Seemingly trivial things that cheer you up
Comments
-
Every decade is awash with forgotten artists who were big then and never had that longevity.
Sure I accept that, every decade will have it's successes and failures. My feeling is that in previous decades, it was easier to get a record deal based on talent alone (musicianship, quality of songwriting, vocals etc.) than it is today. The fact that the 60's- 80's produced so many acts that are still relevant today would suggest that. Even looking at the 90's-2000's, are there that many acts still touring and releasing records to critical acclaim and with commercial success? I can't think of many, certainly not in the same numbers as from the 2 to 3 decades before.0 -
My bigger issue is when the record companies take the artists with a bit of talent and then mould them into what they have decided the market wants. There are some surpringly decent singers in the boy and girl groups put together by the likes of The X Factor (and again going back to the Stock Aitken Waterman 'hit factory') but they get stopped from doing their thing. I don't much like Ed Sheeran but admire him getting where he is doing his own thing and I heard some stuff Justin Bieber did before he was famous and there was some genuine musical talent there.0
-
Stock, Aitken & Waterman really did have some acts in their time. List from a Google search.
Agents Aren't Aeroplanes
Alison Limerick
Andy Paul
Austin Howard
Bananarama
Band Aid II
Barrio Boyzz
Big Fun
Bill Tarmey
Boy Krazy
Brilliant
Brother Beyond
Canton
Carol Hitchcock
Cliff Richard
Dead or Alive
Debbie Harry
Delage
Divine
Dolly Dots
Donna Summer
Edwin Starr
Edwina Laurie
E. G. Daily
Elton John
England Football Team
Erik
Errol Brown
Ferry Aid
Fresh
Georgie Fame
Girl Talk
Gloria Gaynor
Grand Plaz
Haywoode
Hazell Dean
Jason Donovan
Jeb Million
Josh Dubovie
Judas Priest
Kahal & Kahal
Kakko
Keith Washington
Kylie Minogue
L.A. Mood
La Toya Jackson
Lananeeneenoonoo
Laura Branigan
Lisa Fabien
Lonnie Gordon
Malcolm McLaren
Mandy Smith
Mel and Kim
Michael Davidson
Michael Prince
Mint Juleps
Mondo Kané
Morgan-McVey
Nick Straker
Nancy Davis
O'Chi Brown
Pat and Mick
Paul Lekakis
Paul Varney
Pepsi & Shirlie
Phil Fearon
Precious Wilson
Princess
Reynolds Girls
Rick Astley
Rik Le Vay
Rin Tin Tin
Romi & Jazz
Sabrina Salerno
Samantha Fox
Sequal
Sigue Sigue Sputnik
Sinitta
Slamm
Sonia
Spelt Like This
Splash
Steve Walsh
Stock Aitken Waterman
Suzette Charles
Sybil
The Cool Notes
The Crusaders
The Danse Society
The Fat Slags
The Lewis's
Thereza Bazar
The Sheilas
The Three Degrees
The Twins
Windjammer
Worlds Apart
WWF Superstars
Yell!0 -
fair enough but then I was born the day Elvis died so missed that all first hand lol. Can definitely say his talent for what it was never passed to me thoughPross said:
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 -
It's 30 years since the 90s - who can you think of from the 60s that was still releasing decent music in the 90s? Paul Simon maybe, Van Morrison just about, and Leonard Cohen had The Future which is good.MidlandsGrimpeur2 said:Every decade is awash with forgotten artists who were big then and never had that longevity.
Sure I accept that, every decade will have it's successes and failures. My feeling is that in previous decades, it was easier to get a record deal based on talent alone (musicianship, quality of songwriting, vocals etc.) than it is today. The fact that the 60's- 80's produced so many acts that are still relevant today would suggest that. Even looking at the 90's-2000's, are there that many acts still touring and releasing records to critical acclaim and with commercial success? I can't think of many, certainly not in the same numbers as from the 2 to 3 decades before.
I think Elton John only did a couple of songs from the last 40 years, and one of those is a mixup of a load of his old songs. He's not exactly been churning out new favourites.0 -
In most cases they disappear for a decade or two before making a comeback. Obviously you've missed Cliff Richardkingstongraham said:
It's 30 years since the 90s - who can you think of from the 60s that was still releasing decent music in the 90s? Paul Simon maybe, Van Morrison just about, and Leonard Cohen had The Future which is good.MidlandsGrimpeur2 said:Every decade is awash with forgotten artists who were big then and never had that longevity.
Sure I accept that, every decade will have it's successes and failures. My feeling is that in previous decades, it was easier to get a record deal based on talent alone (musicianship, quality of songwriting, vocals etc.) than it is today. The fact that the 60's- 80's produced so many acts that are still relevant today would suggest that. Even looking at the 90's-2000's, are there that many acts still touring and releasing records to critical acclaim and with commercial success? I can't think of many, certainly not in the same numbers as from the 2 to 3 decades before.
