|
||||||||
Why was disco ignored by british musicians? |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#201 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,755
|
Quote:
To find out what was really going on, you would need to read back issues of the music magazines. Not the "Best of" retrospective stuff, but the back copies. There are also books written by journos and musicians of the time, for some genres anyway. There are the records themselves, which are more than ever before available digitally. There are blogs and Twitter feeds and websites where people publish and share tracks and info. I don't know about disco, but there are loads of music blogs out there which cover older music, and unearth hidden classics every week.
There has never been a better time to be a music geek! |
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#202 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,755
|
Quote:
Add to that they immigrated to Australia in 1958 and did not return until 1967 ..... and they located to Miami, Florida in February 1975 where their principle singer/songwriter Barry Gibb has been a resident there ever since.
|
|
|
|
|
#203 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,035
|
Quote:
you did see folk in the charts in this period... violinski, fiddlers dram, renaisance for eg.
but i and another poster have said that discos/clubs werent playing disco music (proper clubs, not the shaz n baz venues), but were playing funk, jazz funk, soul and latin. i could go to 5 clubs tonight and not hear any techno or house or dubstep or hip hop. i could then go to another 5 different clubs tomorrow and not hear any of those genres, and the same again on tuesday. thats 15 clubs over 3 nights would that mean no clubs are playing those genres? or would that mean very few or little to no clubs are playing those genres? or would the truth be closer to the fact that i went to clubs that simply weren't playing those types of music, and had i went to another 5 clubs i would have found that type of music, or if i went to the same clubs on fridays and saturdays instead of sundays and mondays, the very same venues would have been playing those types of music different venues play different music for different clientelle. if you don't like a particular genre, you are unlikely to go to a club that plays it, thus are unlikely to hear it, but that doesn't mean it's not being played if i used your examples, then i would be saying there were no punk nights or rock nights or ska nights because i never went to any at a particular point, because i went to house clubs instead. this is just another one of your flawed methods Quote:
the point is that disco, unlike folk is aimed at the commercial singles chart.
that is your opinion. mine is that shared by many others, such as those who make the music in that disco is aimed at the dancefloor, to make people danceQuote:
besides it doesnt negate the fact that other popular styles of music who were also in the charts werent being produced. are you suggesting that only disco had a huge invisible underground movement, and that all punk, new wave, reggae, ska, funk, pop, rock, soul charted and none was invisible?....
it's interesting that you are only picking up on this now after i mentioned it a few posts backALL music is invisible. you hear it, you don't see it Quote:
no m8, thats daft. from memory i know that punk, new wave and rock had a huge garageland following. if any style of music was vastly underreprisented in the charts it was punk. but it's not, as has been explained a number of times before, it's deeply flawed
we are talking chart material, its the only way to gauge anything, but to suggest that disco had this huge invisible army of british musicians, and no other style did is.... well.. daft. |
|
|
|
|
#204 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,035
|
Quote:
ha ha ha.... hardly qualifies as british then, but strictly speaking, and i know unique is keen to be accurate, they arent british.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britain_%28placename%29 |
|
|
|
|
#205 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: DTG Bunker
Posts: 5,044
|
...there are also fanzines, anoraky collections of club flyers (I used to have one of those), records of serial numbers etc held by record companies, setlists used by old DJs, the record collections of old DJs, the jaded reminiscing of the musicians themselves, if you know the right pub to go to!
|
|
|
|
|
#206 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,035
|
Quote:
so... disco was the only style that had a huge invisible army of british musicians was it?... but...
and you contradict yourself there. one minute your saying im wrong that other styles had musicians creating music that didnt chart, now you admit there was... seperately i'm saying another thing. there is no contradiction. i've said the same things a number of times throughout this thread Quote:
i accept, as stated, that there was likely to be british disco producers that didnt chart, but so it was for funk, soul, punk (as you admit), reggae, new wave.... the point is, disco was not alone, and as theres no way of quantifying non chart material from any genre,
so you agree your metholodgy is flawed then?Quote:
then the charts are the only method we have of guaging what was being produced, in my op did mention the charts. this i've mentioned a number of times before. it's not going to give any type of accurate information that has any meaning Quote:
my op refered to the charts....
barelyQuote:
so if the charts cannot be used to guage what british musicians were creating, please give me a better one?... it might not be fool proof, but how else can it be done.? so ask yourself those questions Quote:
the facts are though, that especially after the disqualification of the beegees (lol) that according to the charts, very few british musicians created disco, especially in comparison to all the other styles at the time that did chart.
but this is not a fact. your figures not only are flawed, but they don't show what you suggest. furthermore, as i have pointed out twice previously, the bee gees are britishhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categor...k_music_groups what comes under B? Quote:
and i didnt say that discos influence couldnt be seen in some music created by british musicians, i said that 'we' seemingly ignored disco (and thus didnt create many disco tracks). the point being made that for such a popular style of music, i find it odd that 'we' didnt capitlise on it, and that other dance styles were more popular in the charts, as has been proven.
but most of what you said is merely your opinion. the facts of the matter are that british disco was considerably more popular than the other british dance styles, which is something that's checkable by facts. one disco record alone topped the charts on both sides of the atlantic for nearly half a year. how many other british records have acheived that level of popularity/sales?
|
|
|
|
|
#207 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Cumbria
Posts: 16,969
|
The biggest selling album of the punk era was the soundtrack to Saturday Night Fever. I'd say disco outsold punk by three to one, but NME brigade never like to hear this, same as they sneered at bands like Duran Duran.
|
|
|
|
|
#208 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,755
|
Quote:
The biggest selling album of the punk era was the soundtrack to Saturday Night Fever. I'd say disco outsold punk by three to one, but NME brigade never like to hear this, same as they sneered at bands like Duran Duran.
|
|
|
|
|
#209 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,755
|
Quote:
no, as i pointed out, they ARE british. they were born in the BRITISH islse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britain_%28placename%29 |
|
|
|
|
#210 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,755
|
Quote:
...there are also fanzines, anoraky collections of club flyers (I used to have one of those), records of serial numbers etc held by record companies, setlists used by old DJs, the record collections of old DJs, the jaded reminiscing of the musicians themselves, if you know the right pub to go to!
