DS Forums

 
 

35...i no longer like most of today's chart and have no clue who is in it


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 25-07-2016, 13:18
mgvsmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belfast
Posts: 7,287
This track from 2015 sounds like a great fusion of 80s pop and modern pop music.

Giorgio Moroder - Wildstar (feat. Foxes)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2e9NMW_ijc



There's still good pop music produced but it doesn't all hit the chart. Dancing like a wildstar!
And then compare it to this sublime song...same producer but with Donna Summer. 'I Feel Love' still sounds fresher and more original than the 2015 song.
https://youtu.be/DTZEf_Fn4gQ
mgvsmith is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 27-07-2016, 13:12
Ænima
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 34,147
I like music with a bit of intensity or fervour, but the charts seem full of image obsessed artists, who are too cool to show any real emotions, and legions of fans who are similarly jaded. They’d be embarrassed to listen to something that appeared to care about itself too much. Even being too catchy would be a crime, that’d be far too obvious.

Of course, there is still the good old fashioned catchy music in the chart too. It may often appeal or even be designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator, but I feel there is at least an honesty about a song that serves as nothing else than to be a simple, catchy tune, however disposable. At least that brings it back to being about the music again.

I think the charts used to be more about just that second one- the catchy stuff, but I do think they are increasingly becoming about the former- the image obsessed pop, the type which tries desperately hard to be cool by being all lackadaisical and muted, but ends up just sounding monotonous as a result. I think that’s been the biggest change in the musical quality of the charts.

It also used to be the kids who went off and did their own thing that were the cool ones, and the chart was the antichrist to them. Now this new wave of too cool for school types want to conform, only, they don’t want to make it seem too obvious, and they still think they’re painfully cool. They’ll wear all the latest fashions, listen to music where the image is as much, if not more important than the music itself, hiding their emotions behind their insecurities, they’re a jarring array of dodgy piercings, bad tattoos and ‘swag’, desperate to fit in, but just as desperate to hide it. The current chart is simply a reflection of this mind-set.
Ænima is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-07-2016, 18:05
mgvsmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belfast
Posts: 7,287
...

It also used to be the kids who went off and did their own thing that were the cool ones, and the chart was the antichrist to them. Now this new wave of too cool for school types want to conform, only, they don’t want to make it seem too obvious, and they still think they’re painfully cool. They’ll wear all the latest fashions, listen to music where the image is as much, if not more important than the music itself, hiding their emotions behind their insecurities, they’re a jarring array of dodgy piercings, bad tattoos and ‘swag’, desperate to fit in, but just as desperate to hide it. The current chart is simply a reflection of this mind-set.
I agree. And the chart is a reflection of that mindset. I have heard it described as 'Generation Self'..and it is a good way to understand modern youth music.
mgvsmith is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 27-07-2016, 20:26
Sarahsaurus
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 2,377
I lost interest in the charts when Girls Aloud split up. Apart from them, I'd had little interest in it anyway for years. I'm too old for it now.

Even the way they calculate it has changed out of all recognition in the last few years. In the old days, you went into a record shop and bought a seven inch single. Then it was CD singles. Then around ten years ago even they fell out of fashion. I still bought all the Girls Aloud CD singles, because to me that's what "buying" a record is. Handing over money and walking out the shop with it in a bag. I've never downloaded any music from the internet. I've no interest in doing so. I wouldn't have the first idea about how to do it anyway. I realise this is hopelessly out of date. (Just like the Reynolds Girls sang way back in 1989. (Some of the older posters might remember that one.)

Even downloading is apparently on the way out, it's all watching on YouTube and streaming now. How they even calculate the Top40 is a mystery to me now.

I look at the Top20 now and it's all "Somebody featuring somebody else", neither of whom I am likely to have heard of, except for the really big names like Rihanna and Bieber. I have no interest in who is number one any more.

Little Mix, Black Magic from last year was a great record. I liked that. The video was fun too. The new Rihanna song from the Star Trek film is quite good. I've no idea if it's charted though.

But there's not much else to interest somebody like me now.
Sarahsaurus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-07-2016, 22:16
scrilla
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,643
It also used to be the kids who went off and did their own thing that were the cool ones, and the chart was the antichrist to them.
Although bits and pieces of the various styles of music that these kids liked would sneak into the top forty alongside the pap, hence many would still watch the likes of TOTPs to seen if their acts were on.

