No variety in moderm pop music
James
most sophisticated, the offerings of the pop music world have become
so narrow? It seems the whole pop world has become about T&A Divas &
Pretty Boy/Girl groups.
When was the last time there was an instrumental chart in the top 100?
I think back even a few years ago - Toto, Genesis, Miami Sound
Machine, Kenny G. (alright, quit throwing things at me). Or going back
a littel farther, Chuck Mangione. When's the last time an actual band
had a hit? Hanson?
The Country world seems to be a little better in this respect, but I
understand that the Dixie Chics for example had to fight to play their
instruments on stage.
I think of all the super singers/songwriters who wouldn't even get on
the air now - Carly Simon, James Taylor, John Denver, Carole King,
etc. Jeez, has the capacity of the American youth market to enjoy
songs and variety simply disappeared into thin air?
Greg Ioannou
"James" <muzic...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4e5a357c.0303...@posting.google.com...
> Anyone have any theories as to why with recording technology at its
> most sophisticated, the offerings of the pop music world have become
> so narrow? It seems the whole pop world has become about T&A Divas &
> Pretty Boy/Girl groups.
Here's a typical current top 40:
http://www.weeklytop40.com/top40.htm
Lots of variety, although the top 3 are Avril (who I actually I quite like),
JLo (blug) and Christina (urg). Scroll down a bit further, though, and
you'll see the likes of Santana and Bon Jovi. What makes the list pretty
unlistenable for me is the stuff by Nelly, Eminem and such.
Byt you know what? That top 40 is no better or worse than one from the
middle 1970s. Most top 40 stuff has been pretty unlistenable for about 30
years. For decades now, most of the best stuff has been far, far from the
top 40.
> When was the last time there was an instrumental chart in the top 100?
> I think back even a few years ago - Toto, Genesis, Miami Sound
> Machine, Kenny G. (alright, quit throwing things at me). Or going back
> a littel farther, Chuck Mangione. When's the last time an actual band
> had a hit? Hanson?
Santana, I think, if I understand your definition of "an actual band". But
your examples above are just as dire as the stuff on the current list.
> The Country world seems to be a little better in this respect, but I
> understand that the Dixie Chics for example had to fight to play their
> instruments on stage.
>
> I think of all the super singers/songwriters who wouldn't even get on
> the air now - Carly Simon, James Taylor, John Denver, Carole King,
> etc. Jeez, has the capacity of the American youth market to enjoy
> songs and variety simply disappeared into thin air?
None of what we liked decades ago would get on the air now. What you are
saying is like someone in the late 1960s complaining that their favourite
performers from the 1930s couldn't buy a hit. Well, duh!
Greg
Mike Morgan
> the air now - Carly Simon, James Taylor, John Denver, Carole King,
> etc. Jeez, has the capacity of the American youth market to enjoy
> songs and variety simply disappeared into thin air?
I don't think its anything to do with the punters. From what I remember of
being a teenager, I spent most of my time complaining that chart music was
shite and trying to find something interesting to listen to. No change
there. What I do know is that the God-foresaken music industry thinks that
everybody loves the mindless pap it churns out, which of course is evident
in the fact that people buy it. However, it is obvious to most of us that it
is largely through lack of choice that people buy them. It's a
self-defeating cycle that begins the moment you bring money into it,
unfortunately. Mr. Industry says we all like Britney and is so convinced we
won't like anything else he won't take a gamble. We hear nothing else so
eventually, through stravation, the weak among us resort to buying it. Mr
Industry concludes that Britney really, really is the thing. We yawn.
Talented musicians get sneered at because they're too ugly and the whole
thing gets turned into a pompous fashion show which has about as much to do
with music as Jarl Sigurd.
So the solution? I hang out here and listen to people who write for
love.
PS don't do all that cross-posting, it pisses people off.
fcha
Their goal is to make the maximum of money within the minimum
of time to satisfy their stockholders.As They don't like risk
in business, these compagnies have their own TV and radio stations
to promote a consensual music adapted for a worldwide market.
Not much room for diversity and originality in such a system...
fcha
James a écrit :
Very furry husky
least over here in england it was.
I hate the T&A divas and boy/girl "bands" as much as anyone. I recently was
watching MTV when the latest hit from westlife came on, and I could easily
guess how the song would progress. But hey, its meant for the kids these days,
and they dont really notice.
Bob Alman
> Nowadays, music is a big business controlled by a few compagnies.
> Their goal is to make the maximum of money within the minimum
> of time to satisfy their stockholders.As They don't like risk
> in business, these compagnies have their own TV and radio stations
> to promote a consensual music adapted for a worldwide market.
> Not much room for diversity and originality in such a system...
> fcha
Ken should love this!
