Jump to content
Cold?
Local
Radar
Snow?

The Decline of Pop Music


Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: chellaston, derby
  • Weather Preferences: The Actual Weather ..... not fantasy.
  • Location: chellaston, derby
    12 hours ago, HighPressure said:

    I agree with some of that, although I would say the writing was on the wall in the 80s once it was realized by corporates that there as big money in controlling music. I think the rot started with the likes of Stock Aitken Waterman in that later part of the 80's. Whatever your genre of music, I don't really recall anything coming through from the ground so to speak after that. Groups or acts used to start in small clubs and tour in vans to get themselves known on the music scene, like the Beatles did 20yrs before. I can remember picking up white label records in Tooting famed for its Reggie scene at the time.  

    Whether you were into Rock, Reggie, Punk, Tow Tone, Soul etc there was something out there for you, and it was new, kids were banging out stuff in garages. That aspect of music has gone, as has the variation we used to have, yes you could get Joe Dolce Shuddap you face, but you also got Reo Speedagon, Genesis, Michaell Jackson, Blondie, Police, The Jam, Bob Marley all rolled up in a sandwich of Soul and Disco, you just don't get that variation today. 

     

    Yep completely agree except for the BIB.. ooops.. the second bib that is...lol.. made a mistake..

    There was plenty of great new music coming up from the ground level through and after the SAW era (87-91) . There was the rave scene which morphed with European techno to form the dance culture that defined much of the 90's. Thats when dance was new and original. There was the "madchester" scene which developed into britpop,. There was UK Garage later in the 90's and the Indie rock of the early 00's.

    You are spot on IMHO.. ALL the great differing styles that we had since the mid 50's through to the mid 00's , and theres about 50 ... came from the grass roots, the youth of the day creating a new style and fashion that they owned. THIS is what i mourn the loss of... and i feel sadness for todays youth who simply dont have that drive to create something new.

    Edited by mushymanrob
    • Like 2
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Spotted a post you think may be an issue? Please help the team by reporting it.
    • Replies 115
    • Created
    • Last Reply

    Top Posters In This Topic

    Top Posters In This Topic

    Popular Posts

    How's about a bit of Beatlemania, @mushymanrob... Their music still makes the hairs on my arms stand up!   

    BBC 4 showed a Top of the Pops show from 5th April 1990 last night, 30 years ago now.  What struck me, no one would have heard of the Beatles 30 years previous to this, they didn't exist in the form w

    More from Ready Steady Go! It's up to us, @mushymanrob:  

    Posted Images

    Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.

    Well, once again, and in an ever more desperate search for the 'Good Old Days', I thought I'd go back to the cusp of the 1960s, 1970s::oldgood:

     

    Though never averse to Rave and Techno musics, I agree with @HighPressure -- in that the rot set in with Stock, Aitken and Waterman: Kylie, Jason, Kylie & Jason? Almost the entire cast of effing Neighbours? Bleugh!!💩

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Andover, Hampshire
  • Location: Andover, Hampshire

    I'm 35 and at the stage now where I feel I have gotten too old and out of touch with the younger demographic.

    As someone who makes music (albeit electronic - I don't play any instruments, but I perform vocals and mix/master etc.) - the music today in the charts is utter low-effort garbage. Almost like the more low-effort it is, the better it will do.

    I feel like "mumble rap" and the over saturation of auto-tune in urban music is some joke I'm not in on and I don't understand. 

    It has always boiled down to the same thing for me though. Radio stations and the like influence the impressionable masses into thinking this music is "good" and so they lap it up. They're paid by the labels to have their artists songs on heavy rotation because there is genuinely no other reason for some of these awful records to take off like they do or be played constantly on the radio.

    My case in point - I am forced to listen to Radio 2 at work all day in the office. Last year, for about six weeks, they played this god-awful Louise Redknapp record on regular rotation. It was utter dog-s**t and had exactly no redeemable qualities. It sounded like something you would hear at a Butlins or being performed by in-house entertainment at an all-inclusive hotel for the kids while on holiday in Benidorm. Diabolical in every sense of the word. After six weeks were up, it completely disappeared from rotation and I haven't heard it again since. The only explanation in my mind, is that Louise Redknapp's label paid Radio 2 (and likely other radio stations) to play their client's record for a set period of time and once that period had expired and the radio station/corporation were paid up, they dropped it like a stone because it is an utterly atrocious record.

    This has now happened a few times with different artists and equally as awful records (Jack Savoretti, Erasure etc) and after a few weeks is over, you will quite literally never hear the records ever again.