It's all been downhill since the 7" 45 ceased to be the weapon of choice.
scrilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-07-2016, 22:10
rufus oculus
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: birmingham
Posts: 236
The charts have become a mess ever since streaming was included. 100 streaming listens now count as one sale. So you can have the recent situation where the same artist is at number 1 for 14 weeks or more but his physical weekly sales are LESS than some of the other artists below him in the chart. All because his fans persist in streaming his song. Or someone like Justin Bieber can have ten or more entries in the top 40 because his fans are streaming various songs from his albums.
rufus oculus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-07-2016, 10:48
boddism
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: South Coast
Posts: 16,045
The Drake song is an example of all that's wrong with the charts. A monotonous, instantly forgettable dribble of a song it's stayed at No1 forever for dubious reasons. Don't tell me that's a great example of contemporary music! Even Drake himself has released better songs!

You REALLY gonna tell me this song will be remembered as a classic in 20yrs??

The charts are too dominated by one or 2 artists. We have Rihanna & Bieber completely dominating the charts for weeks on end. In the past an artist having more than 1 hit in the top 40 was a rarity & exciting, now it's commonplace & prevents other acts getting a look in.

I look outside the charts now for new music, but many people don't have the time to go trawling the Internet for hours to find anything decent.
Who, when the Internet became a part of the music scene, thought it would become a CHORE to find good music in the Internet age.

Much more varied music was presented to the public pre YouTube & Vevo etc. Now it's all"go find it"
boddism is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-07-2016, 11:01
boddism
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: South Coast
Posts: 16,045
I'm 43 and I stopped listening to the charts only about 3 years ago (having started listening to the charts when I was 8). Reason being I feel that there's several musical ruts out there...and no-one has anything to say.

On You Tube the other day listening to I Called U by Lil Louis. some young commentator said wtte 'music used to be edgy and have attitude but now we just has boom boom shake your ass for my dick'. And it made me laugh.

There is also some ad for a song I keep clicking on that starts 'I'm not well, I'm not well' in a pitiful voice and everytime it fires up, me and my bf just fall about laughing. I don't even know who it's by by it's a genre of music we have decided to call 'snowflake wallow'. It's awful.

I'm sweetly surpised at how relatives who are 18/20 now are looking to my goldern era (89 - 99) for their pop music. We never had to do that because we had so much innovative music doing on.

I'm an unashamed pop kid but it's not my age that has stopped it listening to the charts.
I'm of a similar age.

I love music & always will & if there's a revival in fantastic pop or rock I will be back, the Oldest Swinger in Town

My problem is the unending monotony, the lack of new ideas, fresh voices or interesting acts. You may see something occasionally! But it'll just be gimmicky. Bowie has been high profile in the last 24hrs, where's the new Bowie?? They don't have to be all theatrical, just a new artist who writes killer tunes & experiments with different styles throughout their career & is an interesting character.

These days, even the ballad-y singer-songwriters bore the arse off me. They're all very samey with nothing interesting to say. Record co's used to give unusual acts a chance, to see whether they would be a success, often they weren't but sometimes they are.

I'm not one for nostalgia though. I think the past is GONE, it's both unhelpful & unhealthy to focus on the past too much. We live in the present, not in the past.

The very weird thing about modern youth culture is that a lot of youngsters listen to music that's 20yrs + old. At first as though this was a blip but I'm coming across more & more evidence of it.

When I was young in the 80s we weren't listening to 60s music en masse, same in the 90s, there wasn't a massive spate of kids listening to glam rock or disco from the 70s.
This phenomenon is weird & for me a tactical admission by many young 'uns that all is not well in the world of pop.
boddism is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-07-2016, 11:15
boddism
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: South Coast
Posts: 16,045
Increasingly interesting music isn't coming from our usual sources (America & the UK)
I love the new Christina & the Queens song & shes French.. The Swedish still make great pop & Lush Life was a recent example of this.

