I think that is changing, though.

Their last two tours, in 2011 and 2014, both sold out and they played Wembley Arena on their last tour.

However they have had to radically "commercialise" their sound to achieve that success. On 2014s Hydra tour, for example, nearly all the songs were from either Hydra or The Unforgiving and when I saw them at Wembley Arena it was patently obvious the vast majority there knew little of their earlier work as there were a lot of blank faces when they played the likes of Ice Queen and Mother Earth.

tower records was waaaaaay too expensive. also, whilst browsing a record store like tower or hmv you couldn't actually hear what you saw on the shelves. browsing online you can easily play it. who knows how many people do this, but it's up to the individual to go looking for something if they don't like what is readily available. perhaps younger folk do this more often. I think it's considerably easier to find more diverse music now than before the internet days, and theres considerably more diversity in music, particularly when you take into consideration all the music from the past that there is to listen to on top of all the new stuff. that of course means theres more crap along with more good stuff, but with technology it's much easier to skip tracks and also much easier to find similar stuff you might like once you've found things you like. there are many sites that give recommendations based on previous viewing and listening habits. you never had that before

That's because in those days we had the likes of John Peel to plug underground or cutting edge acts. Without him I would never have come across half the stuff I ended up listening to. There were also other radio DJs around at that time following in John Peel's wake, eg Bob Harris Charlie Gillett, etc. So it was relatively easy to discover the quality acts or the more avant garde..

Today you just don't have that kind of exposure for new bands, at least not on mainstream radio.

I don't think the BBC fully understood what they lost when Peel died. They very quickly distanced themselves from the idea of a "new Peel" and refused to replace him with a presenter with a similar breadth of musical taste and knowledge. It was the end of the era of the "anything goes" eclectic format which Peel more-or-less invented. Ironically there must be hundreds of radio shows around the world which adopted Peel's format, just not on Radio 1.

edit: agree about Charlie Gillett too.

There's a lot of music out there to discover, but a lot of people on this forum only seem to listen to the Top 40 and disposable pop music.

the point is though that 'back then' you didnt have to 'search' for it (other then furthering what the charts were displaying), these charts had variety and some quality pop songs...

Even 'back then' there was always music that wasn't generally played, especially music by bands who concentrated on albums rather than singles.

The difference was, though, those bands had the likes of John Peel, 'Whispering' Bob Harris, Alan 'Fluff' Freeman, etc, who would play their music on the radio along with The Old grey Whistle Test on TV.

Are some people really claiming that it is better to be spoonfed what radio DJs and TV presenters/producers like rather than going out and finding what they like themselves?

Who has said that?

Ultimately, though, many people (the majority?) do rely on being spoonfed their music, but if what they hear on the radio is broadened and they hear something they like it might well pique their interest enough to investigate further.

....which is what i alluded too with my comment in brackets..

hence why we got alot of 'radio hits', tracks that had airplay but failed to chart or charted low. 'back then' you could hear variety and if something took your fancy, you could try to look into the act or movement that you liked the sound of.

This talk of 'searching out' music is (perhaps inadvertently) being made to sound like some kind of endless chore by some. It should be noted that it's as simple as turning on your pc and doing a bit of googling, and once you've found websites/blogs that you like you're set.

Not in my experience. I've so much more that I bought in the London Tower than in their chainstore rivals HMV or Virgin and the reason for that was quite simply price. Whilst it wasn't always the case that these chains had listening posts, certainly Tower had them by the mid-90s and I remember some releases bought after auditioning in this way.



If the "it" being referred to is the "lot of music out there to discover", then of course you had to search search for it in the past! There may appear to be a narrower range of genres represented in the charts of today than say thirty or forty years ago but it's still the same total number of singles every week as it always was. Whether it's 1965 or 2015, most recorded music was and is absent from any top selling singles chart.

Surely if anyone past or present is a genuine music addict they'll dig beyond a singles chart; actively seek out more of what they like?

Or maybe just firing up some internet radio on the smart phone when not even at the PC.

I discover music every day when browsing the web (often older recordings that I don't know) and the biggest chore is trying to track some of it down to buy on a reissue or at an affordable price.

Yes i alluded to that in the brackets.... The point is though that you didnt have to search as blind as you do today. In the past most styles of music being produced, and we are talking pop here, was reprisented in the charts or on the radio or got a mention in music mags. And as we had strong youth movements and fashions it was quite easy to look up a style or an artist you liked.

Many good points have been raised in this thread.