    As for Radio One and the "yoofs" choice of music - it doesn't help that the presenters will never ever say anything disparaging about a record, even if its terrible. Every single record is followed by the presenter eulogizing it and saying how much they "love" that record and how "fresh" it is - even though its trash. Unfortunately, the joe-public hive-mind and malleable young brains who struggle to form their own opinion will lap it up. I suspect the presenters are not allowed to pass negative opinion on a record for fear of upsetting the paying label.

     

    I'm also convinced a lot of chart positioning/artist fame is manufactured and fiddled. Songs & artists rarely organically take off anymore - Billie Eilish is one of the few I can think of who took off on the back of a video she filmed at home for her song "Ocean Eyes" and organically grew a fan-base - but the majority seem to appear out of nowhere overnight and are forced upon us by some unknown entity and complicit media.

    For example - Rita Ora is supposedly massive (5 number ones and several high-profile features on TV etc) YET, I saw her post a Facebook status recently which after a few hours only had around 40-50 likes and interactions. I sometimes get more than that myself. Something doesn't add up for me there. How can somebody so apparently huge have so little fan interaction on social media? Maybe her label hadn't paid bots yet for likes/comments? 

     

    Unfortunately, as long as the radio and other media outlets push this trash music on the impressionable youth and force it down their throats by saying how great it is and how you MUST love it too, then nothing will change. Music will get lazier and lazier. Artists like Drake etc know they can go into a studio for 20 minutes one afternoon, mumble some nonsense and rake in millions because their label will quite literally pay for presenters and talking heads to say it's fantastic. They couldn't give a s**t about making actual music or pushing the envelope. 

    I like a lot of different genres, but there are only a handful of artists I can stomach from mainstream music (Dua Lipa, Billie Eilish, Lana Del Rey).

    Everything else is mainly drivel IMO.

    • Like 1
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: chellaston, derby
  • Weather Preferences: The Actual Weather ..... not fantasy.
  • Location: chellaston, derby
    39 minutes ago, Azazel said:

    I'm 35 and at the stage now where I feel I have gotten too old and out of touch with the younger demographic.

    As someone who makes music (albeit electronic - I don't play any instruments, but I perform vocals and mix/master etc.) - the music today in the charts is utter low-effort garbage. Almost like the more low-effort it is, the better it will do.

    I feel like "mumble rap" and the over saturation of auto-tune in urban music is some joke I'm not in on and I don't understand. 

    It has always boiled down to the same thing for me though. Radio stations and the like influence the impressionable masses into thinking this music is "good" and so they lap it up. They're paid by the labels to have their artists songs on heavy rotation because there is genuinely no other reason for some of these awful records to take off like they do or be played constantly on the radio.

    My case in point - I am forced to listen to Radio 2 at work all day in the office. Last year, for about six weeks, they played this god-awful Louise Redknapp record on regular rotation. It was utter dog-s**t and had exactly no redeemable qualities. It sounded like something you would hear at a Butlins or being performed by in-house entertainment at an all-inclusive hotel for the kids while on holiday in Benidorm. Diabolical in every sense of the word. After six weeks were up, it completely disappeared from rotation and I haven't heard it again since. The only explanation in my mind, is that Louise Redknapp's label paid Radio 2 (and likely other radio stations) to play their client's record for a set period of time and once that period had expired and the radio station/corporation were paid up, they dropped it like a stone because it is an utterly atrocious record.

    This has now happened a few times with different artists and equally as awful records (Jack Savoretti, Erasure etc) and after a few weeks is over, you will quite literally never hear the records ever again.

    As for Radio One and the "yoofs" choice of music - it doesn't help that the presenters will never ever say anything disparaging about a record, even if its terrible. Every single record is followed by the presenter eulogizing it and saying how much they "love" that record and how "fresh" it is - even though its trash. Unfortunately, the joe-public hive-mind and malleable young brains who struggle to form their own opinion will lap it up. I suspect the presenters are not allowed to pass negative opinion on a record for fear of upsetting the paying label.

     

    I'm also convinced a lot of chart positioning/artist fame is manufactured and fiddled. Songs & artists rarely organically take off anymore - Billie Eilish is one of the few I can think of who took off on the back of a video she filmed at home for her song "Ocean Eyes" and organically grew a fan-base - but the majority seem to appear out of nowhere overnight and are forced upon us by some unknown entity and complicit media.

