General 'chart music' rant

For new sounds, old sounds and favourite sound discussion...

Moderators: sunny, BzaInSpace, runcible, spzretent

runcible
Site Admin
Posts: 5443
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Location: Yorkshire, England

General 'chart music' rant

Post by runcible »

This will sound familiar to anyone with teenage kids who buy music...

Chart music isn't my thing but I was able to largely ignore the drifts of stuff I heard from my kids’ stereos. This Christmas I had to drive my eldest daughter about loads for various reasons. I let her play whatever music she wanted and she chose a local radio station called Capital (not the London one). I was genuinely appalled at how awful the music that was played. It sounded like one long song with different singers, occasionally punctuated by a DJ/ads/news etc. Generally it went ‘bmm-tsh/bmm-tsh/bmm-tsh/bmm-tsh’ and the singer stayed mostly on one note. I kept asking what it all was and my daughter told me. Many of the names were vaguely familiar – Jessie J, Pitbull Neyo, Rihanna, David Guetta, Beyonce, Nicky Minaj – although I didn’t know what they sounded like (or if I have spelled these people correctly – I just asked one of the kids for the names). To say it was bad is an insult to bad music – this was truly abominable stuff. I found no redeeming feature whatsoever for this utter shite. The crowning glory must go to Labarynth’s ‘Earthquake’, a song so ugly and awful I was quite astonished.

Of course I can choose to ignore it if I don’t like it but it’s the Brit Awards tonight I believe and my kids are watching some music TV. Jessie J was interviewed and she said something along the lines of ‘the quality of music in the UK right now is SO incredibly high...’ and I burst out laughing which drew glares from my lot. Before Barry weighs in with his Lady Gaga argument I enjoyed bits of her first album ‘The Fame Monster’ which my kids played me. But one of them got the 2nd album ‘Born This Way’ for Christmas and it’s the same garbage Jessie J and pals make. Formulaic crap designed to be a chart hit. I took the kids to see Girls Aloud a few years ago and they were pretty good. The songs were catchy and there were some decent tunes. But every song any of them have produced since is awful from what I have heard. One of my daughters is obsessed with One Direction and asked me if she could play their stuff through my stereo. To my surprise it was vastly superior to any of the lot I listed earlier – not for me but I could see the appeal for my kids. It didn’t follow the same dreadful formula the vast majority of chart music does. So I guess girls buy their music because the boys in the band are cute – my children certainly think they are cute anyway.

I guess this is all falling into the ‘music to make money’ category which is what it’s all about now – one glance at the X Factor shows that to be true. But the general quality is alarmingly poor. I can’t quite be accused of turning into my parents as they are classical through and through but I do feel old watching the array of horrific acts that are labelled as the cream of current pop music. I keep trying to avoid using the phrase ‘when I was your age’ when talking about music with my children but I do think back to what was in the charts when I was indeed their age. I suspect it was a whole lot better than what is about today.

Sorry about all that. Blame Jessie J – her opinion of quality differs wildly from mine and her very serious expression when she came out with the above quoted stirred the beginnings of a rant inside me.
bunnyben
Known user
Posts: 2676
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 8:49 pm
Location: inside aimless privacy

Re: General 'chart music' rant

Post by bunnyben »

meh. i hear popular music at work but drown it out- occasionally i hear a song and go 'hmm that's familiar- shit it's the sound of dylan being murdered...' but other than that it's noise, the same as a car or a dustbin...
'raging and weeping are left on the early road
now each in his holy hill
the glittering and hurting days are alomst done
then let us compare mythologies
i have learned my elaborate lie
of soaring crosses and poisened thorns'
runcible
Site Admin
Posts: 5443
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Location: Yorkshire, England

Re: General 'chart music' rant

Post by runcible »

You have any kids? That's when you are forced to pay attention. It was easy for me to filter it out before they got to an age where they expressed an interest.
James T
Known user
Posts: 2162
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:00 pm

Re: General 'chart music' rant

Post by James T »

Girls Aloud have put out some brilliant pop songs. Most pop music is dreadful now though. I liked that beautiful girls song that sampled Stand By Me.
TheWarmth
Known user
Posts: 3959
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Location: Chicago, IL
Contact:

Re: General 'chart music' rant

Post by TheWarmth »

Mark, I am on board with pretty much everything you said. I watched bits of a recent music awards show (American Music Awards, maybe?) and was generally mortified by how awful it was. Nicki Minaj gets a lot of good press, but I thought she was terrible. The only act that I saw that I thought had any merit was a country band and that was probably because they were the only act of the evening to actually play their own instruments rather than jump around hollering over a pre-recorded or dj track.
bunnyben
Known user
Posts: 2676
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 8:49 pm
Location: inside aimless privacy

Re: General 'chart music' rant

Post by bunnyben »

runcible wrote:You have any kids? That's when you are forced to pay attention. It was easy for me to filter it out before they got to an age where they expressed an interest.
unfortunatly not- or in this case fortunatly not :wink:
'raging and weeping are left on the early road
now each in his holy hill
the glittering and hurting days are alomst done
then let us compare mythologies
i have learned my elaborate lie
of soaring crosses and poisened thorns'
spzretent
Site Admin
Posts: 5587
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Location: Motor City

Re: General 'chart music' rant

Post by spzretent »

The only place I used to come in contact with "Chart Pop" was on trips to the UK. People used to ask me when I got home how the pop music scene is in the UK. I used to reply It sucks there about 6 months before it does here.
Truth.
I have no reason at all to know whats going in any charts including NME.
Whats even worse is when I see stuff about all these stars on TMZ or Huff Post etc and I have no idea who these stars are, what they were in, nothing.
I like being clueless like this.
http://www.lilmoxie.com
Detroit, Music, Sports and Other Stuff(including Spiritualized, Spacemen 3)
runcible
Site Admin
Posts: 5443
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Location: Yorkshire, England

Re: General 'chart music' rant

Post by runcible »

I know of friends with kids who have cool tastes. I've tried to get mine onto things more interesting - a brief flurry of hope occurred when they all got obsessed with Ash's 'Burn Baby Burn' but a purchase of a good Ash compilation provided little interest. I gave my eldest a Blondie's Greatest Hits CD for Christmas but have had no reaction yet.

Curiously they all like the Grateful Dead's 'Sugar Magnolia' which is remarkable really, but then we named 2 cats after that song (sadly deceased Maggie and still going Sugar) so they are automatically biased.
clewsr
Known user
Posts: 1983
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am

Re: General 'chart music' rant

Post by clewsr »

I feel for you runcible, my kids aren't old enough yet for them to have taken over the stereo yet and I'll be so annoyed when they end up liking shit, but I've tried to indoctrinate them, - I bought eldest a Mamas and Papas record, and she loves them and thinks they are 'her' music plus they both do a pretty crazy shout along to the poppier spz numbers and will often be dancing to whatever is on 6 music.

In terms of chart pop, I never hear it, and neither do the kids.
redcloud
Known user
Posts: 2755
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 8:32 pm
Location: Portland, OR.

Re: General 'chart music' rant

Post by redcloud »

spzretent wrote: Whats even worse is when I see stuff about all these stars on TMZ or Huff Post etc and I have no idea who these stars are, what they were in, nothing.
I like being clueless like this.
Thank you. I often wonder if this is just me! I took my kids to the dentist and was sitting in the waiting room thumbing through the magazines. I picked up a People mag (American equivalent of 'Hello' or 'OK') and I honestly had NO CLUE who most of these people were. I was ignorant up until only a couple years ago as to who the Kardashians are.

I don't know what country band were on the American Music Awards but the vast majority of this ultra popular country pop that they peddle these days drives me fucking nuts and makes my blood boil. I really, really hate it. Rascall Flatts? Give me a break!

The state of music is exactly that, Mark...it is all about $$$. Simon Cowell is doing it no favors either. He is a slave to the mighty dollar/pound.

