British disco wasn't as unique and unusual as people realise. Biddu kicked off the British trend with Summer of 42 and, ofr course, the Bee Gees were British, but there was also Tina Charles, Kelly Marie( right at the end), Hot Chocolate to an extent, ELO flirted with the music in 1978-79 and Some Girls by the Stones had some disco influence.

my question was why did british musicians abandon disco by the early 80's.

i didn't say brits weren't good at anything though, did i?

i was pointing out that brits haven't been very successful in those styles

but if you want a good example of brits not being good at jazz or jazz-funk i cite level 42


no, not at all. disco was going long before salsoul, and salsoul didn't really have hit records as such, they were more of an underground label, likewise west end records, as both were effectively indie labels. prelude were a little bit commercial successful but they were an offshot of pye records. salsoul did release the first commercial 12" single though, and also survived after the disco boom was over

also you have euro disco as well as the american styles, and a lot of euro disco was extremely popular as well as influential, so disco certainly crossed the atlantic. whilst you have disco purists who look to the cool labels like salsoul and west end records, for each of those you have dozens or hundreds of people who love the commercial stuff like i will survive, i feel love, staying alive, etc

also queen weren't the first band to play stadiums (i presume you meant as arenas came later), the beatles did it first and floyd, zep and who etc were playing bigger venues long before queen

the bee gees didn't. they were going for years before they recorded tracks for saturday night fever. they were just the same as the other bands i mentioned that could have strings and horns because they had worked up to that level.

the 70s was a time when record labels invested in artists they most, but they did so by taking artists as they were and giving them time to be creative, rather than throwing money at them. however you have to remember that any costs incurred at the recording stage are the artists responsibility. a label will give an artist what is known as an "advance" which is basically a loan for the artist to be able to live on, such as pay living bills like rent/rates/food/clothing/travelling - for all the band, and also to cover recording costs, which will be everything from purchase of instruments, amps, etc to hire of studios. the advance is a loan on future royalties, so when the record is released and starts selling, the record company start recouping the advance, and once they have recovered the full advance, the artist then gets further payments. as such it's up to the artists to invest in their work in the way they best see fit. however how do you expect anyone to start off as a disco band in the first place in order to get discovered by A&R and then get a deal and get an advance? it's a chicken and egg situation, but the advance never comes first

btw, trevor horn did create a disco sound. whilst you may be more familiar with his work as part of prog rockers yes, or his production for frankie goes to hollywood, propaganda, etc (with much of his ZTT work having notable disco influences), he started off as session musician and played with tina charles, one of the most well known UK disco artists who had the hit "i love to dance". before working with frankie he did stuff for dollar and ABC with very much a disco influence


what about them? the nolans are as british as u2, and they had industry backing as a light entertainment group. they also got a hand or two from jimmy saville

kelly marie and sheena easton similarly got industry backing by appearing on opportunity knocks, the 70s precurser to the x-failure and britains got no talent. sheena did a bit better by shagging prince, marrying sonny crocket from miami vice and then making a mint in real estate by marrying a millionaire. she has more ex husbands than madonna got kids


but the americans did have access to synths. there were more bands playing synths in the states than in the UK. remember stevie wonder and herbie hancock were synth pioneers long before disco peaked. disco certainly wasn't replaced by funk, if anything it was the other way around. most funk/soul acts jumped on the disco bandwagon, from the commodores to earth wind and fire


well people will remember what they know and like. some people liked the cheesy disco and wouldn't appreciate the finer stuff like salsoul and west end, just like some people like the cheesy dance music i would refer to as "utter shite" and wouldn't like underground house like strictly rythm or MAW, or some people like shitty winebar jazz and others dig the more adventurous side of miles or coltrane. to some people "jazz" will be remembered as this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsQYzpOHpik

the beegees had been quiet for most of the early 70's and were nowhere near as big as the other acts you mentioned. they were seen as a pop act, which they were, and not in the same league (size wise) as those other acts.

agreed, but as disco was so popular wasnt it worth an investment? reckon in early 79 (before two tone, before electro) when 'heart of glass' was at the top, the real thing charting with 'can you feel the force' and 'i will survive' topped the charts, id have thought from a commercial point of view creating/backing a british disco act would be a pretty safe bet.

oddly, tina charles crops up again, but her career started on a high in '76, before snf, before i feel love, before the disco boom, but her popularity slowly ebbed as disco took off.