This isn't new but an example of a great song that's not sourced from the West:
https://youtu.be/fVCCe2tuL20

Why aren't pop stars of the West making haunting songs like this?
boddism is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-07-2016, 11:25
mushymanrob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,755

When I was young in the 80s we weren't listening to 60s music en masse, same in the 90s, there wasn't a massive spate of kids listening to glam rock or disco from the 70s.
This phenomenon is weird & for me a tactical admission by many young 'uns that all is not well in the world of pop.
erm.... actually the new wave movement of the late 70's early 80's paid very strong homage to the 60's, paul weller made a career from it! and the 60's were cool into the mid 80's. but youre right it wasnt en masse it was out of a love for those times and style of music which we (my generation really) took as inspiration for similar but new sounds.

the 70's were also fashionable in the mid 90's... thankfully not too big though!

of and of course the glam-rock scene of the early-mid 70's paid homage to the rock n roll scene of the late 50's.
mushymanrob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-07-2016, 11:41
boddism
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: South Coast
Posts: 16,045
erm.... actually the new wave movement of the late 70's early 80's paid very strong homage to the 60's, paul weller made a career from it! and the 60's were cool into the mid 80's. but youre right it wasnt en masse it was out of a love for those times and style of music which we (my generation really) took as inspiration for similar but new sounds.

the 70's were also fashionable in the mid 90's... thankfully not too big though!

of and of course the glam-rock scene of the early-mid 70's paid homage to the rock n roll scene of the late 50's.
Well, there was some interest in the 60s & 70s there wasn't a mass phenomenon of kids listening to it, like I experienced recently when I went into a bar aimed at 20s & found 90s music playing & was told by a 20 something "this is what young people listen to"
I was quite shocked by that.
boddism is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-07-2016, 13:00
mushymanrob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,755
Well, there was some interest in the 60s & 70s there wasn't a mass phenomenon of kids listening to it, like I experienced recently when I went into a bar aimed at 20s & found 90s music playing & was told by a 20 something "this is what young people listen to"
I was quite shocked by that.
i think the difference is, in the past when there was a 'revival' or and era was back in fashion - that generation used it as an inspiration to created their own version of it.

eg in the early-mid 70's when rock n roll revived (wizzard, showaddywaddy, rubettes etc) they didnt do a direct copy, they created new music in the style of .

i totally get what youre saying, rather then create new music in the style of today, this generation would sooner just pinch the originals.
mushymanrob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-07-2016, 13:44
Thorney
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 728
And that is because they can , we would go into a record shop and pick singles from the chart section or new releases so we would all be directed into buying from s certain selection and listening to older music would rely on luck by listening to radio or having to invest hard cash into back catalogues now this generation can listen to what ever they want from whenever they want wherever they want , why listen to new bands make pale imitations of past sounds when they can just listen to the original

I bought 'Born In The USA ' and loved it and some if my friends said his older stuff was better or just as good , I never heard it I didn't have the money to buy it now if I was a 16 year now I could have his whole back catalogue in my pocket for nothing.
Thorney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-07-2016, 15:03
JonDoe
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 30,158
Yeah, 35's about the time it happened to me too.

I used to have an almost encyclopaedic knowledge of music, even stuff I wast that interested in, but there comes a time when it all just sounds like noise.

I hear chart stuff in the gym and without exception, it is all awful. Whenever that god-awful pseudo-reggae atrocity by Beyonce comes on, I feel like bursting my own ear drums.
JonDoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-07-2016, 15:44
mushymanrob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,755
And that is because they can , we would go into a record shop and pick singles from the chart section or new releases so we would all be directed into buying from s certain selection and listening to older music would rely on luck by listening to radio or having to invest hard cash into back catalogues now this generation can listen to what ever they want from whenever they want wherever they want , why listen to new bands make pale imitations of past sounds when they can just listen to the original

I bought 'Born In The USA ' and loved it and some if my friends said his older stuff was better or just as good , I never heard it I didn't have the money to buy it now if I was a 16 year now I could have his whole back catalogue in my pocket for nothing.
.... but who says they are 'pale imitations of the original'? where would the jam be if everyone bought the 60's material that inspired them? didnt we both agree on rock from the early 00's being great? white stripes? qotsa? they arent original .

since the early 70's pop music has had its retro flashbacks with new bands creating new music in an old style.

the question is of course, are they doing it right, because when they do they are giving us more of a style we like. when they are doing pale imitations dont we just ignore it?

lets face it, all the styles that are suited to pop have probably been discovered, so its highly likely that whats produced now will sound like something old.
mushymanrob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-07-2016, 16:01
mgvsmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belfast
Posts: 7,287
Increasingly interesting music isn't coming from our usual sources (America & the UK)
I love the new Christina & the Queens song & shes French.. The Swedish still make great pop & Lush Life was a recent example of this.

