure we could point to as many UK comedy shows but Ricky Gervais's works have been great 'The Office', 'Extras' and 'Derek'. I'm not sure there is any comedy series in UK tv that would be as popular as 'Only Fools and Horses' or 'Dads Army' but 'The IT Crowd' 'Black Books' and 'The Inbetweeners' were great. Channel 4 has pioneered some great drama like 'Skins', 'Misfits' and 'Black Mirror'.
The only difficulty I have with the current era in TV being described as 'golden' is that when I have referred to such eras in popular music I get the response that there has always been good and bad music in any era. So if there is always good and bad tv why would any era of tv ever be 'golden'?
I see a few niche shows for people that are prepared to pay premium subscription for. I suppose what's lacking that we had in previous eras of US TV are the Frasiers or Golden Girls. NBC is a good example of how badly non niche TV is doing, a network that struck television gold for decades hasn't had a hit since The Office.
Popular culture and music is a broad church. Music that has to searched out most often but not always gets lost when the history of popular music gets written. The Velvet Undergound's banana album sold about 11,000 but it's influence on others stretches way beyond that number because of the way VU have been accepted as important within the history of art and pop. I presume that those who seek out new music and artists suggest others should listen and the music of these new artists will get heard. That's what I do.
Pop music is much more about the long tail of consumption than it used to be.
Longevity is just what's lacking, the big labels don't nurture talent and will abandon a new flavour as soon as it's chewed out. The smaller record labels like rough trade or creation have all been bought out leaving new artists living on a shoestring and performing in living rooms as they probably pay more than clubs. (who now only pay in drinks)
Many are happy just being chart followers, others wouldnt be seen dead following the charts. Whos right? Both are!
Both are right? No, I don't agree at all with that. Those who only follow the charts are missing out on most contemporary music so therefore are at best casual listeners. I can see why people would not want to be seen dead following the charts because of how much guff is contained therein but if they would reject music purely because it had hit the chart or because people had heard of it then that would be hopelessly elitist foolishness.
But what gets remembered, what goes down in music history, is the trends in music that fix it to a particular era.... The fashions, styles, and they are inextricably linked to chart music at the commercial end of the spectrum. The more obscure do not fit this.
Not inextricably linked to 'chart music', inextricably linked to the popular genres of the time, examples of which will chart while others don't. Much of this non-charting/ more obscure music will fit within the same musical genres of the better selling (charting) records. Trends in music fix it to a particular era regardless of how it goes on to sell.
Well that is some attempt at assessing artistic worth even if it concentrates on the musicianship rather than the creativity or innovation. I think popular music is a multimedia experience which stretches beyond the music so I have no problem with the imagery and dance etc.
I think most of us decide based on "Do I like the sound of this?" or an instant emotional reaction. We're less likely to asking "Does this push the envelope?" upon initial listening. We may decide that about some things later, or let music journalists decide for us. Also I don't consider something genre defying or genre-blending or 'game-changing' to necessarily be more enjoyable for a listener. It entirely depends what they like; what they are open to; whether they are tiring of the music they listen to and want something brand new. One man's innovation is another's fixing something that wasn't broken.
"I think popular music is a multimedia experience which stretches beyond the music so I have no problem with the imagery and dance etc"
It can be but that's not always been the case and still isn't always. It has also been a matter of - hear a great track on the radio - go out and buy or try to buy it. When music is bought purely on the strength of its groove I see that as a very pure thing. No influence of the right haircut or trousers or percentage of flesh being pimped in a video, just the singular element; the one generally experienced after purchase - the audio.
But this is simply a restatement of the consumerist view. And you are right consumerism is simply about purchasing things that you like. You are also right that ideas of taste and opinion are entirely personal. If people choose to listen to the Top 40 and Radio one, that's perfectly fine and all this nonsense about being spoonfed etc is just that, nonsense.
I would say though, that what sets the serious music fan apart from the casual listener is that they will delve deeper for more, understanding the constraints of the charts and radio play-listing. You want more of a good thing and not to just stop with choosing what you enjoy from the tracks which are ubiquitous. People put all sorts of constraints on their music buying which interferes with their ability to select the music they can own. Over the years I've encountered people who only buy 7" singles, only LPs, only music available on CD. Buying only from what the charts contain or what mainstream radio play-lists comprise of is a similar scenario.
That's just a personal opinion about what is excellent. It's all just music that you like. Others may well like it too., in itself that doesn't make it good. The consumerist argument is simply that those who only listen to the top 40 and/or radio 1 are limiting their choices.
You were responding to another poster above but I want to address this... ALL opinion on what is excellent is opinion, no matter how well argued; whether it be the view of your music junkie friend, a staff writer of a music mag, or the author of chunky tome of 'must listens'. I take on board recommendations from people whose opinions I trust based on knowing that they and I share some sort of mutual music appreciation. If they have an affinity for genres that aren't my thing then I've no interest in what they think or don't think of some record that I'm interested in checking out.
If I see a list of ten must buy metal or country albums of the 2000s then I'll ignore it because it's not what I'm wanting to buy. I have occasionally encountered people who seem to buy releases based on print recommendations and they have collections of 'what you're supposed to have'. To me, it's similar to owning only releases drawn from the top forty: predictably dull.
Popular culture and music is a broad church. Music that has to searched out most often but not always gets lost when the history of popular music gets written. The Velvet Undergound's banana album sold about 11,000 but it's influence on others stretches way beyond that number because of the way VU have been accepted as important within the history of art and pop. I presume that those who seek out new music and artists suggest others should listen and the music of these new artists will get heard. That's what I do.
Pop music is much more about the long tail of consumption than it used to be.
My bold. Yes, absolutely. It will rarely make any 'lists of recommended listening' or 'best of' anything as the plethora of such lists seem to (mostly) be compiled from other existing lists and therefore have little insight to provide to anyone but the most casual browser.
The idea of any singular attempt at a history of popular music doesn't appeal to me. I've never read one and never want to. No one was there for it. It's far, far too wide a subject to do justice. Much better to have a shelf full of books by various authors recounting specific musical episodes they personally experienced or were involved in so one can see how movements or artists played their part.
I think most of us decide based on "Do I like the sound of this?" or an instant emotional reaction. We're less likely to asking "Does this push the envelope?" upon initial listening. We may decide that about some things later, or let music journalists decide for us. Also I don't consider something genre defying or genre-blending or 'game-changing' to necessarily be more enjoyable for a listener. It entirely depends what they like; what they are open to; whether they are tiring of the music they listen to and want something brand new. One man's innovation is another's fixing something that wasn't broken.
I would say though, that what sets the serious music fan apart from the casual listener is that they will delve deeper for more, understanding the constraints of the charts and radio play-listing. You want more of a good thing and not to just stop with choosing what you enjoy from the tracks which are ubiquitous. People put all sorts of constraints on their music buying which interferes with their ability to select the music they can own. Over the years I've encountered people who only buy 7" singles, only LPs, only music available on CD. Buying only from what the charts contain or what mainstream radio play-lists comprise of is a similar scenario.
.
Yes, I would expect a 'serious' music listener to delve deeper. That may be to find out more about the artist etc. I would also hope that a 'serious' music fan would give music a chance. I would hope that they would give a piece a few listens before dismissing it. But I find that this consumerist notion of searching for something you like to be a little at odds with this. It might be with all these options to consume that listeners just keep picking music types they already like. Variety in that context is of little import.
Also can serious music fans accept that there may well be great music out there that they simply don't appreciate? (Bushmills is a good whiskey irrespective of one being a whiskey drinker)
Comments
nope as times have changed, as i mentioned before
just like music, which you either like or you don't
ask a teacher at your school or look at a dictionary
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/great
wrong. there is. just look at the tv forums like i mentioned earlier or google golden age of television and read the articles about the new golden age of television
mind that involves having to do a tiny bit of searching, which would leave you with less time to moan and complain about things you are wrong about as you don't bother looking for them. which is probably a good thing
nope... not rising to your bait. you might insist on trying to create a bicker-fest by dissecting every line to put it out of context in order to create an argument to satisfy your own special needs requirements. (which is a conclusion made by several years now of observing your repetitive style of seeking out arguments to belittle people, and im by far not the only one of your victims, just look at your posting history.)
there is NO evidence of a golden age in tv/comedy or music. i do not buy it at all, if its that golden you wouldnt need to search it out, times might have changed but i dont entertain that theres anything great going on because by definition there no new youth movement or great comedy going on as i highlighted previously.
now i dont give a flying fornication whether you agree or not... ive made my point on the matter and explained why i hold the views i do. with the absence of any compelling evidence to the contry id suggest we both agree to hold different views.
Well that is complete bollocks and speaks to an entitled mind that wants everything spoon-fed to them with minimal effort.
Nice bit of circular reasoning there.
utter nonsense.
the great musical styles and great comedy programmes didnt start mainstream, but built from a low profile as they became more popular and THEN became visible in the mainstream. youth movements grew, grew because they had mass appeal to a generation who understood what it was about and all this in a time when there was no internet. quite an achievement id suggest.
their very evolution and the way 'the kids' bought into it, evolving it, making it their own with their own fashions and social comment, things what have impacted and resonate today....is what made them great.
can anyone actually say that this is happening today, in music or comedy? i cant see it, and its not a case of expecting an entitlement, we never expected that in the past, it just happened whether we bought into it or not.
Of course they're not the best kept secret in town. If they were, they would go out of business. it's just a marketing ploy.
As is "you just have to search it out". If you really have to search it out, they're doing it wrong.
'The Wire' (2002 - 2008), which followed on from 'Homicide: Life on the Street' (1993 - 1999, very influential series), 'The Shield' (2002 - 2008) and 'Breaking Bad' (2008 - 2013) now vie for which is the greatest TV show of all time.
Add in 'Battlestar Galactica', 'Game of Thrones', 'Boardwalk Empire', 'House of Cards', 'Orange is the New Black', 'Homeland' and many more. I would describe these as quality 'boxset' TV. The quality is not in their diversity, the quality is in the writing and the production values.
They are nearly all US productions but that's not a problem, it's a culture which most of us feel a part of. You could add in the Nordic Noir starting with the 'The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo' films and books which has sparked series like 'The Killing' and 'The Bridge' which have also raised the standards in TV series. These kind of long form tv series with their relatively slow plot expositions are in stark contrast with the effects-driven superhero movies which also seem to proliferate.
US comedy too has been very good with 'The Simpsons', 'The Big Bang Theory', 'How I met your mother', 'Two and Half Men', South Park', 'Family Guy', 'Parks and Recreation' etc. etc.
I'm not sure we could point to as many UK comedy shows but Ricky Gervais's works have been great 'The Office', 'Extras' and 'Derek'. I'm not sure there is any comedy series in UK tv that would be as popular as 'Only Fools and Horses' or 'Dads Army' but 'The IT Crowd' 'Black Books' and 'The Inbetweeners' were great. Channel 4 has pioneered some great drama like 'Skins', 'Misfits' and 'Black Mirror'.
The only difficulty I have with the current era in TV being described as 'golden' is that when I have referred to such eras in popular music I get the response that there has always been good and bad music in any era. So if there is always good and bad tv why would any era of tv ever be 'golden'?
That kind of undermines the popular in popular music.
not only wrong, but having to result to making personal insults just demonstrates you can't discuss things reasonably on these forums
wrong again. it's been pointed out several times to you where there is evidence of a golden age of tv. all you need to do is google. but that's your problem in a nutshell, you simply won't look for things. you will spend/waste time moaning about things instead of using that time productively and positively to resolve the issue you have. and that's what other people do, and that's why people don't agree with you, and why they can find music, comedy, movies, whatever that they like, and enjoy all that's available through a multitude of forms instead of moaning about things
you don't need to seek anything for there to be a golden age of anything
well that's your problem. you clearly don't seem happy with what you currently experience, yet at the same time you don't seem interested in taking time and effort to seek it out. it's right there all around you happening without you seeking it. whether you want to experience it or not is entirely up to you, but it might take just a few seconds of seeking to discover it. such as having a look in the tv forums on this site, or using a popular website called google
you are free to agree or disagree as you like. i don't care. clearly you aren't happy with the situation and that's why you make so many posts and threads moaning about things. people take time to point out to you why you are wrong, and explain what is right, and point you towards the truth and facts and how to find out and discover things, it's ultimately your choice whether you choose to do that or not. if you don't do that, then ultimately it's your problem. if you don't want to make a change you aren't going to find new things and experience new things that you may like
in this day and age of the internet and the many options it brings, and digital multichannel television and radio, there's a considerably wider variety and choice of things that most everyone will find that is both to their personal taste and not to their personal taste. if you aren't happy with the top 40 singles or albums, or what you hear on the same radio stations you listen to, or whats on a small selection of tv channels you watch, such as bbc1/2 and itv/c4, then you only have yourself to blame if you don't like what you come across, as there's a huge world of entertainment available right now from the likes of sky and virgin tv services, or online services like netflix, spotify, youtube, itunes, and social media and forums and websites such as this one that discusses media in it's many forums, including the available services and how to get them and how to use them, and the media itself. it's up to you if you want to be open minded about things and seek and find out for yourself what is available and discover things both new and old that you may like, or be stuck in your old ways and refuse to do it. i don't care what you choose, and i doubt anyone else will care as it's your choice and your life. people have tried to help you out by pointing all these things out to you. perhaps instead of arguing about it and saying things don't exist, just be honest and say you aren't interested or don't care if that's the case
obviously we have different views, but contrary to what you say, there is plenty of evidence that even you would surely find compelling if you bothered to look for it, and starting in the tv forums on this very website you will find plenty of evidence
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=108
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=8
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=115
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=252
and of course the bottom link will provide a huge amount of evidence
http://bit.ly/1GLhCDC
just because you don't see something doesn't mean it's happening. i think "the kids" can see it, and many others too who bother to look for it
just have a read and think about what you are saying. kids making things their own - you aren't a kid, the kids aren't making things for you but for themselves. but there are plenty of people other than kids making things for a multitude of audiences in a multitude of ways. some of those ways are the things of the past such as the 4 or 5 main terestrial tv shows or radio 1. if you don't like what they offer you can move to freeview or sky or virgin tv or dab, if you don't like that you can move to netflix or spotify or itunes or youtube, if you don't like what you find there you can use google to be specific and search for what you do like
but if you did bother with netflix and spotify i'm sure even you could find plenty of things you would enjoy, and plenty of them being new things you hadn't heard before. there's an absolutely massive world of media out there for all tastes. even someone very open minded like myself would only appreciate a small percentage of it as there is simply so much variation in different styles, but of course that means there is so much for whatever specific tastes an individual may have. if you like comedy theres the comedy channel, theres plenty of cartoon channels, movie channels, music channels, art channels, history, biography, you name it
little tiny kids under 5 can amuse themselves by finding things they like on table computers or home media setups. if they can do it then so can any able bodied and able minded person
Based on the melody, lyrics, arrangement, instrumentation and quality of vocal but this will all just fall under the umbrella of "do I like this" after listening for half a minute or so. We also allow decoys such as video, photography, wardrobe, choreography ie. image/visual presentation colour our assessment of what we 'hear'. Of course none of this is experienced by hearing a tune on the radio by an artists unknown to us.
For music consumers all that really matters IS what they like. They buy the music that appeals and get on with enjoying it. Collecting information about the artists or recordings can be a bonus to help with our knowledge and understanding but it shouldn't really matter what sort of review a journalist gives an album or what our peers are listening to.
My best friend listens to noisy, angsty garage rock quite frequently where I'll be playing something entirely different; reggae, soul, hip hop.
He likes Public Enemy, Disposable Heroes of Hiphoprisy, Solomon Burke, Irma Thomas, Jamaican Ska, 50's R&B as do I but you wouldn't catch him listening to Chic, Thomas Mapfumo, Sarah Vaughan, D'Angelo or Salsoul and you probably wouldn't find me playing the Monomen, Supersuckers, Monster Magnet or Slint.
Of course we both have awesome taste ( ;-) ), are super-opinionated ( :cool: ) and have our own clear musical prejudices. Music journalists would encourage listening to all of the above I'm sure but most of us mine a seam because we have our preferred styles/ what we reach for on our shelves most / a limit of listening time and disposable income.
In those pre-internet days (for me), unfortunately I never seemed to make it to Sterns when visiting the capitol, not carrying their address with me. I should have!
BUT: "you just have to search it out" is not a marketing ploy: it's not what an artist states about their own works, it's what music fans are saying in response to the lack of room within mainstream media for a variety of music. You have to seek it out because the handful of majors aren't spending a fortune plugging it to the lowest common denominator.
Of course the truth is that you always had to seek out music but perhaps within other time periods, the pop charts seemed more representative of a wider range of what music was actually out there. Being a top 40 follower or any era, of course, gives people an extremely skewed view of music and causes them to draw conclusions on the history of popular music in a very blinkered way as we see on this board quite often.
that's simple. whilst there may be always good and bad, recently the quality of the good has been exceptional, with big name actors and director and producers and writers and budgets for tv series that can be greater than the budget for a movie
http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/tvandradioblog/2013/may/23/second-golden-age-television-soderbergh
http://www.avclub.com/article/the-golden-age-of-tv-is-dead-long-live-the-golden--103129
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2735222/This-golden-age-TV-Shame-best-shows-American-BBC-s-struggling-pace-says-Mail-s-television-critic.html
http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/184998/why-television%E2%80%99s-golden-age-is-doomed
but perhaps the main point is, why worry about what people call it? just enjoy what you like and don't bother with what you don't
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/welcome-to-tvs-second-golden-age/
Fair dues you won't have heard of most of them but they are all excellent in their own right.
I feel there is no movement in music like there once was in the mainstream anyways,and lack of working class people doing music now just the old people Noel.
I blame X Factor and greedy record labels for that.
Now underground act DIY can only make some noise from the Internet soundcloud and tour small gigs.
What part of agree to disagree dont you understand? I will NOT be drawn in to a petty bicker fest to feed your need. Go and argue with someone else, i have no desire to play your game.
I will of course discuss anything with anyone else, just not you.
Now this is a different proposition.
How can something be happening if i cant see it? Who could not see all the great youth movements from rock n roll to ukgarage? All the great, truely great, movementswere not invisible to the oldies.
Plus you have young people on here agreeing theres nothing much of interest happening and are happily delving into retro music for their enjoyment. Of course this isnt anything new but when we did it we updated it and span our version of it, incorporating it into our styles... Thinking new wave, ska, britpop, glamrock n roll etc.
I fully get that theres great music, variety too, to be discovered by searching the net. But there aint a great new original youth movement going on, nor any golden age of great music.
Hmmmm but you miss the point that music covers a broad range and caters for a wider fan base. Many are happy just being chart followers, others wouldnt be seen dead following the charts. Whos right? Both are!
But what gets remembered, what goes down in music history, is the trends in music that fix it to a particular era.... The fashions, styles, and they are inextricably linked to chart music at the commercial end of the spectrum. The more obscure do not fit this.
Those small gigs are the best way to experience a band or artist live because they are more intimate and have a better atmosphere. Arena/stadium gigs often bore me stupid.
Well that is some attempt at assessing artistic worth even if it concentrates on the musicianship rather than the creativity or innovation. I think popular music is a multimedia experience which stretches beyond the music so I have no problem with the imagery and dance etc.
But this is simply a restatement of the consumerist view. And you are right consumerism is simply about purchasing things that you like. You are also right that ideas of taste and opinion are entirely personal. If people choose to listen to the Top 40 and Radio one, that's perfectly fine and all this nonsense about being spoonfed etc is just that, nonsense.
That's just a personal opinion about what is excellent. It's all just music that you like. Others may well like it too., in itself that doesn't make it good. The consumerist argument is simply that those who only listen to the top 40 and/or radio 1 are limiting their choices.
Popular culture and music is a broad church. Music that has to searched out most often but not always gets lost when the history of popular music gets written. The Velvet Undergound's banana album sold about 11,000 but it's influence on others stretches way beyond that number because of the way VU have been accepted as important within the history of art and pop. I presume that those who seek out new music and artists suggest others should listen and the music of these new artists will get heard. That's what I do.