of course if this was possible it might show that discos % was even less, not greater, then the chart placings show. |
|
|
|
|
#211 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,755
|
Quote:
i could go to 5 clubs tonight and not hear any techno or house or dubstep or hip hop. i could then go to another 5 different clubs tomorrow and not hear any of those genres, and the same again on tuesday. thats 15 clubs over 3 nights would that mean no clubs are playing those genres? or would that mean very few or little to no clubs are playing those genres? or would the truth be closer to the fact that i went to clubs that simply weren't playing those types of music, and had i went to another 5 clubs i would have found that type of music, or if i went to the same clubs on fridays and saturdays instead of sundays and mondays, the very same venues would have been playing those types of music different venues play different music for different clientelle. if you don't like a particular genre, you are unlikely to go to a club that plays it, thus are unlikely to hear it, but that doesn't mean it's not being played if i used your examples, then i would be saying there were no punk nights or rock nights or ska nights because i never went to any at a particular point, because i went to house clubs instead. this is just another one of your flawed methods so the point raised by myself and blondie x might not make factual reading, but her (?) experience of dance clubs reflect what mine were, so its evidence. Quote:
that is your opinion. mine is that shared by many others, such as those who make the music in that disco is aimed at the dancefloor, to make people dance
it wasnt me who posted that, its a point i agree with, disco was largely a singles based genre, just look at the album charts to see that.and dont forget, there wasnt a huge underground club scene/dance scene back then, its not like the 90's - today where many tracks you hear or heard in i-beef-a, at manumission, pascha etc where barely ever played on the radion and very few graced the charts. Quote:
but it's not, as has been explained a number of times before, it's deeply flawed however, flawed (no not deeply) though it is, viewing the charts is the best way, the most accurate way, of guaging what music was being produced. (if tracklisting cannot be done). no its not perfect, but it is a damn good indication. |
|
|
|
|
#212 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,755
|
Quote:
so you agree your metholodgy is flawed then?
and my point that there was an even spread of non charting styles stands, so viewing the charts, a regular consistent event, is the only way to guage things (unless all tracklistings by every label can be quantified). Quote:
whenever i need to analyse something that isn't straightforward, i ask "why" something is to be done and what is to be achieved from doing so, and what value that will have, and the rest will start to fall into place. sometimes it may be possible to give an accurate answer, but the work involved isn't worth the reward in the end the question i posed was why did british musicians seemingly ignore disco, but created other styles of dance music... that question is about discovering why a popular commercial style of music was overlooked in favour of others.so ask yourself those questions this question has not been addressed. Quote:
but this is not a fact. your figures not only are flawed, but they don't show what you suggest. furthermore, as i have pointed out twice previously, the bee gees are british then your opinion is factually wrong. and that wiki entry is wrong, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categor...k_music_groups what comes under B? they were born on the isle of man, a crown dependancy but not part of the british isles.... thats legally correct. Quote:
but most of what you said is merely your opinion. the facts of the matter are that british disco was considerably more popular than the other british dance styles, which is something that's checkable by facts.
...and when the facts are checked, it totally disproves that statement.Quote:
one disco record alone topped the charts on both sides of the atlantic for nearly half a year. how many other british records have acheived that level of popularity/sales?
so now you want to include albums? told you, british disco albums were in very very short supply, especially as snf was by the men from manx, not britain.... and again you are being deliberately misleading, snf spend 18 weeks @ #1, NOT 26.... 18 weeks isnt 'nearly half a year'... for someone so keen on 'facts' , and as has been proven, legally the beegees are not british.again, to disprove my perception that british musicians didnt create very much disco, ie that it was seemingly ignored, please present a definitive list of british disco tracks that is greater then other generic styles from that time. you can either try chart placings , or get the info from record label chart listings. until you do, then my charge stands, my op stands, as ive already proven that british disco was very scarce in the uk top 40. one thing i will say though... is that over the last 15 odd years, when the dance/club scene has boomed, that reggae and funk have all been ignored! but disco has been seen in some acts... even s club 8 had a few disco-style pop hits, and jamiriquais 'little l' is imho one of the best disco tracks ever. |
|
|
|
|
#213 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,035
|
Quote:
the links i provided clearly shows that the isle of man is a crown dependancy, and that link says quite clearly that the isle of man are NOT part of the uk, of britain, of the eu.
this is exactly what i mean about your bickering. it's a small point, you are wrong, you are proven wrong, and you still argue the toss about it. they are british, end of story |
|
|
|
|
#214 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,035
|
Quote:
unless you can produce all the sales stats from both punk and disco for this era...that statement is meaningless, and STOP trying to make this a punk vs disco argument. it isnt.
|
|
|
|
|
#215 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,035
|
Quote:
now i agree with what you say here, however back in the late 70's there wasnt the huge club scene there is now. yes there were a variety of venues here in derby that catered for differing styles. to 'miss' disco clubs would be hard to do.
so whilst disco may not have been a big thing in your neck of the woods, that doesn't mean that's an accurate representation of what happens elsewhere Quote:
so the point raised by myself and blondie x might not make factual reading, but her (?) experience of dance clubs reflect what mine were, so its evidence.
but that's not evidence. it's just 2 opinions or experiences. how many tens of millions of adults were there at the time?Quote:
it wasnt me who posted that, its a point i agree with, disco was largely a singles based genre, just look at the album charts to see that.
but that wasn't the question or point, you were saying disco was aimed at the charts, i was saying it was aimed at the dancefloor to make people dance."the point is that disco, unlike folk is aimed at the commercial singles chart. " - is what you said Quote:
and dont forget, there wasnt a huge underground club scene/dance scene back then, its not like the 90's - today where many tracks you hear or heard in i-beef-a, at manumission, pascha etc where barely ever played on the radion and very few graced the charts.