--
Bob Alman
Matthew Windwer
singers and groups are forced into a mold that the market has created.
you can't be a hit singer "these days" (i'm young so i feel weird saying
that) unless you have looks, looks, and looks
i work in a bakery with the mother of an aspiring singer. the singer
got signed maybe a year ago with a small private record label, and they
are looking to promote her to the biggies. she has a STUNNING voice and
is quite charming. recently, she was scheduled to perform demo tracks
for some notable labels (so her smaller company can sell her), but her
company had to cancel this amazing opportunity at the last minute. why?
she's too fat. nobody would ever want her.
give me a break. she is very attractive and is absolutely normal in
size. i wish i could upload a picture or something... she'll walk past
guys in the grocery store and they'll be intrigued... but she's not a
toothpick. so what? a toothpick wouldn't intrigue me.
so now this singer is depressed and is so hard on herself about her
weight... they put her on these crazy diets and hired a private trainer
and everything... and right now her success is equated with losing
weight. it's sad
what about equating success with hit songs and talent?
her mother once said to me "the music is the least important"
maybe that's whats wrong with modern pop music
-matt
--
Listen to my music: http://www.soundclick.com/besharp
Bob Roman
>When's the last time an actual band had a hit? Hanson?
Contemporary radio has problems, but this isn't one of them. There
are lots of actual bands who've had hits in the past few years.
Bob Roman
Norman Draper
agree with much of your post...
Norman Draper
"James" <muzic...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4e5a357c.0303...@posting.google.com...
Irene Jackson
--
IJ
"James" <muzic...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4e5a357c.0303...@posting.google.com...
Geir Hongro
"James" <muzic...@yahoo.com> skrev i melding
news:4e5a357c.0303...@posting.google.com...
> Anyone have any theories as to why with recording technology at its
> most sophisticated, the offerings of the pop music world have become
> so narrow? It seems the whole pop world has become about T&A Divas &
> Pretty Boy/Girl groups.
The hitlists have become pretty narrow, yes. At least the singles hitlists
have. But go a bit beyond the mainstream, and there is still a lot of
marvellous music being released - also by young acts.
> I think of all the super singers/songwriters who wouldn't even get on
> the air now - Carly Simon, James Taylor, John Denver, Carole King,
> etc. Jeez, has the capacity of the American youth market to enjoy
> songs and variety simply disappeared into thin air?
Dunno about the US market, but in the UK there has recently been a market
for accoustic-oriented music. Not for the "old guys" of the 60s and 70s
(most great songwriters will usually run dry of old songs after releasing
albums for 10-15 years), but for younger people who write some excellent
accoustic oriented songs, not unlike the singer-songwriter tradition.
Examples of these acts are Tom McRae, Badly Drawn Boy, David Gray and King
Of Convenience.
Geir Hongro
Richard Wilcox
Mike Morgan wrote <snippeys inserted)
>
>I don't think its anything to do with the punters. From what I remember of
>being a teenager, I spent most of my time complaining that chart music was
>shite and trying to find something interesting to listen to.
Glad to see I'm not the only one who isn't wearing rose-tinted glasses.
No change
>there. What I do know is that the God-foresaken music industry thinks that
>everybody loves the mindless pap it churns out, which of course is evident
>in the fact that people buy it.
Well, I just checked out Sony, and they have 537 artists beginning with the
letter "A" and 601 commencing with the letter "B" and yes, I know Bryan Adams
gets listed under both "A" and "B" - but that's one hell of a roster, and trust
me they are not all clones of top 10 chart acts. I daresay even at one major
label, everybody could find enough music to meet their taste - and that's not
even considering all the other labels with anything from 1 to a thousand
artists.
I think those that complain about "music today" should get out more......
<Sorry Mike, I wanted to post something before seeing your post but AOL doesn't
give the option to stop x-posting>
Richard
Songwriting, recording and creative & links
http://www.angelfire.com/music2/richhoncho/index.htm
A selection of RMMS at
http://www.angelfire.com/music2/richhoncho/RMMS.htm
Weasel
"Matthew Windwer" <bes...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:3E6BCBA...@optonline.net...
> true, true... sometimes listening to the radio can be very mundane. new
> singers and groups are forced into a mold that the market has created.
> you can't be a hit singer "these days" (i'm young so i feel weird saying
> that) unless you have looks, looks, and looks
> maybe that's whats wrong with modern pop music
There is no maybe about it.
"Oh, you'll love the future...you don't have to listen anymore; you just
watch the music."
-=weasel=-
WareWolf
You want diamonds, you gotta dig.
Dusty
--
This Week's Column: Farewell, Neighbor
http://dusty.booksnbytes.com/columns/2003/2003_0303.html
TracyLOZ
My hubby, much to my irritation, refuses to play anything Top 40 in the car so
we always have to listen to "easy listening" stations playing a lot of "old"
music.