I think Elton John only did a couple of songs from the last 40 years, and one of those is a mixup of a load of his old songs. He's not exactly been churning out new favourites. 0 -
kingstongraham said:
I think Elton John only did a couple of songs from the last 40 years, and one of those is a mixup of a load of his old songs. He's not exactly been churning out new favourites.
That's an interesting one - trying to think of people who don't rest on their back catalogue and keep on coming up with stuff that is new. Hmm... 🤔0 -
There's an argument that clearly there was more room for innovation back in the 60s because pop and rock was all fairly new, and that you get diminishing returns until a new instrument is created; first electric guitars, then synths, then computers etc.
Anyway, I always really enjoy the glastonbury coverage; it's really rare you get to see the kind of bands I like having a pretty full show broadcast. You can look them up on youtube but they don't hit like when you know you're watching it live and you can chat to your mates about it.
0 -
Tom Jones had some big hits in the 90s and an album with lots of (then) current stars but again a lot of it was covers and he's always been someone who sings songs written by others. Michael Jackson spanned that era if you include the Jackson 5 (first studio album 1969). Cher and Tina Turner.kingstongraham said:
It's 30 years since the 90s - who can you think of from the 60s that was still releasing decent music in the 90s? Paul Simon maybe, Van Morrison just about, and Leonard Cohen had The Future which is good.MidlandsGrimpeur2 said:Every decade is awash with forgotten artists who were big then and never had that longevity.
Sure I accept that, every decade will have it's successes and failures. My feeling is that in previous decades, it was easier to get a record deal based on talent alone (musicianship, quality of songwriting, vocals etc.) than it is today. The fact that the 60's- 80's produced so many acts that are still relevant today would suggest that. Even looking at the 90's-2000's, are there that many acts still touring and releasing records to critical acclaim and with commercial success? I can't think of many, certainly not in the same numbers as from the 2 to 3 decades before.
I think Elton John only did a couple of songs from the last 40 years, and one of those is a mixup of a load of his old songs. He's not exactly been churning out new favourites.
That said of the 12 acts with Billboard Top 100 songs in 4 different decades quite a few are 'recent' i.e. 90s, 00s, 10s and 20s.0 -
It's 30 years since the 90s - who can you think of from the 60s that was still releasing decent music in the 90s? Paul Simon maybe, Van Morrison just about, and Leonard Cohen had The Future which is good.
Reasonable point, although to be fair, I said many acts from the 60's to 80's were still relevant today. I would say that can include; still touring, strong back catalogue, commercial success, public acclaim, critical acclaim. Compare that to more recent decades and I just don't see the same number of artists who have that longevity (or the potential). Maybe a few will still be touring or releasing records, I would think of maybe Radiohead, Beyonce, Coldplay, Adele, Taylor Swift, who could still be around in 20 years but I don't think it will be anywhere near the number of artists from the 60's to 80's that are still around (or had enjoyed long and successful careers up to their deaths).0 -
Tashman said:
Stock, Aitken & Waterman really did have some acts in their time. List from a Google search.
Agents Aren't Aeroplanes
Alison Limerick
Andy Paul
Austin Howard
Bananarama
Band Aid II
Barrio Boyzz
Big Fun
Bill Tarmey
Boy Krazy
Brilliant
Brother Beyond
Canton
Carol Hitchcock
Cliff Richard
Dead or Alive
Debbie Harry
Delage
Divine
Dolly Dots
Donna Summer
Edwin Starr
Edwina Laurie
E. G. Daily
Elton John
England Football Team
Erik
Errol Brown
Ferry Aid
Fresh
Georgie Fame
Girl Talk
Gloria Gaynor
Grand Plaz
Haywoode
Hazell Dean
Jason Donovan
Jeb Million
Josh Dubovie
Judas Priest
Kahal & Kahal
Kakko
Keith Washington
Kylie Minogue
L.A. Mood
La Toya Jackson
Lananeeneenoonoo
Laura Branigan
Lisa Fabien
Lonnie Gordon
Malcolm McLaren
Mandy Smith
Mel and Kim
Michael Davidson
Michael Prince
Mint Juleps
Mondo Kané
Morgan-McVey
Nick Straker
Nancy Davis
O'Chi Brown
Pat and Mick
Paul Lekakis
Paul Varney
Pepsi & Shirlie
Phil Fearon
Precious Wilson
Princess
Reynolds Girls
Rick Astley
Rik Le Vay
Rin Tin Tin
Romi & Jazz
Sabrina Salerno
Samantha Fox
Sequal
Sigue Sigue Sputnik
Sinitta
Slamm
Sonia
Spelt Like This
Splash
Steve Walsh
Stock Aitken Waterman
Suzette Charles
Sybil
The Cool Notes
The Crusaders
The Danse Society
The Fat Slags
The Lewis's
Thereza Bazar
The Sheilas
The Three Degrees
The Twins
Windjammer
Worlds Apart
WWF Superstars
Yell!
