La Musique

[TANGODANCER]

Just a comment on "aggressive music":

i completely agree regarding controversy tango. its the reason i hold the sex pistols in complete disdain, in my opinion musically they were very VERY average, and relied on swearing on news programs to get their fans, whereas bands such as the buzzcocks, stiff little fingers and to a certain extent (although they did get famous, perhaps not as famous as the Pistols) the clash, were playing the same genre, to a higher level, yet didnt receive as much recognition. unfortunately to be seen as successful ( i talk only about now since i have no experience of whether it was the case in previous generation, but it may well have been) it is necessary to gain as much exposure as possible, and the tabloid press mean scandal equals exposure. i think it is sad to see the effect this has on people like pete doherty, who say what you like about his music, is a very talented poet and lyricist, and yet has destroyed his life and career through erm..extracurricular activities. i wonder how much of this is caused, if only subconsciously by a need to stay in peoples minds to stop them moving on to other musicians?

There's another massive difference in the way music comes over now as to how it did previously. The popular charts only came to be in the early fifties. Television brought artists into focus as musicians, whereas previously, ( jazz. Big-Band Swing and a few other forms apart), they had only been background music to the legions of crooners and ballad singers that were heard on radio. Sheet music was the order of the day and more people played piano than guitar or most other instruments. Elvis Presley's R & B and the early rock and roll artists changed all that. Haley, Jerry Lee Lewis, Chuck Berry and all the rest of the American popular scene swept the cobwebs away and a total new era was born. It was an era we could now see and imitate. Dylan and others spawned a positive army of three chord guitarists and away it all went.

Skiffle, a short-lived animal in mainstream pop, at least got people wanting to be involved in music (if tea-chest bases and washboards in their franic hands could be regarded as such) but people like Lonnie Donegan, Nancy Whisky and Chas McDevitt were artists in their own rights. Donegan played banjo in Chris Barbers jazz band for quite a while, and some of the ballads were direct throw backs to the days of the American Railroads. The whole point is that music has moved on ceaselessly for a long time and each era produces its own brand. The things you quote above, "bad publicity doesn't exist as long as it keeps the artists in the public eye", has as little to do with good music as Britney Spears in a gym-slip. At least older artists lived by their voices and not, as in all too many cases today by flashing their bits about. All in all, evolvement in technology gave music the platform it had so long had to manage without.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

but a line "You used to get it in fishnets, now you get it in a nightdress" seems (to me) a bit "giggles behind the hand, schoolboy toilet" stuff.

If its any consolation, it works in the context of the song (ie its not meant to be giggly humour) - which I find to be lyrically very clever.

Mmm - it's a thoughtful, sympathetic song. Too many these days dismiss sympathy, but it's why (to broaden the discussion) Steptoe and Son is far more affecting than Little Britain can dream of being...

[Prufrock]

or the MC5 or the New York Dolls (sadly destroyed by that tossrag Malcolm McClaren!!)

I was forunate enough, a few years ago, to meet Glen Matlock up in Glasgow. Lovely bloke, he gave me a signed copy of his autobiography I Was a Teenage Sex Pistol. Basically Matlock was clasically trained and was used by McClaren to set the band up. If there's a way of me getting the book to you you can borrow it on the proviso that I get it back in one piece, and though it does tend to finish as a bit of sour grapes on the author's part, it provides a superb first-hand account of what it was like setting the band up and into just what an odious, mendacious, undeserving bastard McClaren was/is.

well im not back home until summer, and i would offer you the lending of a great book called Please kill me: an oral history of punk, but it is not mine, but i definately recommend you buy it. as for MM i cant even begin to describe the contempt i have for that man. complete cockend.

[Prufrock]

The Clash are the greatest Rock 'n' Roll band EVER. London Calling is the greatest album ever(apart from a couple of early Bowie)

I will fight to the death anyone who disagrees with me on this one

greatest band ever, contentious, one of the greatest, indisputable. joe strummer is my hero

[superjohnmcginlay]

I have meant to write an article about this for a while. The kick up the arse to actually make me do it came from reading the debate on 'What are you listening to tonight' regarding the Arctic Monkeys and the Manics. I dont really want to get into a subjective debate about which band is better. People could argue for days over who was more influential, the Beatles or the Ramones (for the record it IS the Ramones) , but that is not what this article is about. What i want to discuss is the music scene of the last ten years, from just after the peak of britpop, starting with the Spice Girls, until today. If at any point this becomes a rant against indie kids, i apologise in advance.

