I'm a big fan of the La's, I put a La's web site up as soon as I got on the net around early 1998. They were no way near as good as the Beatles.. well, it depends. The Beatles early work was mostly covers and 'poppy' tunes. Wheras the La's early stuff was all original and was very retro. Generally the Beatles obviously have a much larger catalogue of quality recordings. Wheras the La's didn't even put out an album, due to Lee Mavers, the singer's extreme perfectionism in recording. (ALL released La's material was released without his authorisation, he thought everything they did was crap, because of recording equipment etc) He's been sitting at home writing and recording from a home studio for the last 10 years, but hasn't released anything yet. Trying to get all vintage 60's mixing desks/microphones. He's been also getting like £5,000 cheques every months from royalties for 'There She Goes' so he doesn't really need to do bugger all to get by. The Beatles also had 3 contributers, obviously Lennon and McCartney, and bits here and there from Harrison, wheras the La's was all Mavers work. I've got a large back catalogue of unreleased and live La's stuff and 99% of it is classic stuff. And apparently he's written about 50 classic songs since at home. So I would say the Beatles are definitely better, but Mavers will have to pull his boots up and release tons of classic albums to the public some bloody time in our lifetimes to catch up.

"He's been also getting like £5,000 cheques every months from royalties for 'There She Goes' so he doesn't really need to do bugger all to get by."

Paul McCartney gets about £100 a minute, or something, doesn't he?

My argument is, simply, that I think The La's were better. Not a scientific statement, just my opinion. Maybe I'm jaded by the Beatles through having grown up near Penny Lane and witness all of the fawning factually inaccurate nostalgia that surrounds them every bloody day of my life...

Unreleased La's stuff - what stuff??? And where's your site???

Apart from the album, there is also a CD of some sessions they did in the mid-80s, probably with a different line-up. I saw it once, can't remember the title.

Looking through TJs thread, he does seem to hate stuff that is 'popular' and 'mainstream'
and glorify the obscure.

This is perfectly natural. It comes of him being a pimple-headed student freak who'll eventually wake up when he hits puberty.

Um.. well my website, I made it in a few hours the week I got on the net and haven't updated it since, because I changed ISP and lost all my passwords and stuff. Anyway, it's very amateaurish but it's the oldest La's related site on the net. I think my hit log says I've had 00000 visitors, because it's reset after 3 years of people visiting. You can get to my friends later site which is much better though through a link there..

http://www.geocities.com/sunsetstrip/underground/8505/

Umm.. I have lots of live stuff, and videos, and unreleased songs and rare B-sides.. just depends what you have, I could send you a load of burnt CD's if you want.. you'd have to e mail me and tell me what you already have though.. e-mail is :

[email protected]

I've spoken to a few people who've been round Mavers' house, he's just concentrating on bringing up his kids now. And doesn't like fans coming round his house all the time. Sometimes he welcomes them in, mostly he tells them to fuck off though. My mate got into them because his guitar teacher in school happened to be an ex member.. Boo, he played the guitar on There She Goes. Liking the La's isn't gloryfying the obscure and putting down the mainstream. Have you heard mainstream music lately? It's all 100% total toss.. I can't believe how much business has infected music now, it's brainwashed young people to buy whatever shit they put out.

The Beatles were better.. but Mavers is on par as a songwriter/singer.. he just hasn't released bugger all and hasn't got a band..

Oh yeah, if anybody plays guitar and loves Hendrix.. I also have a Hendrix guitar tab site..

members.xoom.com/vedder81/

I have such a shitload of Hendrix stuff.. about 5 gigs of live/released/unreleased mp3's totalling to I don't know.. days and days worth of continuous listening..

>Looking through TJs thread, he does seem to hate stuff that is 'popular' and 'mainstream'
>and glorify the obscure.

Not at all - he seems to hate the 11ocs, and how can you get more obscure than that?
>
>This is perfectly natural. It comes of him being a pimple-headed student freak who'll eventually wake up when he hits puberty.

Oh, just beat it, you arse.

>Looking through TJs thread, he does seem to hate stuff that is 'popular' and 'mainstream'
>and glorify the obscure.
>
>This is perfectly natural. It comes of him being a pimple-headed student freak who'll eventually wake up when he hits puberty.


Topol, you are wrong on all counts. I have a dramtically widely ranging taste in music, and I have no shame in admitting that I like Prince, S Club 7, Whigfield and Level 42 as much as I do Traffic or Chocolate Watchband. Anyone who has every read my magazine will be able to confirm this.

Also I am not a student, and I hated stereotypical students when I was one. So there.

> Looking through TJs thread, he does seem to hate stuff that is 'popular' and 'mainstream' and glorify the obscure.
> This is perfectly natural. It comes of him being a pimple-headed student freak who'll eventually wake up when he hits puberty.

Okay, I know that TJ isn't pimply. He's very lovely.
What *anyone* chooses to express their enthusiasm/disdain over, is none of your concern, unless you choose to participate in the conversation in a way which does not resemble the jealous utterings of an infant.

Fuck off now, before we're forced to find RB's set-square and insert it in a way which will be inoperable.

That is all.

The Beatles begat Wings.
The Las begat Cast.

Which is the lesser sin?

Ouch! Talk about 'between a rock and a hard place'.

>Have you heard mainstream music lately? It's all 100% total toss.

Wooah there Steven, let's not get all nerdy and carried away son. It isn't ALL bad.
The mainstream now includes bands and artists once considered 'alternative'.
Foo Fighters, Radiohead, Powderfinger, Moby, Fatboy Slim, Chemical Brothers - that kind of thing. If you can't see some worth in at least one of those acts I'll eat my own foot.
Oh, and I hope this doesn't mean you're slagging off Kylie! I just won't have it.

Cast are bad, but not as bad as Wings. Sorry.

>Topol, you are wrong on all counts. I have a dramtically widely ranging taste in music, and I have no shame in admitting that I like Prince, S Club 7, Whigfield and Level 42 as much as I do Traffic or Chocolate Watchband.

I vote for this as the funniest single sentence posted to the forum since its rebirth. It's immaculate. I mean, they talk about Half Man Half Biscuit getting their cultural references dead-on, but this is priceless.

>Also I am not a student, and I hated stereotypical students when I was one.

When you were a stereotypical student?

Radiohead, Supergrass and Pearl Jam are the only bands around at the moment that aren't totally crap.. Almost everything else is..