As they say, "You can't polish a turd but you sure as hell can cover it in glitter!" And Stock, Aitkin and Waterman had a BIG supply of glitter!Sometimes. Maybe. Possibly.
0 -
There's an argument that clearly there was more room for innovation back in the 60s because pop and rock was all fairly new, and that you get diminishing returns until a new instrument is created; first electric guitars, then synths, then computers etc.
Its a fair argument, and my original thought was never that talented musicians and artists have not existed for the last 30 years! My point was the way in which, I personally feel, the music industry has changed to the extent that many talented artists now struggle to get signed, in a way they wouldn't have in previous decades.
The whole thing that started the debate was the fact that last night a 70+ year old artist headlined the biggest music festival on the plant and banged out near 50 years worth of hits which is a great thing. Sadly, I struggle to see where that will happen in the future as I just don't think the industry is set up to accommodate that anymore.0 -
Actually, Sting. He's still doing quality new stuff, and has been going since, gulp, 1977.
Roxanne was 1978
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3T1c7GkzRQQ
This is from 42 years later
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlwIDxCjL-8
Mind you, the way he used his voice in 1978, I'd not have expected it to last long.0 -
As far as 90s acts go, I've seen Divine Comedy, Teenage Fanclub and Suede promoting very good new albums over the last few years - but people really want to see them play the old stuff. It doesn't matter how good Blur's new album is - and the first single was very decent - if they focussed on that at Wembley it wouldn't go down well.MidlandsGrimpeur2 said:It's 30 years since the 90s - who can you think of from the 60s that was still releasing decent music in the 90s? Paul Simon maybe, Van Morrison just about, and Leonard Cohen had The Future which is good.
Reasonable point, although to be fair, I said many acts from the 60's to 80's were still relevant today. I would say that can include; still touring, strong back catalogue, commercial success, public acclaim, critical acclaim. Compare that to more recent decades and I just don't see the same number of artists who have that longevity (or the potential). Maybe a few will still be touring or releasing records, I would think of maybe Radiohead, Beyonce, Coldplay, Adele, Taylor Swift, who could still be around in 20 years but I don't think it will be anywhere near the number of artists from the 60's to 80's that are still around (or had enjoyed long and successful careers up to their deaths).
It's a natural life cycle that makes for an uncomfortable relationship between band and fan.
Another example is how Martin Gore seemed quite bored playing "Just Can't Get Enough" at Twickenham last week. It must feel like playing a nursery rhyme for him, but the crowd went wild.0 -
kingstongraham said:
As far as 90s acts go, I've seen Divine Comedy, Teenage Fanclub and Suede promoting very good new albums over the last few years - but people really want to see them play the old stuff. It doesn't matter how good Blur's new album is - and the first single was very decent - if they focussed on that at Wembley it wouldn't go down well.MidlandsGrimpeur2 said:It's 30 years since the 90s - who can you think of from the 60s that was still releasing decent music in the 90s? Paul Simon maybe, Van Morrison just about, and Leonard Cohen had The Future which is good.
Reasonable point, although to be fair, I said many acts from the 60's to 80's were still relevant today. I would say that can include; still touring, strong back catalogue, commercial success, public acclaim, critical acclaim. Compare that to more recent decades and I just don't see the same number of artists who have that longevity (or the potential). Maybe a few will still be touring or releasing records, I would think of maybe Radiohead, Beyonce, Coldplay, Adele, Taylor Swift, who could still be around in 20 years but I don't think it will be anywhere near the number of artists from the 60's to 80's that are still around (or had enjoyed long and successful careers up to their deaths).
It's a natural life cycle that makes for an uncomfortable relationship between band and fan.
Another example is how Martin Gore seemed quite bored playing "Just Can't Get Enough" at Twickenham last week. It must feel like playing a nursery rhyme for him, but the crowd went wild.
I think its a real problem if they want to stay properly popular by not risking alienating people who only want to hear the early popular stuff... it must be a delicate balancing act. In the jazz world, for instance, Miles Davis did alienate the people who got into his music with Kind of Blue... Bitches Brew was a real jolt, and Davis wasn't interested in just recreating his back catalogue in the least, and (I guess) didn't care if he lost listeners who only wanted the old stuff.0 -
I remember seeing Lou Reed in 1989 and he basically played the whole New York album, then a load of old stuff. That probably worked mainly because it was such a good album.0
-
Have we go a music thread? (Sorry, @pinno). Genuinely interesting stuff being discussed.0
-
Doesn't youtube make it far easier for young talented artists to promote themselves now?0
-
Problem is partly the fans. Springsteen absolutely has continued to write new stuff continually. But you go to a concert and the crowd will certainly want stuff from the 70’s and 80’s.briantrumpet said:kingstongraham said:
I think Elton John only did a couple of songs from the last 40 years, and one of those is a mixup of a load of his old songs. He's not exactly been churning out new favourites.