My daughter, like your daughters, is a typical 14 year old. Her room is covered in Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez posters. She says she likes hip hop but most of what she likes is Michael Jackson. The edgiest stuff she may have on her ipod are the Black Eyed Peas. Justin is the cute boy and Selena is the girl who seems to have it all (at least in the mind of a 14 year old girl). Cute boyfriend on one arm, a singing/tv career on the other and lots of good clothes. Oh, and she is pretty.

My daughter also watches X Factor and I have made on more than one occasion the snide comment about how manufactured rubbish it all is and how music has lost its danger. But, that only opens me up to ridicule as my daughter has quickly quipped back "this comes from somebody who has albums by bands called Strawberry Alarm Clock". Yea...ok. Fair point, my dear.

My son on the other hand is really getting into rock and at the moment he is into all things Zeppelin. On his computer account he has the 1st LP cover as his wall paper and he is trying to figure out 'Heartbreaker' and 'Kashmir' on his guitar. Over Christmas I sat down and watched 'The Song Remains The Same' with him. He totally digs it and recently said "they were probably the perfect band, weren't they?" No argument there. BUT...he too is at the age where a band that is HUGE must obviously be good. The morning after I have seen gigs he often asks how many people were there. If I say "I don't know...maybe 300"? He will sarcastically reply..."POPULAR!". I have explained that popularity says nothing about how good a band is. But he is too young to get the Velvet Underground analogies. I did take him to see the Dandy Warhols before Christmas and only 300 or so people were there. We stood at the very front and he totally loved the small gig atmosphere. So...there is hope.
runcible
Site Admin
Posts: 5443
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Location: Yorkshire, England

Re: General 'chart music' rant

Post by runcible »

redcloud wrote:The morning after I have seen gigs he often asks how many people were there. If I say "I don't know...maybe 300"? He will sarcastically reply..."POPULAR!". I have explained that popularity says nothing about how good a band is. But he is too young to get the Velvet Underground analogies. I did take him to see the Dandy Warhols before Christmas and only 300 or so people were there. We stood at the very front and he totally loved the small gig atmosphere. So...there is hope.
The 'big = popular' thing is very accurate with the younger generation. My lot have just got into Twitter and have started following their favourite stars. They have sent various messages to these people - obviously without any personal reply. Yet they remain unimpressed when I say that most of the bands I like respond personally to emails if you contact them. One day the concept about people making music with the sole intention of making money will dawn on them, but for now they are convinced that X Factor winners only want to sing and money is of no importance.
Ian
Known user
Posts: 445
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 5:55 pm
Location: Brighton, UK
Contact:

Re: General 'chart music' rant

Post by Ian »

runcible wrote:You have any kids? That's when you are forced to pay attention. It was easy for me to filter it out before they got to an age where they expressed an interest.
Youngest (9) has no interest yet. Oldest (14) has very little interest, although he used to be keen on classical (kids always have to rebel against their parents' tastes, I guess). I have managed to get him a bit interested in Suede recently. I leave it to you to decide if this is better or worse than the chart alternative.
I have a passion sweet Lord...
http://www.spacemen3.co.uk
bunnyben
Known user
Posts: 2676
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 8:49 pm
Location: inside aimless privacy

Re: General 'chart music' rant

Post by bunnyben »

no offence guys but from other threads it seems we all had 'suspect' tastes as children and yet all have found our own niches. it's just kids being kids, nothing to despair about
'raging and weeping are left on the early road
now each in his holy hill
the glittering and hurting days are alomst done
then let us compare mythologies
i have learned my elaborate lie
of soaring crosses and poisened thorns'
Guessed
Known user
Posts: 328
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 10:56 am

Re: General 'chart music' rant

Post by Guessed »

Both my boys (8 &4) love LMFAO
One of the first singles i bought was "no sleep till Brooklyn"

It makes sense...they haven't the emotional/intellectual understanding yet to listen to The Stranger - Bleaklow (currently playing at Hazel Heights)

B,
S
redcloud
Known user
Posts: 2755
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 8:32 pm
Location: Portland, OR.

Re: General 'chart music' rant

Post by redcloud »

Guessed wrote:Both my boys (8 &4) love LMFAO
My daughter was given that cd by her friends for her birthday. Goofball hip hop.
Mustard
Known user
Posts: 156
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am

Re: General 'chart music' rant

Post by Mustard »

My 2, (6) have just started to notice chart music, mainly from their friends and X-Facter. They have a little figure toy a Moshi Monster called 'Dustbin Bieber'. They 'rock' away in the back of the car to Paolo Nutini, Kinks (especially Victoria), Blondie. Radio 2 in the morning - the music is quite good for kids. This morning we were listening to my recent buys. They were quite happy.
BVCP206
Known user
Posts: 719
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Location: Yorkshire

Re: General 'chart music' rant

Post by BVCP206 »

runcible wrote:I know of friends with kids who have cool tastes. I've tried to get mine onto things more interesting - a brief flurry of hope occurred when they all got obsessed with Ash's 'Burn Baby Burn' but a purchase of a good Ash compilation provided little interest. I gave my eldest a Blondie's Greatest Hits CD for Christmas but have had no reaction yet.

Curiously they all like the Grateful Dead's 'Sugar Magnolia' which is remarkable really, but then we named 2 cats after that song (sadly deceased Maggie and still going Sugar) so they are automatically biased.
Persist with Blondie 'Eat To The Beat it's an amazing record, at the height of their powers so to speak :lol:
'Remember, change is not good'
BzaInSpace
Site Admin
Posts: 3864
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Location: HELL

Pop = Poop?

Post by BzaInSpace »

runcible wrote: Generally it went ‘bmm-tsh/bmm-tsh/bmm-tsh/bmm-tsh’ and the singer stayed mostly on one note...

Mark - you may as well have written "nowadays it all sounds the same" or "you can't tell the difference between the boys and the girls..." :wink:
runcible wrote:Before Barry weighs in with his Lady Gaga argument I enjoyed bits of her first album ‘The Fame Monster’ which my kids played me...

Aye, I'll agree with that. Although the C&W version of 'Born This Way' was , y'know, alright, even if it was blatantly released to appeal to fans of that awful version of country mentioned above, that ersatz Billy Ray Cyrus shit. 'Poker Face' was presumably a one-off, a bubble of pure pop genius.
runcible wrote:Formulaic crap designed to be a chart hit... So I guess girls buy their music because the boys in the band are cute – my children certainly think they are cute anyway....I guess this is all falling into the ‘music to make money’ category which is what it’s all about now...

Ever since 'pop' music was ripped from the 'race' charts has it ever been anything other than this though? Not always formulaic crap right enough, but music to make money, always!
runcible wrote: I keep trying to avoid using the phrase ‘when I was your age’ when talking about music with my children but I do think back to what was in the charts when I was indeed their age. I suspect it was a whole lot better than what is about today..
Cliche alert...Argh! No, it wasn't... Just watch some of those TOTPs from any era... the vast majority of 'chart pop' music has always been, and always will, be total garbage. It's the nuggets that aren't that make it all worthwhile!
For me an interesting beat or bit of innovative production is always interesting, something with a cool vocal, or just something that sounds different or weird will always find its way to me. That tune I mentioned in the 'best of 2011' thread by Far East Movement - I can vividly recall hearing that in the midst of loads of other pish on some commercial station and it blew me away. It was truly a case of 'who and what the hell was that?'

I live for moments like that, amongst others.

You mention Girls Aloud, strangely enough, the 'ginger one' Nicola Roberts, released one of the great pop moments last year with 'Beat Of My Drum', sounded like old skool Prodigy on helium and poppers - amazing tune. It made my end of year list and all!

You mention Nicki Minaj as well. Can't speak for her entire output, but bits of her Pink Friday album are class and there is this song with Kanye West (and others) she appears on, her 'part' is awesome.

If you're gonna slag off modern pop abominations you must mention the truly evil Black Eyed Peas and the utter fucktard that is Will I Am, the satanic Katy Perry, and fucking Coldplay. I feel dirty having just typed that out...

And Jessie J? You'll have no quarrel from me in dissing her - she's terrible. She made her bucks writing songs for Miley Cyrus# so I'm certain she has her own special place in hell waiting for her.

Check this out... http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/arts ... 201134765/

"The main contenders in this year’s medley of despair are haircut accompaniment Bon Iver and something called a Jessie J, prompting a record number of ‘pebbles forcibly jammed into ear canal’ injuries in A&E wards across the country..." :lol:

# Presumably a first on here and certainly for me - mentions of both the evil Miley Cyrus and her terrible father - christ!
O P 8
bunnyben
Known user
Posts: 2676
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 8:49 pm
Location: inside aimless privacy

Re: Pop = Poop?

Post by bunnyben »

BzaInSpace wrote:
runcible wrote:Formulaic crap designed to be a chart hit... So I guess girls buy their music because the boys in the band are cute – my children certainly think they are cute anyway....I guess this is all falling into the ‘music to make money’ category which is what it’s all about now...
Ever since 'pop' music was ripped from the 'race' charts has it ever been anything other than this though? Not always formulaic crap right enough, but music to make money, always!


sure, good point. elvis, rock n roll et al were an attempt to popularise black music and make a quick buck, as americans say, and the arguement against falls down with 'if it was about the music then why didn't they put more effort in (as chess did) and go, this is muddy, he's great, this is big boy, but that's alright mama
'raging and weeping are left on the early road
now each in his holy hill
the glittering and hurting days are alomst done
then let us compare mythologies
i have learned my elaborate lie
of soaring crosses and poisened thorns'
redcloud
Known user
Posts: 2755
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 8:32 pm
Location: Portland, OR.

Re: Pop = Poop?

Post by redcloud »

bunnyben wrote: sure, good point. elvis, rock n roll et al were an attempt to popularise black music and make a quick buck, as americans say, and the arguement against falls down with 'if it was about the music then why didn't they put more effort in (as chess did) and go, this is muddy, he's great, this is big boy, but that's alright mama
But, there was some killer music that even Chess didn't know what to do with, which sat unreleased in their vaults for decades.
bunnyben
Known user
Posts: 2676
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 8:49 pm
Location: inside aimless privacy

Re: Pop = Poop?

Post by bunnyben »

redcloud wrote:
bunnyben wrote: sure, good point. elvis, rock n roll et al were an attempt to popularise black music and make a quick buck, as americans say, and the arguement against falls down with 'if it was about the music then why didn't they put more effort in (as chess did) and go, this is muddy, he's great, this is big boy, but that's alright mama
But, there was some killer music that even Chess didn't know what to do with, which sat unreleased in their vaults for decades.
indeed :D as chess, himself, did not understand music he was mostly in it for the money. he had no interest in what they were doing, just what they could 'do'
'raging and weeping are left on the early road
now each in his holy hill
the glittering and hurting days are alomst done
then let us compare mythologies
i have learned my elaborate lie
of soaring crosses and poisened thorns'
runcible
Site Admin
Posts: 5443
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Location: Yorkshire, England

Re: General 'chart music' rant

Post by runcible »

I watched a TV documentary on Ozzy Osbourne last night which was really interesting. The clips of Sabbath early on were quite inspiring. At one point, when 'Paranoid' was the number 1 UK album in October 1970 they showed a list of the top 10 albums. My jaw dropped. Included were:
Black Sabbath
Led Zeppelin
Jimi Hendrix
Simon and Garfunkel
Moody Blues
Deep Purple
Rolling Stones
Creedence Clearwater Revival

Just compare that to what is in the album chart today which is generally 99.9% shite (although curiously Simon and Garfunkel are at number 26!). Case rested...
TheWarmth
Known user
Posts: 3959
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Location: Chicago, IL
Contact:

Re: General 'chart music' rant

Post by TheWarmth »

I don't think Elvis did what he did because he wanted to make a quick buck. As far as I can tell from what I have read, he was a genuine dude who just wanted to make music.
redcloud
Known user
Posts: 2755
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 8:32 pm
Location: Portland, OR.

Re: General 'chart music' rant

Post by redcloud »

runcible wrote:I watched a TV documentary on Ozzy Osbourne last night which was really interesting. The clips of Sabbath early on were quite inspiring. At one point, when 'Paranoid' was the number 1 UK album in October 1970 they showed a list of the top 10 albums. My jaw dropped. Included were:

Jimi Hendrix

Must have been "Smash Hits" (the 'Best Of" LP in '68/69)? His last official LP he released was 'Electric Ladyland' in '68. All the post-Experience stuff and various concerts that followed were released after his death ('Rainbow Bridge' coming out in '71).

Maybe 'EL' was still in the charts?
jadams501
Known user
Posts: 1261
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 2:51 am

Re: General 'chart music' rant

Post by jadams501 »

redcloud wrote:
runcible wrote: Jimi Hendrix

Must have been "Smash Hits" (the 'Best Of" LP in '68/69)? His last official LP he released was 'Electric Ladyland' in '68. All the post-Experience stuff and various concerts that followed were released after his death ('Rainbow Bridge' coming out in '71).

Maybe 'EL' was still in the charts?
Could it have been Band of Gypsies? I thought that came out when Hendrix was still alive.
bunnyben
Known user
Posts: 2676
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 8:49 pm
Location: inside aimless privacy

Re: General 'chart music' rant

Post by bunnyben »

TheWarmth wrote:I don't think Elvis did what he did because he wanted to make a quick buck. As far as I can tell from what I have read, he was a genuine dude who just wanted to make music.
sure, but his label etc- people like, for example, albert grossman don't care for music but they see a way of operating a buisness
'raging and weeping are left on the early road
now each in his holy hill
the glittering and hurting days are alomst done
then let us compare mythologies
i have learned my elaborate lie
of soaring crosses and poisened thorns'
redcloud
Known user
Posts: 2755
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 8:32 pm
Location: Portland, OR.

Re: General 'chart music' rant

Post by redcloud »

jadams501 wrote:
Could it have been Band of Gypsies? I thought that came out when Hendrix was still alive.
Yea, you might actually be right. Looking at the release date and it seems to tally with that October '70 chart.
jesus son
Known user
Posts: 322
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Location: Rugby

Re: General 'chart music' rant

Post by jesus son »

bunnyben wrote:
TheWarmth wrote:I don't think Elvis did what he did because he wanted to make a quick buck. As far as I can tell from what I have read, he was a genuine dude who just wanted to make music.
sure, but his label etc- people like, for example, albert grossman don't care for music but they see a way of operating a buisness
I think you only have to look at how the 68 comeback special was created to see how passionate Elvis was about music when the leash of his management was taken off. The book The Colonel: The Extraordinary Story of Colonel Tom Parker and Elvis Presley is a great read and gives some good background on the shenanigans/manipulations that went on for the sake of keeping a lot of people in easy street.
simonkeeping
Known user
Posts: 1694
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Contact:

Re: General 'chart music' rant

Post by simonkeeping »

runcible wrote: The 'big = popular' thing is very accurate with the younger generation. My lot have just got into Twitter and have started following their favourite stars. They have sent various messages to these people - obviously without any personal reply. Yet they remain unimpressed when I say that most of the bands I like respond personally to emails if you contact them. One day the concept about people making music with the sole intention of making money will dawn on them, but for now they are convinced that X Factor winners only want to sing and money is of no importance.
I think you've hit the nail on the head there Runcible. I have been subjected to the X Factor in the past and whilst I hear arguements from work collegues saying they are talented and look how well they've done etc etc. The basic fact is that show is a popularity contest designed by Simon Cowell to make Simon Cowell money. The singing on it as with most 'chart music' makes my skin crawl, that foe emotional Mariah Carey; why use one note when three will do, type vocal. When people have the audacity to say he really knows whats good and bad and music I want to punch them (Im not a violent man but that is how much venom I have for him). I always respond to that the same way, he doesn't know a thing about music, about creating an artist who can really sing and wants to make something special, he only knows how to make money.