ABC were far more jazz funk influenced then disco.



yeah im familiar with op knocks. didnt like it. sheena easton...whats she gotta do with disco? she was over quickly and disappeared long before she got richer.

what about liquid gold? and kelly marie? unknown outsiders got industry backing, why no one else? like i said, it was surely a safe investment.



fair point



the same with any style of music i guess. the cheesy commercial end of the spectrum appeals to the masses who dont like things too deep. the 'better' material has always been the preserve of those with deeper, more discerning tastes.

but that wasn't the point. they still had a dozen albums released before they did the saturday night fever soundtrack. they were an established act that worked to the level that they could put strings and horns on records or have reasonable artistic freedoms that a new act wouldn't necesarily have


well it was popular, which is why lots of people did invest in it. that's why artists from various styles of fairly unrelated styles from country to reggae did disco style tracks. that's why british acts did disco style tracks, and it paid of for many by having hit singles. even artists who didn't go full out in a disco style had success when disco elements were introduced. pink floyds one and only number 1 single as an example

but remember it's the artists who choose the music they want to make and are able the make, the record companies can only sign what is on offer to them. record companies also took established artists and persuaded them to go disco and many of them did, and many of them had hit singles as a result


but tina charles career took off from being session singer to solo artist when she went disco. if it wasn't for her disco hit "i love to love" then it's unlikely anyone would remember her. she had no real success when she tried to change her style from disco, so her success is entirely down to disco

ABC similarly couldn't match the success of their first album which was the only one produced by trevor horn, but they had a return to form when nile rogers partner bernard edwards from the disco band chic produced their fourth album, which also had a nod to prince with the b side "minneapolis". trevor horn cohort anne dudley was also involved with the album


as i mentioned before, kellie marie and sheena eston got their breaks on a tv talent show and just given tracks to sing. liquid gold weren't much more than one hit wonders who also entered a tv talent show, the eurovision song contest. similar to tina charles, they had a career pre and post disco, but apart from one main disco hit that was it

with disco as with dance music, it's the record/song that most people are interested in, whether the song is good or bad is what counts, whether they enjoy it and can dance to it is key. in a club when dancing the music speaks for itself, not the cover, not what the artists look like, not the performer or writer credits. some people were talented and could write and produce many hits for different artists or for themselves, such as the guys from chic who were responsible for the sister sledge hits, along with hits for many others like diana ross (not to mention later work for bowie, madonna, duran, etc) or frank farian who was behind boney m, far corporation and milli vanilli. he literally made music which was fronted by people who had nothing to do with making it

whilst you may not like disco, you've mentioned you like dance music, so surely you've seen people dancing in a club to dance music without knowing or caring what the name of the track was or who made it. it was a similar thing with disco. music snobbery went out the window and people just enjoyed what they heard and liked


well that's what people say. i think most people would say the charts are full of rubbish, even those who still buy chart records. it's happened for years. most people seem to think their taste in music is right, very few people would actually think they had a shit taste in music, and fewer would admit to it. it's all very subjective as to what is good or bad, but a simple way of thinking is if you enjoy it, then it's good, the music has served the purpose it was intended to do, entertain. most people like a variety in most things in life from food to movies and tv shows, and music is the same. few people will only listen to just one type of thing. even if someone says they only metal or dance, they would normally enjoy both fast and slow examples of that genre, so you can still listen to ottawan and also nirvana and pharoah saunders and chostakovitch. you can like the beatles and the stones, the happy mondays and the stone roses, led zep and floyd, oasis and blur, wham and duran. listening to everything that's the same would be boring and you would miss out on a lot. even in genres people say they don't like, there is still likely to be something in that genre they would love if they got to hear it at the right moment

David Bowie's '1984' from Diamond Dogs always sounded like proto-disco/funk to me, with it's strings and wah-wah's, beating disco proper by a good few years.

All hail the Goblin King! (wuzza wuz)

Brit Funk took over. It was what was playing in the clubs and what young people wanted to hear.

yeah, and more influences on young americans, in particular the rerecording john i'm only dancing (again) that didn't make it to the original release of the album but became bowies first 12" release with the full length 7 min version of the track

i know, thats the question i was asking, why funk over the more successful disco.

then why didnt 'my' generation of artists chose disco? they need not have gone 'full blown' but introducing disco elements wouldnt have cost much and again, in that climate, was a pretty safe bet.

dont agree that 'many had hit singles as a result'. pink floyd is a weak example, theres as much rock in that track as disco if not more. plus it was the old garde, not the punk/post punk.

tbh i think disco was seen as too cheesy, soft, the disco scene wasnt cool for ordinary working class kids which is why two tone became popular. it gave disco - haters a way of dancing that was all about fun and not posing.