This isn't new but an example of a great song that's not sourced from the West:
https://youtu.be/fVCCe2tuL20

Why aren't pop stars of the West making haunting songs like this?
That last statement is sweeping and essentially wrong.
Never listened to Julia Holter then? And Adele makes some pretty melancholy songs.
And what sort of music do Sigur Ros (Icelandic and western?) make if not haunting?
mgvsmith is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 30-07-2016, 16:09
mgvsmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belfast
Posts: 7,287
....

lets face it, all the styles that are suited to pop have probably been discovered, so its highly likely that whats produced now will sound like something old.
I wouldn't rule out some new music just yet. I have listened to Kendrick Lamar's last album numerous times and it is full of ideas that could be developed. Also The 1975's last album is melodic and diverse. It's not all snowflake stuff.

Yeah, people feel that they have heard everything before but it is never quite the same.
Even those 'originals' we revere like The Stones and The Animals were largely reworking blues and R&B into forms that UK and largely white audiences found more acceptable.
mgvsmith is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 30-07-2016, 17:09
scrilla
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,643
I look outside the charts now for new music, but many people don't have the time to go trawling the Internet for hours to find anything decent.
Who, when the Internet became a part of the music scene, thought it would become a CHORE to find good music in the Internet age.
Everything takes time and nothing is supposed to feel like a chore if you enjoy it. If people will devote time to shopping/ browsing in the high street, using Facebook, sitting in cafés drinking coffee and doing nothing much, or sitting in front of a film for a couple of hours, why would someone who is enthusiastic about music not want to seek out some music they'd enjoy? I know I like being able to discover new (to me) music by investigating things online. I think the problem is expectancy - people wanting everything handed to them without any effort. Well, there IS music is pumped right at us everyday after all - but it might not be music we like!

Much more varied music was presented to the public pre YouTube & Vevo etc. Now it's all"go find it"
The music that is presented to the public has always been just a small sample of what is actually out there. Someone, somewhere has uploaded just about anything you can think of to YouTube at some time. The variety is certainly much larger than daytime radio or chart run-downs ever offered.

I'm not one for nostalgia though. I think the past is GONE, it's both unhelpful & unhealthy to focus on the past too much. We live in the present, not in the past.
Unhelpful to what though? Our ability to appreciate current sounds? I buy music created in this decade as well as plenty of reissues of 50s/ 60s/ 70s/ 80s material and the older sounds would often be the most essential. Surely people should just listen to what works for them?

The very weird thing about modern youth culture is that a lot of youngsters listen to music that's 20yrs + old. At first as though this was a blip but I'm coming across more & more evidence of it.

When I was young in the 80s we weren't listening to 60s music en masse, same in the 90s, there wasn't a massive spate of kids listening to glam rock or disco from the 70s.
This phenomenon is weird & for me a tactical admission by many young 'uns that all is not well in the world of pop.
As the seventies was turning into the eighties and I was listening to plenty of Punk and New Wave, some of us would also check the likes of The Stooges or the Velvet Underground or the MC5. Some of the kids have always investigated what may the precursor of the 'now sound'.