but how would you know? especially if it was underground? moreso if you had no interest in the genre? underground music isn't normally played on the radio or in the charts, that's why it's "underground". underground isn't another term like "alternative" where ironically everyone ends up looking the same and following the same or similar trendsQuote:
mallaha got it spot on imho, the most accurate way would be to get the track listings from every label that released british musicians during this period. if thats possible then those stats will stand and either confirm my perception, or deny it.
even if it was possible, it's still going to omit large numbers of musicians who didn't release music commercially in that way, and i'm sure it would also omit one key part of information that forms one of the major flaws in your previous methodQuote:
however, flawed (no not deeply) though it is, viewing the charts is the best way, the most accurate way, of guaging what music was being produced. (if tracklisting cannot be done). no its not perfect, but it is a damn good indication.
no it won't. getting back to your original question "why was disco ignored by british musicians", at best if you could get that information, it's still not going to tell you how many musicians played in each genre, is it?Quote:
in as much as you cannot quantify non chart material... not perfect but a damn good guide... after all, if it didnt make the charts was it really that good?
Quote:
and my point that there was an even spread of non charting styles stands, so viewing the charts, a regular consistent event, is the only way to guage things (unless all tracklistings by every label can be quantified).
that may be your point, but some music is more commercial than others, thus will have a larger percentage of acts not charting, thus using charts to gauge styles of music in general is flawedQuote:
the question i posed was why did british musicians seemingly ignore disco, but created other styles of dance music... that question is about discovering why a popular commercial style of music was overlooked in favour of others.
that very question was address, and has been repeatedly in this thread from very early onwards. the genre wasn't overlooked. some of the very biggest disco records of all time, in the UK and the rest of the world, were by british artists. clubs (of the wheel tappers variety rather than the disco type) and tv shows (like light entertainment/game shows etc) also played disco music as it was a hugely popular genre. what other genre had so many established musicians jumping on it's bandwagon?Quote:
this question has not been addressed.
yes it has. just look at the start of the thread onwards and you will see how early on it was addressedQuote:
then your opinion is factually wrong. and that wiki entry is wrong,
look ma, the internet is wrong!http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._British_Isles are you argentinian? next you'll be saying the falklands aren't british Quote:
they were born on the isle of man, a crown dependancy but not part of the british isles.... thats legally correct.
which means they are british. born to british parentsQuote:
...and when the facts are checked, it totally disproves that statement.
"but most of what you said is merely your opinion. the facts of the matter are that british disco was considerably more popular than the other british dance styles, which is something that's checkable by facts. "but you have made a statement, not presented facts. what i have stated above is a fact, one you can check Quote:
so now you want to include albums? told you, british disco albums were in very very short supply, especially as snf was by the men from manx, not britain.... and again you are being deliberately misleading, snf spend 18 weeks @ #1, NOT 26.... 18 weeks isnt 'nearly half a year'... for someone so keen on 'facts' , and as has been proven, legally the beegees are not british.
as has been proven, the bee gees are british. and as i've repeated a number of times, they spent nearly half a year at number 1 on both sides of the atlantic. facts you can check. i've never said they were at number one for 26 weeks, but i have stated repeatedly that they were at number one for 24 weeks in the US and 18 weeks in the UK. if you can find a single post where i've said they were at number one for a different number of weeks to 24 in the US and 18 in the UK, you will win a special prize to go with your special geography prize. did you have anything to do with the new maps that apple used on IOS6 by any chance?Quote:
again, to disprove my perception that british musicians didnt create very much disco, ie that it was seemingly ignored, please present a definitive list of british disco tracks that is greater then other generic styles from that time. you can either try chart placings , or get the info from record label chart listings. until you do, then my charge stands, my op stands,
but yet again another change of goalposts, and another point altogetherQuote:
as ive already proven that british disco was very scarce in the uk top 40.
but you haven't. even going by your flawed figures, you haven't even shown that any other particular genre was notably more popular than it, and you haven't taken into consideration the number of units sold. how can you say it was scarce when it topped the charts both sides of the atlantic for nearly half a year?Quote:
one thing i will say though... whilst JK was on the acid jazz imprint, his original sound was mostly funk, along with most of his label mates, the more disco orientated sound came a bit later.is that over the last 15 odd years, when the dance/club scene has boomed, that reggae and funk have all been ignored! but disco has been seen in some acts... even s club 8 had a few disco-style pop hits, and jamiriquais 'little l' is imho one of the best disco tracks ever. british funk and soul has never been particularly succesful, at least not compared to US soul. we've never had a really big funk/soul star/act to compete with the US, and that's a far more interesting topic. and whislt it's subjective, putting success aside, we've not even had many that were really that good in the first place, so it's not a case of a lot of great UK soul/funk that's going unheard, it's just not being made |
|
|
|
|
#216 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,755
|
Quote:
how is "The biggest selling album of the punk era was the soundtrack to Saturday Night Fever." meaningless? it's factually correct
he said .that disco outsold punk atthree to one. unless hecan produce the stats that is a meaningless statement. |
|
|
|
|
#217 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,114
|
Quote:
selective quoting yet again. im really bored of this.
he said .that disco outsold punk atthree to one. unless hecan produce the stats that is a meaningless statement. Though I don't have figures to back this up, I'd be comfortable in making the assumption that Disco outsold Punk too. But then, we'd probably end up debating what was classed as Disco & what was classed as Punk etc |
|
|
|
|
#218 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,035
|
Quote:
selective quoting yet again. im really bored of this.