Radio 1 DJ's now are all egotistical and love the sound of their own voice more than the music they're supposed to be playing. By this I mean you tune into Radio 1 between 10am and 4pm and chances are you will hear the DJ talking rather than actual music.

Anyways, I do think a shift is starting and it's called Spotify. True it's not making a drastic change but I've noticed that you get songs on the Viral Chart that appear high up due to being popular in Europe, and people in the UK might be looking at the viral chart and seeing these odd songs they've never heard of and play them out of intrigued.

I think this is why the glorious Firestone by Kygo featuring Conrad has been a slow burner, and of course now that there is a music video and airplay from Radio 1 the song has now started climbing higher up the chart. I downloaded the song back in January after discovering the song on YouTube.

I also think another issue is iTunes. You discover a song on YouTube that's popular in other countries and you check iTunes to see if it's available to purchase and it's not there, just some crappy karaoke cover of the song.

All you guys are expressing is a purely consumerist view of pop music. Like all that really matters is what you like.

Irrespective of whether there is such a thing as a truly personal, unmediated choice, how do you assess the artistic or aesthetic worth of this music?

I agree


I disagree.

There's some decent music around nowadays but the market is so saturated, with poor to mediocre material, finding the good stuff is like looking for a needle in a haystack.

In the past there was plenty of good stuff (probably more than there is today IMHO) and I think the hit to miss ratio was higher, so it was easier to find the good stuff.

I think there's more agreement than disagreement in this thread. It's generally agreed there's a heavier rotation of songs played on the radio and the singles chart lacks the variety it did. So the main question seems to be can new music develop with little or no help from radio or TV? And the same question which is plaguing the TV/film industry, with CD sales down a cliff is there any chance of music downloads becoming a viable model or is money only made by touring these days?

i suppose it depends on what you were buying, but the only thing tower were good at was imports, but they were so overpriced. the competed with hmv and virgin on certain new and chart titles but even then i bought few things from tower and bought from wherever was cheapest and usually those three stores were near each other

as for listening posts, i presume you mean the type that had so many cds already in them, as opposed to being able to choose a cd from the racks and play it? or in other words the listening posts were stocked with specific cds the store wanted to promote, similar to stores playing certain cds on the in house sound system? not quite the same as being able to pick any cd and listen to it, whereas today you can usually listen to at least a sample of most albums on the likes of itunes and amazon or google up or use youtube or spotify etc etc etc

with more tv channels than before, and this being a new golden age of tv, and the same parent companies owning tv stations and record labels, new music is regularly promoted on tv shows. some shows on certain channels have on screen notes to tell you what track is playing

as for downloads of music being a viable model, itunes took $18 billion in 2014. thats just income of one company. i think itunes consider themselves to be a viable model

Golden age of TV? The TV market has bottomed out due to the collapse in DVD sales with only a few giant 'indie' producers left.

This cross branding synergy for instance with Warner Music and CW/WB only applies to certain types of 'indie' music, the kind that appeals to teenyboppers.

Is it a viable model for musicians or just for Apple?

Technology has played a part but also I think artists' are not so creative as they used to be.

To reach the top of the charts and/or become an established artist you need tick the same boxes as in 1979. You need to find your audience, have that showmanship quality or make your image shine through creativity.

What the the internet has done is brought down record sales and so major labels have to use demographic targeting techniques to find their audience more than ever before. At the same time, You Tube has made music videos all about maximizing the most views, the results then have an impact on radio airplay.

You can only be considered a major established artist if you at least have one music video with at least 50 million views on You Tube (and that criteria is rising all the time.) Otherwise, Radio 1 or Capital FM won't always play the track straight off the bat. Certainly not in peak times.

I still think there's enough diversity on radio as a whole, than on the top 20. But major labels and the industry are chasing big branded artists (you know the ones that have videos on You Tube with 100 -800 million views!) , who have massive clout and are generally interesting people to follow!

it's not bottomed out at all. there's hugely popular shows with big name actors who wouldn't normally have done tv, and big name movie producers and directors getting involved in tv. clearly you don't know what you are talking about


no it doesn't


yes


amazon and cdbaby seem to be doing fine too, so not just apple

golden age of tv?....

more channels doesnt make it better. we often find it hard to find anything good to watch and revert to old father teds, royle family, vicar of dibleys for out light entertainment. tv comedy is id suggest, at an all time low. sport though is well catered for . but this is a music thread so best move on.

Was it only Virgin that had the listening posts where you could pick any CD, scan its bar code and it would play?