    For example - Rita Ora is supposedly massive (5 number ones and several high-profile features on TV etc) YET, I saw her post a Facebook status recently which after a few hours only had around 40-50 likes and interactions. I sometimes get more than that myself. Something doesn't add up for me there. How can somebody so apparently huge have so little fan interaction on social media? Maybe her label hadn't paid bots yet for likes/comments? 

     

    Unfortunately, as long as the radio and other media outlets push this trash music on the impressionable youth and force it down their throats by saying how great it is and how you MUST love it too, then nothing will change. Music will get lazier and lazier. Artists like Drake etc know they can go into a studio for 20 minutes one afternoon, mumble some nonsense and rake in millions because their label will quite literally pay for presenters and talking heads to say it's fantastic. They couldn't give a s**t about making actual music or pushing the envelope. 

    I like a lot of different genres, but there are only a handful of artists I can stomach from mainstream music (Dua Lipa, Billie Eilish, Lana Del Rey).

    Everything else is mainly drivel IMO.

    Very well said.. [email protected] mumble rap... couldnt agree more, dreary negative dirge.

    bib... yep, everythings "fantastic" its all positive hyperbole, smashey and nicey have become reality!

    I remember Tony Blackburn causing a stir for saying the Jam "down in the tubestation at midnight" was a dreadful punk record, and he, on radio 1, didnt hold back criticising music he didnt like. (he totally missed the point of that track). In the past radio DJs had some freedom to promote music they thought was good. They had license and was part of their job to discover new exciting sounds. DJs made a name for themselves by discovering the next big thing. And they had a far greater variety of styles to chose from too. The late great John Peel was leader in this, he wasnt bound by any one genre but could pass a balanced appraisal of any track in any style.

    Todays playlists are smaller, the DJs just hyperbolic kids with little musical knowledge, as is often demonstrated when a modern track uses a sample.. its all part of the ...oh dear, here goes.... snowflakery the young appear to have been brought up with... everythings nice, everyones entitled to an opinion but not to challenge it, scrutinise it, examine it, for fear of upsetting some delicate flower.

    Wheres the FUN in todays pop?.. its all so earnest, serious but not challenging (like tubestation was). Where are the heros?... wheres todays lennon? lydon? morrissey? dylan? clapton? ginger baker? keith moon? and many more... artists with personality, who had something to say, stirring, rousing, anti heros..

     

    • Like 1
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Back in Edmonton Alberta(via Chelmsford, Exeter & Calgary)
  • Location: Back in Edmonton Alberta(via Chelmsford, Exeter & Calgary)

    the issue here is like anything music is a business like everything else..all about maximizing profit for minimal effort and can be applied to anything..lets take football for example as a simple analogy to music..20 /30 years ago players were home grown played on the streets for their local boys and school teams and were scouted or went for trails at 15-17 with professional clubs..they played with their mates and practiced in parks and school in their gardens wherever they grew organically and did it because of their passion for the game it wasnt about money or fame etc...move onto today..football is big business boys are taken into academies by clubs at 7 years old ..trained like a miltary machine swayed by money and fame and all the trappings that go with it...and what do you end up with (just like music)? same players that all look the same all play the same..all the mavericks are gone all the hard men have gone ..the grass root players are lost at an early age or spat out by academies never to return...music is exactly the same its all manufactured if you are a local band playing local gigs you dont stand a chance,  like if you are playing for your local team in a local league no matter how good you are you dont stand a chance.

    so be it music or football or tv or comedy or whatever its just the world we live it in im afraid

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: chellaston, derby
  • Weather Preferences: The Actual Weather ..... not fantasy.
  • Location: chellaston, derby
    18 hours ago, cheeky_monkey said:

    the issue here is like anything music is a business like everything else..all about maximizing profit for minimal effort and can be applied to anything..lets take football for example as a simple analogy to music..20 /30 years ago players were home grown played on the streets for their local boys and school teams and were scouted or went for trails at 15-17 with professional clubs..they played with their mates and practiced in parks and school in their gardens wherever they grew organically and did it because of their passion for the game it wasnt about money or fame etc...move onto today..football is big business boys are taken into academies by clubs at 7 years old ..trained like a miltary machine swayed by money and fame and all the trappings that go with it...and what do you end up with (just like music)? same players that all look the same all play the same..all the mavericks are gone all the hard men have gone ..the grass root players are lost at an early age or spat out by academies never to return...music is exactly the same its all manufactured if you are a local band playing local gigs you dont stand a chance,  like if you are playing for your local team in a local league no matter how good you are you dont stand a chance.

    so be it music or football or tv or comedy or whatever its just the world we live it in im afraid

    Broadly agree, but id ask why are todays youth putting up with it? ... See, it was similar in the mid 70's, music was controled by EMI and a few others. What punk did was inspire our generation NOT to accept that. Despite having absolutly no money, real music fans who wanted to create their own music simply started their own record labels...hence the birth of "indie" .