The fact the shows format is a failure but still returns year after year is quite baffling? Last years winner has been dropped by Cowell, The guy the year before is in panto or something? I guess its a refection on the short attention span of most people who feast on mass market popular culture (and I use the term 'culture' loosely) who don't care or forget that the guy they were rooting for all last year on X factor has disappeared? Or the fact that its a 12 week advert for the Christmas single released by the winner. Oh sorry no thats wrong! Because he's started to sell the songs each contestant sings each week on Itunes after the show. Madness!

I think BZA is also totally right when he says those fleeting moments of pop genius when they hit you on the radio are to be treasured. Its easy to get misty eyed over the past but lets be honest theres always been a lot of shite records around. For every record by The Who in the 70's you had to to bypass such gems as Love Hurts by Nazareth and Sarah Smile by Hall and Oates. Same in more recent times. For every record by The Smiths and The Stone Roses you had 10 Cher singles and The likes of Colour Me Badd and a Stock, Aitken and Waterman 'Classic'. Same in the 60's too. Large record companies now only want to finance the next Coldplay (or insert other act here........) so they are easy to sell to already present market. That pushes alot of music which doesn't fit this format underground so as a result we have a thriving scene pushing out some really good acts playing music they want to make. Not what they are being forced to make (Ie: the Klaxons album the record company banned them from putting out because it was to weird).

I guess the best thing to do is to try and ignore the bad stuff and keep your eyes peeled for those magpie moments when you see something sparkle out of the crap that surrounds it.
http://www.soundcloud.com/haarlemriots
bunnyben
Known user
Posts: 2676
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 8:49 pm
Location: inside aimless privacy

Re: General 'chart music' rant

Post by bunnyben »

jesus son wrote:
bunnyben wrote:
TheWarmth wrote:I don't think Elvis did what he did because he wanted to make a quick buck. As far as I can tell from what I have read, he was a genuine dude who just wanted to make music.
sure, but his label etc- people like, for example, albert grossman don't care for music but they see a way of operating a buisness
I think you only have to look at how the 68 comeback special was created to see how passionate Elvis was about music when the leash of his management was taken off. The book The Colonel: The Extraordinary Story of Colonel Tom Parker and Elvis Presley is a great read and gives some good background on the shenanigans/manipulations that went on for the sake of keeping a lot of people in easy street.
don't get me wrong- i wasn't questioning elvis' motivation and passion, just a) a lot of the songs covered that era (and now) were better as originals b) buisness men run music generally for money, not for the music

as ru said "but for now they are convinced that X Factor winners only want to sing and money is of no importance." i don't doubt some of th winnrers just want to sing for a living but as i said it's being run by buisness men who are only interested in buisness. there's an interview with someone who said he met mary from peter, paul and mary and sid to her how strange it is that she is still so pale whilst living in california. she replied that albert grossman wouldn't let her out of the house as it would ruin the band's appeal
'raging and weeping are left on the early road
now each in his holy hill
the glittering and hurting days are alomst done
then let us compare mythologies
i have learned my elaborate lie
of soaring crosses and poisened thorns'
bunnyben
Known user
Posts: 2676
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 8:49 pm
Location: inside aimless privacy

Re: General 'chart music' rant

Post by bunnyben »

simonkeeping wrote:
I guess the best thing to do is to try and ignore the bad stuff and keep your eyes peeled for those magpie moments when you see something sparkle out of the crap that surrounds it.
that's true with everything. when i look at cds of 60's bands or what was on the radio in the 60's then for me the likes of the stones, beatles, who etc are part of the crap then you get the odd song by the velvets or dylan or the kinks. it's all down to taste. red rooster is a good song but i much prefer the howlin' wolf original to the stones' faux r n b version. it's personal taste
'raging and weeping are left on the early road
now each in his holy hill
the glittering and hurting days are alomst done
then let us compare mythologies
i have learned my elaborate lie
of soaring crosses and poisened thorns'
jadams501
Known user
Posts: 1261
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 2:51 am

Re: General 'chart music' rant

Post by jadams501 »

bunnyben wrote:when i look at cds of 60's bands or what was on the radio in the 60's then for me the likes of the stones, beatles, who etc are part of the crap then you get the odd song by the velvets or dylan or the kinks. it's all down to taste. red rooster is a good song but i much prefer the howlin' wolf original to the stones' faux r n b version. it's personal taste
:shock:

Beatles/Stones are crap but the Kinks are better?

I don't much care for the Stones' early blues covers, or those of a lot of British groups doing similar things at the same time, but I don't really get where you're coming from here.
bunnyben
Known user
Posts: 2676
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 8:49 pm
Location: inside aimless privacy

Re: General 'chart music' rant

Post by bunnyben »

jadams501 wrote:
bunnyben wrote:when i look at cds of 60's bands or what was on the radio in the 60's then for me the likes of the stones, beatles, who etc are part of the crap then you get the odd song by the velvets or dylan or the kinks. it's all down to taste. red rooster is a good song but i much prefer the howlin' wolf original to the stones' faux r n b version. it's personal taste
:shock:

Beatles/Stones are crap but the Kinks are better?

I don't much care for the Stones' early blues covers, or those of a lot of British groups doing similar things at the same time, but I don't really get where you're coming from here.
personal taste
'raging and weeping are left on the early road
now each in his holy hill
the glittering and hurting days are alomst done
then let us compare mythologies
i have learned my elaborate lie
of soaring crosses and poisened thorns'
runcible
Site Admin
Posts: 5443
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Location: Yorkshire, England

Re: General 'chart music' rant

Post by runcible »

Dismissing The Beatles, the Stones and The Who as 'crap' is just plain weird. It's like saying soul music, classical music and jazz are crap. Saying you don't like them is another thing. Genuinely crap music is in the list I started this thread with... And the Manic Street Preachers of course. :wink:
bunnyben
Known user
Posts: 2676
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 8:49 pm
Location: inside aimless privacy

Re: General 'chart music' rant

Post by bunnyben »

runcible wrote:Dismissing The Beatles, the Stones and The Who as 'crap' is just plain weird. It's like saying soul music, classical music and jazz are crap. Saying you don't like them is another thing. Genuinely crap music is in the list I started this thread with... And the Manic Street Preachers of course. :wink:
yes but we are snobs. there are people who really love britney or kings of leon and comparing three bands to whole genres makes no sense. some jazz doesn't do anything for me, others i love. one cannot objectively argue something that is completely subjective as shown with the responses to my feelings on sacred cows. just because you think something doesn't mean you're right :wink:
'raging and weeping are left on the early road
now each in his holy hill
the glittering and hurting days are alomst done
then let us compare mythologies
i have learned my elaborate lie
of soaring crosses and poisened thorns'
BzaInSpace
Site Admin
Posts: 3864
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Location: HELL

Re: General 'chart music' rant

Post by BzaInSpace »

runcible wrote:...The Beatles, the Stones and The Who... And the Manic Street Preachers of course. :wink:
"The Manics - the band that the Beatles, Stones and Who only could've been..."

Don't remember seeing MSP in your rant against bad pop music Runcie - should've known though. No mention of the Scream yet either?

This is a strangely unsatisfying thread so far - initially I thought it was gonna open up some good in-depth discursive discussion regarding the points Runcie brought up.

