|
Post by sandy on Jun 9, 2020 9:50:41 GMT
It's funny how, over 50 years on, the world is still infatuated with the music of the 1960s. I think it was a case of too much of a good thing at once, it's taken the next 50 years just to properly digest it all and discover all the great artists that were perhaps nudged out of the spotlight at the time. I think for my generation, the music is very tangible. You can pick up a guitar and play along with all of it, which cannot be said of the chart music since the 1990s that uses three, sometimes only two chords. And the vast majority of chart music now has no guitar part anyway! I find it so interesting how people had such strong opinions of things like the Bee Gees Disco era at the time, or even the Beatles/Rolling Stones when they first came along. Even something like Bob Dylan going electric and having confrontational audiences the world over in 1966 seems utterly unfathomable to me, when you've got people like Niki Minaj or Lady Gaga topping the charts today in another music video where they wear practically nothing and mumble about being sexually perverse while at the same time speaking out against the sexual objectification of women and it all just seems like a huge act to me, with the music very much sitting in second place to the overall image. I think the reason BritPop happened in such a big way in the UK was because that music was real, and free of the imagery and fakery that had been brought out in the 1980s. But even then, most of us who didn't grow up with the Beatles realised that the Beatles were the key influence and most of the music of the 1960s, and it was still somehow just better than what the likes of Oasis, Coldplay and Blur were coming out with in the 1990s. I'm not saying all new music is bad by any means, there's a lot that I enjoy. But there isn't the sheer quantity of it that there was in the 1960s. I think it quickly got watered down in the 1970s when a lot of people realised that there was money to be made from music, and the real exploitation of image started happening. I guess the 1960s had an overall innocence which is what people like so much about the music. Even though 99% of the artists were being screwed over by their record labels, they were all in the same boat and to a degree, none the wiser as to what was going on. The focus was on making the next new sound, the next big single, make it bigger, better and more memorable than the last one. Micky Most was right with his comment to the Hollies about remaining in their segment of the dartboard, but how great was it that so many artists in the 1960s refused to acknowledge that this ubiquitous dartboard even existed. It allowed the Beatles to evolve from the lightweight of 'From Me To You' or 'Love Me Do' to the artistry of 'Sgt. Pepper' in just five years, or the Who from 'Substitute' to 'Tommy' in a similar time frame. Even the Hollies went from 'Just One Look' to 'He Ain't Heavy, He's My Brother' in the same timeframe. It was a time for rapid growth and fast change, which must have been the most thrilling thing to be in the middle of. Not like today where you can wait for up to four years between albums now! Agree! I also think that actually the music bag that has the most similarities at the moment, in terms of the immeadiacy, is the small sector, who are actually sitting in their bedrooms, singing and writing, and putting it out there without the ' machine' behind them. The sixties was probably the first generation to be able , relatively cheaply, to emulate their idols, by buying a cheap guitar and a tin drum.....as Allan says, they could all be Lonnie Donnigan. Before that, it was dance bands and crooners...not so easy to re create😉But now the guys can put stuff out there so easily, and build their own following, a bit like our guys used to at the Cavern, or Oasis.... except the new 'followers' can be in a bedroom anywhere in the world😉 So there is an awful lot going on that isn't part of the big machine.( A lot, of course is the black rap music scene, much of which is done in the same way) .And I think that brings for some, a new respect and connection to the very early sixties immediate sound.So the retro vibe grows.....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2020 10:17:16 GMT
Lonnie Donegan was very much The Fifties rather than The Sixties, exploding onto the scene at the end of 1955. By 1958 his influence was over, as groups started emulating Elvis, Buddy Holly, Eddie Cochran, The Everly Brothers, etc.