he said .that disco outsold punk atthree to one. unless hecan produce the stats that is a meaningless statement. as for the rest, why don't you produce the stats? you are the one saying he is wrong, so produce the stats to prove it donna summer alone sold about 3 times what the clash and the pistols combined sold in total you referred to abba as disco. they sold 370 million records. thats about 3 times what donna summer sold this is yet another thing you haven't thought through properly isn't it? saturday night fever's soundtrack outsold both the clash and the sex pistols.that's all the records sold by the clash in the entire world being less than what one single record sold, not including the hit singles from the record. staying alive sold 4 million copies alone, another 3 million for night fever and 2.5 million for how deep is your love. that's more than half the number of sales the clash had during their entire career throughout the entire world, in just 3 singles taken from one album add on chic, sister sledge, diana ross, salsoul records (about 300 singles released - thats three HUNDRED), and west end records, and the village people who sold 100 million records, more than 5 times what the clash or pistols sold yes sir i can boogie sold more than the sex pistols and the clash. that's one disco single outselling all the records the clash ever released kung fu fighting sold 11 million as did rock your baby, i will survive sold 14 million, the hustle sold 10 million, le freak 7 million, YMCA 10 million, that's 52 million sales from only 6 records i think you are right, the figures are wrong. disco outsold punk WAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYY more than 3 times |
|
|
|
|
#219 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,755
|
Quote:
do you doubt ""The biggest selling album of the punk era was the soundtrack to Saturday Night Fever." is factually incorrect?
as for the rest, why don't you produce the stats? you are the one saying he is wrong, so produce the stats to prove it donna summer alone sold about 3 times what the clash and the pistols combined sold in total you referred to abba as disco. they sold 370 million records. thats about 3 times what donna summer sold this is yet another thing you haven't thought through properly isn't it? saturday night fever's soundtrack outsold both the clash and the sex pistols.that's all the records sold by the clash in the entire world being less than what one single record sold, not including the hit singles from the record. staying alive sold 4 million copies alone, another 3 million for night fever and 2.5 million for how deep is your love. that's more than half the number of sales the clash had during their entire career throughout the entire world, in just 3 singles taken from one album add on chic, sister sledge, diana ross, salsoul records (about 300 singles released - thats three HUNDRED), and west end records, and the village people who sold 100 million records, more than 5 times what the clash or pistols sold yes sir i can boogie sold more than the sex pistols and the clash. that's one disco single outselling all the records the clash ever released kung fu fighting sold 11 million as did rock your baby, i will survive sold 14 million, the hustle sold 10 million, le freak 7 million, YMCA 10 million, that's 52 million sales from only 6 records i think you are right, the figures are wrong. disco outsold punk WAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYY more than 3 times funny how you can come up with figures when it suits.... and no , i didnt say that snf wasnt the biggest selling album of the punk era. but as soundstory says, thats not the topic in this discussion. |
|
|
|
|
#220 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,755
|
Quote:
but if you are into a particular scene or scense and have no interest in other ones, even today, you can still be unaware of what happens in another scene/genre. if you come from a small town or village, then perhaps less so in relation to what goes on in that area, but then whilst you may know what goes on there, you might be oblivious to what happens elsewhere.
so whilst disco may not have been a big thing in your neck of the woods, that doesn't mean that's an accurate representation of what happens elsewhere but that's not evidence. it's just 2 opinions or experiences. how many tens of millions of adults were there at the time? Quote:
but that wasn't the question or point, you were saying disco was aimed at the charts, i was saying it was aimed at the dancefloor to make people dance. true i did. after another poster had already posted that disco was largely a singles based genre... so if you have an issue with that, take it up with the guy who posted it. i agreed with it."the point is that disco, unlike folk is aimed at the commercial singles chart. " - is what you said Quote:
but how would you know? especially if it was underground? moreso if you had no interest in the genre? underground music isn't normally played on the radio or in the charts, that's why it's "underground". underground isn't another term like "alternative" where ironically everyone ends up looking the same and following the same or similar trends
true, but it does have to surface somewhere, otherwise it wouldnt have any followers and would cease to exist. but this is disco we are talking about, it was in the spotlight, it was popular, so why should it be 'underground'? why no mention in the music press?Quote:
even if it was possible, it's still going to omit large numbers of musicians who didn't release music commercially in that way, and i'm sure it would also omit one key part of information that forms one of the major flaws in your previous method
previous method might not be perfect, but its pretty damn close...wheres the first place you look if you want to know what was popular at any one time in pop music history?... the charts. why? because from the late 50 until the mid 00's (when uber commercialism, generic, mass produced seem to take over) the charts have reflected which musical styles were popular at the time. thats the beauty of our charts, the variety, the number of styles, that are fixed at a point in time and accurately reflect what was going on in the youth culture of that period. ok, not all styles had 'the real' stuff in the charts.... jazz funk for eg, trance for eg, psychedelia for eg, but the charts did have pop 'in the flavour of' these styles. id suggest that all major styles in music over the last 50 plus years (i cant speak for the 50's, i dont know about those charts), have had their style reprisented in our top 40 singles chart. therefore, using these chart as a guide, IS the most practical, accurate, way of judging what people were buying and creating. the charts were as regular, consistent, and unbiased, as you can get. unlike peoples opinions, music mags, etc. so unless you can produce a more accurate way of guaging what styles of music people were buying, using the top 40 charts as a guide is the best way, and for the purposes of this excercise is the one being used. the only reason you are arguing against this perfectly reasonable approach is because you dont like what the stats ive uncovered are revealing. tough. Quote:
whether some music is good or not is entirely subjective. how many times in your life have you said at one point or another how the charts is full of crap and good music is never in it?
...and how many times have i said that in the past you did get class pop music in the charts...i even identified a type by refering to it as 'adult', as opposed to teenybop, novelty, because i dont think the likes of xtc, squeeze, kate bush should be generically in the same class as the effing smurfs, the nolans or dooleys.Quote:
that very question was address, and has been repeatedly in this thread from very early onwards. the genre wasn't overlooked. some of the very biggest disco records of all time, in the UK and the rest of the world, were by british artists. clubs (of the wheel tappers variety rather than the disco type) and tv shows (like light entertainment/game shows etc) also played disco music as it was a hugely popular genre. what other genre had so many established musicians jumping on it's bandwagon?
