I 'found' Rival Sons on Jools Holland only a couple of months ago.

You do have a point, there is probably less hard rock/metal acts than others but they are covered. He might wait till the rock acts are established before he takes a chance but I'd still say that he does,l plenty of acts I think SHOULD have been on his show though.
I've actually found internet radio is the way to discover new stuff these days as there are stations for every genre imaginable and it's great you can just favourite an artist that's pique'd your interest.

I first saw Rival Sons supporting someone @ five or six years ago I can't remember off the top of my head who, Mastodon I saw supporting Tool in @ 2006/7, so most rock bands have been around a few years before they even get a sniff of an appearance, let alone actually appear.

But then I can never work out how the likes of Joanne Shaw Taylor, a very telented British blues rock singer/guitarist, or new bands who are really making a name for themselves such as Blues Pills never seem to be even considered, but a plinky-plonky pop duo who've never even released anything get invited on before the ink is dry on their shiny new contract, often before disappearing even quicker than they arrived.
Last edited by Glawster2002 : 24-02-2015 at 14:58

I'd struggle to disagree with most of what you've said to be honest but I still think Later... is the best music show on TV. Besides the old BBC4 repeats of course.

You should probably check out Dead Sara if you haven't already, I think they are the most chronically overlooked band of recent times, Dave Grohl has been quoted as saying they should be the biggest rock band in the world, I agree! Emily Armstrong might have the best female rock vocals I've ever heard.

yes... and thats how it should be?... imagine if there were forums in the 50's-80's, it WOULD be full of young people talking about their/our current genres and fashions... that how it always was but doesnt appear to be now.


thats true when it comes to old buggers 'dissing' modern music....

but

just where is the identity of current generations?


indeed you may well be correct on this, and it is a point ive argued previously. it might answer my question, as the op, that the 'old buggers in music' are only here because it has all been done, the youth of today havnt got any other path to take except reviving older styles and THATS why there are so many older artists around nowdays.


yeah i know that.... but theres no strong youth movement, thats the point.. generation defining fashions coupled with a musical style... theres been around 20 odd (maybe more) strong fashions that was created by the youth of the day, which had its musical style to go with it .

just look back to say 1979 or 80, look at the charts and the music press, you had disco, new wave, punk, rock, two tone, rockabilly, prog rock, and more... strong musical styles, coupled with strong fashion that defined a 'look' .... and all were youth lead.

it matters not whether i like it or not, but i just cannot see it in recent years...

What's changed is technology how we listen to music and how we are introduced to music. Up until MP3 / streaming etc. basically there were about 5 big players both in radio and record companies and they controlled and drip fed the music market. This meant both releasing of music and style of music was very controlled to what the mass market could get hold of or listen to. You had 3 tv channels in the 60's progressing to 4 in the eighties BBC radio was the only real main music channel. The eighties saw music channels and a whole new bunch of radio channels, nineties etc each decade it's increased until broadband internet.
The music industry is no longer controlled by territory or by release dates of each country. Yes the big players in radio still have a huge influence but the mass market is now an open market anyone can record and release without having the backing of a big record company.
What's always been in the record companies interests was to focus on a genre of music and for them to change the genre every few years to keep the mass youth buying and completely changing style and trend of music. This kept increasing sales they were of course not interested in aging artists as older generations aren't going to mass buy merchandise badges, annuals, tshirts, naff soap on a rope etc. the list is endless. 1D, Spice Girls etc are a prime example of brand merchandising. So the big record companies kept focussed on who the youth were listening to and drip feeding the mass market. A bit like Syco records still continue to do they have no real interest in longevity just cash in quickly then drop the artist.
I think that there is plenty of new styles and genres of music especially in the rap, R&B market. What has changed is there is no longer a huge movement of music towards a single style or genre because the market is so open and people can continue to listen to artists they have always liked or supported. Also I don't think younger people were given an opportunity to listen to previous generations of music due to the lack of accessibility prior to broadband. It amazes me what young teenagers listen to many of them appreciate a much broader spectrum of music than we oldies ever had the chance to listen to.
I think today's generation have every decade, genre and style of music to listen to instantly they are able to pick whatever they want when they want so are not as easily influenced or manipulated into being sheep like the kids in 50's, 60's 70,s 80's & 90's.

There are youth movements and fashions, but they're not often paired with music as much nowadays as they once were. Music isn't as life-encompassing as it was for previous generations, other mediums often take the lead more, with both video games and television programmes for examples, amongst others, appealing more to a younger crowd. You're much more likely to hear a young person saying they are enamored or influenced by these things than a music act. For a lot of the younger generation, music has been relegated to a fun noise you have in the background when you're either out and or about or chilling at home.
Technology has also played a big part in the appreciation of music for modern audiences, but the post above has already gone into detail about this already.