The late great Chas Hodges said something like "Back then everyone sang the same songs but sounded different, nowadays everyone sings different songs but sounds the same!", which is so true! Check out a song like 'Rip It Up': Little Richard, Elvis Presley, Bill Haley and His Comets, The Everly Brothers, Gene Vincent, Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly... they ALL recorded it, yet each artist stamps there own style on it within the first 10 seconds.
|
|
|
Post by baz on Jun 9, 2020 10:49:04 GMT
I find it so interesting how people had such strong opinions of things like the Bee Gees Disco era at the time, or even the Beatles/Rolling Stones when they first came along. Even something like Bob Dylan going electric and having confrontational audiences the world over in 1966 seems utterly unfathomable to me, when you've got people like Niki Minaj or Lady Gaga topping the charts today in another music video where they wear practically nothing and mumble about being sexually perverse while at the same time speaking out against the sexual objectification of women and it all just seems like a huge act to me, with the music very much sitting in second place to the overall image. I think the reason BritPop happened in such a big way in the UK was because that music was real, and free of the imagery and fakery that had been brought out in the 1980s. But even then, most of us who didn't grow up with the Beatles realised that the Beatles were the key influence and most of the music of the 1960s, and it was still somehow just better than what the likes of Oasis, Coldplay and Blur were coming out with in the 1990s. Interesting observations there. The Britpop era was for me, the last golden age in popular music as for a very short time - about a year - suddenly, it all felt vibrant and "real" again after many years of depressing and increasing artifice where MTV took over and it all became about how the artistes looked in their spiffy over-budgeted videos as opposed to the music which was mostly programmed. For me, the 1980's was an exciting, diverse and innovative time up to 1983/1984 when the MTV curse began taking over and as a kid, it depressed me - I hated the big hair, gated snares, lame sounding synths, the oh-so modern production so that was when I began exploring my parents' record collection in deeper detail. I understand Noel Gallagher did the same thing for the same reasons. 1985-1994 were depressing years for me musically but rich in discovery where 60's and 70's music was concerned. When the Britpop thing came along, sure enough I could tell who was influenced by who - not to mention plagiarising - but it didn't matter. The charts were diverse again and there were some decent acts and records I could enjoy. Then, in 1996 I was watching "Top of The Pops" and on came The Spice Girls for the first time and at that moment, I knew it was all over and music plunged into an irreversible coma at that moment. It was back to the image over the music which once more became heavily over-programmed. Today's music sounds so formulaic and over-processed - autotune is crucial in the eyes of record companies and you know it's gone too far when even somebody like Johnny Mathis has autotune imposed when it's not at all necessary. There are a lot of good new acts out there but trying to find them on YouTube is like finding a needle in a haystack since sure, we have more choice, but... It actually higlights how important record companies used to be as in many ways they gave us the cream of the crop and in the 60's actually took chances, but effectively record companies acted like quality filters. Their priorities have warped badly over the last 25 years as they plough millions into hopeless acts who can't sing or write, but hey, they LOOK good and that's all that matters and the younger the better as they can be mercilessly exploited and sexualised beyond belief. I know and admit I perhaps am over-generalising but I think you'll get my drift.
|
|
|
Post by sandy on Jun 9, 2020 10:51:21 GMT
Lonnie Donegan was very much The Fifties rather than The Sixties, exploding onto the scene at the end of 1955. By 1958 his influence was over, as groups started emulating Elvis, Buddy Holly, Eddie Cochran, The Everly Brothers, etc. The late great Chas Hodges said something like "Back then everyone sang the same songs but sounded different, nowadays everyone sings different songs but sounds the same!", which is so true! Check out a song like 'Rip It Up': Little Richard, Elvis Presley, Bill Haley and His Comets, The Everly Brothers, Gene Vincent, Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly... they ALL recorded it, yet each artist stamps there own style on it within the first 10 seconds. I understand Lonnie was earlier, but what I mean is, he was instrumental( excuse pun) in guys like Allan and Graham actually picking up a guitar in the first place,and trying stuff out in their bedroom, before their later influences. And don't think for one minute that I am saying that the music now is as innovative as the sixties....agreed, it all sounds very similar to me too, but, as in the sixties, there are a lot of smaller scale music pockets,with their own followers,just like then without the huge budgets,but online. And a lot of those have nods to and respect for the sixties, which keeps the interest alive.....and that has to be good😉