    So i dont really accept the lack of tallent being attributed to big business , if your face doesnt fit, sort of thing. Young today have far more money and resources to create music then we did 40 years ago... i dont believe they have got the drive, the willpower, the creativity to do it ...

    talking of indie labels..... this is really ironic, i mean REALLY ironic... the most successful indie label of the 80's was?.............................................. PWL !!!

    Yep Pete Waterman Limited , who created his own label in order to release his string of manufactured crap from SAW. 

    So its ironic that the most successful indie label, a scene created to spread diversity and rail against big corporations... became exactly what it was supposed to be fighting against.

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Cottingham
  • Weather Preferences: Cold Snowy Winters, Hot Thundery Summers
  • Location: Cottingham
    On 23/09/2020 at 12:03, mushymanrob said:

    and i feel sadness for todays youth who simply dont have that drive to create something new.

    My brother works within the music industry so he often gives his thoughts on what is happening to me. He says that nowadays it is far more difficult for rock bands to break through into the mainstream as they did 15 years ago. The support isn't there from the key players in the music industry to propel bands up the charts like what there used to be.

    This has been particularly true for rock music since the late 2000s. There isn't as much good music out there in the charts at the moment compared to previous decades, bands are no longer as relevant as what they used to be. All the current music I listen to, none of it reaches the charts.

    The problem is there is a monopoly on the charts at the moment, there is resentment about it (remember when rage against the machine got a christmas number one 10 years ago?) but given the fact that the major promoters of music have lost their interest in rock music, it will suffer regardless of whether the quality is the same.

    Part of it can also be attributed to the rise of hip-hop as a form of music which youngsters see as rebellious, especially given the backlash older generations give it. Rock was initially seen as rebellious or cutting edge back in the day (which it was) but this generation of performers have become the establishment in music so to speak.

    No genre of music permanantly stays on top in music and whilst rock music is out of focus right now, it will probably enjoy a renaissance when all the old bands disappear from all the classic radio stations older people listen to. Young people probably grew up listening to rock music every day on their parents favourite radio stations every day so are more inclined to pick something different.

    Rock music etc is no better or worse than what is used to be, it just isn't popular right now. Instead of switching on the TV to watch top of the pops or listening to popular radio, you have to do some digging.

    Edited by Quicksilver1989
    Error
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Downton, Wiltshire
  • Location: Downton, Wiltshire
    Just now, Quicksilver1989 said:

    My brother works within the music industry so he often gives his thoughts on what is happening to me. He says that nowadays it is far more difficult for rock bands to break through into the mainstream as they did 15 years ago. The support isn't there from the key players in the music industry to propel bands up the charts like what there used to be.

    This has been particularly true for rock music since the late 2000s. There isn't as much good music out there in the charts at the moment compared to previous decades, bands are no longer as relevant as what they used to be. All the current music I listen to, none of it reaches the charts.

    The problem is there is a monopoly on the charts at the moment, there is resentment about it (remember when rage against the machine got a christmas number one 10 years ago?) but given the fact that the major promoters of music have lost their interest in rock music, it will suffer regardless of whether the quality is the same.

    Part of it can also be attributed to the rise of hip-hop as a form of music which youngsters see as rebellious, especially given the backlash older generations give it. Rock was initially seen as rebellious or cutting edge back in the day (which it was) but this generation of performers have become the establishment in music so to speak.

    No genre of music permanantly stays on top in music and whilst rock music is out of focus right now, it will probably enjoy a renaissance when all the old bands disappear from all the classic radio stations older people listen to. Young people probably grew up listening to rock music every day on their parents favourite radio stations every day so are more inclined to pick something different.

    Rock music etc is no better or worse than what is used to be, it just isn't popular right now. Instead of switching on the TV to watch top of the pops or listening to popular radio, you have to do some digging.

