ive not heard that before... i see what you are saying, but for me it lacks something that 'everyday' delivers. it has more depth and the euphoric drops make it work for me.
u2 were 80's though really, i know they started in the 70's but cannot be called a 70's band.
yeah i chose muse and kasabian, whos material i consider to be akin to slade/sweet , i dont really care for them much but can see the appeal. hence i dont think modern music is as bad as many would have us believe..... i cannot get past the old mantra ive heard since the 60's 'music was better in my day. blah de blah de blah'.
im not bothered who did what first, im not a deliberate fan of anyone, nor any era or sound. if i likes summut, i likes it, regardless of who it is or what year it was out. so goldfrapp and gaga, borrow heavily from glam/retro but ill not hold that against them IF they do it well. and imho goldfrapp and gaga make damn good pop. i like some of their material, not others.
Muse are not a glam-like band.
Some of their songs perhaps can be likened to that type of music (although I'd say more akin to Queen).
But they also play some progressive rock. That can't get much further apart from glam music.
didnt say they were, (that was mgvsmith )i said they are akin to glam rock bands of the 70's, ie todays version of a guitar playing group that courts chart success.
Some of their songs perhaps can be likened to that type of music (although I'd say more akin to Queen).
But they also play some progressive rock. That can't get much further apart from glam music.
Music genres are not fixed, many artists play and mix up music from different genres.
Glam describes music as well as image. I would agree that Queen seem to be the most clearly defined glam influence on a band like Muse, so the issue is are Queen a glam act? And the answer is yes.
Queen were a glam act partly because of the camp image and partly because of their attitude which was clearly aimed at the po-faced seriousness of the heavy rock and prog acts of the times. Queen didn't respect clearly drawn lines between music genres and used all sorts of music forms including glam rock, prog rock, classical, rockabilly, disco whatever. However, listeners of the early 70s would draw similarities between Queen and the powerhouse music of Sweet. There's also similarities between Gary Glitter's 'Rock n Roll' and 'We Will Rock You'. I see Queen as a very influential band for many reasons but they have strong roots in Glam rock.
I think Muse have a slightly irreverent attitude not dissimilar to Queen. They don't have the glam image fair enough. I think I can make a fair case that at least two of Muse's albums Absolution and Revelations) have strong Queen and later Sweet influences. That makes them Glam influenced which is probably a better term than Glam-like. Muse bring something new to the game as well and I like their ability to experiment and their musicality. It doesn't always work but so what?
its no point in going on about what might have happened outside the charts... like em or not, they are a useful, consistent, means of measuring the music scene over the last 60 years.
This is what I disagree with completely. I feel that whether someone likes 80% of the music in the top forty or only 5%, it still stand true: the charts are a very limited portrayal of a year's musical output and associated scenes. To quote yourself, "ive always viewed the charts and radio as the shop window to the current scene". So therefore any attempted analysis of the music scene over a prolonged period, which is based on chart action will be rather lacking but a lot of people will still enjoy it because it represents an opportunity for getting nostalgic.
Most Country music didn't enter the Top 40
Most Jazz didn't enter the Top 40
Most Punk music didn't enter the Top 40
Most New Wave music didn't enter the Top 40
Most Rhythm & Blues didn't enter the Top 40
Most Reggae didn't enter the Top 40
Most Heavy Rock didn't enter the Top 40
or more recently:
Most Hip Hop music didn't enter the Top 40
Most Drum & Bass didn't enter the Top 40
Most House music didn't enter the Top 40
Most Dubstep didn't enter the Top 40
Most Eurobeat didn't enter the Top 40
etc. etc.
There was a Motown thread started on this forum recently. Many of the records mentioned on it weren't actually Motown. I believe this is the sort of thing that happens when people limit their knowledge and don't dig a little deeper into the background... You hear Al Green and assume he's Motown because he's a black Soul singer. Or you hear "Double Barrel" and assume it's a novelty record because hardly any Reggae charted. Or anything else that sounds a bit different from your norm: you don't realise that maybe there are lots of recordings in that style because the mainstream shows only ever spin the odd one that hits the charts.
So charts scratch the surface. If a recording comes out one year that is very influential in its genre and shakes up the scene and has others rushing to record something with that new flavour BUT its genre is one which rarely reaches the charts then it's quite likely that this record won't either and thus any potted history of music which focusses on the charts may not reference it at all. This is why I agree with you the the charts is a 'shop window' to popular music (but nothing more).
Through exposure to chart music people can investigate further. That's why they'll watch music documetaries or read books on specific musical genres. All of which can then lead to a frustration with the mainstream for only playing chart music when you realise how much similar and great stuff is ignored. You just don't need to hear that same artist three times in two hours.
i have radio 1 on in my van.. yes the dj's are banal...or am i just old? but every so often ill hear a good tune, i am a grumpy bastard and i am hard to please...but a few times a year a melodious track will grab me.... like one republic 'counting stars', a great melodic uplifting pop song. sooner hear that then billy dont be a hero, get down, summer nights, pushbike song...etc etc.