Instead there are circular arguments regarding the notoriously monetary obsessed Elvis(?) and the 70s album charts... I thought we were talking about the pop charts, ie the singles chart? Bands like Led Zep enforced this rather snobbish view that singles were somehow beneath them, and that the album was, like, a meaningful artistic statement, man...

Other than Simon K nobody has really ran with any of the counterarguments I mentioned there as well. Namely - the charts have always had a majority of rubbish, lightweight nonsense. But, as perhaps Ben is trying to hint at, who are we or you or I to to say it's rubbish, lighweight nonsense?

Maybe... it's just not for you.
O P 8
semisynthetic
Known user
Posts: 1444
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 5:39 pm
Location: Undefined; drifting ever further and further away

Re: General 'chart music' rant

Post by semisynthetic »

RAW MAGAZINE (#3?) had it RIGHT: "The Magazine that Overestimates the Taste of the (American) Public", THAT
is a "Musical Chart" of the last great many years!


The "Music Charts" are for generating "Music for the Masses" which is USUALLY just that.

Charting a Musical Course to Nowhere; No Thank You.
I would rather wander and wonder without calculated directives.

I NEVER refer to these charts except as an afterthought when referring to different labels, specific details of a given era and such (within the Arkiv); but NOT for any other use.
"Everything is a Poison; it is the amount or degree that separates one Poison from another"
Paracelsus
revo11
New user
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 5:15 am

Re: General 'chart music' rant

Post by revo11 »

eh, to play devil's advocate a bit here - I'll say a lot of this stuff doesn't appeal to me, but it has its place. Some of it has redeeming characteristics - 'give me everything' is pretty cheesy, but it successfully sets up a certain mood and atmosphere. There was probably a time when motown was dismissed as commercial love songs for the dancefloor, but that material has outlasted a lot of the snob music of the time.

Part of the role of new music is to tear down the previous notion of what constitutes value. At some point, someone who grew up on this stuff will take the elements of it that are worth keeping and do something interesting with it. Look at a band like The XX - they've absorbed some of the atmospheres and timbres of pop R&B and turned it into something creative and heartfelt.
moop
Known user
Posts: 878
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 12:46 am

Re: General 'chart music' rant

Post by moop »

Rene Descartes wrote: I think therefore I am
bunnyben wrote: just because you think something doesn't mean you're right :wink:
Rene Descartes wrote: shit!
redcloud
Known user
Posts: 2755
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 8:32 pm
Location: Portland, OR.

Re: General 'chart music' rant

Post by redcloud »

bunnyben wrote:
when i look at cds of 60's bands or what was on the radio in the 60's then for me the likes of the stones, beatles, who etc are part of the crap then you get the odd song by the velvets or dylan or the kinks. it's all down to taste. red rooster is a good song but i much prefer the howlin' wolf original to the stones' faux r n b version. it's personal taste
I find this a very odd statement and similar, in a sense, to why many are under whelmed by seeing the Mona Lisa for the first time. Regarding daVinci's famous painting...we have seen that iconic image so many times in various forms of media and print as well as ties, toys, fridge magnets, gimmicks etc. that when one finally visits the Louvre you are almost hard pressed not to stand in front of the smaller than expected painting and think "I don't get it". What most of us fail to realize is that we have been desensitized to the image and we forget to put it into its appropriate historical reference and fail to see it for just how significant it was in its time and how it influenced countless artists and shaped the future of painting/art as we know it.

Much can be said with somebody who didn't grow up in the 60's and didn't experience the Stones or the Beatles first time around. We have heard those two particular bands SOOO many times that we have almost become desensitized to their music and now fail to realize just how incredible they were and how they paved much of what we would all go on to love to this day.

Sure, Howlin' Wolf is the man as are Bukka White and Robert Johnson. But, come on....surely, you can't dismiss the Beatles and the Stones as "crap" nor can you lump them into the same rubbish heap as The Monkees or The Archies.
MODLAB
Site Admin
Posts: 2320
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 6:52 pm
Location: Stuck in a spacetime interval.
Contact:

Re: General 'chart music' rant

Post by MODLAB »

What amazes me about this thread is that most of you look at it from a male perspective. (music purchasing was mostly a male market too back then)

They grew up in the 60's and 70's
My half brother loved The Stones.
My half sister loved The Monkeys.

The youth at that time and what was going on was totally different then today. Todays music is based upon a formula and how much cash generation can be made. Also, charts back then did not have top 100 indie or top 100 soul etc.

There's a larger picture then just music today — which is terrible.


M
Design.
runcible
Site Admin
Posts: 5443
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Location: Yorkshire, England

Re: General 'chart music' rant

Post by runcible »

BzaInSpace wrote:
runcible wrote:...The Beatles, the Stones and The Who... And the Manic Street Preachers of course. :wink:
"The Manics - the band that the Beatles, Stones and Who only could've been..."

Don't remember seeing MSP in your rant against bad pop music Runcie - should've known though. No mention of the Scream yet either?
That jibe was all for you Barry as you well know! Besides - I may loathe the Scream but I can see some appeal and they made one decent album so it's incorrect to say they are genuinely 'crap'. But the Manics - in every possible way - are crap. No redeeming feature.
BzaInSpace wrote:This is a strangely unsatisfying thread so far - initially I thought it was gonna open up some good in-depth discursive discussion regarding the points Runcie brought up.

Instead there are circular arguments regarding the notoriously monetary obsessed Elvis(?) and the 70s album charts... I thought we were talking about the pop charts, ie the singles chart? Bands like Led Zep enforced this rather snobbish view that singles were somehow beneath them, and that the album was, like, a meaningful artistic statement, man...

Other than Simon K nobody has really ran with any of the counterarguments I mentioned there as well. Namely - the charts have always had a majority of rubbish, lightweight nonsense. But, as perhaps Ben is trying to hint at, who are we or you or I to to say it's rubbish, lighweight nonsense?

Maybe... it's just not for you.
I'd say chart music refers to music that gets into the charts and album sales are more sustained than singles so absolutely valid. So a 70s album chart is ample evidence to dismiss your point about chart music from all eras being generally garbage. I don't agree with that - that album top 10 from 1970 is all you need to see how awful 'popular' music is today. I challenge you, or anyone who says chart music is always crap, to find me an album chart from the last 20 years that in any way can be compared in quality to that list from 1970. Go and look at the album chart from the time Sgt Pepper was released - it's incredible. Packed with gems galore. How many gems are in today's album chart?

As for it being 'not for me'... Of course - that's partly the point isn't it? What was in the album chart in October 1970 was 'for me', that's for sure. But the bloated shite that inhabits today's chart is... well, garbage... crap.... There's lots of other music that's not really for me too - soul, jazz, classical (which is why I mentioned those genres). But I don't dimiss them as crap or garbage. Unlike chart music today.
simonkeeping
Known user
Posts: 1694
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Contact:

Re: General 'chart music' rant

Post by simonkeeping »

I think the sixties is slightly different (and Im not going back on my statement earlier about there being some awful records made in that decade check out this singles chart http://www.theofficialcharts.com/archiv ... 966-01-15/) in that it was all new back then. The Beatles, Stones etc etc was pop back then. Okay, very very well crafted and put together but it was pop. As the decades have past the cult of the teenager (which began late 50's early sixties) is equal to big business. The conversation between the parent and child over 'whats this bloody racket? I can't her what he/she is singing, Is it a man or a woman' has become the most basic joke on a TV Sketch show. I think recently most chart music has become so generic and devoid of any new ideas though. Stick to the formula.

