OT: Rage on! Rage on!

Wallace1492

Porgy wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

I can't help feeling sad about the whole thing.

I mean, the whole x-factor, Britain's got talent thing, what ever happened to bands or individuals being sucessful because they were original, talented, could write their own thing, toured for months in the back of a transit and merited sucess, rather than having a huge industrial scale publicity machine behind them..

I really don;t understand your angst over this. There are still plenty of bands making it the old fashioned way - versions of manufactured badns have always been around - even in the 60s, 70s and 80s, held up by some as a sort of golden age of "proper" music - and the charts were dominated by novelty records, one-hit wonders, re-issues, manufactured acts, acts that didn;t actually write or play on their own records, etc.

I would recommend you ignoring the charts and X-factor and just getting out there and going to see a few decent gigs.

I know manufactured bands have always been there, but seems to be far bigger now than ever before. But it is Opportunity Knocks gone large now.

Ah well, just dig out me Stones collection and get all nostalgic....

Clever Pun

Porgy wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

I can't help feeling sad about the whole thing.

I mean, the whole x-factor, Britain's got talent thing, what ever happened to bands or individuals being sucessful because they were original, talented, could write their own thing, toured for months in the back of a transit and merited sucess, rather than having a huge industrial scale publicity machine behind them..

I really don;t understand your angst over this. There are still plenty of bands making it the old fashioned way - versions of manufactured badns have always been around - even in the 60s, 70s and 80s, held up by some as a sort of golden age of "proper" music - and the charts were dominated by novelty records, one-hit wonders, re-issues, manufactured acts, acts that didn;t actually write or play on their own records, etc.

I would recommend you ignoring the charts and X-factor and just getting out there and going to see a few decent gigs.

the live scene for all types of music is huge.(gigs sell out stupidly quickly these days) the charts have been indecline for ages and the christmas no1 isn't going to change that

if you want to support a band go see them live and buy merch at the gig as they see most of that money in their pocket

DonDaddyD

Clever Pun wrote:

the live scene for all types of music is huge.(gigs sell out stupidly quickly these days) the charts have been indecline for ages and the christmas no1 isn't going to change that

if you want to support a band go see them live and buy merch at the gig as they see most of that money in their pocket

+1

Why I bought Skindred album at the gig and not from Amazon where it was cheaper.

biondino

nicklouse wrote:

WheezyMcChubby wrote:

500,000 sales :shock:

Seems like no one buys singles any more.

Is the single a waste of time and effort?

Are you crazy? More to the point, is the album a waste of time and effort - two or three good songs (which will also be singles, which you can buy separately, then 7 or 8 pieces of turgid filler. Singles are where it's at - albums have had their day.

Porgy wrote:

So what sweary old song are we going to make number one next year?

How about "Too Drunk To Fcuk" by the Dead Kennedys

I'd like to suggest "C**t Tease" by P*ssy Galore, please.

attica

biondino wrote:

I'd like to suggest "C**t Tease" by P*ssy Galore, please.

How about "So What" by the Anti Nowhere League? Google the lyrics but they are very definitely NSFW

Porgy

biondino wrote:

Are you crazy? More to the point, is the album a waste of time and effort - two or three good songs (which will also be singles, which you can buy separately, then 7 or 8 pieces of turgid filler. Singles are where it's at - albums have had their day.

Not at all true in my experience - an album is a whole coherent work - should be about 40 minutes long and contain around 10 songs. On the best albums - the songs should hold together musically - recorded in the same set of sessions, same musicians, etc. - and they should be a document of where that artist was at that moment. A good album is greater than the sum total of its parts - take a song out of context and you have much to lose.

You're describing the worst case scenario where an artist has had a couple of hits and then hastily digs up or records a load of filler to get an album out to exploit their current and temporary popularity.

Many bands - most of the ones I like - put their best songs on an album only.

Good albums will always stand the test of time.... and I can't think of a better way for an artist to present their latest output of songs. It'll be sad if they have had their day.

attica

Porgy, I agree with you in everything but the definition of an album. A good album is unrestrained by number of tracks or length.

A song can be fantastic without being radio friendly and would therefore get lost without the album, as for "concept albums" or rather albums with a narrative thread running through them, I would miss them lots if the album were to disappear.

jonginge

Attica wrote:

Porgy, I agree with you in everything but the definition of an album. A good album is unrestrained by number of tracks or length.