    I'm pretty sure the lady that pushed that was on NetWeather at the time. Remember reading something about it. They were on 5Live and told not to swear on the morning show. Shelagh Fogarty cut them right off. 😄

     

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: chellaston, derby
  • Weather Preferences: The Actual Weather ..... not fantasy.
  • Location: chellaston, derby
    2 hours ago, Quicksilver1989 said:

    My brother works within the music industry so he often gives his thoughts on what is happening to me. He says that nowadays it is far more difficult for rock bands to break through into the mainstream as they did 15 years ago. The support isn't there from the key players in the music industry to propel bands up the charts like what there used to be.

    This has been particularly true for rock music since the late 2000s. There isn't as much good music out there in the charts at the moment compared to previous decades, bands are no longer as relevant as what they used to be. All the current music I listen to, none of it reaches the charts.

    The problem is there is a monopoly on the charts at the moment, there is resentment about it (remember when rage against the machine got a christmas number one 10 years ago?) but given the fact that the major promoters of music have lost their interest in rock music, it will suffer regardless of whether the quality is the same.

    Part of it can also be attributed to the rise of hip-hop as a form of music which youngsters see as rebellious, especially given the backlash older generations give it. Rock was initially seen as rebellious or cutting edge back in the day (which it was) but this generation of performers have become the establishment in music so to speak.

    No genre of music permanantly stays on top in music and whilst rock music is out of focus right now, it will probably enjoy a renaissance when all the old bands disappear from all the classic radio stations older people listen to. Young people probably grew up listening to rock music every day on their parents favourite radio stations every day so are more inclined to pick something different.

    Rock music etc is no better or worse than what is used to be, it just isn't popular right now. Instead of switching on the TV to watch top of the pops or listening to popular radio, you have to do some digging.

    Again, broad agreement with what you say...

    However, the motivation amongst young musicians in the 60's and punk era of the mid/late 70's wasnt to break through into mainstream as such. The motivation wasnt fame and fortune, but a passion for making new music. It succeeded in the post punk era because my generation wanted to hear a variety of new sounds, so creative musicians had the support of their generation. That urge to be creative has slowly died out in the last 35 odd years, hence nearly everyone under 35 has never really witnessed the buzz that swept through earlier generations, they/you have grown up with manufactured acts or corporate whores (im looking at you coldplay) along with 20 years of TV talent shows being the norm.

    The charts were never seen as "good", even when with hindisght they probably were. The "best" music has always been found in clubs, bars, albums . But the charts (as ive said before) are an invaluable chronicle of the rise and fall of musical trends through the ages. Like them or not, they are the only way to see who was producing what and when, the changing fashions, styles, genres. So all this "good" music thats supposed to be around now is simply invisible so will not be "seen" by future generations.

    I think your point about hip hop, and for that matter grime, is accurate... how can todays youth rebel against or forge a different identity to their parents who likely grew up with rock, or for that matter good dance (those who were creating the dance scene via raves are now parents)  if its what their parents liked..

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Cottingham
  • Weather Preferences: Cold Snowy Winters, Hot Thundery Summers
  • Location: Cottingham
    5 minutes ago, mushymanrob said:

    Again, broad agreement with what you say...

    However, the motivation amongst young musicians in the 60's and punk era of the mid/late 70's wasnt to break through into mainstream as such. The motivation wasnt fame and fortune, but a passion for making new music. It succeeded in the post punk era because my generation wanted to hear a variety of new sounds, so creative musicians had the support of their generation. That urge to be creative has slowly died out in the last 35 odd years, hence nearly everyone under 35 has never really witnessed the buzz that swept through earlier generations, they/you have grown up with manufactured acts or corporate whores (im looking at you coldplay) along with 20 years of TV talent shows being the norm.

    The charts were never seen as "good", even when with hindisght they probably were. The "best" music has always been found in clubs, bars, albums . But the charts (as ive said before) are an invaluable chronicle of the rise and fall of musical trends through the ages. Like them or not, they are the only way to see who was producing what and when, the changing fashions, styles, genres. So all this "good" music thats supposed to be around now is simply invisible so will not be "seen" by future generations.

    I think your point about hip hop, and for that matter grime, is accurate... how can todays youth rebel against or forge a different identity to their parents who likely grew up with rock, or for that matter good dance (those who were creating the dance scene via raves are now parents)  if its what their parents liked..

    We've also got to remember that access to music has changed massively through the decades. Agree that music isn't just about making money but it needs to be made in order for a band to endure and keep making music too.

    The biggest changes started into the late 90s. Before then, music proved lucrative if you produced catchy singles that got heavy rotation on the radio (same as today) or if an artist produced something that was 'critically acclaimed'. This began to change in the late 1990s when illegal downloading, youtube and spotify came along, the Beatles never had to deal with that. Album sales particularly rewarded talented artists and make music a long term career. With money becoming tighter, I believe this has lead to artists less willing to experiment as the risk is higher.