I noted the other day while listening how some of those older songs seemed
so....for lack of a better word "uncrafted"...I mean really sucky lyrics and
off metre in some cases. Not that I think all NEW music is that much BETTER
crafted, but some of that old stuff is actually pretty embarrassing in some
strange way...lol!
Tracy
http://www.desertrosemusic.com/
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/8/tracylundgrenmusic.htm
Bard
> most sophisticated, the offerings of the pop music world have become
> so narrow? It seems the whole pop world has become about T&A Divas &
> Pretty Boy/Girl groups.
In my opinion, pop radio effectively died in the 70s when record executives
realized just how much crumpled paper they could sell in shiny boxes. In the
decade before disco the musical bar was set so high, it was near impossible to
beat the real artists at their own game. So I don't think it has as much to do
with recording technology or public taste as it does with maximum commercial
viability. If the record industry wanted to feed the public "good music" they'd
eat that up too. Just not as fast as what's being fed right now.
It seems many people here don't care too much for rap, but if you want a modern
example of genre pushing talent with commercial accessibility, Eminem was doing
it. Unfortunately commercial accessibility in rap music means lots of murderous
anger. I can really appreciate his music, I just can't listen to it too much.
It's sad, the narrow direction rap has taken. I think the next most recent
examples of genre bending massive commercial success were of course Nirvana and
the Chili Peppers. I love to listen to both of those, but the Chili Peppers are
starting to push it.
....
Bard
James
> Why, oh why crosspost to so many groups? It really is annoying.
To communicate with more, oh more people...
If you'll notice, the groups to which I posted are all related to the
topic at hand.
Why is it "annoying"? Would it be any less annoying to you if I posted
only to the songwriters group?? Can you not ignore messages the topic
of which is of no interest to you?
Want some cheese?
Blackjack Burns
I grew up mostly on a Canadian progressive-rock band known as Rush. They just
released another CD last year and if you took away the instruments all you would
have left is Geddy's voice (which isn't all that bad). They're still selling
out concerts and their drummer/percussionist is a well known legend in the
drummers world. I still listen to them and my 7 year old son has got to be one
of their biggest fans, he has almost every CD they ever put out. So there's one
band that will always be playing their instruments on stage, but you're right,
lately there's FAR too much emphasis on singing only and even worse, appearance.
But I think it will have to come around in time since at some point the
industry will run out of "attractive musicians" and then will have to resort to
talent again.
TracyLOZ
experience rather than the auditory experience by the skill of the musicians
and singers.
Like the old song "Video killed the radio star". I think it's got a lot to do
with it...it's certainly got a lot to do with the demise of live bands. Who
want's to go OUT to be entertained when you can sit in your nice comfy armchair
and watch concerts or video clips of your favourite band on TV.
And who the hell playing a live gig can be as visually stimulating as some of
these million dollar production videos?
I somehow think all this pretty girl, pretty boy thing has somewhat always been
a factor...People are looking for idols and it's MORE LIKELY that a young
gullible teen is going to find their idol in a rather attractive glittery
package than a more, let's say brown paper wrapped one.
I think they go WAY too far with it though these days because it does seem
extremely biased and it makes me damn mad that these talentless bimbo's and
their boy equivalents are getting all the breaks instead of REAL people with
REAL talent!
But then again I'm an old fart at 35 and naive to think that most of us,
perhaps even the teens, look deeper than skin level.
As far as the music goes, most commercial hits from yesteryear and today SEEM
so banal...so suger coated, so... pathetically simple in some cases! But heck
it's hard ain't it, to come up with one of your own ;)
I DON'T believe that all A&R people are looking for mere duplications of what's
already out there....I think sometimes we give them what we THINK they are
looking for, and because some of it( along with some lucky breaks) fits in the
box neatly enough they take it and run because it's tried and true.
But I think above all else what they are ALWAYS on the lookout for is something
that IS different from the rest and yet is not SO different that people will
reject it as being too alien to understand from a commercial perspective.
Think about it...in your writing, what IS it that sets it apart from anyone
elses?
That one thing might be just what they're looking for.
TracyLOZ
>industry will run out of "attractive musicians" and then will have to resort
>to
>talent again.
Not unless someone saboutages the gene pool :)
TracyLOZ
>eat that up too. Just not as fast as what's being fed right now.
This interests me...What is "good music". It's all subjective isn't it ?
Like an abstract painting...make of it what you wish...
Is there not a "market" for real simple, yet catchy tunes...ones where you need
not have to think too deeply about what the singer is singing about...Something
you might mindlessly hum while stuck in traffic?
And what about something "doof doofish" , with just a few catch phrases sung at
cha to remind you that it IS actually still a SONG, but that you can bump and
grind to your hearts content to...
It all has it's place, and as much as we sneer in disgust and tut tut over it's
lack of apparant originality and masterful creativeness, it's what's SELLING
ain't it!