Okay, alot of what is out there is crap but the likes of the Arctic Monkeys, Girls Aloud (love machine is a great pop song!) make some good pop records among others I can't remember at the moment. I remember hearing the charts a few years back as the cd player had packed up in the car and Brianstorm was number 2 and Beyone was number one. The Arctic Monkeys stood out in that chart as something exciting and dangerous. It seems that the record companies are about 20 years behind the times in finally catching on that Hip Hop/R&B are big business. Water them down to a generic none threatening formula (Ie take out all of the ingenuity and imagination), Add a few sing along choruses, have a video of a young man holding money, waving his hand into the camera as he sings with a big diamond ring on surrounded by women wearing not alot and a huge bentley, put a few 'naughty' swear words in so it excites the kids/uneducated and wait for the money to come rolling in.
http://www.soundcloud.com/haarlemriots
bunnyben
Known user
Posts: 2676
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 8:49 pm
Location: inside aimless privacy

Re: General 'chart music' rant

Post by bunnyben »

moop wrote:
Rene Descartes wrote: I think therefore I am
bunnyben wrote: just because you think something doesn't mean you're right :wink:
Rene Descartes wrote: shit!


*sigh* sum ergo cogito
'raging and weeping are left on the early road
now each in his holy hill
the glittering and hurting days are alomst done
then let us compare mythologies
i have learned my elaborate lie
of soaring crosses and poisened thorns'
bunnyben
Known user
Posts: 2676
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 8:49 pm
Location: inside aimless privacy

Re: General 'chart music' rant

Post by bunnyben »

revo11 wrote:eh, to play devil's advocate a bit here - I'll say a lot of this stuff doesn't appeal to me, but it has its place. Some of it has redeeming characteristics - 'give me everything' is pretty cheesy, but it successfully sets up a certain mood and atmosphere. There was probably a time when motown was dismissed as commercial love songs for the dancefloor, but that material has outlasted a lot of the snob music of the time.

Part of the role of new music is to tear down the previous notion of what constitutes value. At some point, someone who grew up on this stuff will take the elements of it that are worth keeping and do something interesting with it. Look at a band like The XX - they've absorbed some of the atmospheres and timbres of pop R&B and turned it into something creative and heartfelt.
exactly. there is some music that will outlast all other music- maybe the beatles will do that. good for them, i'll just be in the other room listening to what i want to listen to
'raging and weeping are left on the early road
now each in his holy hill
the glittering and hurting days are alomst done
then let us compare mythologies
i have learned my elaborate lie
of soaring crosses and poisened thorns'
bunnyben
Known user
Posts: 2676
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 8:49 pm
Location: inside aimless privacy

Re: General 'chart music' rant

Post by bunnyben »

redcloud wrote:
bunnyben wrote:

Much can be said with somebody who didn't grow up in the 60's and didn't experience the Stones or the Beatles first time around. We have heard those two particular bands SOOO many times that we have almost become desensitized to their music and now fail to realize just how incredible they were and how they paved much of what we would all go on to love to this day.

Sure, Howlin' Wolf is the man as are Bukka White and Robert Johnson. But, come on....surely, you can't dismiss the Beatles and the Stones as "crap" nor can you lump them into the same rubbish heap as The Monkees or The Archies.
sure, maybe there is sentimental reasons, maybe you have to be in a moment to get a band. i love brmc, some here don't get the appeal and in the press they are lumped in as mary chain lite or part of the strokes/white stripes nme 'movement' which included amazing grace as a 'garage' record etc. but at that moment in my life they were important and i formed a connection.

why does mass appeal mean 'crap' to use the original word that i was subsequently quoting. the 50's chart music- penguins, cash, ronettes, shilres, dion and the belmonts etc- i love those guys! in the day the beatles and stones were the mass appeal and many many people love them. saying music is better then or now is superflous. there is some great contemporary classical music that i prefer to mozart but that's not to say music now is better than then or visa versa. what's in the charts? i dunno, i don't really care so i don't listen. have i heared the most prestigious beatles and stones records? yes i have- did they do anything for me? no they didn't. do i listen? no, there's tons of music out there that i love and some i may love once i find it. ok i don't have kids so i don't have to listen to it at home but i have to at work for 8 hours a day but i ghear it and don't listen- it doesn't interest me. *gets bored of repeating the same points over and over again'* if you don't see my view point fair enough. i like what i like and don't what i don't. it's not 'us' against 'them', or 'me' against 'you' etc it's alright ma, it's life and life only
'raging and weeping are left on the early road
now each in his holy hill
the glittering and hurting days are alomst done
then let us compare mythologies
i have learned my elaborate lie
of soaring crosses and poisened thorns'
bunnyben
Known user
Posts: 2676
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 8:49 pm
Location: inside aimless privacy

Re: General 'chart music' rant

Post by bunnyben »

BzaInSpace wrote:
runcible wrote:
This is a strangely unsatisfying thread so far - initially I thought it was gonna open up some good in-depth discursive discussion regarding the points Runcie brought up.
.
amen- but it seems people have nailed their colours to the flag pole and it is all seeming quite pointless. let's discuss urban hymns! :D
'raging and weeping are left on the early road
now each in his holy hill
the glittering and hurting days are alomst done
then let us compare mythologies
i have learned my elaborate lie
of soaring crosses and poisened thorns'
bunnyben
Known user
Posts: 2676
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 8:49 pm
Location: inside aimless privacy

Re: General 'chart music' rant

Post by bunnyben »

simonkeeping wrote:I think the sixties is slightly different (and Im not going back on my statement earlier about there being some awful records made in that decade check out this singles chart http://www.theofficialcharts.com/archiv ... 966-01-15/) in that it was all new back then. The Beatles, Stones etc etc was pop back then. Okay, very very well crafted and put together but it was pop. As the decades have past the cult of the teenager (which began late 50's early sixties) is equal to big business. The conversation between the parent and child over 'whats this bloody racket? I can't her what he/she is singing, Is it a man or a woman' has become the most basic joke on a TV Sketch show. I think recently most chart music has become so generic and devoid of any new ideas though. Stick to the formula.

Okay, alot of what is out there is crap but the likes of the Arctic Monkeys, Girls Aloud (love machine is a great pop song!) make some good pop records among others I can't remember at the moment. I remember hearing the charts a few years back as the cd player had packed up in the car and Brianstorm was number 2 and Beyone was number one. The Arctic Monkeys stood out in that chart as something exciting and dangerous. It seems that the record companies are about 20 years behind the times in finally catching on that Hip Hop/R&B are big business. Water them down to a generic none threatening formula (Ie take out all of the ingenuity and imagination), Add a few sing along choruses, have a video of a young man holding money, waving his hand into the camera as he sings with a big diamond ring on surrounded by women wearing not alot and a huge bentley, put a few 'naughty' swear words in so it excites the kids/uneducated and wait for the money to come rolling in.
a very good post! :D as julius said 'i came, i saw, i concured'
'raging and weeping are left on the early road
now each in his holy hill
the glittering and hurting days are alomst done
then let us compare mythologies
i have learned my elaborate lie
of soaring crosses and poisened thorns'
simonkeeping
Known user
Posts: 1694
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Contact:

Re: General 'chart music' rant

Post by simonkeeping »

Thank you! :D
http://www.soundcloud.com/haarlemriots
runcible
Site Admin
Posts: 5443
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Location: Yorkshire, England

Re: General 'chart music' rant

Post by runcible »

bunnyben wrote: why does mass appeal mean 'crap' to use the original word that i was subsequently quoting.
Who said that? I certainly didn't. My point was simply that what was indeed popular - substitute music of mass appeal - in 1970 shits all over what is popular/has mass appeal today. I've argued it before - of the genuinely massive bands today how many are any good? Answer - well, for me it's none at all. Yet back in the day Beatles, Stones, Who (all 'crap' to you I know but not to most people), plus Zeppelin were all brilliant, high quality acts who sold zillions of records. The whole point is that the most popular music today is largely worthless.