|
|
|
Post by thejanitor on Jun 9, 2020 12:22:04 GMT
The Hollies and The Beach Boys are my two favourite vocal harmony groups. I guess these count as connections they have had: - There is a picture and newspaper article on Terry Sylvester's website where he is with Mike and Bruce after The Beach Boys played a show at The Cavern Club in Liverpool in 2006. The newspaper article mentioned Terry had been friends with them since they met on a 1965 UK tour. - Both The Hollies and The Beach Boys have recorded covers of Bob Dylan's The Times They Are A-Changin'. - Both The Hollies and The Beach Boys scored their last #1 hits in 1988 (the re-release of He Ain't Heavy in the UK and Kokomo in the US) after a number of years without one. - The Beach Boys sing backing vocals on Julio Iglesias' 1984 cover of The Air That I Breathe. - The Beach Boys were one of the acts that opened for CSNY on their 1974 tour. I'm sure there are some more real surprising links between the two groups but I can't seem to think of any more off the top of my head. They both covered 'Sweet Little Sixteen' (sort of!). They were both influenced by/admired The Everly Brothers. They both continue with just one original + one near-original member. And gee also said: "The Hollies and The Beach Boys were on the same bill for two shows in Chattanooga, Ten, on 2 March 1968 - this was the day after The Hollies gave a concert on the USS Independence Aircraft Carrier in harbor at Virginia Beach which had just returned from service in Vietnam". Another similarity between the two groups I've just thought of is that both went under a unique line-up change between 1971-73. In The Hollies' camp of course, Mikael Rickfors from Sweden was brought in as replacement for Allan, who had gone solo. Around the same time, The Beach Boys took on Blondie Chaplin and Ricky Fataar, two South African musicians who Carl Wilson had been friends with for a few years prior, but also saw long time member Bruce Johnston depart for a while. Like Mikael, both Chaplin and Fataar were given the opportunity to record a couple of their compositions and brought a similarly unusual rootsy R&B sound to their group which worked surprisingly well.
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Jun 9, 2020 13:57:45 GMT
I guess what is nice about music now is that everyone has an equal access to it. Like Allan Clarke said, "Garageband is on EVERYONE'S computer", and he's right, every computer in the world has the means of recording/making music on it. Paul McCartney remembers having to beg/borrow a Grundig reel to reel tape recorder to make the demos you hear at the beginning of 'Anthology', and save a portion of his weekly wage to buy the tape to record the demos on! And even then they sound absolutely terrible. So in that respect, in the 1960s, if you were an artist who was going somewhere, you had to be so ridiculously confident in your material to warrant paying for a proper demo tape and/or be so good that you attracted the attention of a record label.
It's a struggle that my generation can't fathom today. I could record a cover of a Hollies song on my computer and it would be in the same sound quality as the original, if not perhaps better because it's digital. But again, it's opened up a world of overdubbing and re-recording to extract the talent out of an artist. Allegedly the Spice Girls would make around 100 overdubs on any given song, I remember seeing on a documentary once. I do like how the software used in professional studios like LogicPro and ProTools can be bought by absolutely anyone who has a Mac computer and it has the same features as the big studios, albeit not the eyewateringly expensive microphones and mixing desk connected to it! But as the old saying goes, "if everyone can be famous, then no one will be"...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2020 15:07:16 GMT
I love music that it least sounds like it was recorded live in the studio with every singer and musician present, something that was very common throughout the '50s and early '60s (Jerry Lee Lewis almost never did any vocal or piano overdubs prior to 1970). A Good example are The Beach Boys: admirable though some Brian Wilson's mid-60s classics are, I'm with Keith Moon in that I much prefer the earlier surf 'n' hot rod songs.
|
|
|
Post by Mevrouw Bee on Jun 9, 2020 15:54:06 GMT
I think it quickly got watered down in the 1970s when a lot of people realised that there was money to be made from music, and the real exploitation of image started happening. As time goes on, the more I believe Simon Napier-Bell's theory that the fashionable drug of the time affects the musical output. And the 70s was all about cocaine. Apathy, shallowness and inflated ego seemed to leak out of too much of the music. They just stopped trying because they thought they were good enough. But I do challenge the whole idea of the infatuation with 60s music. Except for a couple of artists (mostly Woodstock era), most people I see on social media now are obsessed with the 80s and have no understanding of music history. They listen to the 60s in a bubble, reject it because it's "overrated" or the production isn't up to modern standards. It will be interesting how people will look back upon the 60s in another 20 years...