    This of course favours the likes of Cowell etc as their oven ready chart pop acts have become a safer bet money-wise. Would Radiohead have become a big global band if they came along 20 years later? I doubt it, the economic model of music doesn't favour it any more. I think that's why you find lots of rock bands making money through touring nowadays. The other disadvantage of this is that it is really difficult for new bands to break onto the mainstream stage whilst rock bands from previous generations make big money touring with the aid of being a household name.

    I think the whole aspiration of getting a record deal is not what it was either. Nowadays, a person has to seriously consider whether or not they even want one in the first place. These days, it's fairly affordable to record an album on your own. There's no pressure from a record label but you won't get the push into the wider public that all the pop acts etc. currently get.

    As a result the charts are losing their relevance and they along with mainstream radio don't give an insight into all the music out there. In contrast to the 90s for example, the charts back then were much more diverse.

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Bratislava (240m)
  • Location: Bratislava (240m)
    On 29/09/2020 at 13:14, mushymanrob said:


    Wheres the FUN in todays pop?.. its all so earnest, serious

    This is the crux of the matter for me. There's just no charm whenever I hear anything recent. That and a lack of melody, which seems to have been passé for years now.

    For me a pop song simply has to be catchy. It doesn't have to be profound, nor is it supposed to take itself seriously.

    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    I'm 30 and I couldn't name one song in the top 40 now and I like music. Its just video hoes and guys standing beside a flash car thinking their hard and or generic lyrics. Was a lot of that when I was teenager as well to be fair. Anyway good luck to them.

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: chellaston, derby
  • Weather Preferences: The Actual Weather ..... not fantasy.
  • Location: chellaston, derby
    16 hours ago, Quicksilver1989 said:

    We've also got to remember that access to music has changed massively through the decades. Agree that music isn't just about making money but it needs to be made in order for a band to endure and keep making music too.

    The biggest changes started into the late 90s. Before then, music proved lucrative if you produced catchy singles that got heavy rotation on the radio (same as today) or if an artist produced something that was 'critically acclaimed'. This began to change in the late 1990s when illegal downloading, youtube and spotify came along, the Beatles never had to deal with that. Album sales particularly rewarded talented artists and make music a long term career. With money becoming tighter, I believe this has lead to artists less willing to experiment as the risk is higher.

    This of course favours the likes of Cowell etc as their oven ready chart pop acts have become a safer bet money-wise. Would Radiohead have become a big global band if they came along 20 years later? I doubt it, the economic model of music doesn't favour it any more. I think that's why you find lots of rock bands making money through touring nowadays. The other disadvantage of this is that it is really difficult for new bands to break onto the mainstream stage whilst rock bands from previous generations make big money touring with the aid of being a household name.

    I think the whole aspiration of getting a record deal is not what it was either. Nowadays, a person has to seriously consider whether or not they even want one in the first place. These days, it's fairly affordable to record an album on your own. There's no pressure from a record label but you won't get the push into the wider public that all the pop acts etc. currently get.

    As a result the charts are losing their relevance and they along with mainstream radio don't give an insight into all the music out there. In contrast to the 90s for example, the charts back then were much more diverse.

    Actually, in the past, we used tape recorders to record the music we couldnt afford off the radio. Singles were relatively expensive, we could only afford 1 single a week if that..

    One thing that hindered new fashions/genres was the logistics of hearing it. It often took a couple of months for the latest London trend to make it out to the sticks. By the time we had heard about the Blitz kids, it was all but over! I strongly believe that if we had the internet back then, these new trends would have been stronger as we that werent in London or Manchester could have been part of it instead of being followers..

    I believe the charts would be different too, with more of the trendiest music being represented. 40 years ago there was a lot of "mums" music in the charts and they had more money to buy Val Doonican then we had to buy XTC or Squeeze..

    So i dont think the lack of diversity in todays charts has anything to do with modern technology, i think (im not alone on this) that todays youth just isnt as interested as we were and are accepting of the pop product.

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: chellaston, derby
  • Weather Preferences: The Actual Weather ..... not fantasy.
  • Location: chellaston, derby
    12 hours ago, AderynCoch said:

    This is the crux of the matter for me. There's just no charm whenever I hear anything recent. That and a lack of melody, which seems to have been passé for years now.