I'm curious as to why you keep quoting other people and somehow attributing it to me...? :?
runcible
Site Admin
Posts: 5443
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Location: Yorkshire, England

Re: General 'chart music' rant

Post by runcible »

simonkeeping wrote:I think the sixties is slightly different (and Im not going back on my statement earlier about there being some awful records made in that decade check out this singles chart http://www.theofficialcharts.com/archiv ... 966-01-15/) in that it was all new back then. The Beatles, Stones etc etc was pop back then. Okay, very very well crafted and put together but it was pop.
That wasn't really the point of the thread. I take the point about that music being new - that's right and I know many seasoned music fans who are bored with 'new' music as it's all recycled rubbish. I looked at the chart you've quoted and there are some incredible records in it - and yes of course there's dross mixed in. Numbers 1 & 2 are both classic records. Chuck in Get Off My Cloud and My Generation and you have 4 records which are famous today - maybe more so than they were back then. Then compare that chart with today's top 40 - how many of those records are going to be talked about in 46 years and how many are genuinely good songs? I reckon none. And of course the Beatles and the Stones were pop - there is nothing wrong with pop. Pop is great if it's any good - the problem is none of the pop that's in today's charts is. Hence the rant.

By the way the album chart I was referring to at the start here is this one. I only saw the top 10 before but now the full 40 in all it's glory is absolutely mind-blowing in terms of quality. Thanks for that site - I couldn't find a decent archive before!
http://www.theofficialcharts.com/archiv ... 970-10-10/
redcloud
Known user
Posts: 2755
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 8:32 pm
Location: Portland, OR.

Re: General 'chart music' rant

Post by redcloud »

bunnyben wrote: but i much prefer the howlin' wolf original to the stones' faux r n b version.
You must remember when you say this that you have the luxury to be able to find this stuff very easily and with nearly 60 years of rock and roll history behind us. In the late 50's/early 60's Howlin' Wolf was not something that you could just stumble on. It was The Beatles, The Rolling Stones and The Pretty Things (to name just a few) who re-presented this music to a white audience. Their presentation is also what helped transform rock and roll and kick start the youth movement.

Because of this I'm not sure if one can call it "faux r&b". They took inspiration from American black music and began to make it their own. Which helped give it a white audience during a very segregated time.
TheWarmth
Known user
Posts: 3959
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Location: Chicago, IL
Contact:

Re: General 'chart music' rant

Post by TheWarmth »

I think Runcible's post of that particular 70's top 10 says a lot. I agree with his perspective. In my mind there is no question that that chart is impressive in comparison to a top 10 you'd see today. To say that today's popular rock/pop is simply not to my taste or Mark's taste is an oversimplification.
jadams501
Known user
Posts: 1261
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 2:51 am

Re: General 'chart music' rant

Post by jadams501 »

redcloud wrote:Sure, Howlin' Wolf is the man as are Bukka White and Robert Johnson. But, come on....surely, you can't dismiss the Beatles and the Stones as "crap" nor can you lump them into the same rubbish heap as The Monkees or The Archies.
Them's fightin' words! There has long been a bizarre culture of hating on the Monkees, but they were one of the best pop outfits of the 60s. People like to call them the "faux four" or whatever, but they actually rebelled against being manufactured and started writing and performing their own material. Not that the manufactured stuff wasn't excellent pure pop in and of itself. They also were some of the first pop musicians to record with a moog, and did some excellent psychedelia. Porpoise Song is a masterpiece. I saw their reunion tour a few months ago and it was great!

BTW, the Archies were invented by the creator of the Monkees because he didn't want another group agitating to make their own creative decisions.
simonkeeping
Known user
Posts: 1694
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Contact:

Re: General 'chart music' rant

Post by simonkeeping »

runcible wrote:[I take the point about that music being new - that's right and I know many seasoned music fans who are bored with 'new' music as it's all recycled rubbish. I looked at the chart you've quoted and there are some incredible records in it - and yes of course there's dross mixed in. Numbers 1 & 2 are both classic records. Chuck in Get Off My Cloud and My Generation and you have 4 records which are famous today - maybe more so than they were back then. Then compare that chart with today's top 40 - how many of those records are going to be talked about in 46 years and how many are genuinely good songs? I reckon none. And of course the Beatles and the Stones were pop - there is nothing wrong with pop. Pop is great if it's any good - the problem is none of the pop that's in today's charts is. Hence the rant.
I think we're talking at cross purposes. Im not saying the top forty today is anywhere near the quality of the records produced in the 60's. I know there's some classic records in that chart, but nestled among them you have the likes of Kenn Dodd and The Barron Nights. Im just saying there's aways been shite music around. Its just more prevalent today because people (kids and adults alike) are force fed the same playlists via whatever radio station they listen to, watch on tv and most households now have access to the internet (facebook, youtube etc etc) via pc's and also on mobiles. Its everywhere! Back then even the though of trying to sell records to 6-10 year olds didn't exist. I seriously get depressed thinking about the state of popular culture right now. Its frightening! Broadening the arguement (rant) out slightly to include tv. Celebrity dog training, ever other show is following around the emergency services around scraping up aggressive drunks off the pavement on a friday night. Its all just so cheap and lacking in any thought. About the only decent things thats been on for ages are Earthflight and Frozen Planet.

Anyway I digress, Back to my X Factor rant. I often wonder how many great musicians would never have been discovered if Simon Cowell was around in the 60's-70's. I can't see him letting Bob Dylan through the auditions. Or infact anyone with a slightly differernt vocal style. It seems modern culture respects just one thing and that is celebrity. It saddens me to see those kids queuing up to tryout for the X Factor, because as Runcible said its only because they want to be famous. Its this promotion of a shortcut to success lifestyle thats really damaging modern culture. A guy I know went into a school to show some kids what skills they needed to be a profesional photographer. They weren't the slightest bit interested in art or how to take great pictures. They even mocked him for it, All they wanted to know was how to be a pap photographer. Because thats were the money is. Sad.

As someone said earlier in the thread, the current feeling is, if you're not popular then you aren't successful.
Fame + popularity = success. Most Saturday night tv shows will show you that. Call to vote for your favorite. The one with the least votes is out. It all just seems so empty.
http://www.soundcloud.com/haarlemriots
TheWarmth
Known user
Posts: 3959
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Location: Chicago, IL
Contact:

Re: General 'chart music' rant

Post by TheWarmth »

I guess this is slightly off topic, but you mentioned television and have to counter that there are a surprising number of shows that I really enjoy these days, even a few on the non-cable channels. Off the top of my head:

Parks & Recreation
The Office
Modern Family
Walking Dead
Boardwalk Empire
Dexter
Mad Men
Shameless
Bored To Death
Breaking Bad
runcible
Site Admin
Posts: 5443
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Location: Yorkshire, England

Re: General 'chart music' rant

Post by runcible »

I agree with much of that Simon. I am, however, a fan of a lot of the BBC's stuff compared to other channels in terms of TV but... you still make a valid point. Money is first for so many people. And success is viewed on how famous people get. Generally success must be instant so anyone who hasn't 'made it' with their first album is ditched by a record company. That would mean the likes of U2 and REM wouldn't have been given the required time these days and look how much they sold once they became 'successful'..

Also the likes of Dylan, Neil Young, Mick Jagger... wouldn't have stood a chance on modern TV talent shows as they don't sing in tune - couldn't agree more.
bunnyben
Known user
Posts: 2676
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 8:49 pm
Location: inside aimless privacy

Re: General 'chart music' rant

Post by bunnyben »

runcible wrote:
bunnyben wrote: why does mass appeal mean 'crap' to use the original word that i was subsequently quoting.
Who said that? I certainly didn't. My point was simply that what was indeed popular - substitute music of mass appeal - in 1970 shits all over what is popular/has mass appeal today. I've argued it before - of the genuinely massive bands today how many are any good? Answer - well, for me it's none at all. Yet back in the day Beatles, Stones, Who (all 'crap' to you I know but not to most people), plus Zeppelin were all brilliant, high quality acts who sold zillions of records. The whole point is that the most popular music today is largely worthless.