|
|
|
Post by Mevrouw Bee on Jun 9, 2020 16:04:00 GMT
I find it so interesting how people had such strong opinions of things like the Bee Gees Disco era at the time, or even the Beatles/Rolling Stones when they first came along. Even something like Bob Dylan going electric and having confrontational audiences the world over in 1966 seems utterly unfathomable to me, when you've got people like Niki Minaj or Lady Gaga topping the charts today in another music video where they wear practically nothing and mumble about being sexually perverse while at the same time speaking out against the sexual objectification of women and it all just seems like a huge act to me, with the music very much sitting in second place to the overall image. I think the reason BritPop happened in such a big way in the UK was because that music was real, and free of the imagery and fakery that had been brought out in the 1980s. But even then, most of us who didn't grow up with the Beatles realised that the Beatles were the key influence and most of the music of the 1960s, and it was still somehow just better than what the likes of Oasis, Coldplay and Blur were coming out with in the 1990s. Interesting observations there. The Britpop era was for me, the last golden age in popular music as for a very short time - about a year - suddenly, it all felt vibrant and "real" again after many years of depressing and increasing artifice where MTV took over and it all became about how the artistes looked in their spiffy over-budgeted videos as opposed to the music which was mostly programmed. For me, the 1980's was an exciting, diverse and innovative time up to 1983/1984 when the MTV curse began taking over and as a kid, it depressed me - I hated the big hair, gated snares, lame sounding synths, the oh-so modern production so that was when I began exploring my parents' record collection in deeper detail. I understand Noel Gallagher did the same thing for the same reasons. 1985-1994 were depressing years for me musically but rich in discovery where 60's and 70's music was concerned. When the Britpop thing came along, sure enough I could tell who was influenced by who - not to mention plagiarising - but it didn't matter. The charts were diverse again and there were some decent acts and records I could enjoy. Then, in 1996 I was watching "Top of The Pops" and on came The Spice Girls for the first time and at that moment, I knew it was all over and music plunged into an irreversible coma at that moment. It was back to the image over the music which once more became heavily over-programmed. Today's music sounds so formulaic and over-processed - autotune is crucial in the eyes of record companies and you know it's gone too far when even somebody like Johnny Mathis has autotune imposed when it's not at all necessary. There are a lot of good new acts out there but trying to find them on YouTube is like finding a needle in a haystack since sure, we have more choice, but... Pretty much how I've always felt, Baz. Didn't help that personally, the 80s were a crap decade for me with the birth of my son the only good thing I can say about it. So most of that music is basically the soundtrack from hell.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2020 16:04:28 GMT
I think it quickly got watered down in the 1970s when a lot of people realised that there was money to be made from music, and the real exploitation of image started happening. As time goes on, the more I believe Simon Napier-Bell's theory that the fashionable drug of the time affects the musical output. And the 70s was all about cocaine. Apathy, shallowness and inflated ego seemed to leak out of too much of the music. They just stopped trying because they thought they were good enough. But I do challenge the whole idea of the infatuation with 60s music. Except for a couple of artists (mostly Woodstock era), most people I see on social media now are obsessed with the 80s and have no understanding of music history. They listen to the 60s in a bubble, reject it because it's "overrated" or the production isn't up to modern standards. It will be interesting how people will look back upon the 60s in another 20 years... Drugs were influencing music even in the '50s, with more than one scholar claiming that the real difference between rhythm 'n' blues and rockabilly was dope and pills rather than black and white. It amuses me that back in the '80s Jerry Lee Lewis was taking every upper and downer going, yet his guitarist (whom I knew quite well personally) had to hide the fact that he smoked a little dope from his boss, knowing that he'd get fired if caught!