no it wasnt!...you mentioned a few who did disco, but yet again you are suggesting that i said disco was totally ignored when i said 'seemingly' ignored and ive said that many times since.every style of music has had 'bandwagon jumpers'... a wide variety of styles can be seen on tv. but the topic isnt about discos popularity... its about british disco artists.... where is the evidence...please list the tracks. Quote:
yes it has. just look at the start of the thread onwards and you will see how early on it was addressed
interesting.... on one hand you claim that brits didnt create disco because of the logistics, the backing, facilities, to create disco.... yet on the other hand you claim that there might be a large hidden army of british disco musicians who seemingly can produce disco! how tf can they do that if theres not the facility, the money, the technology, to create this hidden disco and get no money back off the project? clubs? then where is the evidence for these underground clubs? because every other form of music has dedicated sites, they are documented, visible, theres no evidence whatsoever that there was a huge underground british disco movement.Quote:
look ma, the internet is wrong! the reason people think the beegees are british, is because they think (as i did) that the isle of man is part of the uk.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._British_Isles are you argentinian? next you'll be saying the falklands aren't british which means they are british. born to british parents it is a crown dependancy, and as those links i posted clearly state, they are not part of the uk. they are not british. thats what the legal angle is. Quote:
"but most of what you said is merely your opinion. the facts of the matter are that british disco was considerably more popular than the other british dance styles, which is something that's checkable by facts. " i have presented facts, ive clearly shown that there was very very few british disco acts to chart. but you have made a statement, not presented facts. what i have stated above is a fact, one you can check Quote:
as has been proven, the bee gees are british. and as i've repeated a number of times, they spent nearly half a year at number 1 on both sides of the atlantic. facts you can check. i've never said they were at number one for 26 weeks, but i have stated repeatedly that they were at number one for 24 weeks in the US and 18 weeks in the UK. if you can find a single post where i've said they were at number one for a different number of weeks to 24 in the US and 18 in the UK, you will win a special prize to go with your special geography prize. did you have anything to do with the new maps that apple used on IOS6 by any chance?
you contradict youself in that one paragraph.you said that they spent "nearl 6 months at #1 on both sides of the atlantic" , NOT in america alone, the inferance being that they spent 'nearly 6 months' @ # 1 here to. you didnt differentiate, so your post was misleading and factually incorrect. Quote:
but you haven't. even going by your flawed figures, you haven't even shown that any other particular genre was notably more popular than it, and you haven't taken into consideration the number of units sold. how can you say it was scarce when it topped the charts both sides of the atlantic for nearly half a year?
are you on a wind up?... yet again you mention america when the topic is british disco in british charts. of course i havnt taken into account the number of units sold, that acts as a guide to a tracks popularity, it doesnt count the number of british disco tracks which is what the excercise is about. count the number of british disco tracks, count the number artists who produced said tracks. the answer is very very few in comparison to the number of british created tracks for other genres.the figures arent flawed, the top 40 chart stats clearly show that there was very few british disco tracks over the period 76-83, yet again if im wrong, then please list them..it would end this debate in 1 go! |
|
|
|
|
#221 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: DTG Bunker
Posts: 5,044
|
The charts are not and never have been an accurate guide to what music was being made across the board.
They are a guide to what the most popular records were with the single-buying public. These are two different things. This is the last I have to say on the subject. |
|
|
|
|
#222 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,035
|
Quote:
funny how you can come up with figures when it suits....
and no , i didnt say that snf wasnt the biggest selling album of the punk era.. Quote:
true, but wheres the evidence that suggests that there was a large british disco movement? theres sweet fa on wiki... two peoples testimony is evidence, no not conclusive evidence, but evidence non the less.
Quote:
true i did. after another poster had already posted that disco was largely a singles based genre... so if you have an issue with that, take it up with the guy who posted it. i agreed with it.
i don't have an issue with it, i said the same thing myself. the point was that you ask one question, you get an answer that disproves what you are saying, and then try and make out that you asked a different question in the first place as the person answering was wrong, when in fact you were wrongQuote:
true, but it does have to surface somewhere, otherwise it wouldnt have any followers and would cease to exist. but this is disco we are talking about, it was in the spotlight, it was popular, so why should it be 'underground'? why no mention in the music press?
but it did surface. disco topped the charts both sides of the atlantic for nearly half a year. you had both the underground and less commercially successful labels like west end, salsoul, casablanca, etc creating music for the dancefloor, and you had the major labels having hits in the charts. you get exactly the same thing today with dance music, as has happened the last 25 years or so since house music took off. sometimes a track will start on an indie label and get picked up by a major and become a hit, but many others will be known as dancefloor classics by clubbers and unknown to the general public. it also was mentioned in the press, but of course it depends on what publications you read. even today the NME won't expand much on certain genres as the aim of a publication is to print articles for it's demographic readershipQuote:
previous method might not be perfect, but its pretty damn close...
no, it's very flawed. another example, there is no classical music in the chart. if you used your ideas then people would conclude there were no classical musicians in the uk, or very little, when in fact it's probably the most played genre in the uk as most people learn classical music at school or college when learning instrumentsQuote:
wheres the first place you look if you want to know what was popular at any one time in pop music history?... the charts. why? because from the late 50 until the mid 00's (when uber commercialism, generic, mass produced seem to take over) the charts have reflected which musical styles were popular at the time. thats the beauty of our charts, the variety, the number of styles, that are fixed at a point in time and accurately reflect what was going on in the youth culture of that period.
the reality is the charts only show you what tracks have sold in a fixed period. it's not going to show you how many musicians played a particular genre of music. so orchestras that have literally dozens of musicians will register as zero, whilst a bloke who made a tune in his bedroom can have a few hit records. groups of 5 members or less will be more represented, so the charts aren't going to give an accurate portrayal of what musicians are playingQuote:
ok, not all styles had 'the real' stuff in the charts.... jazz funk for eg, trance for eg, psychedelia for eg, but the charts did have pop 'in the flavour of' these styles. id suggest that all major styles in music over the last 50 plus years (i cant speak for the 50's, i dont know about those charts), have had their style reprisented in our top 40 singles chart.
but what does that mean? some very popular styles can have little chart effect, and as your analysis shows, don't turn up at all in your stats. does that mean no-one listens to jazz in the uk because your stats don't show it? does that mean no-one plays jazz in the uk? does that mean jazz records don't sell here? where does jazz fm get their music from? or classical fm?Quote:
therefore, using these chart as a guide, IS the most practical, accurate, way of judging what people were buying and creating.
as explained throughout the thread, it's notQuote:
the charts were as regular, consistent, and unbiased, as you can get. unlike peoples opinions, music mags, etc.