    For me a pop song simply has to be catchy. It doesn't have to be profound, nor is it supposed to take itself seriously.

    yep.. agree on that, imho a healthy chart has variety, fun songs like Madness produced alongside those with a deeper message like The Jam produced.

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Back in Edmonton Alberta(via Chelmsford, Exeter & Calgary)
  • Location: Back in Edmonton Alberta(via Chelmsford, Exeter & Calgary)
    12 hours ago, mushymanrob said:

    Actually, in the past, we used tape recorders to record the music we couldnt afford off the radio. Singles were relatively expensive, we could only afford 1 single a week if that..

    One thing that hindered new fashions/genres was the logistics of hearing it. It often took a couple of months for the latest London trend to make it out to the sticks. By the time we had heard about the Blitz kids, it was all but over! I strongly believe that if we had the internet back then, these new trends would have been stronger as we that werent in London or Manchester could have been part of it instead of being followers..

    I believe the charts would be different too, with more of the trendiest music being represented. 40 years ago there was a lot of "mums" music in the charts and they had more money to buy Val Doonican then we had to buy XTC or Squeeze..

    So i dont think the lack of diversity in todays charts has anything to do with modern technology, i think (im not alone on this) that todays youth just isnt as interested as we were and are accepting of the pop product.

    thats because there are more things for the youth to do or get involved with..for example netflix and video games..mucking bout on Instagram, tik tok etc ..its all bout fame and celebrity and reality shows..this has all taken a huge chunk out todays youth social lives and social activities, that 50 years ago would have been reserved to listening to music and going to gigs etc

    so essentially they are way more avenues for entertainment for the youth of today..way more competition for their attention and money also

    • Like 1
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: chellaston, derby
  • Weather Preferences: The Actual Weather ..... not fantasy.
  • Location: chellaston, derby
    14 hours ago, cheeky_monkey said:

    thats because there are more things for the youth to do or get involved with..for example netflix and video games..mucking bout on Instagram, tik tok etc ..its all bout fame and celebrity and reality shows..this has all taken a huge chunk out todays youth social lives and social activities, that 50 years ago would have been reserved to listening to music and going to gigs etc

    so essentially they are way more avenues for entertainment for the youth of today..way more competition for their attention and money also

    No i dont agree with that. we were never short of things to do, we went outdoors more, played in gangs, footy, bike rides, cricket.. etc etc etc.. its clear the youth of the past (50s-early00s) had a drive to create new music because they/we did.

    • Like 1
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Back in Edmonton Alberta(via Chelmsford, Exeter & Calgary)
  • Location: Back in Edmonton Alberta(via Chelmsford, Exeter & Calgary)
    9 hours ago, mushymanrob said:

    No i dont agree with that. we were never short of things to do, we went outdoors more, played in gangs, footy, bike rides, cricket.. etc etc etc.. its clear the youth of the past (50s-early00s) had a drive to create new music because they/we did.

    your not a youth today so you dont know and that's the problem..you are commenting on a problem like a back seat driver..effectively you are as am i out of touch with the youth of today as is anyone over the age of 30..you did not have technology and entertainment in the palm of your hand so you and i had to make our own fun/entertainment hence we strove to make music as a form of entertainment ..now you don't need to because everything's one click or one swipe away..its the same reason people are fat and rely on fast food etc. because we get everything handed to you everything is easily accessible these days 30 years ago it was not.

    • Like 1
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.

    My dad used to call the kind of stuff that I liked -- basically, anything that could be called Rock 'n' Roll -- 'tuneless Yeti crap'... I don't think he much liked my reggae, either!

    Heaven forbid @mushymanrob... we might just be getting old, past it, and musically senile!:oldgrin:

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: chellaston, derby
  • Weather Preferences: The Actual Weather ..... not fantasy.
  • Location: chellaston, derby
    12 hours ago, cheeky_monkey said:

    your not a youth today so you dont know and that's the problem..you are commenting on a problem like a back seat driver..effectively you are as am i out of touch with the youth of today as is anyone over the age of 30..you did not have technology and entertainment in the palm of your hand so you and i had to make our own fun/entertainment hence we strove to make music as a form of entertainment ..now you don't need to because everything's one click or one swipe away..its the same reason people are fat and rely on fast food etc. because we get everything handed to you everything is easily accessible these days 30 years ago it was not.

    out of touch?.. i have 3 kids... ok they are young adults now... i have 50 years of observing and taking part in the youth culture, worked in schools and youth clubs.
    Modern technology should make it EASIER to make music nowdays, you can do it off your computer!
    Theres no other reason then a lack of drive... we didnt make music because "there was nothing else to do", we made music because music was a passion, past generations WANTED to make music, and each new style defined that generation..
    ...... but when you say "we get everything handed to you everything is easily accessible " you are actually supporting my charge that they have no drive  !!! Laziness is no excuse.

