I just knew it all along ............

and maybe the people playing those songs don't consider themselves musicians either...just very wealthy...

What would you rather be?

"Vic I'm not so sure the industry homogenized music, if the listeners didn't want it none of it wouldn't have made a dime and that music would have died a quick death "

It has been shown many times, over several decades, that the music industry dictates what people are allowed to listen to. It is the music industry that tells the public what is hot and what should be bought.

The public does the bidding of the music industry, not the other way around.

Which is one of the reasons that the music industry is so concerned about the internet and downloading - the public can decide what it listens to, not what the music industry dictates.

I agree the music industry can manipulate what gets put on the radio and to some extent what albums are made but like anything else they can't make you turn on the radio or buy the records people do that of their own free will.

So they bombard the radio with Justin Beiber or whomever.....I haven't heard one of his songs and don't want to but the kid is worth millions so it's the industry that forced you to listen to him? Yes they have marketing clout and can bombard you with it but you still have a free choice and if people didn't want it they can just not buy it.

Maybe we should look at the intelligence of the average person rather than the evil industry that is ruining music maybe we are getting less intelligent as a species and the turn toward simpler music is just a natural reaction to us slowly losing our intelligence.

The music industry is using the same production principles that have been used in manufacturing for years. K.I.S.S. - Keep it simple why spend $20000 producing some complex album when for $5000 they can getthe same or more return on their money.

I think part of the problem is that we expect that somehow the music industry "owes" something to the art and a need to preserve everything that is true and pure about music..if you think that you are naive they are a business in it for one reason to make money if a monkey and a bango could make money they'd promote that too.

and maybe the people playing those songs don't consider themselves musicians either...just very wealthy... What would you rather be?

A wealthy musician, obviously - but if I had a choice of being a struggling musician, playing what I wanted, or a wealthy musician, playing garbage I hated....I'd take the poverty option, and that's the truth. What does it profit a man if he gains the world but loses his soul?

I've never made a single penny from music (although I've been bought a few drinks when I've played at the pub....does that count?) and probably never will, unless I take up busking...but that's irrelevant. Being rich from playing music, and having a head full of great memories from playing music, are two different things in my little corner of the universe....I'll take fun over profit every time.

:-) :-) :-)

Vic

Hmm Vic you might want to rethink that :lol:

But really how many artists are out there playing music they hate? Do you think any of the pop ones are? Do you think Justin Beiber, or Katy Perry or any of those artists are playing music they despise...I doubt it. Sure the record company may ask for some changes or even the producer but at the end of the day I think most like what they are doing.

The only situation I could see that you are talking about is if there was a band that only had minimal potential in the first place then I might see a label asking them to do something drastically different like turn them into a boy band and that becomes their only choice to be a boy band or get dropped and get nothing. In that situation yes there are limits to how much you would compromise yourself.

Music moves with the times and evolves and changes the 60-70's were a much different time than now I can't imagine the music would/should stay the same as I posted before it would be boring.

Hmm Vic you might want to rethink that

Nope.....never! I'd rather be poor and honest than a rich liar - and playing music I didn't like would put me in the category of a complete and utter hypocrite. To take an example, look at Paul McCartney - the general consensus of opinion is that he hasn't made a decent album since "Band On The Run." Maybe with the exception of "Flaming Pie," about '99 or so, which I can't comment on because I haven't heard it. But - he's making music he likes. OK, no-one else does....and it's not like he needs the money! I'll bet he's made far more money from GARBAGE like "Mary Had A Little Lamb," "The Frog Chorus," "Mull Of Kintyre" and "Pipes Of Peace" than he ever made from the Beatles.

But - did you ever hear Lennon compromise his artistic integrity? No, sir! He may have done some rubbish in his time - chiefly the experimental stuff, and things he did where he let Yoko have her say....but he never lost his edge.

Harrison was a very under-rated songwriter AND guitarist with the Beatles - he always reckoned McC rubbished him. He grew and matured as a singer, guitarist and songwriter away from the confines of the Beatles, until eventually he was recognised as a great talent and everybody wanted to play with him.

There are hundreds of songs I can play along with - when they come on the radio - from the 60's and 70's. They're the songs I grew up with, and still love. 80's? Quite a few, but not nearly as many as the 60's and 70's. 90's? Maybe about 4-5 songs I like to play along with - after that, forget it. Just not that interested any more. Nobody's doing anything different - nobody's expanding the boundaries of rock'n'roll any more. Yeah, there are still good bands around - Kasabian, Kings of Leon, Snow Patrol....but I can't get excited about those bands in the same way that I got into the Beatles, Stones, Who, Mott, Creedence, Led Zep, Nazareth that I did in the 60's and 70's. And as for MOBO....music of black origin....don't even get me started. Motown, Stax, Atlantic....they used to put out classic singles at the rate of 2-3 a week, you could dance to them, sing along with them, where are the great soul singers now? Are there any left? The last soul singer I got excited about was Terence Trent D'Arby, and that was about 1987.....

Yeah, music changes, music evolves....but to me, over the last 20 years or so, it's a retrograde evolution - it's gone backwards. Music these days is so dire I almost long for the good ol' days of Stock Aitken and Waterman, Kylie and Jason and Rick Astley....at least there was a tune there, even if it was the same one on every SAW produced record.

