Julian Lawton wrote:
> >I was using the
> > charts to make my point at the vapid state of rock and roll and the
> > music industry in general.
>
> >Though I've gotta say that from a purely musical perspective
> > and my own personal opinion, most obscure music is obscure for good
> > reason.
> > A lot of it is utter rubbish. Most of them couldn't write a
> > decent song to save their lives.
> Bollocks. OK, it's true of a lot of some cult rock faves, but I've got a
>
> box full of 45s that never hit the charts. Just by the sheer number of
> singles stuck out in the 60s, even if all the good ones had hit the Top
> 40, there would still have been stuff that couldn't make it.
>
If you could forward me the names of some them I'd appreciate it! My
exposure to the obscure has obviously been minimal compared with you
guys. Would appreciate a list of your top five?...
> > Yes, any music that you haven't heard could be called NEW music.
> > >However
> > if you limit what you listen to to 60's stuff (not that I'm saying >YOU
> > do), how can we expect good music to be produced again.
> Or notice it when it IS?
>
> >Wouldn't it be nice if >you
> >turned on MTV or the radio and actually saw/heard something of >value?
> Not really - I think MTV, along with music on adverts, music as a
> background to extreme sports shows, movie soundtracks that are
> compilations of priority promotions - all these have done nothing but
> devalue music as something people LISTEN to. MTV = bands making a video
> that makes an impact rather than a song.
Well at least in States, that's because it's the video that sells the
song. And if the song don't sell, the record company doesn't make its
money back, then the band/artist gets dropped. It absolutely devalues
the music but in today's record industry, it's a necessary evil.
Radio went the same way years
> before (DJs castrated with playlists, the priorities set by the
> wheedling threats/promises of radio pluggers and the needs of the
> advertisers). Was it a coincidence that the mod era of the 60s was (in
> the UK) the era of pirate radio, rather than commercial radio and Radio
> One? Or that most of the companies making records back then only made
> records.
Very good point! The companies also DEVELOPED artists over a period of
time back then as well. Nowadays, if your first record doesn't sell,
you're off packing.
>
> > Something that was of the same artistic merit such as that which >was
> > produced in the 60's?
> But there is. Lots of it. It just doesn't have the same cultural affect
> it did then, and there's so much more crap stuff being heavily pushed -
> lowest common denominator shite flogged to the largest audience. And
> every time that's challenged - every time something rises up from a
> street level enough to start making money, or worse still, eat into the
> sales of the big companies, they buy it out (I mean almost all those
> obscure 60s labels sold their catalogs on to the big companies).
>
True.
> >Wouldn't it be nice if the two bands you
> > mentioned, Embrooks and Conquerors were able to force the general
> > >public
> > to raise the bar of what is considered good and worthy? The music
> > industry puts out crap because we let them.
> Well you're the one working in it; I'm the one spending my hard earned
> on stuff they're not pushing.
>
I do as well if I can find any. Any noteworthies you'd like to pass
along?
> > The industry doesn't >sign
> > new bands of any worth because we, the buying public, don't seem to
> > care.
> Most of the people I work with, who aren't 'involved' with anything like
>
> the mod scene have fairly decent taste in music - you're obvious big
> stuff - Beatles, Clash, Nirvana, Motown chartbusters - they just don't
> put effort in (like us obsessives) into searching out stuff - things
> have to get pretty big before they cross their radar. In the 60s that
> was a lot easier to achieve (at least for the white British copyists).
>
> As for whether they were playing contemporary music back then - just how
>
> old was the blues in the 60s? And what about folk-rock (about the same
> time that funk was being invented)?
Oh, well of course they took from their inspiration from the original
blues and folk artists but their interpretation, presentation,
arrangements, and delivery were certainly a far cry from Robert Johnson
and Woodie Guthry. I'm not saying that everything should be completely
original without being able to trace its lineage. Drawing inpiration
from what came before is inescapable. I like the groups who are able to
put a new spin on it.
-chris
___________________________________________________________
T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
