Seemingly trivial things that cheer you up
Comments
-
Also, I hadn't realised he'd studied at the Royal Academy of Music for five years, after getting a scholarship to go there.
I think this points to a lot of artists that have had long and successful careers, they are highly skilled and well trained musicians at heart. I know people will say that it is snobbery to criticise manufactured pop bands/artists, but many do not have much or any formal training or grounding in music. They may have been to stage school but I don't think that is quite the same thing.
I also think with someone like EJ, would they have ever had a career if they were a 20 year old artist today? The answer is probably no, image far outweighs talent in a lot of cases. I wonder how many singers/artists under the age of 30 with a record deal at present will have a 30-40 career in the music industry. I would guess not a single one of them.0 -
lol, what kind of ageist snobbery is this.MidlandsGrimpeur2 said:Also, I hadn't realised he'd studied at the Royal Academy of Music for five years, after getting a scholarship to go there.
I think this points to a lot of artists that have had long and successful careers, they are highly skilled and well trained musicians at heart. I know people will say that it is snobbery to criticise manufactured pop bands/artists, but many do not have much or any formal training or grounding in music. They may have been to stage school but I don't think that is quite the same thing.
I also think with someone like EJ, would they have ever had a career if they were a 20 year old artist today? The answer is probably no, image far outweighs talent in a lot of cases. I wonder how many singers/artists under the age of 30 with a record deal at present will have a 30-40 career in the music industry. I would guess not a single one of them.
Biggest male artist from the UK is Ed Sheeran.
He's 32 and he's already been in the charts for one and a half decades.
Adelle is 35 and she's one of the world's biggest stars, and has been at it since 2006 (yes, she was that young).
Let's face it, neither are lookers. Adelle might not have the longevity of Elton because of her voice problems but that aside she probably will..
If you want under 35 you have lewis capaldi who is neither a looker nor can finish his songs all the time because of his tourettes.
Elton John is a monster raving success, just look at the back catalogue, so he's hardly a decent measure.0 -
Neither of them are under 30 and neither have had a 30-40 year career.
It's not ageism, my argument was more the fact that the record industry now promotes far more artists that do not have the musical background or knowledge to develop as artists (or will be allowed to do so by their labels as it is not seen as commercially viable).
To be fair, Lewis Capaldi seems like a good guy and has a couple of decent singles but he is hardly releasing albums that are going to be listed as all time classics.
Elton John doesn't have to be the yardstick, look at artists who came to prominence in the 60's and 70's who all had critical and commercial success and had careers which are still going strong or were at the time of their death; Stevie Wonder, Neil Young, Paul McCartney, James Taylor, David Bowie, Aretha Franklin, James Brown, Bob Dylan, Bruce Springsteen etc.
I agree, perhaps Adele will still be going strong in 20 years, maybe Taylor Swift, but I would guess they are going to be the exceptions. My point is not that young people aren't talented, but the talented young people now are often (though not always) overlooked in favour of image and branding.
0 -
What is it about the mentioned artists that it's more about brand than the songs?!
I think time and distance is eroding your memory of the ones that didn't survive tbh.0 -
Someone under 30 would be doing well to have had a 40 year career to be fair.1
-
I've made this point before on other threads. Anyone who has watched a playback of a concert that they attended will know that there is a complete disconnect between the two experiences.MidlandsGrimpeur2 said:
...
Interesting, maybe the TV didn't fully do justice to AR then.
...The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
That or swimming in something...briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
Hives. No external cause.briantrumpet said:Anti-histamine tablets. Never used them before, but mysteriously developed itchy skin all over the place yesterday, and found odd rashes this morning. Even though I've no idea what the rashes are, at least the tablets seem to have reduced the itchiness and obviousness of the rashes. Now just hoping that the reason will as mysteriously disappear. Not aware I've been bitten, or have any allergies, and haven't changed food, washing powder etc. Weird.
Thanks. Reading the NHS page on that, it sounds likely. Certainly weird to get patches on the palms of my hands, which are pretty immune to just about everything, having milked cows for 14 years.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
rjsterry said:
That or swimming in something...briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
Hives. No external cause.briantrumpet said:Anti-histamine tablets. Never used them before, but mysteriously developed itchy skin all over the place yesterday, and found odd rashes this morning. Even though I've no idea what the rashes are, at least the tablets seem to have reduced the itchiness and obviousness of the rashes. Now just hoping that the reason will as mysteriously disappear. Not aware I've been bitten, or have any allergies, and haven't changed food, washing powder etc. Weird.
Thanks. Reading the NHS page on that, it sounds likely. Certainly weird to get patches on the palms of my hands, which are pretty immune to just about everything, having milked cows for 14 years.