And there was me thinkin' the poor loves were all wearing old-fashioned deaf aids!

I guess I'm an exception too. I much prefer European Metal to US or British (with the exception of Hell, who are one of my favourite bands)

And their "revolutionary visions" all turned out to be pretentious claptrap. The Beatles turned out some great songs, as did the Stones. Music died and turned into just noise for juiced up teen agers after that. Teeeedious!!

It would be great if real composers actually composed again and singers concentrated on singing instead of "writing" songs with their brainstorming teams of 40.

That's the problem with modern pop in a nutshell, everything is done by committee, from the executives to the songwriters and even the recording process.

Digressing a bit.
The historical problem with pop music, is that a lot of it is written round the same chord progressions. Many of the best pop song composers are in my opinion usually trained musicians who write the melody first and then fit the chords around it. Neil Sedaka a (Julliard student) comes to mind.
I won't say that there aren't a lot of good pop songs written around four chords, with a few more chucked in for "the bridge." But a lot sound "samey" because of this.

There's a finite number of songs that can be written without them immediately reminding you of something else.
(I won't mention "He's So Fine" and "My Sweet Lord," the latter was a rip-off regardless of what the courts said).

As an example. I heard this by a "singer/songwriter" for the first time yesterday as a soundtrack over part of a TV documentary. Not an unpleasant song.

"Open Up Your Door."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lx4xrYx_KHY

Anyone wanna tell me the difference between that and this?

Soldier On.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MKKx8un_KI

Completely agree. Over the last 15 years or so I've discovered more of the good acts on Jools Holland's show than anywhere else in the UK media. Classic example of this was the late Amy Winehouse who made her tv debut on Later when I just happened to be watching. Of course, a lot of rubbish also finds its way onto the show, but there's always that gem act or two that surfaces in each series.


Not true. There were loads of big hits for the 'oldies' in the 60s, eg Matt Monro, Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, Frankie Vaughan, Acker Bilk, Kenny Ball, Ken Dodd, Andy Williams, Des O' Connor, Engelbert Humperdink, Clive Dunn, Jim Reeves etc to name just a few

But whether it was pretencious claptrap or not doesnt matter, at least they/we had expression, fun, identity, and thats what i suggest is missing in recent times.

As far as "oldies" were concerned, there were plenty of them with hit records in the fifties and into the early sixties.

Who could forget this, in the 1956 film "The Girl Can't Help it." Julie London had a top ten hit with it in 1955. (Barney Kessell played the guitar).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwheXIa8Cl0

A lot of ex "Big band singers" were prominent in the fifties.

Peggy Lee had a top ten hit single. with "Fever" in 1958. (Shelly Manne played the drums) . It's still popular, over 20 million hits on this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGb5IweiYG8

Sarah Vaughan ("Miss Perfect Pitch," she's my favourite) a top ten hit with

"Broken-hearted Melody," in 1959.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfE0Lhx66Mc

These ladies all had good album sales and held their own with the pop brigade, at least for a while.

Not difficult to achieve when it's the only music show on TV.

Agreed with you there, while there are quite a few good Rock bands over here & the states, the majority of Symphonic Metal that I listen to is from Europe, like Within Temptation & Nightwish. So much more talent than the generic chart BS like 1D or Be(yawn)once

I prefer music by older acts such as Madonna, Pet Shop Boys and Depeche Mode so I would say no they haven't ruined pop music, if I think the 'old fart or farts' in question has made a decent album then I will listen to it.

Its major corporations who have ruined the pop charts they dictate whos played and omit whoever they want, up until about the turn of the millennium independent artists would get there videos and songs played on the radio and music tv at about a 40/60 ratio, now it rarely happens, we only get songs from about 2 different labels on the top 40 (sony or universal).Thats why its all kind of sounds the same production wise, Unless you are signed to one of them you wont get hardly any kind of media buzz.The people used to dictate what the radio playlists were not the media or whichever company who's pockets are the deepest.
Also the general public are to lazy to look for alternatives, Unless its presented to them on a plate and its played over and over again and then programmed into them they wont buy it. how many millions of times do you hear someone say 'i hated it at first but it grew on me'. or the opposite 'i loved it at first but then it got overplayed'
I don't understand why well established artist's with a strong fan base's are even signed to a label these days..All it will take is for an artist to have an album thats only available to buy on there website that becomes a huge platinum selling smash and the whole will industry will flip on its head and the artists and fans will take some control again.

