|
Post by Maximo Mark on Jan 21, 2008 18:00:04 GMT 1
Fair enough. I don't particularly like his voice, it's what puts me off them most. I reckon HTSAL may have been better with someone else...
|
|
TheThorne
Member
*Hillside, slip and slide, feel the pain, it's no surprise!*
Posts: 27,614
ONLINE
|
Post by TheThorne on Jan 22, 2008 0:27:12 GMT 1
it's typical that a supposed indie fans slags off indie bands that produce real music above all else and then wonders why manufactured pop is still ruling the way... the worst thing about 2007 musically was all the great lost music like Slow Club - Me And You. Is it?? one term I hate more than anything is 'real music'!!! and why do we have to call any band that picks up a guitar indie, they aint all indie or even want to be. Its what I would call guitar pop. so Rihanna is manufactured?? nope dont think so Sugababes are but they are great as are Girls Aloud. Who cares if they aint REAL. They take their careers very seriously and would despise that accusation. Its not about real and fake its about bad and good and even that is subjective. What saves The Hoosiers is personality,their songs are generic and retro yes and very catchy but hear or see an interview with them they are hilarious and have such a quirky image. They are the kind of band that would have been great on TOTP. If some of these bands that dont have a chance had an ounce of personality or something interesting to say they would get noticed but 99% of them dont,they just want to sell a few mp3s they dont want to be pop stars if they did,they would play the game. rant over kinda of the point maybe
|
|
|
Post by Earl Purple on Jan 22, 2008 1:06:52 GMT 1
I never called it indie, all guitar based music where the bands write their own songs got termed indie sometime in the 1990s I think. Blur and Oasis were considered indie and alternative at first until they got too successful and had to be given a new title, so they called it britpop.
Back in the early 1980s we'd have simply called it pop music, and nobody would have objected, but "pop" became a particularly dirty word in the late 1980s when it became associated with cheesy acts and Stock Aitken Waterman etc and with the backlash, no band really wanted to be labelled as pop anymore.
The thing is, "pop" originally meant "popular" which really means whatever is in the charts, no matter what it sounds like, and "indie" means independent which means not big-label / distributor so also irrelevant to what it sounds like.
It seems that indie-pop is now the term used to describe that genre of music, perhaps "independent" in that they're not "manufactured", i.e. they choose what they record (usually their own music) but "pop" in the sense that they are popular, although how do you label catchy melodies that are not on big labels and don't reach the chart, because it would seem to me it can't really be labelled "pop" either. And not all of it has guitars although that is the most popular instrument.
Indie-pop has always been a problem for hardcore indie-fans (NME readers?), and they are accused of "selling out" which is nonsense in my opinion, they make the music they make because it's what they like, not just because they think it will sell. Everyone hopes their music will sell but I don't think any of them go out and write the stuff thinking that if they do it one way it will sell and another way it won't so they do it the first way.
I have yet to find a big following for the type of music I really like most, which is generally indie-pop style but finding people who are not so narrow-minded as to only look at what is in the charts.
As for artist personality, I don't know, I can't always tell from the music, which is what I listen to. I may get some idea from a video on youtube. I may get some idea from the lyrics of the song. Not sure it really matters though if the music is great. Similarly a great personality is worth nothing if the music is sh**e.
What can I expect from Haven though on the whole? On this site they thought Call On Me was great, when it is the worst single ever to top the UK chart. And I've lost a lot of respect in Steve Winwood for even allowing them to do that to his best ever solo song. Sugababes have also done a couple of good songs but sorry, Freak Like Me wasn't one of them. It was also one of the worst ever number ones. What is so musical about taking an Adina Howard song and singing it over a Gary Numan backing track?
|
|
|
Post by Maximo Mark on Jan 22, 2008 1:28:43 GMT 1
Rilo Kiley and The Shins don't set the charts alight but I'd say they both made great pop records last year!
|
|
|
Post by Earl Purple on Jan 22, 2008 2:20:11 GMT 1
We're starting to agree, although we might disagree on which of Rilo Kiley's two singles last year was the great one.
|
|
TheThorne
Member
*Hillside, slip and slide, feel the pain, it's no surprise!*
Posts: 27,614
ONLINE
|
Post by TheThorne on Jan 22, 2008 18:07:11 GMT 1
I have yet to find a big following for the type of music I really like most, which is generally indie-pop style but finding people who are not so narrow-minded as to only look at what is in the charts. Isnt that exactly what you did until the 90s? I bet those charts were better overall than your charts now as well?? dont say music was better in the chart in the eighties coz that is a generational excuse, the music from our younger years always seems better as it has more personal attachment as you get older most people lose that to some extent. eg My two favourite songs of all time are from 1983 & 1984 doesnt mean that they would seem taht great to a 13 or 14 year old now who have their own personal connection with the chart music today and who are we do say they are wrong???
|
|
Kev
Member
Posts: 178
|
Post by Kev on Jan 22, 2008 21:53:17 GMT 1
Freak Like Me wasn't one of them. It was also one of the worst ever number ones. What is so musical about taking an Adina Howard song and singing it over a Gary Numan backing track? Freak Like Me was an amazing song and it only led on to bigger and better things
|
|
|
Post by Earl Purple on Jan 22, 2008 23:11:14 GMT 1
Yes it is true that on the whole up until 1997 even I pretty much followed what was in the chart. I did also buy albums so it wasn't just singles, but yes I relied on the charts or at least radio for music.
The music in the charts was generally better. In the 1990s the number of new entries each week increased enormously so there was still a lot of good music making the chart, even though there was also a lot more substandard stuff also charting.
However the major difference between then and now was getting hold of music outside of the chart. You could read the NME and could see these bands getting mentioned but you couldn't get to hear this stuff continuously. However I have to say that some of the later-evening DJs on Radio 1 did play alternative music of the time and I guess I could have taped the shows and listened to them several times and maybe made a compilation of the ones I really liked and maybe bought their albums so yes, I was perhaps guilty too but I do think with internet and youtube it is much easier now to get to hear the stuff than it was back then.
I also guess that back in the early 1980s I didn't care that much whether the artist wrote the song or even if they were cover versions. And I didn't care that UB40 weren't "proper" reggae either.
I also think there was just something special about the music of the late 70s and the early 80s because it was my era. I did like 60s music but I wasn't there to experience it (well I was for half of the 60s but was too young to remember it) and so I guess I could never associate the songs with what was happening at the time.
|
|