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: chellaston, derby
  • Weather Preferences: The Actual Weather ..... not fantasy.
  • Location: chellaston, derby
    12 hours ago, General Cluster said:

    My dad used to call the kind of stuff that I liked -- basically, anything that could be called Rock 'n' Roll -- 'tuneless Yeti crap'... I don't think he much liked my reggae, either!

    Heaven forbid @mushymanrob... we might just be getting old, past it, and musically senile!:oldgrin:

    Youre missing the point....... again..... its NOT about personal taste! Its about easily observable facts that there is no longer the variety, diversity, and desire to create new original styles being created by the younger generation that define that generation like rock n roll, glam, punk, rave, etc did.

    It is possible you know, after 50 years of experience, to be objective..

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
    57 minutes ago, mushymanrob said:

    Youre missing the point....... again..... its NOT about personal taste! Its about easily observable facts that there is no longer the variety, diversity, and desire to create new original styles being created by the younger generation that define that generation like rock n roll, glam, punk, rave, etc did.

    It is possible you know, after 50 years of experience, to be objective..

    Perhaps new genres of pop music are like plots in crime novels... the more you have, the harder it gets to come up with new ones -- the 'gaps' between those already invented gets narrower with time...?

    IMO, the answer to the 'problem' need not involve 'lazy teenagers', 'malingering millennials', 'snowflakes' or any other disparaging term.:oldgood:

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: chellaston, derby
  • Weather Preferences: The Actual Weather ..... not fantasy.
  • Location: chellaston, derby
    2 hours ago, General Cluster said:

    Perhaps new genres of pop music are like plots in crime novels... the more you have, the harder it gets to come up with new ones -- the 'gaps' between those already invented gets narrower with time...?

    IMO, the answer to the 'problem' need not involve 'lazy teenagers', 'malingering millennials', 'snowflakes' or any other disparaging term.:oldgood:

    ay, there is that to consider (top line) , but theres nothing wrong with doing old styles well.. id suggest the early 00s were full of great sounding rock/indie that wasnt exactly original but it was produced very well.

    lol... stuff your politically correct last line... lol.. its shying away from conflict that has caused the problem of "snowflakes" , protecting them from challenging pov, wrap them up it cotton wool , put them in utopia along with santa claus and unicorns. what did our generation do? we fought on, argued, thought, created, had a voice. do you think that rock / pop music as we knew it would have been so varied fresh and new if our generation was cossetted and protected from "nasty" words?...

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
    27 minutes ago, mushymanrob said:

    lol... stuff your politically correct last line... lol.. its shying away from conflict that has caused the problem of "snowflakes" , protecting them from challenging pov, wrap them up it cotton wool , put them in utopia along with santa claus and unicorns. what did our generation do? we fought on, argued, thought, created, had a voice. do you think that rock / pop music as we knew it would have been so varied fresh and new if our generation was cossetted and protected from "nasty" words?...

    Mushy, Mushy, Mushy... Sometimes you do come across as a very sad little man!:oldrolleyes:

    Edited by General Cluster
    • Like 1
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: chellaston, derby
  • Weather Preferences: The Actual Weather ..... not fantasy.
  • Location: chellaston, derby
    1 hour ago, General Cluster said:

    Mushy, Mushy, Mushy... Sometimes you do come across as a very sad little man!:oldrolleyes:

    prefer opinionated and aggressive myself... and ive always linked "sadness" to a persons post count, lol.

     

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    • 3 weeks later...
    Posted
  • Location: chellaston, derby
  • Weather Preferences: The Actual Weather ..... not fantasy.
  • Location: chellaston, derby

    drugs is the answer....lol.. maybe if the young delved more into spiritualism, their minds would be open to more artistic work... a good old tab of lsd, or brew up a bag of mushrooms, thatll do the trick! 😀

    lets face it, experimenting with halluciogenics lead to the creation of many great masterpieces in pop music history, and drove various trends/fashions.

    ........ and lets not forget, a lot of classical pieces, literature and poetry were drug inspired.

    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    Create an account or sign in to comment

    You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create an account

    Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

    Register a new account

    Sign in

    Already have an account? Sign in here.

    Sign In Now
    ×
    ×
    • Create New...