If you're young now and say, have a liking for Hard Rock or Metal or Dance it seems natural that you might delve right back to important eras in the development of the styles you like and revisit Led Zeppelin or Black Sabbath or Frankie Knuckles or Cerrone or whatever - especially due to not having to find the actual records or a station that spins them, due to resources like YouTube. What might be odder though, I agree, is if you don't really check for any of the current sounds at all.

i think the difference is, in the past when there was a 'revival' or and era was back in fashion - that generation used it as an inspiration to created their own version of it.

eg in the early-mid 70's when rock n roll revived (wizzard, showaddywaddy, rubettes etc) they didnt do a direct copy, they created new music in the style of .

i totally get what youre saying, rather then create new music in the style of today, this generation would sooner just pinch the originals.
The thing is I'd far rather listen to Eddie Cochran than Darts or The Skatalites than Madness. For me, anyway, I can't think of a single instance where someone has taken a style that was lying rather dormant, revived and added a twist to it and created something to rival the quality of the original music. Very often it's like a pastiche is heading towards parody with a lot of added 'cheese'.
scrilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-07-2016, 17:42
Chris1964
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 12,037
The Drake song is an example of all that's wrong with the charts. A monotonous, instantly forgettable dribble of a song it's stayed at No1 forever for dubious reasons. Don't tell me that's a great example of contemporary music! Even Drake himself has released better songs!

You REALLY gonna tell me this song will be remembered as a classic in 20yrs??

The charts are too dominated by one or 2 artists. We have Rihanna & Bieber completely dominating the charts for weeks on end. In the past an artist having more than 1 hit in the top 40 was a rarity & exciting, now it's commonplace & prevents other acts getting a look in.

I look outside the charts now for new music, but many people don't have the time to go trawling the Internet for hours to find anything decent.
Who, when the Internet became a part of the music scene, thought it would become a CHORE to find good music in the Internet age.

Much more varied music was presented to the public pre YouTube & Vevo etc. Now it's all"go find it"
Yes I think the fact that so many people have never heard of Drake, or actually heard the song rather sums the current state of the charts. Lots of comparisons being made to Adams and Wet Wet Wet purely because of their chart statistics. The fact is that both of their songs had truly cross generational appeal within a wide ranging chart. Obviously there was the movie connection fuelling interest too, but I think its safe to say, the official chart of today is niche.

Back in the day variety was the spice of life, every genre from novelty to Heavy Metal. That variety created an interest and opinions-joy, derision, arguments-but always a talking point. The talking point now is where that all went.
Chris1964 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-07-2016, 17:51
Thorney
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 728
.... but who says they are 'pale imitations of the original'? where would the jam be if everyone bought the 60's material that inspired them? didnt we both agree on rock from the early 00's being great? white stripes? qotsa? they arent original .

since the early 70's pop music has had its retro flashbacks with new bands creating new music in an old style.

the question is of course, are they doing it right, because when they do they are giving us more of a style we like. when they are doing pale imitations dont we just ignore it?

lets face it, all the styles that are suited to pop have probably been discovered, so its highly likely that whats produced now will sound like something old.
pale imitations of originials are pale imitations of originals, stuff that isnt a pale imitation isnt a pale imitation Now they have more choice they dont need to accept it. Any era, any band, any time new or old whatever they want.

You are the one that says most modern music just sounds like stuff that has been done before in numerous threads. If i start arguing white you just swap to black.
Thorney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-07-2016, 17:54
mushymanrob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,755


The thing is I'd far rather listen to Eddie Cochran than Darts or The Skatalites than Madness. For me, anyway, I can't think of a single instance where someone has taken a style that was lying rather dormant, revived and added a twist to it and created something to rival the quality of the original music. Very often it's like a pastiche is heading towards parody with a lot of added 'cheese'.
whilst id agree about cochran vs darts , generally i wouldnt at all. because it would remove nearly everything i like

and i prefer rock from the early 00's over original.

but tbh i dont think you can over generalise.... a great track compiled 'in the style of' some retro act is better then a poor original surely?
mushymanrob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-07-2016, 18:00
mushymanrob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,755
pale imitations of originials are pale imitations of originals, stuff that isnt a pale imitation isnt a pale imitation Now they have more choice they dont need to accept it. Any era, any band, any time new or old whatever they want.

You are the one that says most modern music just sounds like stuff that has been done before in numerous threads. If i start arguing white you just swap to black.
lol.. ok...

its being done badly... imho... theres no buzz like there used to be.. etc.

my problem with the young delving into old material is that im not sure they can get the original intention or context that music was created in by/for..

ill use punk as an obvious example, which was specific for the time, for a generation , can someone today really tap into that the same way we did?...

of being part of the movement , the fashions, the excitement a new original group inspired... as i see it, whilst they can enjoy the music itself they are missing out on the bigger picture.
mushymanrob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-07-2016, 18:50
scrilla
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,643
whilst id agree about cochran vs darts , generally i wouldnt at all. because it would remove nearly everything i like
That would be a pretty good reason to disagree.