eh? not quite, she didnt ditch the disco style, her last hit in 78 was a disco cover of 'ill go where the music takes me'. her successful year was 76, not sure why her popularity wained when disco became big in 77-79. maybe her material was crap, i always thought it was, couldnt stand her (her voice, not the material)






yeah, i like music some of which is pretty crap, technically, its just a three minute pleasant sound. other music is technically superior, its composition is more intricate, clever, intelligent, the lyrics have something profound to say. for eg, i like very much the beatles 'she loves you' and 'tomorrow never knows'... possibly the simplist and deepest tracks they ever created. would 'tomorrow never knows' if released as a single have spent quarter of a year at the top of the charts? even returning to #1?... not a chance. but which is the 'best' in terms of creativity and innovation?

popularity = popularity, its not a measure of how good a track is, but weve had this one before!

the facts are, and always have been, that music fans can be found on a pyramid style graph, the very knowlegable and discerning at the top of the pyramid, the ones who really dont give much of a shit at the bottom, with the rest of us somewhere in between.

as i answered before, it's because they couldn't easily make it. if you remove horns and strings from disco, what do you have? funk music. people also started making dance music in the style of disco music when electronic instruments made it possible

pink floyd is an excellent example, as their only number 1 single was one with a disco beat. you still had rod stewart, kenny rogers and dolly parton having disco hits too

the disco scene was cool, but what you think of as disco is the cheesy stuff due to non disco artists jumping on the bandwagon and novelty disco songs and disco versions of everything from pink floyd to the star wars theme tune. even sesame street had a disco album. what you have said is akin to thinking the club scene isn't cool because you consider what you hear on the radio as what is played in clubs

well i think that's a perfect example of what i was saying. you don't seem to even be aware of the album she made in an attempt to change direction from disco, as it completely flatlined. she then gave up on music for years, only returning to do disco tributes etc. her popularity was down to disco






what about instrumental music? there are no lyrics. music doesn't need to have an intelligent or profound message

yes, and as was shown, popularity is the measure that's been used for years and still used today, thus the charts

i've never heard of that thesis before and can't find it online. do you have a link or is this something you made up yourself? i have qualifications in music but don't remember studying that

A lot of the popularity of disco in the US was down to the underground gay club culture. We didn't have such a big scene here and so our musicians tended to go more towards taking the music and putting a British flavour into it. Many of the Brit funk bands came out of being the kids who were involved in the UK club scene in the same way that many of the US disco acts came from their club scene.
Maybe it was just the differences in culture that meant the difference in musical style?

id agree with that.

c'mon, kenny rogers? lol...

i accept that the 'real stuff' was cool, to the fans anyway. but you pick and chose which style of disco to applaud. you convieniantly cite the cheesy chart material when you want to prove its popularity, but tell me, what real disco tracks charted? chic maybe, but most of the chart material IS the cheesy bandwagon jumpers .

true, i have no idea of what she did outside the singles charts as i couldnt abide her singles, so was unlikely to try her albums!



agreed.

the charts are a measure of a given tracks popularity, not a measure on how 'good' it is. if you want to think that the singles charts are a direct indication of a songs technical, creative, innovative, influencial worth then thats up to you!

i was trying to give an example. if you believe that everybody has the same depth of knowlege, taste, understanding, then everybody would be buying the same material. as music fans cover a wise range of people, some with little or passing interest, others who are far more serious and whos needs from music are deeper and more profound. id suggest that there are far more people with little or passing interest then who are more serious, and you just have to look at the singles charts over the last 50 years to see that.

yup.and not only that, but the did a duet with dolly parton on a beegees song a few years later. in fact he did a lot of work with the beegees and barry gibb produced some of his albums. kenny even did a prince track, not a cover version either

well of course that is simply a matter of opinion as to what someone considers cheesy or not. i doubt few would argue that disco duck wasn't cheesy, but there will be millions of people who will tell you that abba and the bee gees aren't cheesy. as with most dance music, and perhaps most music in general, the best music doesn't necesarily chart and can be much more underground. porcupine tree might be highly rated but do you ever expect them to get in the top 10 singles charts?

that will be the same with most people


i'm not saying or suggesting that at all, but the charts will reflect what millions of people consider good, as they won't buy music if they don't like it

but that's just your opinion, and not a fact. some people can be very serious about music that others would consider crap. did you see the BBC documentary at the weekend about the record store with the status quo fan for example?

i know that! i was alive at the time! i was ridiculing country king kenny, i mean.... good at what he did but it was always naff. (mind you, 'ruby dont take your love to town' was actually quite poignant, superior by far imho to crap like 'coward of the county).

but YOU told ME that the chart stuff like beegees and abba werent the real disco, that could be found in the clubs not the charts. i have no problem with abba, but cant stand the beegees disco material.


you did before m8!

isnt it a fact? so a 10 year old bieber fan has as much knowlege, appreciation, understanding of music as you do? sorry m8, it IS a fact that peoples love, interest, knowlege, understanding is different, whilst their enjoyment may be equal, everybody is different and chartwise the sales over the last 50 years reflect this. just look at the x factor ... very popular, thousands tune in, vote, and buy into the end product. do you think that people with a more profound understanding and taste are the ones propping that circus up?