Justin,

sorry to piss on your parade, old son, but this forum isn't just for you...If it was it would be called the 'Justin-pebbledashes-your-computer-with-his-overwritten-cack-while-everyone-else-waits-for-him-to-make-a-joke' site. But it's not - see?

Allie - say something funny, make your life
worthwhile and i'll fuck off.

RIGHT. OUTSIDE. NOW.

Nobody has a go at Justin and lives.

topol, you're just jealous cos nobody likes you.

Car park. Five minutes.

I've been waiting ages for Topol to make a joke.

>Radiohead, Supergrass and Pearl Jam are the only bands around at the moment that aren't totally crap.. Almost everything else is..

This is one of those statements that's so outrageously indefensible it's funny.

Pearl Jam?

>Justin,
>
>sorry to piss on your parade, old son, but this forum isn't just for you...If it was it would be called the 'Justin-pebbledashes-your-computer-with-his-overwritten-cack-while-everyone-else-waits-for-him-to-make-a-joke' site. But it's not - see?

>Allie - say something funny, make your life
>worthwhile and i'll fuck off.

It may not be just for Justin, but it certainly isn't designed for arrogant bastards like you to pop in whenever you feel like it and exorcise internal demons by being snotty to people you neither know, like nor care about.

And it's Ailie. You arse.

Well Al, I can't be bothered writing biographies and critiques of each band, but I think its fairly obvious EVERYTHING in the charts for the last 3-4 years has been on the whole obsolute shite. No question about it, the commercialisation of music happened in america about 1995, it got over here around 97, and we haven't had hardly a fucking piece of talent in it every since. And comedy is the same now I fear.. fucking business men with their trends and hyperbole.

Ah, the businessmen, with their suits and ties...!

I think Richard Herring should drop into this strand for a moment...

Topol's style of reaction - very similar to both Yoakum's and Dan L's, methinks...

>Justin,
>
>sorry to piss on your parade, old son, but this forum isn't just for you...If it was it would be called the 'Justin-pebbledashes-your-computer-with-his-overwritten-cack-while-everyone-else-waits-for-him-to-make-a-joke' site. But it's not - see?


Sorry I'm late - I've only just stopped crying...

Topol - you don't understand this forum. Not that there's much to understand, really - it's just a forum about TV where unpaid people in normal jobs just talk about stuff. Really it's that simple. There is one unwritten rule:

We may be professionally critical about comedy, TV etc., but we don't slag each other off. Even if we strongly disagree (and it's happened a fair bit) about some programme or idea, we have no right to have a go at someone personally. The only time we do wade in is when someone who doesn't know anything about us starts being hostile towards forum contributors for no reason other than: "I don't find what you do funny", and uses that as an excuse to hurl abuse around. I think you'll have noticed that I'm not the only one who finds your tone and attitude offensive and embarrassing.

I think you have a professional interest here, Topol, correct me if I'm wrong. You only seem to turn up on threads when we've given the 11ocs a bit of a slating (even though, by Christ, we've tried lately, God we've tried). Notice we don't have a go at the writers personally (how could we - the credits roll too quickly for us to read the names). What we do is roll our eyes with amazement that it isn't any good, even with apparent professional input from writers, performers and producers.


>Allie - say something funny, make your life
>worthwhile and i'll fuck off.

You see, things like that - *why* are you doing this? Are you trying to prove a point that you're more amusing than we are? Well go on then! Let's hear your act.

This is a TV forum, not a joke book - we're here for discussions and swapping information. I really think most people on here are really nice and down-to-earth, and sometimes funny. If I were you, I'd start concentrating on your own comedy career if "being funny" matters that much to you.

Really, though, I don't mind you staying if you start talking sense. Are you a grown-up? Are you prepared to change?

I realise you'll probably try and answer this with a barrage of obscenity and disease. Advisable not to though - it makes you sound a right cunt.

>it's just a forum about TV where unpaid people in normal jobs just talk about stuff.

I meant we don't get paid for coming on *here*, not going to our day jobs. Obviously.

>Well Al, I can't be bothered writing biographies and critiques of each band, but I think its fairly obvious EVERYTHING in the charts for the last 3-4 years has been on the whole obsolute shite. No question about it, the commercialisation of music happened in america about 1995, it got over here around 97, and we haven't had hardly a fucking piece of talent in it every since.

Obvious eh?
a) The commercialisation of music has always existed, particularly since the arrival of Rock n' Roll on the 1950s. Popular music is a commercial enterprise. Some bands may do it for the love of music but their product is marketed to a target audience all the same. Even Radiohead (who I like BTW) and their anti-marketing of Kid A are marketing. (Billboards on the tube, internet promotion etc) It's nonsense to try and suggest 1995 as some kind of year zero. Why 95 anyway? Why not MTV in the 80s? Or Radio 1 in 1967?

b) EVERYTHING in the charts? I think the charts are in a moribund state at the mo' But are the charts all we're talking about? You defend Pearl Jam who are hardly a chart band. What about:
Chemical Brothers, Underworld, Leftfield, Orbital, Ben Folds Five, Groove Armada, Mint Royale, Moby, De La Soul (still going - still good), St Etienne, Elliot Smith, Beth Orton, Roni Size, Beastie Boys, Blur, Cornershop, and the new Fat Boy Slim single is excellent.

Oh and I like the new All Saints single. Nothing wrong with a bit of pop.

I agree - new All Saints single is fantastic, and the melody reminds me of Tomorrow's 'Caught In A Web'...

Actually the commercialisation has existed since the 1930's. But all through the 20th centuary business has been honest enough to only market the actual songs that are actually any good, or catchy. Now in the finals years of the 20th centuary, business seemed to have got so clever they don't even have to do this to sell records, they shove out any old shit they like and idiots will buy it. It's not brainwashing, it's simply by taking control of every outlet of music there is, radio, tv, the charts, etc. Hence all the kids of this generation haven't heard anything that decent through these channels, and as their doubtless to go into an old record shop and buy records of stuff they've never heard purely on the graphics on the cover of the album (ala what all kids use to do in the past), they are just gonna like whatever they can see in the charts, because its all they have available.
Obvious eh?

>>>>Even Radiohead (who I like BTW) and their anti-marketing of Kid A are marketing.