It's easier than swimming in nothing.
Starting to think it might be down to a medication I'm on, which, according to the leaflet, sometimes induces hives... 🤔
0 -
Someone under 30 would be doing well to have had a 40 year career to be fair
Fair point!0 -
What is it about the mentioned artists that it's more about brand than the songs?!
I didn't specifically say it was in reference to those you mentioned. My general point was that the average music industry label is now more likely to sign and promote someone with an image and brand that can be moulded and controlled by the label. Someone that did not fit the prescribed view, regardless of their talent is less likely to get a record deal.
If you look at a broad range of pop stars today and the last few years; Justin Bieber, Katy Perry, Olivia Rodrigo, Shawn Mendes, Dua Lipa, Ariana Grande to name a few. Would you honestly say that their musical output is more significant than their brand/image?
I am just of the opinion that the music industry has shifted towards a point where, for the majority of artists (not all), musical talent/ability is not the most important determinant of whether or not an artist is signed. Their image, brand and ability to garner an audience and make lots of money is the key factor.
0 -
Really not an Elton John fan in the sense that I would never select a record of his to put on.
However, having watched a good 40 mins of his set. He was very good. Hit after hit with many changes in style and tempo.
A celebration of good music and a good festival set.
0 -
Sure but I don't think you're comparing apples with apples.
Every decade is awash with forgotten artists who were big then and never had that longevity.0 -
I think the whole musical talent vs image thing has been well and truly established for certain since the 80’s and probably even earlier if you think of a band like the Monkees as an example.
The real talent could still make it then and can still make it now regardless. It’s just a lot harder than if you happen to be easily marketable.
Artic Monkeys were the epitome of did it themselves. Ed Sheeran and Lewis Capaldi definitely not smiled upon in the looks dept.0 -
hasn't that been the case since the 80s? Many acts that we've all forgotten because their image/marketing faded and died. A few stand the test of time but most are forgotten quickly. You only need to watch a BBC4 TOTP replay to see how many you had forgotten.MidlandsGrimpeur2 said:What is it about the mentioned artists that it's more about brand than the songs?!
I didn't specifically say it was in reference to those you mentioned. My general point was that the average music industry label is now more likely to sign and promote someone with an image and brand that can be moulded and controlled by the label. Someone that did not fit the prescribed view, regardless of their talent is less likely to get a record deal.
If you look at a broad range of pop stars today and the last few years; Justin Bieber, Katy Perry, Olivia Rodrigo, Shawn Mendes, Dua Lipa, Ariana Grande to name a few. Would you honestly say that their musical output is more significant than their brand/image?
I am just of the opinion that the music industry has shifted towards a point where, for the majority of artists (not all), musical talent/ability is not the most important determinant of whether or not an artist is signed. Their image, brand and ability to garner an audience and make lots of money is the key factor.
0 -
I was going to mention Stock, Aitken and Waterman as a 'production factory', but as amongst their line-up are Rick Astley and Kylie Minogue, that's probably not a good example.
If you want to feel old, Minogue's been in the charts since the late 1980s... that'll be 35 years now.0 -
Let's go back to the good old days when artists like Elvis and The Beatles weren't marketed on their image as much as their music.0
-
Uh huh huh.kingstongraham said:Let's go back to the good old days when artists like Elvis and The Beatles weren't marketed on their image as much as their music.
0 -
I'd dare say the music industry's assessment of marketability is much less of a factor in artists breaking through than it was in previous decades. I'd guess their level of artistic control is also lessened, as recorded music isn't the money earner.
0 -
I agree. These modern polished acts don't stack up.kingstongraham said:Let's go back to the good old days when artists like Elvis and The Beatles weren't marketed on their image as much as their music.
- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono2 -
I think in the phrase "music industry" the word industry has superiority over music.
Has always been primarily about making money, it's just easier to promote these days.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
rick_chasey said:
Adelle is 35 and she's one of the world's biggest stars, and has been at it since 2006 (yes, she was that young).
Let's face it, neither are lookers. Adelle might not have the longevity of Elton because of her voice problems but that aside she probably will..
It doesn't surprise me she's had vocal problems - that ties in with my dislike of her voice and her use of 'vocal fry', which is not conducive to vocal longevity. I'm not sure if Elton John has ever had proper vocal training, but his high range has held up pretty well. Try singing along to 'I'm Still Standing', and you'll see what a range he covers, although by 2019 he'd lost the high A-flats. Still not bad for a 73-year old.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHwVBirqD2s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCYVLVpiQJs
0 -
pangolin said:
I agree. These modern polished acts don't stack up.kingstongraham said:Let's go back to the good old days when artists like Elvis and The Beatles weren't marketed on their image as much as their music.