|
|
|
Post by baz on Jun 10, 2020 12:36:00 GMT
But I do challenge the whole idea of the infatuation with 60s music. Except for a couple of artists (mostly Woodstock era), most people I see on social media now are obsessed with the 80s and have no understanding of music history. They listen to the 60s in a bubble, reject it because it's "overrated" or the production isn't up to modern standards. Yes, there has been a very unhealthy obsession with 80's music for the last 20 years and shows no signs of letting up. My local commercial radio station plays at least 4 80's songs an hour, often more than that and I can't help but notice it's always the WORST stuff as well dating from after 1984 - I actually suffer the likes of "We Built This City" or "China In Your Hand" a hell of a lot more than I did back in the day when they were new. 60's wise, you might get a random Beatles or Rolling Stones hit every once in a blue moon but absolutely nothing else, as if the 60's never existed... the 70's gets short shrift as well, but they can't play enough 80's. Even the 90's get almost ignored. Here's what ****s me off about this. I HATED the 80's. It was not a fun decade to grow up in. Virtually every record from that decade has a memory attached to it. It's so ANNOYING wandering round and constantly being reminded of flashbacks from an unhappy time in my life. For instance, I hated Duran Duran... Simon LeBon's voice is like a blackboard being scraped to my ears. Never did I imagine nearly 40 years later I'd still be subjected to that torture on those awful songs on a near daily basis. It makes me feel like I'm trapped in a time bubble. Post 1984, the music was awful as were the fashions. That stuff sounds so horribly dated it's embarrassing. It was horrid first time round, nauseating all these decades later. Radio back in the 80's I recall was an interesting mixed bag - a healthy balance of 60's, 70's and 80's with occasional dips into the 50's. I never ever heard anything from the 1940's. Now, in the 2020's, the 80's are as far back in time as the 40's were back in the 80's (if you get my drift) so why then are the 80's still constantly shoved at us? It really winds me up. There's a time and a place for nostalgia. It's rare I ever look back or indulge but when I do, it's when I choose. This constant obsession with the 80's by radio and TV is a bad joke and helps explain why I never consume TV or radio at home as it's something I suffer when I'm out of my home. It's hard enough getting by in this ghastly lockdown but to be pestered constantly by 80's music ramps up the misery a thousandfold. Ooh, I am cheerful today! lol!
|
|
|
Post by Mevrouw Bee on Jun 10, 2020 14:30:36 GMT
Baz is my brother from another mother. Let's face it, though. Radio aims for its demographic - the gen x-ers. And not only that, but the gen x-ers who never tire of hearing "The Final Countdown" for the eleventy-billionth time. All we can do is teach our children well. My son (33) was raised on music going back to Louis Jordan & the Tympany Five, through Louis Prima, all the 40s and 50s R&B records, Motown, Stax, Garage and all the other stuff of mine he more or less tolerates, lol. A lot of boomers like me and gen-xers out there are the type who laugh at YouTube videos of gen-Z kids who can't understand how to work a turnable, but isn't it their job to teach them?
|
|
|
Post by sandy on Jun 10, 2020 15:42:50 GMT
Baz is my brother from another mother. Let's face it, though. Radio aims for its demographic - the gen x-ers. And not only that, but the gen x-ers who never tire of hearing "The Final Countdown" for the eleventy-billionth time. All we can do is teach our children well. My son (33) was raised on music going back to Louis Jordan & the Tympany Five, through Louis Prima, all the 40s and 50s R&B records, Motown, Stax, Garage and all the other stuff of mine he more or less tolerates, lol. A lot of boomers like me and gen-xers out there are the type who laugh at YouTube videos of gen-Z kids who can't understand how to work a turnable, but isn't it their job to teach them? I think we are probably the last generation to actually be listening to the radio! There are a huge number of internet radio stations,with a limitless range of small niche music styles, many of which do indeed hark back to sixties influences with the Indie bands, and indeed the whole modern Psychedelia thing.They just don't get vast audiences.Our big stations have become predictably boring and limited( something which showed when Allan's album or singles failed to be played after the initial launch.), apart from maybe BBC 6 music. I think there is a lot of other stuff out there, but, a bit like with TV streaming, you have to look a lot harder to find it, ironically, in this age of information 😊
|
|
|
Post by stuball on Jun 10, 2020 19:42:37 GMT
But I do challenge the whole idea of the infatuation with 60s music. Except for a couple of artists (mostly Woodstock era), most people I see on social media now are obsessed with the 80s and have no understanding of music history. They listen to the 60s in a bubble, reject it because it's "overrated" or the production isn't up to modern standards. I can't help but notice it's always the WORST stuff as well dating from after 1984 - Post 1984, the music was awful as were the fashions. Baz's mentioning of 1984 and the subsequent cratering of pop music, rang a bell for me. For 1984 was the year I gave up listening to Top 40 AM radio. I was in my early 30's. I can recall reasoning it out at the time: back in '64, I liked 4 out of 5 records played on the radio. Twenty years on, those numbers were reversed: I liked 1 in 5. Not worth my time! I switched to talk radio. I'd like to think that was a sign of maturity. Whatever the case, that's when I also began to explore music from when I was a little kid, plus older tunes from well before my time. I was surprised by the plethora of catchy material! When one door closes, another opens! However, my love for The Hollies in particular, and that whole Brit invasion and the American reaction to it, has carried on to this day. It is still and will always be my favourite period.