I don't think so, I've been listening to all the unreleased radiohead stuff for 2 years, they have a back catalogue of about 50 tunes, a lot of them are classics, but in their old style, they could of easily released a classic album but actually chanced doing something a bit different. But it probably wouldn't matter what they did, the press went overly ecstatic over Ok Computer.. it was good, The Bends was a lot better though, the press simply all followed this big trend of praising to death Ok Computer.. and so their next album is obviously going to dissapoint, the press usually do this so they can build up a band and knock em down. If the new album was good songs in their old style the press would say "Oh well, Radioheads new album is exactly the same as the last, they are one hit wonders.. boring" if they experimented tons it would be "Urgh this doesn't sound as good as Ok Computer at all, Radiohead are one hit wonders...boring" you can't fucking win with the press, they are just employed to be idiots and follow trends.

>>>b) EVERYTHING in the charts? I think the charts are in a moribund state at the mo' But are the charts all we're talking about? You defend Pearl Jam who are hardly a chart band. What about:
Chemical Brothers, Underworld, Leftfield, Orbital, Ben Folds Five, Groove Armada, Mint Royale, Moby, De La Soul (still going - still good), St Etienne, Elliot Smith, Beth Orton, Roni Size, Beastie Boys, Blur, Cornershop, and the new Fat Boy Slim single is excellent.

Wouldn't that be fitting with my argument that Pearl Jam aren't really a chart band if I say the charts are crap, umm? I'm sorry but that list you give at the end is all just total crap imo. Obviously music is subjective, but I feel it is to an extent, and there is an obvious line when you can see where there is talent involved and when there is not. With some exceptions I think maybe Blur are the ones who actually might have a bit of talent in that list, but I hate Blur so that just shows you how much I hate that list. Fat Boy Slim is terrible, a twat who sits at a turntable playing samples and adding effects over the top and thinking he's actually doing something that needs talent? He also married the ever ready to please Zoe Ball, so that just shows how intelligent he must be.

>>Oh and I like the new All Saints single. Nothing wrong with a bit of pop.

What do you mean by pop? Pop isn't a genre.. there is no style for pop, it's just popular music, and therefore is just a completely stupid zeitgeist comment, just trying to fit in with the current trends. All Saints are quite clearly crap, a bunch of dance school graduates who answered a ad in some stage school magazine and can get professionally paid crap songwriters to write crap songs for them so they can record them and mime all their concerts.. yeah great. Same with Britney and all the boy bands of that ilk, awful awful awful awful awful stuff, it's shameful it really is. Obviously I appear as a bitter old cynic, but that's because I listen to lots of old 60's stuff and other good past bands and hearing how good our predecessors had is making me really mad, I can't bare to think of all the little children growing up and liking all this chart crap, not that they have a choice, its all there is for them to hear.

Er, just to say that all of All Saints' material is co-written by bandmember Shaznay Lewis.

And whatever you think of Al's list, Steven, you have to give him this - there's a lot more to the current music scene than boy bands or teen pop. Sure, you might have trouble finding it played on daytime radio but that's radio's lack of adventure, not the actual music's fault.

There's some great pop music around at the moment and there always was. Even in supposedly fallow periods like the mid-70s or mid-80s there were plenty of top-notch singles. Of course they were from the sort of artists who might only release one or two great singles and wouldn't be able to stretch to an album, but imo, this does not make them worthless. Pop is about moments, not necessarily careers. For what it's worth, I think that the Sugababes single is better than anything, say, The Doors ever recorded. Am I just being deliberately controversial? Probably.

The reason I started that Best Single thread was that I thought it would be a nice idea to open out the debate. Yes, we all know the Beatles are great, but there's a lot more to pop than that, and quite right too. What is exciting about current pop (and if only radio and TV would help us out) is that there are countless influences and genres being served up in inventive new ways. Much of this, inevitably, is in the form of dance music. At the moment I'm listening to Death In Vegas's "Dead Elvis", an album which wittily revisits lounge-jazz, bluebeat and hip-hop with the help of contemporary dance music. It is marvellous. I know this may not appeal to you, but speaking as someone who is completely uninterested in "going to Ibiza", a lot of dance music is exhilarating and innovative. The last rock group I can honestly say I loved was Pixies, as I count the likes of Supergrass, Blur and Pulp as pop in the classic tradition.

I've said it on another thread, but what the hell's wrong with pop?

Look, Steven, I could go through your arguments point by point but I feel I'm wasting my time as your mind seems made up. I do acknowledge that pop is a term that means all popular music in general, but it can also refer to mainstream 'poppy' singles - daytime radio play etc, etc. I don't accept it is a stupid 'zeitgeist' comment - this distinction between pop and rock has existed for donkey's years. The fact that you dismiss everything I have named simply indicates you have a very specific taste in music. I find it astonishing you can dismiss it all as crap.

Your comments on Fat Boy Slim are a very tired argument. When the electric guitar was introduced in the 1940s it was not regarded as a true instrument. Since then people like your hero Hendrix have amply demonstrated what it can do. This 'all you have to do is twiddle some knobs' idea is ridiculous. Ever tried using a sampler? Beat matching on a turntable? Programming a drum machine? It is *not* easy. Radiohead themselves have made extensive use of electronic instruments on 'Kid A' Just because you hate FBS music doesn't mean it's a doddle to do. BTW I think you missed my point about R'head. I'm not saying they made a commercial album, just that they (or EMI) have marketed it - like all popular music.

It saddens me that you think so little of 'the kids' and everyone else who likes a wide variety of music and that you assume we are all idiots being hoodwinked into buying 'crap'. It comes across as patronising and arrogant. Sorry if that wasn't the intention, but I actually feel quite insulted by what you are saying...

BTW 2 more points

a) Before the 90s business only marketed good songs. Do you *really* believe this? 'Chirpy Chirpy Cheep Cheep' anyone?

b) Shaznay of All Saints writes most of their songs. I don't think they're especially good, just the single in the charts right now. Life is really too short to get angry about Britney Spears - especially when there are people like Chumbawumba around who think they're making 'serious statements'

Oh, yeah, The Beatles were better than the La's. Just my opinion, though.

But what about The Teardrop Explodes?

Yeah Al, I know all my comments seem incredibly egotistical and all that. As I think I proved in my statements against Time Gentlemen Please I really can't be bothered making proper arguments with non-subjective opinions but I'm far too lazy to bother, so I just write an over inflated opinion which can easily be critisised. Anyway, I highly disagree with your comments about beatboxes and turn tables needing talent, I've seen DJ's in clubs and have seen friends use them, I can't stand it when people talk about beat matching as a talent, DJ's are glorified CD Changes.. just because they can listen to another song on a pair of headphones and moves a slider to slow down the tempo to match with another song doesn't mean the have any musical ability. Ok it takes a few weeks to be able to do all that crap well, it doesn't mean its hard or involves talent, and above all its still palying other peoples fucking crap records as well, Dance music is for dancing, not for listening to at home or whatever, as people do now, anybody who listens to dance music needs to try analyse why. It takes at least 5 years to actually properly play a guitar, and more than that to be really good, all the current 'guitarists' like people in Travis etc just play about 2 chords and are labelled 'gutiarists', this is very debatable. Also why did the press critisise Noel Gallagher because a lot of his songs were based on a G variation, because they are yes, especially his 2nd fret capoed Wonderwall stuff etc. But they praise Travis who entire album is basically just absolutel shite versions of wonderwall with boring vocals, they all play about 2 G chord variations and have a capo on the 2nd fret on ALL their singles. Yet the press don't critisise this at all. I really want to lay into your argument and use lots of swearing about how crap they are, but it wouldn't achieve much and would make my argument look even less cohesive. I don't care if any of the All Saints have writing credits, because I'm sure all they did was change a few of the words, none of them can play and instrument or know chords or scales etc so I doubt they have any real writing in any of the songs, not that I care I think everyhing they have done is awful. Same with Robbie Williams and people like that, all terrible. I do have a very narrow view of music, but for good reason, I don't think buying tons of one hit wonder singles classifies you as tasteful. I just think current music is so bad its unbelievable. And comments about me putting my own narrow minded taste and applying it to kids is silly, I said that kids now grow up listening to all this shit in the charts, therefore it is all they know of, they haven't got any outlets for older music that is good. Because every music outlet now is commercialised with shit, I don't really see a 10 year old walking into an old dusty record shop thumbing through records and buying them without even hearing them, they are just going to buy what they see on TV or hear on the Radio, I think thats a perfectly understandable argument.
I don't think there was any real animosity to the electric guitar when it came out, why would there be? Electric guitars until the mid 60's were very tame instruments, very quiet and soft and were never a main instrument. They were simply acoustic guitars but had an electrical amplifier so to make it easier to play to large groups than an acoustic. Only with the advent of fuzz pedals and things did it become the object we know it as today. And lots of the old bluesmen such as Muddy Waters and BB King embraced the electric guitar, I mean its just a guitar, its not a new kind of scary instrument. Hendrix was around for 3 years, and probably put out more recorded material than anybody else in history, I haven't really checked that out as fact, but I have such a huge amount of stuff that I can't imagine there being anybody else who had this amount of stuff put out in 3 years. He was recording almost every single day of those 3 years, played absolutely tons of live shows, and they were all imrpovised songs, he could make up completely new songs as he played. He was a genius, artists now make about 1 album every 2-3 years, most of them don't even write them, or actually play them at all live, just mime, even when people PAY TO COME SEE THEM AT A CONCERT! That is disgusting, they can't even be bothered to sing their shitty songs, even when these poor deluded people pay, basically they are just listening to the CD with a person dancing around on a stage.
Bleh, I just hate the charts so much I want to scream, but the thing that really gets me is that people actually are deluded into liking and sticking up for it, which is truly terrible.

I don't care what the music press says, but _I_ criticise Noel Gallagher because he has yet to write a song that in any way impresses me, and also because he once expressed a profound desire that some people who had the temerity to sell a couple more records than he was doing should "catch AIDS and die".

Stevem - if you must bombard us with your bitter rants at least have the decency to use paragraphs.

It does take talent to beat match, or use samplers etc etc. It's just that YOU DON'T LIKE THIS KIND OF MUSIC. Very simple. Stop trying to imply that others who do are stupid. It is *very* insulting, and very narrow minded.

I should explain that Al is a musical gourmand whose tastes range from classical to cool jazz, from pop to polka, from soca to salsa, from techno to hip-hop, and from ragga to rhumba. And the fucking Senseless Things.

Thanks, I think...

Actually, I think Hendrix is rubbish.

>from sotcaa to salsa

When did Mike and Joe make a record?

Well Al, you've shown you're as narrow minded as I anyway. Radiohead have been using sampling and new electronic stuff for about 4 years, but they at least have the skill to mix it in with proper instruments. I don't give a shit what music you like Al, I don't really want to insult anybody, it is just my view that people like Fat Boy Slim (the basic DJ ilk) are crap, and the All Saints are crap, I think my argument is perfectly justifyable. I doubt it's 'just because' I don't like their style of music, I don't give a shit about styles, as long as it's good, and genuinely takes talent, I will listen. I don't mind listening to classical music, a lot of it is awful, there are some gems though, and it's really mellow and peaceful. I like some jazz, a lot of it can be incredibly boring though because of the sense that the entire band aren't following eachother usually. I like funk, and soul, blues, anything, just calling me narrow minded because I don't like the stuff you listen to is perhaps more narrow minded than my argument appears. Yes I do think the majority of stuff you listed is crap, that is as much insulting as your messages about the electric guitar being crap, which proves how much of a hypocrit you are.

>Well Al, you've shown you're as narrow minded as I anyway.

I am not a hypocrite - how dare you. My comment about the electric guitar was just being bloody minded in my ire - of course I don't really mean it. I regret it now, but you can hardly blame me for being pissed off. How the hell can I be more narrow minded than you when you claim to only like three bands (in the world?) right now? You're jumped up, sanctimonious and arrogant. I have made several points that you have refused to even consider (eg - how can the 'commercialisation of music' be pinned down to 1995? Are you seriously suggesting that prior to this date only 'good' records were marketed?) You have written blatant untruths (All Saints do not write their own material) and then dismissed the actual facts when you are proved wrong.

By all means be arrogant and high handed if you want to, (I'd rather you weren't but there you are) but please spare us the "I'm not arrogant and narrow minded - you are" line - it simply won't work in this case.

>Well Al, you've shown you're as narrow minded as I anyway.