My daughter, when she was about 11, was mad about the spice girls and take that......not any more, she doesn't even play the old SG and TT records she had. When I was 11, I was listening to hey Jude, Jumpin' Jack Flash, I can See For Miles, Proud Mary, Dock Of The Bay, All Along The Watchtower, Born To Be Wild, Do It Again, Eloise, Goin' Up The Country, I Wish It Would Rain, I Get By With A Little Help From My Friends, Lady madonna, Lazy Sunday, Legend Of Xanadu, Magic Bus, Mighty Quinn, Mrs Robinson, Mony Mony, Need Your Love so Bad, On The Road Again, Pictures Of Matchstick Men, Sunshine Of Your Love, The Weight, You Ain't Goin' Nowhere, and Young Girl......all those records are still played today, especially on the oldies station I listen to.

And of all the above listed records...all top ten hits in the UK in '68 - I don't think there are two of them that are remotely similar, or bear even a passing resemblance to each other.

:D :D :D

Vic

As for musical tastes I think most people latch onto the music they grew up with as kind of the default so it's not too suprising you feel the way you do. Same as my parents trying to tell me rock n roll was crap and the music from their generation was the "best".

I look back when I was a teenager the same era as you and most of the songs you listed I liked/loved too but 30 or so years later and most of them I don't mind hearing but I'd rather hear something else something that hasn't been played 2,000,000 times.

When we were young and (you sound pretty similar to me) we would buy those albums and listen to them until they wore out literally, music was such a huge part of my life since all I really had to do was go to school.

Then you start to mature and you don't have 5 hrs a day to listen to music you go to college, get a job, get married and music (for most people) takes on a smaller role in your life that's why it seems to me why we tend not to embrace new music the way we did when we were younger (and more impressionable)but I beleive for the most part it still has a similar effect on teenagers that are living that era in their lives now.

We can go back and forth since there is no right or wrong or even good or bad music it's all in how YOU perceive it and thats just a personal opinion and everyone is entitled to like what they like.

If there wasn't all the types of music you or anyone else despises then what would there be....there would be one kind of music and it would be boring as heck.

We can go back and forth since there is no right or wrong or even good or bad music it's all in how YOU perceive it and thats just a personal opinion and everyone is entitled to like what they like.

If there wasn't all the types of music you or anyone else despises then what would there be....there would be one kind of music and it would be boring as heck.

Agree 100% - there's room for all kinds of music in the world. Just not in my house if it was made after, say, 1995.....

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Vic

Vic take a trip over here we'll educate you... :lol: :lol:

Actually though and a little off the topic I think I am starting to despise classic rock now that I have been playing with people. It may sound weird but every classic rock song had a solo in it but it seems anyone that I play with that can solo wants to add 3 solos for each song or extend the solo out to 2 mins and it just annoys me. It may just be me but it's like enough already we get it you can solo.

Trust me that was a big draw for me when I first heard rock n roll the guitar solo's but every song doesn't need to have one and I sometimes prefer songs without any.

Vic take a trip over here we'll educate you... :lol: :lol:

Actually though and a little off the topic I think I am starting to despise classic rock now that I have been playing with people. It may sound weird but every classic rock song had a solo in it but it seems anyone that I play with that can solo wants to add 3 solos for each song or extend the solo out to 2 mins and it just annoys me. It may just be me but it's like enough already we get it you can solo.

Trust me that was a big draw for me when I first heard rock n roll the guitar solo's but every song doesn't need to have one and I sometimes prefer songs without any.
You'ld like playing with me, I don't like to play long solos. Get it done and move on. I suppose playing live it's a way to lengthen the songs. I don't care to listen to self indulgance either. Some lead type parts ar important to the song, some aren't.

Yeah, must admit, I like snort snappy solos....here's one for you. One of the great 60's bands - and how easy is this to play?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W-VehwX_ik

Oh - wait a minute - here's a different guitarist playing exactly the same solo.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kc0D-s0zTI4

Spot the difference, anyone?

:D :D :D

Vic

But really how many artists are out there playing music they hate? Do you think any of the pop ones are?

I did a really bad thing last week. At a moment when all the decent radio stations round here were running commercials, I found myself listening to BBC Radio 1 and didn't hit the "Off" button.

The DJ said "I don't like this record but I'm going to play it"

Now, I don't classify a BBC Radio 1 DJ as an artist, but when a freelance radio presenter who has the ear of a large chunk of the pre-pubescent population of this country doesn't even have artistic control over his own radio show, then we're on a very slippery slope.

Alan, I'd suggest that very few, if any have artistic control over what they play. In particular, those stations that live from advertising and sponsorship lose all control to those pulling the purse strings.

I'd hazard a guess that the only UK DJ, in the last 30-40 years, who had any real control over what he played, was John Peel.

Though John Peel didn't always like the records he played, he played them because he thought they deserved a chance. Radio1 isn't commercial, it just reflects the mainstream. (Get a digital radio and listen to 6 Music. Or just listen to it online.)

Though John Peel didn't always like the records he played, he played them because he thought they deserved a chance.
Thst is exactly the point. John Peel decided what deserved to be heard on his show - not what the sponsor wanted to be pushed.

Radio1 is state sponsored, but still manages to be anything but independent. When I was a teenager, we had the treat of listening to "pirate radio" - Radio Caroline, set up to get around the music industry's demands of what to play and when.
...........but I'd rather hear something else something that hasn't been played 2,000,000 time.
You don't listen to the radio, then? I used to have a job that meant many hours on the road. I'd have the radio on - mostly for traffic news,, but also to stave off the inevitale boredom of standing in traffic. If you listen for more than an hour, you start to hear the same records all over again. The total number of songs played on a day is probably about 40 - they just recycle playlists.