So girl power, and all that that entailed. Mindless trashy pop that gave birth to more of the same. You could argue that it wasnt the Spice Girls fault, that it started earlier with boybands like backstreet boys and boyzone, but in my head thats the moment i remember it all going wrong. what felt like years after years ensued of mindless pop, where the bands didnt write the songs, or play the instruments, where there was no creativity, no artistic merit. Then came the self appointed saviour. indie music was here. guitars were back and everyone was going to create and write and it was going to be brilliant. and then...it happened the libertines almost broke through, the arctic monkeys did, maximo park did, bloc party did. it was great, after years of middle of the road pop, here was this accessible interesting riff driven music with thought provoking lyrics. You can say what you like about Pete Doherty (my personal opinion, talented guy, not as talented as he thinks) but the real talent behind that band was Carl Barat, and his own band after the break up, Dirty Pretty Things are one of the most underrated bands around at the moment. Arctic Monkeys arent everyone's cup of tea but to me they are A Clockwork Orange in musical form. Whilst not everyone liked all these bands, they all came out and had something different to say, they were all outspoken and it seemed like rock and roll was back with a swagger. This scene of generic pop had been removed and there was this blank canvass to be filled. A new generation of kids were about to grow up with a new music scene, what would it be?

Erm...generic pop it turns out. Wave after wave of skinny jean-clad converse-wearing foppy hairstyle-sporting clones. Then wave after wave of bands that all sound the same. The Pidgeon Detective's, The Wombats, Scouting for Girl's the list could run and run.

Now the crux of this article is not to say skinny jeans should be banned, or the Wombats should go die. People have taste, and some people like some of the bands i have critisised. I even like some of the bands i have critisised. But artistically they are doing nothing, they are creating nothing, and now it seems to me that whilst anyone who learns four chords, has a whinny voice and a pair converse can have a top ten single, yet anyone out there with a genuinly new and interesting idea cannot get any recognition without whoring themselves to the latest trends. Magazines like the NME make up peoples minds for them, and we have just replaced one uninteresting yet popular music scene with another.

My major problem is that diversity is not only stiffled but discouraged. Magazines and the music press make self fulfilling prophecy's. They claim band X will become huge, and they do because they have said that.

I realise i set out to be objective but that is often difficult, i suppose the most objective way i could some up my feelings on contempory music is through a couple of questions.

It is widely accepted that the popular music scene had become, by about 2003, dominated by generic pop, does anyone actualy think this has changed, with a chart that is now effectively split 50/50 with Indie and RnB (will never understand how people started calling it that, RnB =the Who, not foooking Javine!!!!)?

Has it ever really been any different, was diversity ever actively encouraged and allowed to gain recognition, or does the fact that if something is successful, someone is going to copy it and try to gain the same success for themselves mean all interesting ideas end up stagnating like this?

All very interesting PF but you seem to have missed the not inconsiderable emergence of electronic music. There's a massive dance music scene and a good number of dance acts who broke into the mainstream. It wasnt all indie, pop and RnB/hiphop in the 90s.

[David Lee's Hair]

All very interesting PF but you seem to have missed the not inconsiderable emergence of electronic music. There's a massive dance music scene and a good number of dance acts who broke into the mainstream. It wasnt all indie, pop and RnB/hiphop in the 90s.

Aye, and some of it is damn good as well. Massive Attack, Leftfield spring to mind among others.

[Worthy4England]

All very interesting PF but you seem to have missed the not inconsiderable emergence of electronic music. There's a massive dance music scene and a good number of dance acts who broke into the mainstream. It wasnt all indie, pop and RnB/hiphop in the 90s.

It also sorta missed the point, that mainstream rock has been utlising guitars for a little while now, and that over the years, they've managed to cobble together some fairly interesting lyrics. It's a very particular view from a single angle.

Just to add to the Beatles V Ramones stuff.

The Ramones album "Ramones" sales less than 500,000,
Beatles Sgt Pepper sales more than 11,700,000. Wiki suggest nearer 32m

I'm not a Beatles fan btw....

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Can't really count sales as influence though Worthy, lest folk say SClub7 or somesuch shite are, er, worthy.

(And I speak as a Beatles fan.)

[TANGODANCER]

Can't really count sales as influence though Worthy, lest folk say SClub7 or somesuch shite are, er, worthy. (And I speak as a Beatles fan.)

Very true indeed. As mentioned earlier in the thread, kids have money and represent a fair percentage of the record buying public. Mainstream pop ( and not just from kids) is the reason people like Cliff Richards constantly top the Christmas single sales over the latest Gangsta-rap. Hardly a fair representation of musical taste in the big picture and totally misleading as to musical influence.