I am not a hypocrite - how dare you. My comment about the electric guitar was just being bloody minded in my ire - of course I don't really mean it. I regret it now, but you can hardly blame me for being pissed off. How the hell can I be more narrow minded than you when you claim to only like three bands (in the world?) right now? You're jumped up, sanctimonious and arrogant. I have made several points that you have refused to even consider (eg - how can the 'commercialisation of music' be pinned down to 1995? Are you seriously suggesting that prior to this date only 'good' records were marketed?) You have written blatant untruths (All Saints do not write their own material) and then dismissed the actual facts when you are proved wrong.

By all means be arrogant and high handed if you want to, (I'd rather you weren't but there you are) but please spare us the "I'm not arrogant and narrow minded - you are" line - it simply won't work in this case.

I actually said, you've proved your as narrow minded as me, never said otherwise.
Commercialised crap in music has been around as I've said bloody before, has been around since the 30's. We've always had a bit of that, but the charts got totally swallowed up by commercial crap by about 1995 in america, and about 1997 over here, before then you could always see smaller non commercial bands on small record labels getting on top of the pops. And the entire charts wasn't full of fucking talentless DJ's and pre-fab boy and girl bands, who are all terrible, I don't care what you think.
As I said my arguments are very flawed, but mainly for the reason I can't be bothered to give a list of strong factual evidence. If you want to make small points of questioning, maybe I could answer each point indavidually.

I'm much more narrow-minded than either of you two, so ner.

I think all music is rubbish except for Chapterhouse and Josef K.

<LOL at Jon>

Steven, how old are you? I don't mean it in an insulting way at all and you don't have to answer I suppose...it's just that some of what you say is the sort of thing I used to say about 10 years ago (about which I am now v. embarrrrassssed).

I must admit Ewar, I was thinking exactly the same as you. I remember a friend of mine not liking the (then) latest Mission album "Children" because it had keyboards on it.

I don't think age is of concern, it has no relevence to the argument. And as proof I've spoken to similar people my age, and they like Eminem, and think he's amazing, and how people lik the guitarist in Kid Rock is much better than Hendrix, etc etc. Obviously the most profoun pile of shite I've ever heard.

You're right, I don't like keyboards that much, there's something I hate about synths, that's why I think 99% of 80's music was rubbish. But a few bands use them well I think.

>I actually said, you've proved your as narrow minded as me, never said otherwise.

Congratulations. You're still wrong. Being narrow-minded means a refusal to accept a diverse range of tastes and opinions. I know plenty of people (Jon for instance) who don't like dance music. None of them has ever deigned to tell me where I should and shouldn't listen to it.

>Commercialised crap in music has been around as I've said bloody before, has been around since the 30's. We've always had a bit of that, but the charts got totally swallowed up by commercial crap by about 1995 in america,

Why though? Why? We had boy bands and DJs in '88. And America still doesn't have much of a dance culture to speak of (if you don't include hip hop - which I don't)


>As I said my arguments are very flawed, but mainly for the reason I can't be bothered to give a list of strong factual evidence. If you want to make small points of questioning, maybe I could answer each point indavidually.

Thanks, but no thanks.

> I remember a friend of mine not liking the (then) latest Mission album "Children" because it had keyboards on it.

Pft! When there are so many superior reasons not to like it...

>> I remember a friend of mine not liking the (then) latest Mission album "Children" because it had keyboards on it.
>
>Pft! When there are so many superior reasons not to like it...
>
>

Oof!

Al,
I was taking the piss when I said "All dance music is rubbish".

Some of it is alright.

I also think Travis, Stereophonics, Oasis since 1994, and Toploader are shit. I hope dance fans don't regard those are representing all there is to guitar music.

Mind you, the stuff on that tape you gave me was cack.

Only kidding!

Oasis only came out in 1994 though, or is that some kind of crap joke? Despite what the idiotic press write Oasis use to be class, until of course Be Here Now came out, they actually had a good few quality B-sides on some of the singles for that. But they really did lose it after that. But of course the press now jump on the bandwagon of labelling them cack, and always cack. When in fact they were praising them to high heaven a few years ago, saying they were the next Beatles, as they wore their adidas Man City top and listened to their Wonderwall single.

I meant DM+ Whatever, were the only good things Oasis did.

Steven, what gives away your age is your belief that the golden age of music was a couple of years ago and that everything went downhill from there. I read the same stuff in loads of places. But you're wrong. It's just that's when you started to get into it.

I've always hated 'Wonderwall'.

I never said the golden age was a couple of years ago, the golden age was the 60's. Music has been downhill ever since.. the 80's were a real low point though, the early 90's got a little better.. but by about 96-97 it just all fell flat on its face.

Look I'm sorry if I upset anybody with my obviously offensive opinions, but that's what my opinions are, like it or lump it. I still think I'm right and you lot are wrong, heh, and I doubt I will change my mind with the case you've put forward so far, maybe I am beyond help, but from my POV it's you lot that need help.

> Radiohead have been using sampling and new electronic stuff for about 4 years, but they at least have the skill to mix it in with proper instruments.

Steven - it's not music you like, but musicianship. I couldn't give a toss how the stuff gets on tape or hard-disk in the first place, if the end-product is intoxicating, heart-rending, chilling, sublime, seductively blank, unearthly, whatever... then the means are entirely justified. 'Proper instruments' my arse. Anything which helps translate what's in your head into a form someone else can hear is a proper bloody instrument - not just the guitar (which, you reliably inform us, takes five years to learn - and, if at the end of that, you *still* can't get that tonality or texture you were after? Oh well, should've turned on the Mac after all...)

> I don't give a shit about styles, as long as it's good, and genuinely takes talent, I will listen.

It takes talent to produce something that connects with people, that transcends the moment. The sort of talent you seem to be interested in, is the physical dexterity and dedication required to master a conventional instrument. I'd rather hear someone with great *ideas* struggle to get them onto tape (using whatever means available), than someone who can play every chord reveal an utter lack of imagination.

> I don't mind listening to classical music, a lot of it is awful, there are some gems though, and it's really mellow and peaceful.

Yeah, like Xenakis, Penderecki, Mahler...

> I like some jazz, a lot of it can be incredibly boring though because of the sense that the entire band aren't following eachother usually. I like funk, and soul, blues, anything

No, Steven, not *anything*. You have a deeply-rooted idea of how music should be made - this is always going to restrict you to particular forms of expression. Fine - you could spend a lifetime listening to all the best examples of the genres you've mentioned.

I'm off to listen to Timbaland, Autechre, Thomas Brinkmann, All Saints, Hywel Davies and Laika*. You can keep your bloody guitars.





(* - well, obviously I'm not - I'm at work for goodness sake.)

Hmm, let me get this straight - all music is shit except for the stuff that each individual personally prefers?
Unusual, I don't think that this concept has ever been debated on the net before.

Hang on Steven, what about Moby? He is both a heinous DJ AND a musician.
Plus he's popular, has made it into the mainstream and is well received in cred music scenes eg. Radiohead like him.

A rant is always good, son, but rash generalisations do more to harm your argument than help it. Perhaps damingly final words such as "all" and "should" and "always" could be avoided to make your point a little less comical.
.

'Cred'? "CRED"?!? What planet are you from?

All Radiohead records should be destroyed, always.

>'Cred'? "CRED"?!? What planet are you from?
>
>All Radiohead records should be destroyed, always.

Interesting. A criticism of Radiohead that could conceivably be the title of one of their album tracks.

No, Radiohead's next album should be entitled "A Chumbley Dies"


One for all the lapsed "Doctor Who" fans out there.

>Anyway, I highly disagree with your comments about beatboxes and turn tables needing talent, I've seen DJ's in clubs and have seen friends use them, I can't stand it when people talk about beat matching as a talent, DJ's are glorified CD Changes..

You still need co-ordination to do it properly, like all musicians do.

>Dance music is for dancing, not for listening to at home or whatever, as people do now, anybody who listens to dance music needs to try analyse why.

Whereas of course Hendrix and The Beatles exist for thoughtful people such as yourself to stroke an imaginary beard, narrow your eyes and look as if you're concentrating really hard, not like all those stupid pop fans out there.

>It takes at least 5 years to actually properly play a guitar, and more than that to be really good, all the current 'guitarists' like people in Travis etc just play about 2 chords and are labelled 'gutiarists', this is very debatable.

This would suggest that you worship at the altar of Yngwei J. Malmsteen and Joe Satriani. (They are guitarists for ignoramuses like myself, what an idiot I obviously am. I used to work in a shop that used to play tiresome, smug, pseudo-Baroque nonsense like that all day.)

Also why did the press critisise Noel Gallagher because a lot of his songs were based on a G variation, because they are yes, especially his 2nd fret capoed Wonderwall stuff etc.

The press didn't let a single Gallagher song or belch go by without blethering about his genius in 1995-97 (remember Be Hear Now? All the music press awarded it full marks, the fools.). They even let pass his comment about Damon of Blur contracting AIDS without challenging one word.

But they praise Travis who entire album is basically just absolutel shite versions of wonderwall with boring vocals, they all play about 2 G chord variations and have a capo on the 2nd fret on ALL their singles. Yet the press don't critisise this at all.

Travis are a bit boring. Ah well.

>I don't care if any of the All Saints have writing credits, because I'm sure all they did was change a few of the words, none of them can play and instrument or know chords or scales etc so I doubt they have any real writing in any of the songs, not that I care I think everyhing they have done is awful.

Not the point. You're being arrogant, and dare I say it, faintly misogynistic. ("A woman?! What the fuck does she know about music?" For your information, Shaznay Lewis does indeed co-write all their songs - how do *you* know how much talent she has? Interestingly, while the other three band members were off appearing in the useless Dave Stewart gangster film Honest, she was busy writing and arranging songs for their new album. Frankly, I don't really care about All Saints, but, like it or not, writing a catchy pop song demands a technical skill of its own. (Worth remembering, McCartney couldn't read music. Don't know if he still can.)

Same with Robbie Williams and people like that, all terrible.

With you on that, but again, millions like him. Who am I to pass judgement?

I do have a very narrow view of music, but for good reason, I don't think buying tons of one hit wonder singles classifies you as tasteful.

Never said it was. I just said that it would be a crime to ignore some of those artists. The La's (I hate to remind you) only had one top 40 single, therefore this does make them (in most people's eyes) one-hit wonders.

I just think current music is so bad its unbelievable. And comments about me putting my own narrow minded taste and applying it to kids is silly, I said that kids now grow up listening to all this shit in the charts, therefore it is all they know of, they haven't got any outlets for older music that is good. Because every music outlet now is commercialised with shit, I don't really see a 10 year old walking into an old dusty record shop thumbing through records and buying them without even hearing them, they are just going to buy what they see on TV or hear on the Radio, I think thats a perfectly understandable argument.

But but but Steven, that is the fault and problem of broadcasting, not the people making the records.

>Hendrix was around for 3 years, and probably put out more recorded material than anybody else in history, I haven't really checked that out as fact, but I have such a huge amount of stuff that I can't imagine there being anybody else who had this amount of stuff put out in 3 years. He was recording almost every single day of those 3 years, played absolutely tons of live shows, and they were all imrpovised songs, he could make up completely new songs as he played. He was a genius,

He made a couple of great catchy singles, I'll give you that. Voodoo Child's my favourite. Or Hey Jim.

>...artists now make about 1 album every 2-3 years, most of them don't even write them, or actually play them at all live, just mime, even when people PAY TO COME SEE THEM AT A CONCERT!

Yeah, miming. Shocking. Mind you, you've got to hand it to that bloke out of Shalamar who used to pretend he was trap

>You're right, I don't like keyboards that much, there's something I hate about synths, that's why I think 99% of 80's music was rubbish. But a few bands use them well I think.

Erasure were great, weren't they?

>I never said the golden age was a couple of years ago, the golden age was the 60's.

You're spot on there, Steven. You can't beat the sounds of Neil Sedaka, Esther & Abi Ofarim and Herman's Hermits.

>Look I'm sorry if I upset anybody with my obviously offensive opinions, but that's what my opinions are, like it or lump it. I still think I'm right and you lot are wrong, heh, and I doubt I will change my mind with the case you've put forward so far, maybe I am beyond help, but from my POV it's you lot that need help.

Seriously though, what do you think of that Sugababes single? Can't get it out of my head.

For your information, I hate Malmsteen and Satriani, I don't think being able to play guitar incredibly fast makes you a great songwriter. But why has this All Saints girl only co-written songs all the time? I find all this co-writing business bollocks, according to the Spice Girls, they 'co-write' most of their songs.. I doubt they actually do much more than suggest a extra word at the end of the song, or say the song should last one extra second before fading out, and get co-writing credit. If this All Saints girl is good, then why are all their singles crap? And I see you label me as mysoganist.. where the hell did the reasoning for that come from? Ooh I critisised a girl.. christ.. if you read my comments I also critisise about 100 times more blokes, using crap like that against me is just a purile argument. The La's weren't even one hit wonders anyway, There She Goes only got to like number 20 I think.. after the 2nd relese of it. Yet talentless people like Sixpence None the Richer made an awful awful cover of it and got a higher chart position, this is the kind of chart crap I'm talking about. The charts have always had crap in them, but there was always at least 10%-20% of stuff that was good, now it is ALL crap.. that's my opinion, and I attribute all this to business clawing their greedy mitts into every facet of life they can, to squeeze every last drop of money/blood out. It's happened to music, it's happening to comedy.

>...artists now make about 1 album every 2-3 years, most of them don't even write them, or actually play them at all live, just mime, even when people PAY TO COME SEE THEM AT A CONCERT!

Miming, yeah. Shocking. Mind you, that bloke out of Shalamar was superb - particularly on Top Of The Pops when he pretended he was trapped in a phone box.

[email protected] ?


















Was it worth it second time? Thought not.

I wouldn't know, I haven't watched top of the pops for years, I find it incredibly embarassing visually and musically. I love the way all the girl/boy bands like to wear those stupid little head mics now, so they can do their crap dance routines that seem more important than their 'songs', when in fact they just dance about so you can't see how badly they are miming the song, these people should try doing choreographed dances *while* singing live, because frankly, it's incredibly hard. I haven't seen anybody sing live on top of the pops since like 1997, when all the proper bands died a slow death.

>But why has this All Saints girl only co-written songs all the time?

You make it sound like she's about eleven.
She's a woman.

>I find all this co-writing business bollocks, according to the Spice Girls, they 'co-write' most of their songs.. I doubt they actually do much more than suggest a extra word at the end of the song, or say the song should last one extra second before fading out, and get co-writing credit.

Hmmm...I'm more sceptical about the Spice Girls. But in a way, I'd be delighted to find out they've all got Grade 8 Marimba or something.

>If this All Saints girl is good, then why are all their singles crap?

Black Coffee's great, so is I Know Where It's At. Don't like the other stuff particularly, but I'm ready for the fact they might produce another stormer.

>And I see you label me as mysoganist.. where the hell did the reasoning for that come from? Ooh I critisised a girl.. christ.. if you read my comments I also critisise about 100 times more blokes, using crap like that against me is just a purile argument.

It did just sound to me like you found it unbelievable that she could actually write a song. I put it to you again: How can you be absolutely sure that she only had the slightest contribution to all their songs? The other three bandmembers do *not* get writing credits - does that give you a clue?

The La's weren't even one hit wonders anyway, There She Goes only got to like number 20 I think.. after the 2nd relese of it.

Well, it *was* their only real hit, I'm sorry to have to tell you. Got to number 13. Unless you count Timeless Melody (#57) or Feelin' (#43).

>Yet talentless people like Sixpence None the Richer made an awful awful cover of it and got a higher chart position, this is the kind of chart crap I'm talking about.

Only just reached the top 20, that one. Does anyone have a blue Guinness Hit Singles to confirm that? Definitely sold a lot less copies than the La's though. And it was an awful cover, so at least we agree on something.

I don't think.. OMG A WOMAN WRITING SOMETHING?!
It's simply because all they're singles have been crap, so I don't care how much contribution she's had to the singles, and I bet you it will be minor, even if she wrote one of the entire song, I still think it's crap, so why should that impress me? Lee Mavers wrote most of all the La's album when he was 16 in his bedroom using a cheap plastic guitar and banging suitcases for drums, I'd rather listen to those demos then any of the All Saints songs. And I bet he didn't go to some awful music school like the wannabe celeb All Saints did, and the mere fact that these people anwsered and advert auditioning woman singers for a completely commercial singers group frankly makes me sick, the whole lot could of easily been another 6 wannabes. Talent gets discovered, a businessman can't put together his own little group thats entire career, image and catalogue of albums is planned before they've even picked the people off the casting couch.

>I wouldn't know, I haven't watched top of the pops for years, I find it incredibly embarassing visually and musically.

I still give it a go every now and again. I think it's poor at the moment, mainly because it's a very short programme (30 minutes, sometimes 25). I don't understand why they don't put it on BBC2 early evening for 45 minutes or an hour, and have done with it. They've also reduced the charts from top 40 to top 20, and begun to play records in consecutive weeks, and even records going down the charts which, given the high incidence of new entries is a foolish idea. So extending the programme to an hour would make it miles better. But...when all's said and done, TOTP still caters to a mass market - it is on BBC1 in the mid-evening, and essentially for family viewing - and it has to feature the most popular records. Now, as long as they play a wide range of whatever's there, that seems to me a reasonable democracy. Unfortunately at the moment, they're not.



I love the way all the girl/boy bands like to wear those stupid little head mics now, so they can do their crap dance routines that seem more important than their 'songs', when in fact they just dance about so you can't see how badly they are miming the song, these people should try doing choreographed dances *while* singing live, because frankly, it's incredibly hard. I haven't seen anybody sing live on top of the pops since like 1997, when all the proper bands died a slow death.

To be honest, don't care if bands can or can't perform. Really don't. I like records - I like the idea of making something which could not be repeated onstage. It was good enough for the lovable moptops, or Brian Wilson, so it's good enough for a dance record made in someone's front room. I genuinely and passionately believe that. When I hear a record, my first thought is not, "Hmmm...they've had to drag session people in!" or "Burn that Bontempi sampler!". It tends to be, "Does this record excite me, make me rush out and buy it and hear it again the moment it's finished?". Like it or not, that's the effect a lot of dance music has on people. Including, on occasions, me.

Think we'll just have to disagree on this one.

>I don't think.. OMG A WOMAN WRITING SOMETHING?!
>It's simply because all they're singles have been crap, so I don't care how much contribution she's had to the singles, and I bet you it will be minor, even if she wrote one of the entire song, I still think it's crap, so why should that impress me?

I'm not suggesting you "be impressed". There you go again, "I bet". How do you know??? Just accept that she might be more involved in a creative process than you imagine her to be.

>Lee Mavers wrote most of all the La's album when he was 16 in his bedroom using a cheap plastic guitar and banging suitcases for drums, I'd rather listen to those demos then any of the All Saints songs.

No-one's stopping you. Least of all me.