|
|
|
Post by baz on Jun 10, 2020 20:44:34 GMT
Baz is my brother from another mother. Let's face it, though. Radio aims for its demographic - the gen x-ers. And not only that, but the gen x-ers who never tire of hearing "The Final Countdown" for the eleventy-billionth time. All we can do is teach our children well. My son (33) was raised on music going back to Louis Jordan & the Tympany Five, through Louis Prima, all the 40s and 50s R&B records, Motown, Stax, Garage and all the other stuff of mine he more or less tolerates, lol. A lot of boomers like me and gen-xers out there are the type who laugh at YouTube videos of gen-Z kids who can't understand how to work a turnable, but isn't it their job to teach them? I do consider myself fortunate as my parents were kids of the 60's so was brought up with a lot of that stuff alongside 70's, so when it went rotten in 1984, I had a good record collection to fall back on from which I could go forth and explore. All my mates at school on the other hand, I was a freak to them as they couldn't understand why I hated the current stuff they were into. It ensured I was rather isolated, but I wouldn't have wanted it any other way.
|
|
|
Post by Mevrouw Bee on Jun 10, 2020 21:29:27 GMT
Yeah up to 1984 I felt at least a bit of promise as far as song was concerned. However, when I think of the new songs I did like then, they are almost always connected with a music video memory. Such is the power of marketing.
Married in '83; mom by '86; divorced by '88. What came first, the pear-shaped life or the pear-shaped music? LOL...thanks Baz for reassuring me that I just had a crap soundtrack!
Anyway the end of the decade I was ignoring all the new music save for maybe Crowded House and anyone else who sounded vaguely retro alongside my 60s collection that I used to make mixed tapes of; my girlfriends were dating local musicians who were in various blues and Motown/Stax revival cover bands so that's all we listened to.
|
|
|
Post by thejanitor on Jun 11, 2020 12:48:06 GMT
I hope I don't sound like a complete miserable grump, but the content of these oldies stations being mostly the same generic late 70s and 80s pop/ballads/dance songs with the occasional one from before or after that period being thrown in every now and then has sort of become a pet peeve for me whenever I hear them in passing - and I wasn't even alive yet during the time these were originally bombarded down a lot of your throats! I will give credit though, I probably wouldn't even be on this board had I not been swept off my feet by "The Air That I Breathe" when I first heard it on one of these stations about three years ago.
|
|
|
Post by Mevrouw Bee on Jun 11, 2020 13:42:49 GMT
I hope I don't sound like a complete miserable grump, but the content of these oldies stations being mostly the same generic late 70s and 80s pop/ballads/dance songs with the occasional one from before or after that period being thrown in every now and then has sort of become a pet peeve for me whenever I hear them in passing - and I wasn't even alive yet during the time these were originally bombarded down a lot of your throats! I will give credit though, I probably wouldn't even be on this board had I not been swept off my feet by "The Air That I Breathe" when I first heard it on one of these stations about three years ago. Gawd no! Not a grump. YouTube is pretty much my radio station now, especially since the death of Brian Mathews and, for all intents and purposes, "Sounds Of The 60s" on BBC2. It gobsmacks me how many oldies are never played at all anymore. In part because what I remember in Canada wasn't necessarily in the Top 10 on Billboard. And in part because too many people want that same-o, same-o. It's like that old teddy bear they never want to give up, isn't it? Just a cursory glance of old CHUM and RPM charts from back then has uncovered some real gems and surprises. I've rediscovered so many songs I haven't heard in 50 years that were the soundtrack of my childhood more than the same-o, same-o that are shoved down our throats. There's also the Psychedelic Jukebox I think it's called? That's pretty cool too, and often play Hollies album tracks, especially on Saturdays...