I'm curious as to why you keep quoting other people and somehow attributing it to me...? :?
i think we are both saying the same thing from different perspectives. as for the quotes- i'm not entirely sure how to delete each section in multiple quotes (and wasn't really paying attention) sorry for that! :D
'raging and weeping are left on the early road
now each in his holy hill
the glittering and hurting days are alomst done
then let us compare mythologies
i have learned my elaborate lie
of soaring crosses and poisened thorns'
bunnyben
Known user
Posts: 2676
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 8:49 pm
Location: inside aimless privacy

Re: General 'chart music' rant

Post by bunnyben »

redcloud wrote:
bunnyben wrote: but i much prefer the howlin' wolf original to the stones' faux r n b version.
You must remember when you say this that you have the luxury to be able to find this stuff very easily and with nearly 60 years of rock and roll history behind us. In the late 50's/early 60's Howlin' Wolf was not something that you could just stumble on. It was The Beatles, The Rolling Stones and The Pretty Things (to name just a few) who re-presented this music to a white audience. Their presentation is also what helped transform rock and roll and kick start the youth movement.

Because of this I'm not sure if one can call it "faux r&b". They took inspiration from American black music and began to make it their own. Which helped give it a white audience during a very segregated time.
all very good points. with the virtue of being able to view it as timeless i stand by my point- in the context of time (as you said not being able to get hold of 32 muddy walters records) you have a very good point
'raging and weeping are left on the early road
now each in his holy hill
the glittering and hurting days are alomst done
then let us compare mythologies
i have learned my elaborate lie
of soaring crosses and poisened thorns'
bunnyben
Known user
Posts: 2676
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 8:49 pm
Location: inside aimless privacy

Re: General 'chart music' rant

Post by bunnyben »

TheWarmth wrote:I guess this is slightly off topic, but you mentioned television and have to counter that there are a surprising number of shows that I really enjoy these days, even a few on the non-cable channels. Off the top of my head:

Parks & Recreation
The Office
Modern Family
Walking Dead
Boardwalk Empire
Dexter
Mad Men
Shameless
Bored To Death
Breaking Bad
sherlock! (in the uk) sherlock! one of the best tv shows ever! currently watching the borgias, an interesting idea- a 'mafia' family as the pope- can see how the real story influenced the godfather etc
'raging and weeping are left on the early road
now each in his holy hill
the glittering and hurting days are alomst done
then let us compare mythologies
i have learned my elaborate lie
of soaring crosses and poisened thorns'
jadams501
Known user
Posts: 1261
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 2:51 am

Re: General 'chart music' rant

Post by jadams501 »

I'd argue that a big part of what's wrong with the music industry is that the internet has allowed for everything to be so intensely personalized. Everyone who has the knowledge and will can customize a collection that caters entirely to their tastes -- i.e. drone rock or klezmer punk or what have you.

The mass market is atomized in a way that wasn't formerly the case, and it means that the path to getting a record deal for bands is often to zero in on pleasing the pre-existing market niche rather than aiming for universal appeal. The mass market continues, but increasingly as lowest common denominator because everyone can dig into a niche or what's come out in the past to satisfy their own particular tastes.

p.s. I loved the first three episodes of Walking Dead but felt the show took a nosedive into pure crap immediately afterwards!
simonkeeping
Known user
Posts: 1694
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Contact:

Re: General 'chart music' rant

Post by simonkeeping »

jadams501 wrote: The mass market is atomized in a way that wasn't formerly the case, and it means that the path to getting a record deal for bands is often to zero in on pleasing the pre-existing market niche rather than aiming for universal appeal. The mass market continues, but increasingly as lowest common denominator because everyone can dig into a niche or what's come out in the past to satisfy their own particular tastes.
Now THAT is a good post!

I was maybe over generalising on the TV. As there are some good things around. But, like the charts, I fine the shite outways the good. Bunnyben, great call! Sherlock is masterpiece of modern tv.
http://www.soundcloud.com/haarlemriots
jadams501
Known user
Posts: 1261
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 2:51 am

Re: General 'chart music' rant

Post by jadams501 »

Thanks! 8)
redcloud
Known user
Posts: 2755
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 8:32 pm
Location: Portland, OR.

Re: General 'chart music' rant

Post by redcloud »

jadams501 wrote: There has long been a bizarre culture of hating on the Monkees, but they were one of the best pop outfits of the 60s. People like to call them the "faux four" or whatever, but they actually rebelled against being manufactured and started writing and performing their own material. Not that the manufactured stuff wasn't excellent pure pop in and of itself. They also were some of the first pop musicians to record with a moog, and did some excellent psychedelia. Porpoise Song is a masterpiece. I saw their reunion tour a few months ago and it was great!
Rebelled...really? How?

I believe that only 'Headquarters' features the band writing, singing and performing on every song. All other albums are either entirely session musicians or a mix of Monkees and session musicians. Their overly sugary brand of pop music does nothing for me nor does their overly manufactured image. Clearly the studio was trying to tick all the right boxes at the time that they assembled the cast. It's all very safe though so I don't really see the rebellion in them at all. 'Head' came out at the right time and of course Jack Nicholson was behind it as he was with 'Psych Out'. But, it is essentially a psych-exploitation film/album to jump on the bandwagon of psychedelia. Sure, they all may have been experimenting with pot and LSD but the studio & Nicholson were thinking how to make the band's image a bit more hip to broaden their appeal with a '67/68 audience.

'Porpoise Song' is indeed a brilliant tune written by Carole King and Gerry Goffin. The duo also wrote the wonderful 'I Happen To Love You' at the same time and offered it to the Monkees too but they (or management?) rejected it. The Electric Prunes ended up picking that latter tune up and recorded a brilliantly psychedelic wah-wah saturated version for their sophomore LP, "Underground". Nesmith's 'Circle Sky' is another good tune, which was covered by SunDial on their early "Overspill" EP.

I admit that Tork and Nesmith had some talent. They were, however, involved in the wrong project. Had they stuck with their friends Stephen Stills & David Crosby they may have gone on to leave a much more significant footprint in the history of music (imho).

But, at least Tork was clever enough to not hang out with Manson for too long!
jadams501
Known user
Posts: 1261
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 2:51 am

Re: General 'chart music' rant

Post by jadams501 »

Well Headquarters may have been the only album they recorded entirely on their own, but they did contribute instrumental parts to songs, perform solidly live, and write some very good songs themselves in addition to having excellent taste in others' material.

I agree that there is something a little "showbiz" about the Monkees because they were entertainers that were put together, but the fact that they were cast doesn't mean they didn't have chemistry and complement each other well. The singers weren't often playing the instruments on early Beach Boys records or most of Phil Spector's stuff or a lot of Motown, but it's still classic pop. Well arranged and performed with heart.

Because the mid to late 60s were so much about "which side are you on" I think it became hip to dismiss the Monkees as symbolic of all that was fake, but it isn't fair. Their TV show was underrated, too, a clever mixture of the Marx Brothers with very 60s theatre of the absurd kinds of things, and it got more surreal as time went on to the point of Frank Zappa and Tim Buckley being in the last few episodes.

So the Monkees should be considered as all around entertainers rather than solely as musicians, but they more than succeeded on that front. At their show a few months back, they went for over 2 hours of song after song of iconic 60s pop. There are very few groups with enough material to do that kind of show.
bunnyben
Known user
Posts: 2676
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 8:49 pm
Location: inside aimless privacy

Re: General 'chart music' rant

Post by bunnyben »

what side are you on? :wink:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_9kjsr398U

it's not even his real hat! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
'raging and weeping are left on the early road
now each in his holy hill
the glittering and hurting days are alomst done
then let us compare mythologies
i have learned my elaborate lie
of soaring crosses and poisened thorns'
Post Reply