That's an interesting one - trying to think of people who don't rest on their back catalogue and keep on coming up with stuff that is new. Hmm... 🤔
Have to say, I am in a minority of wanting to always hear new stuff.
I only learned this at festivals when I realised I was bypassing bands of my youth to find new stuff.0 -
Saw him play Brixton Academy, could have been then or a little earlier perhaps. Great gig though.kingstongraham said:I remember seeing Lou Reed in 1989 and he basically played the whole New York album, then a load of old stuff. That probably worked mainly because it was such a good album.
0 -
Old hat, gotta be on TikTok in all seriousness.TheBigBean said:Doesn't youtube make it far easier for young talented artists to promote themselves now?
Ryan Tedder talks about this in an interview (he’s written a few big hits)
75,000 songs a day are uploaded to Spotify apparently and pretty much every single hit song nowadays is big first on TikTok.
Ironically he says you still make most of your money as a songwriter off radio plays but you now need to get big on TikTok first to generate the interest to get the radio play.1 -
Everything is so quick and disposal now. No suspense, no anticipation...It's done, done, onto the next one...0
-
Imagine when AI music is full bore.0
-
That would have been 1984. New York tour came to hammersmith in 1989.veronese68 said:
Saw him play Brixton Academy, could have been then or a little earlier perhaps. Great gig though.kingstongraham said:I remember seeing Lou Reed in 1989 and he basically played the whole New York album, then a load of old stuff. That probably worked mainly because it was such a good album.
I remember he was a right miserable bastard haha.0 -
V Interesting. I discover my music via Spotify and word of mouth and have never used tiktok. But I guess ‘someone’rick_chasey said:
Old hat, gotta be on TikTok in all seriousness.TheBigBean said:Doesn't youtube make it far easier for young talented artists to promote themselves now?
Ryan Tedder talks about this in an interview (he’s written a few big hits)
75,000 songs a day are uploaded to Spotify apparently and pretty much every single hit song nowadays is big first on TikTok.
Ironically he says you still make most of your money as a songwriter off radio plays but you now need to get big on TikTok first to generate the interest to get the radio play.
has to discover new artists first, probably as you say via tiktok given how widespread it now seems, to make it popular enough to then go on Spotify or other media channels etc.
Listening to music on Spotify is a double edged sword - I love exploring genres and use it many hours a day, but I understand artists are paid pittance. I guess touring is still the main income generator.0 -
morstar said:
Problem is partly the fans. Springsteen absolutely has continued to write new stuff continually. But you go to a concert and the crowd will certainly want stuff from the 70’s and 80’s.briantrumpet said:kingstongraham said:
I think Elton John only did a couple of songs from the last 40 years, and one of those is a mixup of a load of his old songs. He's not exactly been churning out new favourites.
That's an interesting one - trying to think of people who don't rest on their back catalogue and keep on coming up with stuff that is new. Hmm... 🤔
Have to say, I am in a minority of wanting to always hear new stuff.
I only learned this at festivals when I realised I was bypassing bands of my youth to find new stuff.
Oh yes, Springsteen too, of course. A friend of mine makes a point of going one of his gigs on European tours... went to the one in Amsterdam recently, and said it was fantastic. Dunno if my friend is one who appreciates the newer stuff though.0 -
Just counted back, been to Springsteen gigs 6 times. They've all been mega experiences. That man is A1. Most intense was him doing a solo tour, 2005?, RAH, managed just to get tickets right up in the gods, 'kin A. And I plus #1 daughter were in the O2 December 2007 (?) right up the back in top row, as far from the stage as poss... remember when they started 'Santa Claus is Coming to Town' decided ok let's leg it, get back to the Tube before the masses clog everything up, we had to cross Lahndahn to Paddington to get home, and she was due in school in the morning...0
-
Third day in a row in the sea for me... I'd forgotten how lovely the sensation is. It's nuts, given that Budleigh beach is a mere 40-minutes away by bike along a good cycle track. (It's a lovely beach if you remember your sandals, and it's torture if you don't.)
I suppose my excuse would be British weather and cold sea, but I think I should, in future, forgo the odd bike ride when the weather's nice and the sea's not too cold... which is probably why I've got out of the habit. That, and I'm 750 miles away for six weeks of the summer.0 -
This story.
Nothing better than being right after ridicule.
0 -
I don't understand how they were able to confirm the woman's son would have been given those job offers. Did they take him around or did they just go looking for jobs they could get themselves?rick_chasey said:This story.
Nothing better than being right after ridicule.0