Jeeeez! Iggy Pop has let himself go!!Sometimes. Maybe. Possibly.
2 -
Doesn't Johnny the Gorilla do it better these days?0
-
TBF, Elton had surgery to remove nodules in the 80s.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:
Adelle is 35 and she's one of the world's biggest stars, and has been at it since 2006 (yes, she was that young).
Let's face it, neither are lookers. Adelle might not have the longevity of Elton because of her voice problems but that aside she probably will..
It doesn't surprise me she's had vocal problems - that ties in with my dislike of her voice and her use of 'vocal fry', which is not conducive to vocal longevity. I'm not sure if Elton John has ever had proper vocal training, but his high range has held up pretty well. Try singing along to 'I'm Still Standing', and you'll see what a range he covers, although by 2019 he'd lost the high A-flats. Still not bad for a 73-year old.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHwVBirqD2shttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCYVLVpiQJs
Plenty of oldies have lost their voice. Manilow, Stewart, etc.0 -
The acts that can draw a stadium sized crowd are a strange bunch - who knew Def Leppard could justify Wembley Stadium in 2023?
0 -
Agreed! Really enjoyed his set. I thought the band was really tight and very well rehearsed (as I guess they should be). Get the feeling that EJ and his band know the meaning of hard work to get things right, whereas some other bands probably wing it a bit and just play. The former risks being a little too polished and staid, but EJ’s performance, perhaps because of his amazing catalogue of hits, had quite a lot of zip to it.morstar said:Really not an Elton John fan in the sense that I would never select a record of his to put on.
However, having watched a good 40 mins of his set. He was very good. Hit after hit with many changes in style and tempo.
A celebration of good music and a good festival set.0 -
Watching Reggie on the box last night I remember Goodbye Yellow Brick Road being one of my first vinyl purchases. Wikipedia reckons it came out 50 years ago
Elton's not the only one who's getting on a bit...0 -
rick_chasey said:
TBF, Elton had surgery to remove nodules in the 80s.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:
Adelle is 35 and she's one of the world's biggest stars, and has been at it since 2006 (yes, she was that young).
Let's face it, neither are lookers. Adelle might not have the longevity of Elton because of her voice problems but that aside she probably will..
It doesn't surprise me she's had vocal problems - that ties in with my dislike of her voice and her use of 'vocal fry', which is not conducive to vocal longevity. I'm not sure if Elton John has ever had proper vocal training, but his high range has held up pretty well. Try singing along to 'I'm Still Standing', and you'll see what a range he covers, although by 2019 he'd lost the high A-flats. Still not bad for a 73-year old.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHwVBirqD2shttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCYVLVpiQJs
Plenty of oldies have lost their voice. Manilow, Stewart, etc.
Yeah, true. That said, vocal fry is a good way to accelerate the loss. At the best of times, singing for a living is punishing for folds of skin in the throat, and it's probably the exceptions who can go on for decades untroubled.
There's also a psychological element too: I've played in a concert where the alto soloist - who had troubles in the past - was going through all sorts of contortions to 'find' her voice for virtually every phrase... very uncomfortable to witness.
Happens to brass players too... it's got a name 'focal dystonia', where someone can literally wake up and not be able to get the face muscles ro remember how to do it. Can end a career overnight.0 -
Way before then. Just look back at all the 'boy bands' of the late 50s and 60s. I'd argue it was the case for Elvis in his early career. OK some of them played instruments to an extent but they weren't high quality musicians an made their careers on being able to sell records to teenage girls.Tashman said:
hasn't that been the case since the 80s? Many acts that we've all forgotten because their image/marketing faded and died. A few stand the test of time but most are forgotten quickly. You only need to watch a BBC4 TOTP replay to see how many you had forgotten.MidlandsGrimpeur2 said:What is it about the mentioned artists that it's more about brand than the songs?!
I didn't specifically say it was in reference to those you mentioned. My general point was that the average music industry label is now more likely to sign and promote someone with an image and brand that can be moulded and controlled by the label. Someone that did not fit the prescribed view, regardless of their talent is less likely to get a record deal.
If you look at a broad range of pop stars today and the last few years; Justin Bieber, Katy Perry, Olivia Rodrigo, Shawn Mendes, Dua Lipa, Ariana Grande to name a few. Would you honestly say that their musical output is more significant than their brand/image?
I am just of the opinion that the music industry has shifted towards a point where, for the majority of artists (not all), musical talent/ability is not the most important determinant of whether or not an artist is signed. Their image, brand and ability to garner an audience and make lots of money is the key factor.0