Yeah, you're old enough (like me too) but if you're anything like me (and admittedly our musical choices are quite different with some middle ground) you'll have found those daytime shows had similarly banal presenters and content decades ago. You hear the odd good tune but that's because radio politics put it on a playlist and the presenter (not really even a 'DJ') was and is still probably a complete tool who jabbers incessant nonsense. Such is the way of things. Unfortunately.
Radio 1 was never popular in certain sections of the music industry. Elvis Costello and The Selecter and The Clash openly disliked Radio 1 and its playlist, punk was mostly restricted to John Peel, and Johnnie Walker left in 1976 as he felt too much pop and not enough rock was being played.
on tablet havnt sussed how to quote large posts so heres my reply!
yes i know that most of those styles didnt chart top 40 . but im not limited to the top 40 , why? because i said the charts are the shop window. so when i heard a group, artist or style i liked i then delved further. thats about all you could do back then. so i dont think i missed too much on the music i liked.
Radio 1 was never popular in certain sections of the music industry. Elvis Costello and The Selecter and The Clash openly disliked Radio 1 and its playlist, punk was mostly restricted to John Peel, and Johnnie Walker left in 1976 as he felt too much pop and not enough rock was being played.
But the whole point of Radio 1 was that it played records that a majority of people would find listenable which was basically chart music.
At least it catered for all sorts with people like John Peel in the evening playing records that you'd never hear in the day. Let's be honest, people rave on about Peel but some of the records that he played WERE unlistenable tuneless shite.
radio 1 in the 70's was alot different from today. dj's had free reign to play tracks they thought were 'tips for the top', and playlists, if they existed, was far greater.
But the whole point of Radio 1 was that it played records that a majority of people would find listenable which was basically chart music.
At least it catered for all sorts with people like John Peel in the evening playing records that you'd never hear in the day. Let's be honest, people rave on about Peel but some of the records that he played WERE unlistenable tuneless shite.
Right at the start of the thread I mentioned Radio 1's evening shows in the 70s. With hindsight they were very "BBC" in their philosophy: they played mostly British music and had live sessions from a fairly small roster of bands. If you listened for long enough you would be sure to hear Blodwyn Pig (bluesier offshoot of Jethro Tull) or Caravan (archetypal Canterbury band with tongue-in-cheek lyrics and a rock solid rhythm section).
But Peel's shows in the seventies were very different from his later output. This list of his favourite songs of 1975 is so mainstream I wasn't sure it was genuine, but it appears to be: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHPfyQRN_34 Arguably there's plenty of unlistenable shite there, but it's far from tuneless.
Right at the start of the thread I mentioned Radio 1's evening shows in the 70s. With hindsight they were very "BBC" in their philosophy: they played mostly British music and had live sessions from a fairly small roster of bands. If you listened for long enough you would be sure to hear Blodwyn Pig (bluesier offshoot of Jethro Tull) or Caravan (archetypal Canterbury band with tongue-in-cheek lyrics and a rock solid rhythm section).
But Peel's shows in the seventies were very different from his later output. This list of his favourite songs of 1975 is so mainstream I wasn't sure it was genuine, but it appears to be: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHPfyQRN_34 Arguably there's plenty of unlistenable shite there, but it's far from tuneless.
That list doesn't actually contain much 'unlistenable shite' at all. It's not a bad list.
Two quality Joan Armatrading songs, Marley's 'No Woman, No Cry', Lennon's 'Imagine', Millie Jackson's 'Loving Arms', 'Be Bop Deluxe' s 'Maid in Heaven' (late glam rock classic?), 10cc's 'I'm Not in Love' and a couple of oddities. Do you think John Peel only listened to alternative music?
Do you think John Peel only listened to alternative music?
Absolutely not. I remember his shows in the mid-seventies and they were not far removed from American album rock radio. He played artists like Robert Palmer who would be seen as almost MOR nowadays. He also played the likes of jazz pianist Mary Lou Williams when he sat in on the Radio 1 lunchtime show in the nineties.
One huge seventies album I don't think anyone has mentioned yet was first played in full by Peel: Mike Oldfield's Tubular Bells.
Comments
Ok, maybe they're not The Strawbs or Supertramp then?
ha ha.... ok.
There were other versions of the song out at the time . I personally preferred this Sylvester version
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGayHWov0eU
Muse are not a glam-like band.
Some of their songs perhaps can be likened to that type of music (although I'd say more akin to Queen).
But they also play some progressive rock. That can't get much further apart from glam music.
didnt say they were, (that was mgvsmith )i said they are akin to glam rock bands of the 70's, ie todays version of a guitar playing group that courts chart success.
Music genres are not fixed, many artists play and mix up music from different genres.
Glam describes music as well as image. I would agree that Queen seem to be the most clearly defined glam influence on a band like Muse, so the issue is are Queen a glam act? And the answer is yes.
Queen were a glam act partly because of the camp image and partly because of their attitude which was clearly aimed at the po-faced seriousness of the heavy rock and prog acts of the times. Queen didn't respect clearly drawn lines between music genres and used all sorts of music forms including glam rock, prog rock, classical, rockabilly, disco whatever. However, listeners of the early 70s would draw similarities between Queen and the powerhouse music of Sweet. There's also similarities between Gary Glitter's 'Rock n Roll' and 'We Will Rock You'. I see Queen as a very influential band for many reasons but they have strong roots in Glam rock.
I think Muse have a slightly irreverent attitude not dissimilar to Queen. They don't have the glam image fair enough. I think I can make a fair case that at least two of Muse's albums Absolution and Revelations) have strong Queen and later Sweet influences. That makes them Glam influenced which is probably a better term than Glam-like. Muse bring something new to the game as well and I like their ability to experiment and their musicality. It doesn't always work but so what?
Most Country music didn't enter the Top 40
Most Jazz didn't enter the Top 40
Most Punk music didn't enter the Top 40
Most New Wave music didn't enter the Top 40
Most Rhythm & Blues didn't enter the Top 40
Most Reggae didn't enter the Top 40
Most Heavy Rock didn't enter the Top 40
or more recently:
Most Hip Hop music didn't enter the Top 40
Most Drum & Bass didn't enter the Top 40
Most House music didn't enter the Top 40
Most Dubstep didn't enter the Top 40
Most Eurobeat didn't enter the Top 40
etc. etc.
There was a Motown thread started on this forum recently. Many of the records mentioned on it weren't actually Motown. I believe this is the sort of thing that happens when people limit their knowledge and don't dig a little deeper into the background... You hear Al Green and assume he's Motown because he's a black Soul singer. Or you hear "Double Barrel" and assume it's a novelty record because hardly any Reggae charted. Or anything else that sounds a bit different from your norm: you don't realise that maybe there are lots of recordings in that style because the mainstream shows only ever spin the odd one that hits the charts.
So charts scratch the surface. If a recording comes out one year that is very influential in its genre and shakes up the scene and has others rushing to record something with that new flavour BUT its genre is one which rarely reaches the charts then it's quite likely that this record won't either and thus any potted history of music which focusses on the charts may not reference it at all. This is why I agree with you the the charts is a 'shop window' to popular music (but nothing more).
Through exposure to chart music people can investigate further. That's why they'll watch music documetaries or read books on specific musical genres. All of which can then lead to a frustration with the mainstream for only playing chart music when you realise how much similar and great stuff is ignored. You just don't need to hear that same artist three times in two hours.
Yeah, you're old enough (like me too) but if you're anything like me (and admittedly our musical choices are quite different with some middle ground) you'll have found those daytime shows had similarly banal presenters and content decades ago. You hear the odd good tune but that's because radio politics put it on a playlist and the presenter (not really even a 'DJ') was and is still probably a complete tool who jabbers incessant nonsense. Such is the way of things. Unfortunately.
on tablet havnt sussed how to quote large posts so heres my reply!
yes i know that most of those styles didnt chart top 40 . but im not limited to the top 40 , why? because i said the charts are the shop window. so when i heard a group, artist or style i liked i then delved further. thats about all you could do back then. so i dont think i missed too much on the music i liked.
At least it catered for all sorts with people like John Peel in the evening playing records that you'd never hear in the day. Let's be honest, people rave on about Peel but some of the records that he played WERE unlistenable tuneless shite.
Right at the start of the thread I mentioned Radio 1's evening shows in the 70s. With hindsight they were very "BBC" in their philosophy: they played mostly British music and had live sessions from a fairly small roster of bands. If you listened for long enough you would be sure to hear Blodwyn Pig (bluesier offshoot of Jethro Tull) or Caravan (archetypal Canterbury band with tongue-in-cheek lyrics and a rock solid rhythm section).
But Peel's shows in the seventies were very different from his later output. This list of his favourite songs of 1975 is so mainstream I wasn't sure it was genuine, but it appears to be: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHPfyQRN_34 Arguably there's plenty of unlistenable shite there, but it's far from tuneless.
I rather liked Caravan.
That list doesn't actually contain much 'unlistenable shite' at all. It's not a bad list.
Two quality Joan Armatrading songs, Marley's 'No Woman, No Cry', Lennon's 'Imagine', Millie Jackson's 'Loving Arms', 'Be Bop Deluxe' s 'Maid in Heaven' (late glam rock classic?), 10cc's 'I'm Not in Love' and a couple of oddities. Do you think John Peel only listened to alternative music?
Absolutely not. I remember his shows in the mid-seventies and they were not far removed from American album rock radio. He played artists like Robert Palmer who would be seen as almost MOR nowadays. He also played the likes of jazz pianist Mary Lou Williams when he sat in on the Radio 1 lunchtime show in the nineties.
One huge seventies album I don't think anyone has mentioned yet was first played in full by Peel: Mike Oldfield's Tubular Bells.