|
|
|
Post by gee on Jun 11, 2020 13:46:32 GMT
Complete miserable Grump ? - join the club mate !! lol
I have spent the week on and off playing a radio on my old stereo system each day after getting it going again to 'keep it up and running'
I must have heard about TWENTY times each; 'We Built This City', 'I Wanna Know What Love is', 'I Guess That's Why They all it The Blues', 'Against All Odds', 'Careless Whisper', 'You Can't Hurry Love ' / 'A Groovy Kind of Love' (Phil Collins), 'Up Where We Belong', 'Shiney Happy People', 'Too Much Heaven','I Wanna Dance With Somebody', and a few others
don't these radio stations have more than about the SAME 30 songs they play over and over ad nausium....?
|
|
|
Post by Mevrouw Bee on Jun 11, 2020 13:56:22 GMT
Complete miserable Grump ? - join the club mate !! lol I have spent the week on and off playing a radio on my old stereo system each day after getting it going again to 'keep it up and running' I must have heard about TWENTY times each; 'We Built This City', 'I Wanna Know What Love is', 'I Guess That's Why They all it The Blues', 'Against All Odds', 'Careless Whisper', 'You Can't Hurry Love ' / 'A Groovy Kind of Love' (Phil Collins), 'Up Where We Belong', 'Shiney Happy People', 'Too Much Heaven','I Wanna Dance With Somebody', and a few others don't these radio stations have more than about the SAME 30 songs they play over and over ad nausium....? The Dude used to go crazy at work when they insisted on playing this Dutch station called Q Radio (slogan: "Q is good for you!"). And that was pretty much the playlist -- if you include "Bohemian Rhapsody" and the obligatory Andre Hazes or other crap Dutch pop artist. But his colleagues INSISTED that they keep it on. They LOVED it. I call it music for people who hate music, but that seems to be what the people want. To not be challenged or amazed. They want comforting stuff they know while they work or drive that keeps them from thinking too much.
|
|
|
Post by baz on Jun 11, 2020 14:36:25 GMT
don't these radio stations have more than about the SAME 30 songs they play over and over ad nausium....? I read a few years back that commercial radio stations have a playlist of no more than 300 songs. My local station's playlist doesn't appear to have changed or been refreshed in 2 and a half years. My only exposure to it is when I'm out and about and ALL the shops are tuned into that station so you leave one shop and continue suffering the rest of the song in the next shop. The repetition drives me INSANE given it's music that I abhor. All the DJ has to do is click the mouse and babble some inane drivel between tracks. You just know they have no say or choice in what they get to play. Makes my blood boil every time I hear Starship's "Nothing's Gonna Stop Us Now" and "We Built This City" remembering how they evolved from Jefferson Airplane and some of the great music they did... radio wouldn't dare touch the Airplane now so we're doomed to suffering Grace Slick's worst work - and even she can't stand those songs or the Starship era. At home? I have over 75,000 tracks on my hard drive - 195 days of 24/7 listening - to choose from! I tend to create my own playlists or load up a bundle and hit random play. Much more interesting and minus the dross.
|
|
|
Post by stuball on Jun 11, 2020 15:00:08 GMT
I remember hearing of an LA radio station back in '67, changing their format to a 'Top Ten' only playlist. The current 10 chart busters played again and again and again! Their ratings went through the roof! It was the death knell of the 'Top 50'. Let's face it: the majority of pop fans just want to hear the 'big ones' over and over again. Sad but true! And when you're in your car, on a 20-minute commute, you don't care to hear the #48 'hit'. I mean I would, but for the vast majority of people sadly, it's 'Just the biggies, please!'