I bought Two Tone at the time and discovered Jamaican Ska later, through Reggae and now I don't have much interest in the revival stuff. I did buy a Darts single too at the time and while I don't hate them I do kind of hate Showaddywaddy, Mud, Shakin' Stevens et al. I like some early Rolling Stones and a few other bits but US R&B is what really does it for me.

and i prefer rock from the early 00's over original.
That's probably a controversial but perfectly valid point of view. I liked The White Stripes too.

but tbh i dont think you can over generalise.... a great track compiled 'in the style of' some retro act is better then a poor original surely?
Key words there being 'great' and 'poor' I guess! I do like retro acts like Sharon Jones & The Dap Kings and Nicole Willis & The Soul Investigators for example. I suppose it's when it deviates too far from what it's originally supposed to be or gets too 'poppy' that I switch off.

The Skatalites made music for young adult dancers whereas Madness made fun music for the kids. If Madness had been a faithful Ska band we'd all have probably never heard of them. I guess it's just down to what the listener is into.
scrilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-07-2016, 19:14
scrilla
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,643
[...] that says most modern music just sounds like stuff that has been done before [...]
Just taking up this point... isn't this the crux of the matter?

Often we like or dislike new music because it may have arrangements, playing style, composition or delivery that we like or dislike in older material we're familiar with. We're not always looking for something boldly 'new' or a great sonic departure from our established taste; we're wanting more music that fits with it. For many of us, when we hear some new evolution of an existing genre or a new production style we don't like it anyway. We *think* we want change but maybe we don't really want all that much of it?

There's no specific time when well established 'style A' should be abandoned by most players and singers and make way for emerging 'style B'. It just happens due to unique circumstances and commercial aspirations. If a genre is forty or fifty years old and acts still perform that genre their music can still be great. The guys who are (for instance) blending 'style A' with 'style B' to create a new sound will get more attention from the music press: they might be more newsworthy but is their 'new' music necessarily better?

I suppose what I'm getting at is this: it's easy to comment negatively on music not evolving but those commentators may not dig the evolution anyway. I can recall several times when the music I enjoy has shifted due to the influence of specific acts and how I didn't appreciate the shockwaves / fallout one little bit.
scrilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-07-2016, 08:24
mushymanrob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,755
That would be a pretty good reason to disagree.

I bought Two Tone at the time and discovered Jamaican Ska later, through Reggae and now I don't have much interest in the revival stuff. I did buy a Darts single too at the time and while I don't hate them I do kind of hate Showaddywaddy, Mud, Shakin' Stevens et al. I like some early Rolling Stones and a few other bits but US R&B is what really does it for me.


That's probably a controversial but perfectly valid point of view. I liked The White Stripes too.


Key words there being 'great' and 'poor' I guess! I do like retro acts like Sharon Jones & The Dap Kings and Nicole Willis & The Soul Investigators for example. I suppose it's when it deviates too far from what it's originally supposed to be or gets too 'poppy' that I switch off.

The Skatalites made music for young adult dancers whereas Madness made fun music for the kids. If Madness had been a faithful Ska band we'd all have probably never heard of them. I guess it's just down to what the listener is into.
i didnt like the rock n roll revival stuff either, apart from the move 'california man' and a few wizzard tracks, but then again i didnt and dont really like rock n roll.

well its personal, im not suggesting rock in the early 00's was better then original (70's) rock as an empirical statement of fact.... its just my personal taste. somehow i never took fully to rock, dunno why, i should have, but original rock never quite got me.

but in the early 00's qotsa lead the way for me, especially their two great singles 'no one knows' and 'go with the flow' , add in the white stripes, auf der maur, hives, and others and for me 01-04 was my fav era in rock.

agreed about the point you made regarding madness, but in fairness, madness did what nearly all other acts (guitar acts anyway) had done previously. from the beatles, stones, kinks, animals, onward into punk etc uk groups took american (or jamaican) styles of music and made it our own.
mushymanrob is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 14:40.