>And I bet he didn't go to some awful music school like the wannabe celeb All Saints did, and the mere fact that these people anwsered and advert auditioning woman singers for a completely commercial singers group frankly makes me sick, the whole lot could of easily been another 6 wannabes.

The other three turned up for auditions but it was Shaznay who originally set up the group with another woman who has since left - can't remember her name, which annoys me in situations like these.

Talent gets discovered, a businessman can't put together his own little group thats entire career, image and catalogue of albums is planned before they've even picked the people off the casting couch.

The Beatles were every bit as manufactured during their recording career as All Saints were. Fact.

Time to wheel out the same tirade again...


There is nothing wrong with manufactured music if it is done properly. The Monkees, Moby Grape, Menswear, The Lemon Pipers and All Saints all started life as some bloke in a suit's idea of a good band, but went on to make some fantastic music. And then you've got The Left Banke, who cunningly took up some fool's offer to package them as the perfect 1960s teen guitar pop band, and then used their studio time to record a load of experimental baroque-rock material with string arrangements that they had written themselves and everything.

i think we've nearly exhausted this one, but I'd like to echo Justin and Mike J's comments about the importance of records over craftmanship. Steven's arguments seem to boil down to everything being crap nowadays because of the *business*man in his-suit-and-tie. Yeah, like Brian Epstein.

If you study popular music in any depth it quickly becomes apparent that it is primarily the history of records and recording. Live shows can be special, magic moments can be created in a garage or a gloomy bar, but it is singles and albums that to manage to touch the most people, and time and time again. It also becomes clear that promotion, marketing, the commercial side of things is not some terrible force trying to gobble up creativity - it is intrinsic. It operates right down the line for better or, admittedly, sometimes for worse. Sometimes the 60s can look incredible musically, and we all long for that fabled 60s youth - living through times or rock and revolution. But that is, in part, also part of the commercial packaging of pop in the years afterwards. Ask people who grew up at that time how they remember it. Look at Hendrix and Cream and The Doors chart positions in the 60s. They weren't number 1. They often weren't even number 24. I don' t hate guitars, or the music of the 60s. Hell, if it weren't for The Beatles, The Beach Boys, The Stones, The Who, The Kinks, Hendrix et al the world would be a culturally poorer place. But popular music, to remain vital, must always be just that. Popular - of the people. Any attempt to canonize parts of it, turn it into a hierarchy, does it a massive disservice. I don't think All Saints are going to change the world, but who knows. If we were living in 1962, listening to 'Please Please Me', which of us would have had the brassneck to say "these guys - they're going to change everything"? That's why pop music is so great - because the most important part of pop is the audience - how they react to music, take it to their hearts - the musicians respond, the music changes and develops and just occasionally it soars to undreamed of heights. I could never totally turn my back on 'the charts'. You just never know what you might find...

There She Goes got into the Top 10, after Thatcher resigned.

I'm sorry, but I just can't be bothered to wade through all that stuff you've all written. Could you please post a concise summary of the debate so far?

>I'm sorry, but I just can't be bothered to wade through all that stuff you've all written. Could you please post a concise summary of the debate so far?

Steven - there are only three good bands nowadays: Radiohead, Supergrass, Pearl Jam.
Al - what about (lots of other bands)
Steven - no they are all crap. DJs and dance musicians have no talent.
Justin, Mike J, TJ, Al - this is not true.
(My last comments - 'all that stuff' as you put it - were simply a passionate defence of pop music, acknowledging the importance of the recording, rather than the performance, and also facing up to the integral quality of marketing and promotion in pop music.

>Also I am not a student, and I hated stereotypical students when I was one. So there.

Isn't hating stereotypical students about the most stereotypical thing a student can do?

I apologise if somebody's already mentioned this, but this thread has 79 posts to it and I can't really be bothered reading them all. Sorry!

Yeah, but you actually knew me when I was a student, and thus are in the perfect position to ajudge my stereotypicalness...

>Yeah, but you actually knew me when I was a student, and thus are in the perfect position to ajudge my stereotypicalness...

Lots of black clothes. That's all I'm prepared to divulge at this time.

At that time, there was nothing stereotypically studenty about black clothes.

Everyone else looked like bloody Kurt and Courtney

Unfortunetly, I've never really been up on popular music, so a lot of this thread has gone over my head.

One little point though, until a couple of years ago I was a regular brass band Cornet player. I took Music at GCSE & A-Level. I was proficent to grade 6 theory, and grade 8 on my chosen instrument.

I have NEVER in my entire life came across anyone in brass bands, wind bands, school choir, or orchestras who were so natural that they could master a musical instrument in a few years. It took me nearly nine years to get to a near-professional standard. Even the best performers have to practise, have off days, make mistakes, etc; FACT.

Only a prick talks hyperbole about natural, or born musicians. They don't exist. Sorry.

>One little point though, until a couple of years ago I was a regular brass band Cornet player. I took Music at GCSE & A-Level. I was proficent to grade 6 theory, and grade 8 on my chosen instrument.
>
>I have NEVER in my entire life came across anyone in brass bands, wind bands, school choir, or orchestras who were so natural that they could master a musical instrument in a few years. It took me nearly nine years to get to a near-professional standard. Even the best performers have to practise, have off days, make mistakes, etc; FACT.

Same goes for me, George (welcome back, btw). I have O and A level Music, Grade 8 on Flute (which took me seven years to reach that standard), and I don't think I'm a particularly good player. (Not that I play much any more, but you see what I'm saying.)

Point taken, but I do think that in rock music terms, imagination is as important as ANY actual ability...

The Beatles were better on the radio.

I have never studied any musical instruments, which gives me the perfect outsider's perspective to criticise the performances of those who did. Besides, the bands I like never studied music either.

Grades for instruments are a load of toss though, arn't they - completely meaningless - i got up to grade 4 on the euphonium before i realised i'd rather just play then spend a week learning fucking scales. Hence playing the guitar, which is much more fun in the long run (if you like that sort of thing)

>Grades for instruments are a load of toss though, arn't they - completely meaningless - i got up to grade 4 on the euphonium before i realised i'd rather just play then spend a week learning fucking scales.

Fucking scales are piss-easy. Instead of doh-re-mi-fah-soh-la-ti-doh you've got uh-uh-uh-oh-oh-oh-ooh-oooh-nyuuuuurgh

JD.

My posting looks really smug, sorry. I don't think I'm very good even after all that work, is what I meant by it.