One of my main interests in this thread was to refute the idea that any single form of music, band or artist, particularly amongst popular stuff, can be classed as better than others when so many disagree due to personal preference. One of the biggest selling events of the year (every year) is the Proms concerts, the domain of classical music, and classically trained artists can freely move into other cirlces with great success. John Williams and Sky, Bond, Nigel Kennedy, Vanessa May etc, all prove this point. Offshoot artists like Oldfield and Jean Michel Jarre widen the picture further and still manage to retain popularity to a high degree. All comes back to personal preference and there is far more talent in music than can ever be guaged by Top of The Pops.......thankfully. A lot of todays artists see themselves as creators extraordinaire and would never admit to being influenced by anyone....till they grow up.

[TANGODANCER]

If you really want to go into the evolution of popular music, a lot can be learned as to who influenced who and what, by studying the history of popular music since 1950. At that time it wasn't kids buying music, primarily because they didn't have then money. Rather than me post views, here's a link back to that start of that period. Well worth a glance just to see the changes in tastes if nothing else. I do state this is mainstream pop and doesn't encompass the massive world of music outside it:

http://www.onlineweb.com/theones/1950_sheet.htm

[Prufrock]

Can't really count sales as influence though Worthy, lest folk say SClub7 or somesuch shite are, er, worthy.

(And I speak as a Beatles fan.)

very true. also i'm not sure where you got the ramones figures from worthy as i couldnt find any in a brief search but you have taken the ramones debut album, and the beatles biggest selling album as comparision. as i said i havent been able to find any figures, so i cant say for sure, but perhaps they had an album that sold more? obviously tho that said anyone who argues the ramones were as commercially successful as the beatles needs locking up, but commercial success and influence arent the same thing.

[Prufrock]

Can't really count sales as influence though Worthy, lest folk say SClub7 or somesuch shite are, er, worthy. (And I speak as a Beatles fan.)

Very true indeed. As mentioned earlier in the thread, kids have money and represent a fair percentage of the record buying public. Mainstream pop ( and not just from kids) is the reason people like Cliff Richards constantly top the Christmas single sales over the latest Gangsta-rap. Hardly a fair representation of musical taste in the big picture and totally misleading as to musical influence.

One of my main interests in this thread was to refute the idea that any single form of music, band or artist, particularly amongst popular stuff, can be classed as better than others when so many disagree due to personal preference. One of the biggest selling events of the year (every year) is the Proms concerts, the domain of classical music, and classically trained artists can freely move into other cirlces with great success. John Williams and Sky, Bond, Nigel Kennedy, Vanessa May etc, all prove this point. Offshoot artists like Oldfield and Jean Michel Jarre widen the picture further and still manage to retain popularity to a high degree. All comes back to personal preference and there is far more talent in music than can ever be guaged by Top of The Pops.......thankfully. A lot of todays artists see themselves as creators extraordinaire and would never admit to being influenced by anyone....till they grow up.

i think that is an interesting point of view. i think that all comes down to the fact that nowadays music, or should i say modern popular music is viewed as a recreational activity more than art. if this is the case then personal prefernece is all that matters. even in art personal preference is important, but there are still ways of classifying what is high art, what is low art, and every level in between. i dont think that can be the case in modern music because music itself can be classed as high or low, but not necessarily the sub genres within it. however, one of my biggest problems with modern music is gangsta rap. i hate it. i dont dislike rap per se, i quite like a bit of de la soul or coolio every now and then, but i detest the culture of guns and violence that goes with gangsta rap.

i dont go in for all the hysteria that says a kid watches a violent film, or plays a violent game and as a direct result goes and kills somebody, but the constant glamourisation of guns and violence has to have an effect.

views?

[BWFC_Insane]

Can't really count sales as influence though Worthy, lest folk say SClub7 or somesuch shite are, er, worthy.

(And I speak as a Beatles fan.)

Influence is an almost impossible thing to measure.

Dare say SClub7 were infleuntial in their own genre and own way.

IMO Dylan was a million times more influential than the Beatles.

[TANGODANCER]

i dont go in for all the hysteria that says a kid watches a violent film, or plays a violent game and as a direct result goes and kills somebody, but the constant glamourisation of guns and violence has to have an effect. views?

Hows about you start another thread on that? Shame to spoil a good musical discussion.

[ratbert]

i dont go in for all the hysteria that says a kid watches a violent film, or plays a violent game and as a direct result goes and kills somebody, but the constant glamourisation of guns and violence has to have an effect.