Pop music is much more about the long tail of consumption than it used to be.
is that a serious question? if you are in a room with the curtain closed, or lying in your bed with your eyes closed, you can't see what is outside the room. do you think nothing happens outside the room?
this is the perfect example of small minded thinking
literally most people, if not everyone on the entire planet
Both are right? No, I don't agree at all with that. Those who only follow the charts are missing out on most contemporary music so therefore are at best casual listeners. I can see why people would not want to be seen dead following the charts because of how much guff is contained therein but if they would reject music purely because it had hit the chart or because people had heard of it then that would be hopelessly elitist foolishness.
Not inextricably linked to 'chart music', inextricably linked to the popular genres of the time, examples of which will chart while others don't. Much of this non-charting/ more obscure music will fit within the same musical genres of the better selling (charting) records. Trends in music fix it to a particular era regardless of how it goes on to sell.
I think most of us decide based on "Do I like the sound of this?" or an instant emotional reaction. We're less likely to asking "Does this push the envelope?" upon initial listening. We may decide that about some things later, or let music journalists decide for us. Also I don't consider something genre defying or genre-blending or 'game-changing' to necessarily be more enjoyable for a listener. It entirely depends what they like; what they are open to; whether they are tiring of the music they listen to and want something brand new. One man's innovation is another's fixing something that wasn't broken.
"I think popular music is a multimedia experience which stretches beyond the music so I have no problem with the imagery and dance etc"
It can be but that's not always been the case and still isn't always. It has also been a matter of - hear a great track on the radio - go out and buy or try to buy it. When music is bought purely on the strength of its groove I see that as a very pure thing. No influence of the right haircut or trousers or percentage of flesh being pimped in a video, just the singular element; the one generally experienced after purchase - the audio.
I would say though, that what sets the serious music fan apart from the casual listener is that they will delve deeper for more, understanding the constraints of the charts and radio play-listing. You want more of a good thing and not to just stop with choosing what you enjoy from the tracks which are ubiquitous. People put all sorts of constraints on their music buying which interferes with their ability to select the music they can own. Over the years I've encountered people who only buy 7" singles, only LPs, only music available on CD. Buying only from what the charts contain or what mainstream radio play-lists comprise of is a similar scenario.
You were responding to another poster above but I want to address this... ALL opinion on what is excellent is opinion, no matter how well argued; whether it be the view of your music junkie friend, a staff writer of a music mag, or the author of chunky tome of 'must listens'. I take on board recommendations from people whose opinions I trust based on knowing that they and I share some sort of mutual music appreciation. If they have an affinity for genres that aren't my thing then I've no interest in what they think or don't think of some record that I'm interested in checking out.
If I see a list of ten must buy metal or country albums of the 2000s then I'll ignore it because it's not what I'm wanting to buy. I have occasionally encountered people who seem to buy releases based on print recommendations and they have collections of 'what you're supposed to have'. To me, it's similar to owning only releases drawn from the top forty: predictably dull.
My bold. Yes, absolutely. It will rarely make any 'lists of recommended listening' or 'best of' anything as the plethora of such lists seem to (mostly) be compiled from other existing lists and therefore have little insight to provide to anyone but the most casual browser.
The idea of any singular attempt at a history of popular music doesn't appeal to me. I've never read one and never want to. No one was there for it. It's far, far too wide a subject to do justice. Much better to have a shelf full of books by various authors recounting specific musical episodes they personally experienced or were involved in so one can see how movements or artists played their part.
Yes, I would expect a 'serious' music listener to delve deeper. That may be to find out more about the artist etc. I would also hope that a 'serious' music fan would give music a chance. I would hope that they would give a piece a few listens before dismissing it. But I find that this consumerist notion of searching for something you like to be a little at odds with this. It might be with all these options to consume that listeners just keep picking music types they already like. Variety in that context is of little import.
Also can serious music fans accept that there may well be great music out there that they simply don't appreciate? (Bushmills is a good whiskey irrespective of one being a whiskey drinker)