A song can be fantastic without being radio friendly and would therefore get lost without the album, as for "concept albums" or rather albums with a narrative thread running through them, I would miss them lots if the album were to disappear.

Absolutely.
The first generation of ipods really annoyed me because of the seek time between tracks. I had a number of albums where the tracks blended together. Not so when ripped to the pod.

I used to buy some cd singles but only when they contained previously unreleased material as b-sides.

Even given the above, most double-albums are rubbish. They just suffer from poor quality control

lost_in_thought

JonGinge wrote:

Even given the above, most double-albums are rubbish. They just suffer from poor quality control

There are some good ones though - Pink Floyd's The Wall?

Porgy

Attica wrote:

Porgy, I agree with you in everything but the definition of an album. A good album is unrestrained by number of tracks or length..

Well I find myself losing interest after about 40 minutes, but that's not surprising as I got into music when only vinyl and cassettes were available.

JonGinge wrote:

Even given the above, most double-albums are rubbish. They just suffer from poor quality control

The only double albums I used to buy were live ones - anything else, I believed, was self indulgent nonsense and belonged to the pre-punk era of ELP and Pink Floyd....I can;t think of a double album that wouldn't benefit from being edited - either less songs, or same songs but shorter.

attica

lost_in_thought wrote:

JonGinge wrote:

Even given the above, most double-albums are rubbish. They just suffer from poor quality control

There are some good ones though - Pink Floyd's The Wall?

+1

JG, you want one of these

It's got an "album of the day" function.
It's a kind of album shuffle (not to mention there's no need for iTunes with it)

Porgy

lost_in_thought wrote:

JonGinge wrote:

Even given the above, most double-albums are rubbish. They just suffer from poor quality control

There are some good ones though - Pink Floyd's The Wall?

Some of it's good - about 40 minutes worth of it I reckon.

attica

Porgy wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

JonGinge wrote:

Even given the above, most double-albums are rubbish. They just suffer from poor quality control

There are some good ones though - Pink Floyd's The Wall?

Some of it's good - about 40 minutes worth of it I reckon.

Yeah, all books should be limited to 100 pages and films should be no longer than an hour and a half either :roll:

jonginge

Attica wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

JonGinge wrote:

Even given the above, most double-albums are rubbish. They just suffer from poor quality control

There are some good ones though - Pink Floyd's The Wall?

+1

JG, you want one of these

It's got an "album of the day" function.
It's a kind of album shuffle (not to mention there's no need for iTunes with it)

Haha, thought my last point might get a reaction :twisted: I did say most And, yes, I do like The Wall

Porgy

Attica wrote:

Porgy wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

JonGinge wrote:

Even given the above, most double-albums are rubbish. They just suffer from poor quality control

There are some good ones though - Pink Floyd's The Wall?

Some of it's good - about 40 minutes worth of it I reckon.

Yeah, all books should be limited to 100 pages and films should be no longer than an hour and a half either :roll:

I would agree with the film rule too - I hate long films - and 90 minutes is about right.

But since I don;t usually read books in one sitting they can be as long as they need to be imo.

attica

Guess we have to agree to differ there then Porgy. My point got rather lost.
But you must miss out on some brilliant films just because you think they're too long.

bigmat

Porgy wrote:

Attica wrote:

Porgy wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

JonGinge wrote:

Even given the above, most double-albums are rubbish. They just suffer from poor quality control

There are some good ones though - Pink Floyd's The Wall?

Some of it's good - about 40 minutes worth of it I reckon.

Yeah, all books should be limited to 100 pages and films should be no longer than an hour and a half either :roll:

I would agree with the film rule too - I hate long films - and 90 minutes is about right.

But since I don;t usually read books in one sitting they can be as long as they need to be imo.

Chapters in books should have a limit though, say 20 pages.

Porgy

MatHammond wrote:

Porgy wrote:

Attica wrote:

Porgy wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

JonGinge wrote:

Even given the above, most double-albums are rubbish. They just suffer from poor quality control

There are some good ones though - Pink Floyd's The Wall?

Some of it's good - about 40 minutes worth of it I reckon.

Yeah, all books should be limited to 100 pages and films should be no longer than an hour and a half either :roll:

I would agree with the film rule too - I hate long films - and 90 minutes is about right.

But since I don;t usually read books in one sitting they can be as long as they need to be imo.

Chapters in books should have a limit though, say 20 pages.

Short enough to read while sitting on the toilet.

attica

:roll: