Old man james moans at the state of music - Page 3 - Forever Delayed

The Gutless Wonder · #31 09-01-2011, 17:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by riot_star

I'm just saying, nobody cares about magazines anymore really.

People only care about their electronic gadgets these days. Sadly!

appleof88 · #32 09-01-2011, 17:54

People who worry about the charts are only worried about their bank balances, enjoy the music you listen to

hummingbird · #33 09-01-2011, 17:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by riot_star

Apart from me.....because it is pretty shit

chart music has always been shite.. in the 80s it was Stock Aitken and Waterman records clogging up the charts and dance music. People complained that no one played real instruments anymore.

Nostalgia makes you remember the good stuff but there was a ridiculous amount of shit in the chart aswell just like now. My main complaint with the charts is the way singles crash in then straight back out again..making following the chart utterly meaningless

MSPlover · #34 09-01-2011, 18:55

unfortunately 90% of the radio today is shit. It's the same songs all the time and if I bumped into a song that I liked it's very very rare and I'm so happy when it's happen. that's why I don't listen to the radio anymore and if I'm bored I listen to raio indie online.

Matt_o_Mac · #35 09-01-2011, 19:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by hummingbird

if record companies didn't drop bands as soon as one album is a bit of a flop then maybe people in bands wouldn't have to look for proper jobs

This, you look at alot of bands first album and in my view the Manics included and I doubt that they would survive one album nowadays

Bryter Layter · #36 09-01-2011, 19:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by appleof88

People who worry about the charts are only worried about their bank balances, enjoy the music you listen to

Amen!

I don't know about the charts as I've never paid much attention to them ever - why do I care if a band has a number one album or single? Doesn't make me want to listen to them more or less - but I do think he has a point about the state of music as a revolutionary/influential medium overall. There's just nothing that stands out as a formative musical achievement and that includes the indie scene. It doesn't mean there aren't any great "newish" bands around, it's just that not many of them are very memorable as opposed to what came before in the previous decade and prior. I don't know, maybe history will prove me wrong.

The Gutless Wonder · #37 09-01-2011, 19:35

Too many bands at the moment are too 'samey' for my liking. Not many try to really stand out. Think the charts used to be important but that has sadly diminished over time. I know there's always been rubbish in it but it did used to mean something back in the day.

JimmiB · #38 09-01-2011, 19:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karmacy

I think he's right. I can't for the life of me find a new band to get into... it's all so blah. Or maybe it's just me getting old, I don't know.

That is EXACTLY how I feel. It's not that the music isn't out there, for me it's the complete lack of a scene, something to get excited about. Love it or hate it, britpop was a brilliant period in terms of being part of something exciting, even if it was shit bands releasing one or two great singles. But this tuneless 80's indie that's popular at the moment is just so dull, it bores me to tears.

Having said that, we saw Tinchy Stryder last year at Tramlines and he was good. Did feel a bit old mind!

sitdown1985 · #39 09-01-2011, 19:57

Yes a lot of "new" bands are shite, but some of them will be good, some amazing - the issue is by the time most people release they're good they've had a few albums out and won't be "new" any more.

The Duke Spirit are one band who have been going a few years and haven't yet gone massive but I think one day will.

Midlands_Junk · #40 09-01-2011, 20:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by sitdown1985

The Duke Spirit are one band who have been going a few years and haven't yet gone massive but I think one day will.

I absolutely love The Duke Spirit. Cuts Across The Land and Neptune were brilliant albums. They're amazing live and she is beautiful. However, I don't think that they're ever destined to become huge. I think they're one of those bands like Sons and Daughters who will be underground but respected forever.

Tom · #41 09-01-2011, 20:27

Yeah cause there was no shit music in the 70s, 80s, and 90s was there? Everything that was released was gold.

The charts in particular are shit at the moment, but who gives a fuck? It doesn't mean anything. Doesn't reflect what people are actually listening to.

Littlesue · #42 09-01-2011, 20:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by hummingbird

chart music has always been shite.. in the 80s it was Stock Aitken and Waterman records clogging up the charts and dance music. People complained that no one played real instruments anymore.

Nostalgia makes you remember the good stuff but there was a ridiculous amount of shit in the chart aswell just like now. My main complaint with the charts is the way singles crash in then straight back out again..making following the chart utterly meaningless

True about the 80's. I can remember an article on the 6 o clock news about the problems that Stock Aitken and Waterman were causing for flogging up the charts, there were press campaigns to get separate charts just for them!

Beat Poet · #43 09-01-2011, 20:32

There are decent bands out there if you look hard enough, but it is a pain if you can't find any bands you like that are actually building a career/discography, which is my problem as I'm going through a very dry patch and haven't found anything in months that has grabbed me. What amazes me is how much video games sell these days, it seems like music itself is just an alternative.

Frozendiva · #44 09-01-2011, 20:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheGreatPretender

Amen!

I don't know about the charts as I've never paid much attention to them ever - why do I care if a band has a number one album or single? Doesn't make me want to listen to them more or less - but I do think he has a point about the state of music as a revolutionary/influential medium overall. There's just nothing that stands out as a formative musical achievement and that includes the indie scene. It doesn't mean there aren't any great "newish" bands around, it's just that not many of them are very memorable as opposed to what came before in the previous decade and prior. I don't know, maybe history will prove me wrong.

Most don't stick around a long time either. One album wonders.

I bought a few things from iTunes yesterday evening (some Platinum Blonde, Alias, Sheriff - stuff I have on album but haven't done anything with in terms of CDs or anything). And ripped a couple of songs that I can't purchase from YouTube. And added some stuff from my CDs - Colin James (a Canadian 'secret' - if you like Stevie Ray Vaughn type guitar, you'll like him), Iron Maiden, Larry Gowan, Tool, Judas Priest, etc.). Snowed in and bored, basically. And I listened to an album from 1983. Hadn't listened to it in years. Put it on and wow. It hasn't aged. Timeless classic and a masterpiece.

I didn't recognise half the artists on the iTunes chart. Guess I don't listen to the station that plays them. Seemed to be mainly hip-hop and rap and they're not my thing. And maybe some American Idol people Dunno. Nothing guitar-rock, which I like.

Nothing much has stuck out for me the past year or so. A lot sounds the same.

franny · #45 09-01-2011, 20:40

As a once massive fan of new music I must agree, I like a lot of modern bands but there's very little underground stuff that's much cop and there are so many throwaway bands now. He's overly harsh but I wouldn't completely disagree.