nope didnt see it, will try on 'od'.

that's just my opinion however. i don't dictate as to what is cheesy or not. personally apart from the abba greatest hits vol 1 cd, i can't stand most of their stuff. i saw two abba tribute bands, one was one of the most famous ones, and the other was a band led by a member of a very famous musician who i think has been mentioned on this thread and you've mentioned him in another disco thread, which was at a private party. i felt in a world of my own as everyone was signing along to every word and i didn't know half the songs, nevermind the lyrics. i was just thinking "feel the meat on my tangerine?". fortunately i didn't have to pay and there were free bars. i also saw that abba musical and that was one of the worst movies i've ever seen in my life, whereas whislt i don't like much of the bee gees stuff, saturday night fever is one of my favourite movies and the bee gees tracks are great, regardless of if they are cheesy or not, saturday night fever, staying alive, jive talking and if i can't have you are great songs. islands in the stream is a great song too, as is coward of the county. i like a lot of the cheesy pop 70s country stuff as much as i like alt.country

no, i think you misread something

but you were generalising, so it's not a fact. everyone is different so you can't generalise like that. a 10 year old beiber fan could be just as passionate about the fever as anyone else is passionate about what they enjoy. you can't measure passion. knowledge is another thing entirely, but you can still be very knowledgable and enjoy music that is considered cheesy by some, you may even enjoy something and consider it cheesy yourself. i have such as large taste in music it's not possible for someone not to find some of it cheesy. there is a time and a place for everything, and everything in good measure i say. if someone else hates what i like, it doesn't matter, it won't stop me enjoying it

Your Original question was why was disco ignored.....

ignored, abandoned, not much differencc and i did go on to qualify it as my punk generation who went into funk for inspiration.

as per the thread title you said "Why was disco ignored by british musicians?"

but the simple fact of the matter is it wasn't ignored at all, and some of the most succesful disco records of all time were by british artists, with them having number 1 tracks for nearly half a year in the UK and US as an example

so the leading question has been disproved

yeah the title was lazily constructed, of that im guilty, it was ill thought out when in my head i was refering to my generation. i could start another thread specifying it, but that would be daft.

the facts are though, that the punk generation of musicians and most fans DID ignore, abandon, disco in favour of funk, jazz funk, latin, reggae/ska and even rockabilly and afro beats.

wow. not many would prefer the bee gees most cheesiest of material over abbas class pop. but hey ho, everyone has differing tastes i guess.


erm, i said the passion displayed by a ten year old beiber fan was as intense as any 'adult' choice. actually my 9 year old niece in a belieber and is going to see him in the new year.

i agree, theres a place for cheese! it would be a very boring music fan that only likes one style of music.

but no, whilst it might be a generalisation it IS a fact that the commercial singles charts fans are generally the young, and older who dont have a deeper interest in music, who buy the records. you just have to view the ephemeral threads on here bemoaning the state of the charts to read the age old response 'you dont find good music in the charts, you have to search the better stuff out'.

but that's not a fact. that's just your thesis or opinion. when you started a punk thread there was plenty evidence to show this wasn't a fact, such as the lead singer of one of the most famous punk groups of all time being a fan of disco music and the bee gee's, as an example. some people listened to and bought both styles. i did, and i think you said yourself that you have also bought disco records, thus disproving your very own statement. in fact didn't you say you had more disco records than punk records?

i'm sure millions of people would disagree with you there. how many millions of people bought those bee gees disco songs but never bought a single abba song?

no, you said "isnt it a fact? so a 10 year old bieber fan has as much knowlege, appreciation, understanding of music as you do? sorry m8, it IS a fact that peoples love, interest, knowlege, understanding is different, whilst their enjoyment may be equal, everybody is different and chartwise the sales over the last 50 years reflect this. just look at the x factor ... very popular, thousands tune in, vote, and buy into the end product. do you think that people with a more profound understanding and taste are the ones propping that circus up? ". -
you didn't use the word passion at all. the point is that people are all different, and age only has some influence in musical knowledge. someone very much into music may be more knowledgeable and experienced than someone who is 80 and has no interest in music. a 10 year old would literally have more knowledge and experience in sports than i do. i couldn't even tell you how many people are in a football team, and don't care either, and not interested in learning. i know it's not 11 as you have extras, but that's about it


but is that a fact? do you have any stats on it? the reality is that is just what you perceive. i think if someone cares about what is in the charts, from a non commercial point of view (ie. sales/marketing/industry based), then they don't understand music at all. it's to be listened to, not counted