I think the problem with Later.....with Jools Holland is Jools Holland. It's probably time for a new format and presenter but I still watch the programme.

From the mentions of Europe here, maybe the centre of gravity for pop music is moving from the US/UK to Europe and the Far East? You will also find a huge interest in European Classical music in the Far East as well.

Technology has had an impact as it always has on pop music. The way music is distributed and consumed has changed. The audience is more fragmented as the range of music available has increased. The 'old chestnut' of there is new music out there is true but that is largely a costumer perspective. The question is, is there a sufficient audience out there to make it worthwhile for new artists? I'm not sure of the answer.

Yes, new technologies have helped lessen traditional musicianship. Theoretically though new technologies should have opened up creative opportunities, i.e. the ability to play instruments is less of an impediment to creativity. There is an emergent set of technologies or apps that let the listener be more involved in the creative process. That may be the future of the pop music?

The lack of a serious youth movement in modern pop music is also a factor. The disaffected youth seem to have turned to alternative areas like hacking, gaming and computer technologies. They are perhaps more interested in making apps or playing games than making music?

There is another possibility that older artists are being discovered by newer, younger audiences all the time.

I'm grateful for the old acts who continue to release music. I'm only 31 but I can't relate to any of the current lot who are aimed at the youth of today, like Ariana Grande or Miley Cyrus.

I relate more to acts like Madonna, David Bowie, Pink Floyd and Kate Bush. Occassionally someone younger will come along who I click with, like Ellie Goulding, Adele, or Sam Smith but it's rare. Mostly I hate how downright nasty, sleazy and corrupt the music industry is and how you don't need to even be able to sing anymore to get to the top, just take your clothes off and be "controversial" (IE, an attention seeking moron). It feels like music is now all about corrupting people and not inspiring any sort of creativity of real freedom.

Exactly!

These newer acts don't do anything for me, their music doesn't even make my toes tap and I find it (and them) uninspiring and boring so it's hats off to such as PSB, DM and Madonna, they may be long in the tooth but they are making the music I feel inspired to listen to.

I'll go further and say that music by the likes of Pink Floyd and David Bowie that was created in the 1960s and 1970s is still socially relevant today and more relatable to the average man on the street than anything by the majority of what's in the Top 40 today.

Today, singers sing about being rich and famous and having it all. Who can relate to that? It just gives people false hope that they can become like the celebrities who fill the sidebars of shame in the papers and magazines. I think it's damaging, actually. Don't even get me started on what I think of songs/videos like Booty by J.Lo and the negative impact it'll be having on young people. I sound like such an old fart but it does worry me.

Is this not a musical cliche at this point?

true, there has always been music by oldies in the charts... but they mostly werent trend setters and had little to do with the youth culture of the day, producing music for 'mums' and 'squares'... its the youth lead fashions that are missing now.


you highlight the 'problem' in question. in the 50's to the 80's (or possibly 90's) the days youth would very rarely like 'retro' artists or old buggers. how many 50's artists were having hits and were popular/relevant to the kids in the 70's?... now yes, there was a glamed up version of rock n roll, from mud, wizzard, showaddywaddy and others but these acts updated the sound and added their personalities to it.

likewise for subsequent decades, even into the 90's there wasnt a huge liking for 'old' acts who were popular 20 years earlier.

so why are these 'old' acts still going and producing music that appeals to their core fanbase (adults)? and why are the young appear to be accepting their parents music?


agreed with most of that, but the bib.... i dont subscribe to the notion that if somethings played on the radio often enough people will buy it.... unless todays music fans are really that easily manipulated. in the past there were loads of tracks that had alot of radion airplay but failed to chart - 'radio hits'. 'we' rejected songs we didnt like, why should todays youth be any different?


but youre too old!

youth movements were created by and lead by people younger then you, people who had something to say, the beatles were around 20 when they broke the scene... as were the genre leaders each time a new style broke out.

maybe though youve hit on a point.... maybe oldies are popular now because their fan base has grown old with them but still follow them. back in the 50's/80's trends in pop music was largely a youth lead phenomena for the youth of the day. trendy pop wasnt for the oldies, who didnt like it or understand it.

However pop music today is so bland it appeals just as much to the "oldies" as it does the teenagers.

Look at The Brit Award nominees, and likely winners, as an example. I'm sure Sam Smith and Ed Sheeran are decent enough lads but bland doesn't even begin to describe them. Harking back to previous Brit Awards, they are hardly the new KLF.

Today's pop music is, in many ways, going back to the late 1950s/early '60s and the likes of Sam Smith and Ed Sheeran are the new Matt Monroe and Jimmy Young.