Quote:
so unless you can produce a more accurate way of guaging what styles of music people were buying, using the top 40 charts as a guide is the best way,
no it's not. that's like saying "let's build a ladder to the moon" and someone tells you that won't work, and your reply is "if you can't find of a better way then that's the best way to get to the moon"Quote:
and for the purposes of this excercise is the one being used. the only reason you are arguing against this perfectly reasonable approach is because you dont like what the stats ive uncovered are revealing. tough.
not at all. even though they are deeply flawed, your stats show that punk sold a lot less than you have suggested, and that no other genre is represented considerably more than disco. and that's before the actual sales are looked at, or the chart positions, which will show disco records selling considerably more than punk.what your figures don't show however is how many musicians played a particular genre Quote:
...and how many times have i said that in the past you did get class pop music in the charts...i even identified a type by refering to it as 'adult', as opposed to teenybop, novelty, because i dont think the likes of xtc, squeeze, kate bush should be generically in the same class as the effing smurfs, the nolans or dooleys.
but adult isn't a type of genre of music. music is just subjective. what you think is good, someone else will think is crap, and vice versa. whilst you may like punk music, tens or hundreds or millions of people may thing it's terribleQuote:
no it wasnt!...you mentioned a few who did disco, but yet again you are suggesting that i said disco was totally ignored when i said 'seemingly' ignored and ive said that many times since.
to remind you of the thread title that you started, you said "why was disco ignored by british musicians"Quote:
every style of music has had 'bandwagon jumpers'... a wide variety of styles can be seen on tv.
but i asked "what other genre had so many established musicians jumping on it's bandwagon? ". of all the genres, punk must have been one that had the least number of established acts jumping on it's bandwagon. surely more established acts dabbled with reggae, country and disco than punk? or even house or hip hop if you move to more recent years Quote:
but the topic isnt about discos popularity... its about british disco artists.... where is the evidence...please list the tracks.
so another change of goalposts?i thought the topic was "why was disco ignored by british musicians"? the evidence being listed numerous times on this thread such as that album that spent nearly half a year on top of the charts on both sides of the atlantic, and acts as diverse as rolling stones, led zep, pink floyd, rod stewart, elton john etc being influenced by it and having hit records with it Quote:
interesting.... on one hand you claim that brits didnt create disco because of the logistics, the backing, facilities, to create disco.... yet on the other hand you claim that there might be a large hidden army of british disco musicians who seemingly can produce disco!
not exactly. i'm not suggesting there is a large army or the musicians were hidden. i'm saying that logistiscs made it harder to produce disco music than other genres that required a lower number of musicians, but at the same time tv shows and clubs were using their own musicians to play disco music, whether it was good or badQuote:
how tf can they do that if theres not the facility,
who says there is not the facility? tv shows would have their own band or orchestra that would play whatever they were required to playQuote:
the money, the technology, to create this hidden disco and get no money back off the project?
well tv shows would have the money and technology. it's not so much a great deal of technology that's required rather than to create decent disco at the time before synths were commonplace that a large number of musicians were required. of course you could do it on the cheap and you had the bloke or woman on a bontempi organ with a dude playing bass and another bloke playing drums whilst murdering staying alive with a bird takes her clothes off on stageQuote:
clubs? then where is the evidence for these underground clubs?
underground clubs? have a read at some disco books. but not only were underground clubs playing disco but mainstream old man clubs were playing it too. strip joints and places like the tv show pheonix nights portrays, where a local resident band will play the hits of the dayQuote:
because every other form of music has dedicated sites, they are documented, visible, theres no evidence whatsoever that there was a huge underground british disco movement.
just because you aren't well read and haven't read something, doesn't mean something isn't documented. how many books on disco have you read?Quote:
the reason people think the beegees are british, is because they think (as i did) that the isle of man is part of the uk.
the reasons why people think the bee gees are british when they are british is irrelevantQuote:
it is a crown dependancy, and as those links i posted clearly state, they are not part of the uk. they are not british. thats what the legal angle is.
but you posted a link that proves it is british, which it is. passports from the isle of man confirm it's residents are britishhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manx_passport Quote:
The Isle of Man passport is a British passport issued by the Chief Secretary's Office of the Isle of Man Government to British citizens and British subjects connected to the Crown Dependency of the Isle of Man
here is a photo of an example of an isle of man passport. notice it says "isle of man" and "british citizen". http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ortbiodata.png Quote:
i have presented facts, ive clearly shown that there was very very few british disco acts to chart.
what your flawed figures show is that there is no considerable difference between disco and any other genre in the charts. what they don't show is the number of musicians nor the actual salesQuote:
you contradict youself in that one paragraph.
there is no contradiction at allQuote:
you said that they spent "nearl 6 months at #1 on both sides of the atlantic" , NOT in america alone,
yes, i've said many times in this thread that they spent nearly half a year at number 1 on both sides of the atlantic, which is correctQuote:
the inferance being that they spent 'nearly 6 months' @ # 1 here to.
no inferance, i meant they spent nearly half a year at number 1 on both sides of the atlantic. that means nearly half a year at number 1 in america, and nearly half a year at number 1 in the UKQuote:
you didnt differentiate, so your post was misleading and factually incorrect.
it's not misleading, as i've made it very clear by repeating the same thing throughout the thread. it's factually correct, documented and checkable.i thought you said you were through with the bickering? Quote:
are you on a wind up?... yet again you mention america when the topic is british disco in british charts. of course i havnt taken into account the number of units sold, that acts as a guide to a tracks popularity, it doesnt count the number of british disco tracks which is what the excercise is about. count the number of british disco tracks, count the number artists who produced said tracks. the answer is very very few in comparison to the number of british created tracks for other genres.
but british acts topped the charts on both sides of the atlantic for nearly half a year. that shows british acts didn't ignore discoQuote:
the figures arent flawed, the top 40 chart stats clearly show that there was very few british disco tracks over the period 76-83, yet again if im wrong, then please list them..it would end this debate in 1 go!
as explained thoughout the thread your figures are deeply flawed, and they certainly don't prove that british musicians ignored disco
|
|
|
|
|
#223 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,755
|
Quote:
The charts are not and never have been an accurate guide to what music was being made across the board.