This is where hip-hop enters stage left, isn't it? Music that basically started out being created by poor youngsters in deprived inner cities using what was available to them - namely records rather than instruments, adapted to accomodate a message. That message was socially relevant ten years or so ago but has now been deviated well away from social comment into showing kids that being a 'gangsta' is the way forward. Anyone like to show me how Notorious BIG was deserving of the fawning hero status bestowed by his mate? I can't see it.

[Prufrock]

i dont go in for all the hysteria that says a kid watches a violent film, or plays a violent game and as a direct result goes and kills somebody, but the constant glamourisation of guns and violence has to have an effect. views?

Hows about you start another thread on that? Shame to spoil a good musical discussion.

fair point tango. i cant be bothered right now since you may have noticed i dont do short and concise . if somebody beats me to it fair enough, if not i shall at some point rant away!! until then, back a la musique.

whoever said influence cannot be measured has a good point. not empirically anyway. obviously, influence is concentrated, for instance i doubt very much that the ramones had any influence on a young marshall mathers growing up in detroit in the eighties. similarly i doubt eminem had much influence on the klaxons. influence tends to stay concentrated within the genre of music, although there will be exceptions. i think we can broadly speaking class the ramones and the beatles as both being rock and roll bands. within that genre, not just as people often say within the punk sub-gnere, but throughout western guitar based music i personally think you will find as much influence, musically and ideologically from the ramones as the beatles, if not more.

[Prufrock]

im not a massive beatles fan, i am a massive ramones fan but i hope that doesnt cloud my judgement too far. that said i by no means dislike the Beatles, and i think they have been massively infuential. however, i think they are the single most overrated band in history. thats not so much because they were bad, its just they get a mythical reputation of everything they ever touched being wonderous which i dont think they deserve. if i had to name my top ten favourite albums, revolver would be in and around it, but i have to say, of the big four british rock and roll bands, the beatles are at best my third favourite, after the kinks and the who, and possibly even fourth.

[warthog]

You either like a piece of music or you don't.

Once you start claiming that someone is 'influential' or 'important' you've arrived at pseuds corner.

[TANGODANCER]

You either like a piece of music or you don't. Once you start claiming that someone is 'influential' or 'important' you've arrived at pseuds corner.

Aye, that's the personal preference in full flow Warty. One of the things I most admire about music is the talent of the musicians. Not being more than a guitar plonker allows me to see and truly appreciate the talent in others. Popular music is only so-named because it finds favour with a larger fan base than other elements of the same art. I never ask too deeply why I like some things and not others, the music itself answers that question.

I've never been a mad rock fan and certainly wouldn't even pretend to be any sort of authority on it. Why did I take an immediate shine to "Not Fade Away" above other Stones offerings? For me, I think it has to be the driving rythmn because I was brought up on music making you move, as in dance. I can risk getting laughed at in claiming the sound-track of Dirty Dancing is one of my favourite compilations of popular music (note, I don't claim it's the "best" anything except to me). Then again, Bach's Toccata and Fugue raises the bumps and I love Borodin's sound pictures of eastern culture and think the love theme from Romeo and Juliet a beautiful piece of composition, Chabrier and Ravel are incredible. I can just as easily relate to the alternative tunings of folk music, the magical picking talents of Bluegrass artists or the wonderful solo guitar work of so many artsists or the brash simplicity of a Dylan.

If tommorrow, I was to hear a piece of music and react well to it, then find it was something by a current favourite among other disciplines, as in the Coldplay, Monkeys, Foo-Fighters or whatever, then I'd buy it. That's the way it has to be for me.
Music is forever moving along new tracks and also reaching back into its past . Every musician under the sun, whether they know it or no, has been influenced by somebody, somewhwere along the line. TV ads have actually done wonders with keeping past classics in focus from "What a difference a day makes" to "Would you like to swing on a star, or even Orff's Carmina Burana. People may not recognise them, but they do relate. To hear your twelve year old grandaughter singing
Dean Martin's "How would you like your eggs in the morning" without having a clue who he is is just so, so good for me..

Music is too vast an art to pocket into "best" categories, much better just like what you like and realise we're all different.

Sermon over; sorry I got carried away. Think I'll go play some music.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

IMO Dylan was a million times more influential than the Beatles.

A point which would have been backed up by the Beatles themselves, particularly Lennon, who gave up the 'Dylan' peaked cap look in 1965 when the influence became so obvious. Mind, he and they wrote a tune or two thereafter...