I remember back in the early seventies, going to weekend parties at friends of friends parent's houses. You'd congregate in the basement rec-room, nursing a beer or joint, and sit around listening to all the 'cool' LPs of the day. It was always the same discs playing everywhere you went! I always found that a cursory examination of the host's LP collection, told me all I needed to know about him or her. Most collections were generally all the same records: best-selling hard and heavy groups, plus a few media worshipped, dope-smoking singer-songwriters albums. Every party, every house, every basement, virtually the few same 'coolness approved' records ad nauseum!
Once in a blue moon, you'd find some brave free-thinker who actually bought the records they liked, not the ones they were 'supposed to have'! I always carried a lot more respect for those 'free-thinking' types, who didn't follow the herd. They weren't obviously the most popular people to stage a party, I suppose, but their record collection told me a lot about their character.
|
|
|
Post by Mevrouw Bee on Jun 11, 2020 15:50:54 GMT
I'm kind of having this discussion on Twitter right now. Too many of these music Twitter accounts do polls in which we have to choose "only 1" of a selection or "the best" as if the quality of music is determined by democratic vote. The competition drives me nuts; it is -- I hate to say it -- too American. And you know the same-o, same-o are going to "win".
It's as if people need to validate their good taste by choosing the most popular. But they will never give the so-called "underdog" a listen.
The whole American Music Awards as devised by Dick Clark is based on this premise -- the winners are those who make the most money. The only way to do it, in their opinion, because "the people" chose. Of course, they can only "choose" what is presented to them on a metaphorical platter, can't they?
And that's why I had a "public" record collection and a "private" one when I was a teen; the insecure kid who wanted to "belong" listened to Boston and Steve Miller and Fleetwood Mac and Meatloaf with her friends (I didn't hate the stuff; I didn't love it either). Then went home and played the Hollies and my other 60s compilations.
I love being old and not gaf. I celebrated my birthday yesterday on Twitter by having a "Hollie-Day"...I shared nothing but Hollies b-sides and album tracks. I think I brought a few fans out of the closet, if only for a day!
|
|
|
Post by The Dude on Jun 11, 2020 16:14:41 GMT
don't these radio stations have more than about the SAME 30 songs they play over and over ad nausium....? At home? I have over 75,000 tracks on my hard drive - 195 days of 24/7 listening - to choose from! I tend to create my own playlists or load up a bundle and hit random play. Much more interesting and minus the dross. 75000?... and I thought I was over the top with my 67.500+ tracks... and I was born in the 50s.... Anyway, from 1990 till 1996, I was working at a local radio station, as a engineer, presenter and/or producer. Because I had and still have the same pet peeve with so called oldies station I made sure that, when producing the midday lunchtime program all the older records on the playlist were records that were rarely heard in that day and age... And I had two programs on Thursday night. One hour of folk, country and world music, and one hour of album tracks and b-sides. I used my own record collection for that. Later both programs merged into one two-hour program with both formats merging as well. ...and in one of those programs I had the honour of interviewing Chris & Linda Simpson of Magna Carta, one of my favourite folk groups, who came to our studio for a 2 hour interview......
|
|
|
Post by Mevrouw Bee on Jun 11, 2020 17:44:24 GMT
At home? I have over 75,000 tracks on my hard drive - 195 days of 24/7 listening - to choose from! I tend to create my own playlists or load up a bundle and hit random play. Much more interesting and minus the dross. 75000?... and I thought I was over the top with my 67.500+ tracks... and I was born in the 50s.... Anyway, from 1990 till 1996, I was working at a local radio station, as a engineer, presenter and/or producer. Because I had and still have the same pet peeve with so called oldies station I made sure that, when producing the midday lunchtime program all the older records on the playlist were records that were rarely heard in that day and age... And I had two programs on Thursday night. One hour of folk, country and world music, and one hour of album tracks and b-sides. I used my own record collection for that. Later both programs merged into one two-hour program with both formats merging as well. ...and in one of those programs I had the honour of interviewing Chris & Linda Simpson of Magna Carta, one of my favourite folk groups, who came to our studio for a 2 hour interview...... You were also the "guest-expert" on a colleague's radio special about the Hollies back in 2003 I seem to remember...
|
|