They are a guide to what the most popular records were with the single-buying public. . can you name 1, just 1 major fashion/stlye in popular music over the last 50 + years that hasnt been reprisented in the charts, albeit in a toned down commercial way (if not in a 'pure' way)? .... and i say 'major' because its disco we are talking about here...not a 'minor' movement within music. so whilst the charts havnt accurately reprisented all muic created, they have displayed examples of all the big movements, either by 'pure' examples (beat, britpop, glam for eg...what you see is what you get,) or by toned down commercial styles of a genre. to suggest that there was a large british disco movement that somehow went under the radar whilst 'non british' disco was so obvious, is preposterous! theres no evidence for this at all. |
|
|
|
|
#224 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,035
|
Quote:
.... which have reflected the fashions in music at any one point in music history.
can you name 1, just 1 major fashion/stlye in popular music over the last 50 + years that hasnt been reprisented in the charts, albeit in a toned down commercial way (if not in a 'pure' way)? .... and i say 'major' because its disco we are talking about here...not a 'minor' movement within music. so whilst the charts havnt accurately reprisented all muic created, they have displayed examples of all the big movements, either by 'pure' examples (beat, britpop, glam for eg...what you see is what you get,) or by toned down commercial styles of a genre. to suggest that there was a large british disco movement that somehow went under the radar whilst 'non british' disco was so obvious, is preposterous! theres no evidence for this at all. the big flaw in your stats that you don't appear to have picked up on, is that whilst your stats are deeply flawed, they don't show any genre being notably more represented than any other, and what they do show is just small numbers of each particular genre. now when you consider the fact that most bands comprise of 5 members of less, particularly rock, pop and disco, when you look at your figures which only count tracks, and then consider the original topic of "why was disco ignored by british musicians", and that most disco music comprised of an orchestra and/or horn section backing the traditional drum/bass/keys/guitar section, your stats actually suggest that there were MORE british musicians playing disco music than any other genre, if you use the train of thought you have displayed before by taking those samples and applying percentages. it took more people to create disco music usually. in fact you can easily have 10 or even 20 times more people performing on a disco track than a punk track. so taking your example periods that may show 1 disco track and 3 punk tracks in the charts, that one disco record could have more people playing on it than all 3 punk tracks added together. similarly with classical music that's not represented at all. yet one single classical peice can have literally dozens of players. as mentioned before, disco music provided backing to tv shows and movies, but not charting, yet it still required people to perform it, people who aren't represented in the charts |
|
|
|
|
#225 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,755
|
Quote:
it's not evidence at all. it's just opinion. look in the charts and you will see british disco spending nearly half a year at number one on both sides of the atlantic.
so...you want to include abums eh?... how many british disco albums were there in this period? and by disco album i mean an album where over half the tracks are disco, disco as defined by the wiki link previously posted. ill be back later with a list of non disco british albums. Quote:
look at your other stats. although deeply flawed, they don't show any other genre having a considerably bigger share of the charts than disco at the time
they are not flawed, my original post cited the charts as supporting the fact that british artists seemingly ignored disco.... the chart stats, easily checked, that i posted (and i could do more but cant be arsed) all show the same thing.... a complete lack of british disco acts in the top 40 from 76-83, and that other styles were more popular by british acts which is what i posted in post #1.and yet again you are mis-quoting what i said. i will report this if it happens again. the point of the excercise wasnt to show that any other genre was bigger then disco, but to prove that british musicians produced other styles of music to a greater degree then disco. this was proven to be correct. it also highlighted that there was as many disco hits as there was rock, new wave, soul, and that good old fashioned pop was the dominant genre. that is what the charts clearly show. Quote:
but it did surface. disco topped the charts both sides of the atlantic for nearly half a year. you had both the underground and less commercially successful labels like west end, salsoul, casablanca, etc creating music for the dancefloor, and you had the major labels having hits in the charts. you get exactly the same thing today with dance music, as has happened the last 25 years or so since house music took off. sometimes a track will start on an indie label and get picked up by a major and become a hit, but many others will be known as dancefloor classics by clubbers and unknown to the general public. it also was mentioned in the press, but of course it depends on what publications you read. even today the NME won't expand much on certain genres as the aim of a publication is to print articles for it's demographic readership
i dont disagree with most of this, except todays dance scene is far bigger and better organised then it was 35 years ago. however its not evidence that there was a huge disco scene created by british artists.Quote:
no, it's very flawed. another example, there is no classical music in the chart. if you used your ideas then people would conclude there were no classical musicians in the uk, or very little, when in fact it's probably the most played genre in the uk as most people learn classical music at school or college when learning instruments
but classical is not pop (as in the umbrella term )... disco is. so of course classical doesnt get much of a look in... i suspect that classical tracks have sold far more then any pop tracks, they have been around for a couple of hundered years!Quote:
the reality is the charts only show you what tracks have sold in a fixed period. it's not going to show you how many musicians played a particular genre of music. so orchestras that have literally dozens of musicians will register as zero, whilst a bloke who made a tune in his bedroom can have a few hit records. groups of 5 members or less will be more represented, so the charts aren't going to give an accurate portrayal of what musicians are playing
it doesnt matter how many musicians it takes to create a single track, if act 'a' has 4 members or 20 members, that counts as 1 track and one artist ... every track is released by an artist or artists, not unless named as such an ensemble.Quote:
but what does that mean? some very popular styles can have little chart effect, and as your analysis shows, don't turn up at all in your stats. does that mean no-one listens to jazz in the uk because your stats don't show it? does that mean no-one plays jazz in the uk? does that mean jazz records don't sell here? where does jazz fm get their music from? or classical fm?
just view the charts from the early 60's when jazz was hip and pop, jazz is well reprisented, aker bilk, kenny ball, dave brubeck, johnny dankworth, etc all had a number of big hits.... so yes, when a style is 'pop', it shows. but nowdays classical, jazz, folk, etc dont come under the umbrella term of 'pop', they arent considered pop music... disco does.but hey, if you really want to include 'non pop' genres, then british discos share % wise of the market will drop even further! ![]() Quote:
as explained throughout the thread, it's not
as explained previously, it is, it is the most practical, sensible way of understanding which styles of music were being created at any one point in british music history.unless you can come up with a better, equally as practical, way of quantifying what the british musicans were creating at the time... then please do! otherwise youll just have to accept that for the purposes of this excercise, and as mentioned and defined in post #1, the british uk top 40 (i would use a larger chart if i had one that covers this period) is the data im using. Quote:
no it's not. that's like saying "let's build a ladder to the moon" and someone tells you that won't work, and your reply is "if you can't find of a better way then that's the best way to get to the moon"
ridiculous and rather desperate statement. you cant build a ladder to the moon, you CAN use the recorded data to draw conclusions.Quote:
not at all. even though they are deeply flawed, your stats show that punk sold a lot less than you have suggested, and that no other genre is represented considerably more than disco. and that's before the actual sales are looked at, or the chart positions, which will show disco records selling considerably more than punk.
eh? where have i suggested that punk sold more?.. eh? pop was reprisented in the charts far more then disco... the topic isnt about sales.... but as disco was all but absent from the charts 1981-83, and rock, new wave, soul, (styles of which were reprisented as much as disco during discos era) went on selling, id suggest that in the uk, new wave, rock and soul...let alone pop, all outsold disco.Quote:
what your figures don't show however is how many musicians played a particular genre
lol... no figures show that. thats ridiculous. does a hit track list every musician who played on it?...no... each track is credited to an act, an artist, a group, so each track = 1 vote.Quote:
but adult isn't a type of genre of music. music is just subjective. what you think is good, someone else will think is crap, and vice versa. whilst you may like punk music, tens or hundreds or millions of people may thing it's terrible
STOP focusing on punk, this isnt punk vs disco. punks place in this isnt the topic.its subjective is it?.... well how many people would think the smurfs are equal to squeeze?... c'mon, stop nit picking, i lumped 'adult' pop in with 'novelty' pop and pop makes up a third of the market... three times bigger by artist/track then disco.Quote:
to remind you of the thread title that you started, you said "why was disco ignored by british musicians"
then went on to qualify this, because i didnt want to make the title too long.Quote:
but i asked "what other genre had so many established musicians jumping on it's bandwagon? ". the answer to that is 'i dont know'... do you?of all the genres, punk must have been one that had the least number of established acts jumping on it's bandwagon. surely more established acts dabbled with reggae, country and disco than punk? or even house or hip hop if you move to more recent years Quote:
so another change of goalposts? i stand by post #1, which clearly identifies what im on about.i thought the topic was "why was disco ignored by british musicians"? the evidence being listed numerous times on this thread such as that album that spent nearly half a year on top of the charts on both sides of the atlantic, and acts as diverse as rolling stones, led zep, pink floyd, rod stewart, elton john etc being influenced by it and having hit records with it Quote:
who says there is not the facility? tv shows would have their own band or orchestra that would play whatever they were required to play
you did! earlier... Quote:
underground clubs? have a read at some disco books. but not only were underground clubs playing disco but mainstream old man clubs were playing it too. strip joints and places like the tv show pheonix nights portrays, where a local resident band will play the hits of the day non. so?... wheres the evidence that there was a large underground disco scene where british musicians were creating disco?just because you aren't well read and haven't read something, doesn't mean something isn't documented. how many books on disco have you read? for someone soooooo keen on facts, citing an albums success, providing chart stats and sales when it suits... ... you still have not provided a list of disco tracks that charted created by british musicians... youve named but a handful that 'dabbled'... the fact is, if you could provide a list of disco tracks created by british musicians between 1976 and 1983, and that this list was greater then the equivelant for the other popular styles of music in this period..... you would have proven my perception to be inaccurate . but the point is, you cant. because my perception that british musicians did all but ignore is close to the mark, if not completely correct. Quote:
the reasons why people think the bee gees are british when they are british is irrelevant .... fair play.but you posted a link that proves it is british, which it is. passports from the isle of man confirm it's residents are british http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manx_passport here is a photo of an example of an isle of man passport. notice it says "isle of man" and "british citizen". http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ortbiodata.png Quote:
what your flawed figures show is that there is no considerable difference between disco and any other genre in the charts.
except pop, but they do show that there was hardly any BRITISH disco in the charts...which is what post #1 claims.Quote:
yes, i've said many times in this thread that they spent nearly half a year at number 1 on both sides of the atlantic, which is correct its misleading and factually incorrect, plus off topic.no inferance, i meant they spent nearly half a year at number 1 on both sides of the atlantic. that means nearly half a year at number 1 in america, and nearly half a year at number 1 in the UK it's not misleading, as i've made it very clear by repeating the same thing throughout the thread. it's factually correct, documented and checkable. i thought you said you were through with the bickering? STOP clouding the issue by refering to american charts when the topic is BRITISH charts. snf was at #1 for 18 weeks, thats 8 weeks off 'half a year', so no, snf didnt spent 'nearly half a year @#1' here in the uk. Quote:
as explained thoughout the thread your figures are deeply flawed, and they certainly don't prove that british musicians ignored disco
thats your opinion , the chart stats though tell a different story, the chart stats are not deeply flawed, they are accurate.post #1 stands intact. you have dont nothing but bicker over side issues because you cannot provide a list of british created disco tracks that disproves post #1. i have provided chart stats that clearly show that british disco tracks were a clear minority in comparison to the many other styles of music british musicians were charting with. |
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 15:15.