We just aren't the ones buying it..for the most part :)
Big Bone Bailey
James wrote:
James, it really is a good and interesting question, and is of interest to all of these groups. But by long evolved
newsgroup etiquette, crossposting is frowned upon. Just one of those conventions that evolve in communities. Easier to
just go along.
Tony Weber
--
邢 唷��
Ken Cashion
Bob, I am just guessing that I might be that "Ken" :o) I own
some stock in some of the very companies being discussed. Good deals
for the long run when we keep having a youth-driven market.
As a musician, however, I think it sucks.
I know the problem.
I don't know the solution.
I know that the people going to the concerts and buying the
music will keep doing what they are doing.
My refuge is in little companies like "Take Two Records,"
active musicians and producers like Ian Whitcomb, and finding those
"little bands" like Jim Beloff, Lyle Ritz, Janet Klein, Johnny
Crawford, Estelle Reiner, etc..
Ken Cashion
Big Bone Bailey
Matthew Windwer wrote:
> true, true... sometimes listening to the radio can be very mundane. new
> singers and groups are forced into a mold that the market has created.
> you can't be a hit singer "these days" (i'm young so i feel weird saying
> that) unless you have looks, looks, and looks
>
> i work in a bakery with the mother of an aspiring singer. the singer
> got signed maybe a year ago with a small private record label, and they
> are looking to promote her to the biggies. she has a STUNNING voice and
> is quite charming. recently, she was scheduled to perform demo tracks
> for some notable labels (so her smaller company can sell her), but her
> company had to cancel this amazing opportunity at the last minute. why?
>
> she's too fat. nobody would ever want her.
>
> give me a break. she is very attractive and is absolutely normal in
> size. i wish i could upload a picture or something... she'll walk past
> guys in the grocery store and they'll be intrigued... but she's not a
> toothpick. so what? a toothpick wouldn't intrigue me.
>
> so now this singer is depressed and is so hard on herself about her
> weight... they put her on these crazy diets and hired a private trainer
> and everything... and right now her success is equated with losing
> weight. it's sad
>
> what about equating success with hit songs and talent?
>
> her mother once said to me "the music is the least important"
>
> maybe that's whats wrong with modern pop music
>
> -matt
>
Being a pop star has been about image as much or more than the music for
many decades. The times when quality of music and huge popular success
would coincide are far more the exception than the rule.
I think your friend might want to reevaluate how she is approaching music.
Does she want to be just another Brittany clone; or whatever phenonom pops
up to succeed the "teenage nymphet virgin/slut" singers. Success in that
sort of endeavor is exceedingly rare, and almost always short-lived. Or,
does she want to take a shot at having an actual career as a musician. As
an artist? She might want to look at singers and musicians ranging from
Sarah McLaughlin, Joan Osborne, Lucinda Williams, Bonnie Raitt, Sue Foley,
Nancy Griffith, Emylou Harris. These are all women who have made careers in
music ranging from country to blues to rock to whatever, by finding their
own muse and following it. Some, like Williams, waited for decades to
really find a significant audience. Some have had the odd spike of mass
popularity, abet without the mass adoration of millions for a bout 15
minutes. But all seem to have a lifetime of making music in them. And
have made some dammed fine music in the process.
For what its worth.
Steven Mon
And by crossposting it to multiple groups, it just spreads unwanted traffic.
Steven Mon
"Big Bone Bailey" <Mycro...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:3E6C0ADD...@speakeasy.net...
Ken Cashion
It is a business and it is always about money. "Art" is what
the unemployed call it. (I am mostly joking.)
But still, I remember when a performer "hit the big time,
signed, and started being promoted" and that just meant advertisement
in trade papers, a better looking poster, and some shill to make the
rounds of the radio stations.
Now, it cost a ton of money to promote someone because videos
and concerts are part of the whole package. The performer might make
it or might not...but even the expensive concerts are about drama and
theatre and not that much about music.
I know the problem and I don't think there is a solution.
Ken Cashion
fcha
James a écrit :
>
>
> Want some cheese?
Yes, please. Got some wine?
fcha
James
> Just in case you're new to Usenet...crossposting is considered bad
> "netiquette". It doesn't matter whether or not you think your post applies
> to many groups, it is inappropriate.
No I'm not and I don't agree with you. If it were so, those who
designed the system wouldn't have made it possible to do so. And
again, what possible difference could it make to you how many groups
it gets crossposted to? It takes up no more room in front of your
eyeballs. If it doesn't interest you, don't read it.
Why are you wasting so much effort on something you're not interested
in? Do you think I'm going to change to accomodate you? Start making
me dinner and doing my laundry and we'll talk.
ask...@optushome.com.au
>Anyone have any theories as to why with recording technology at its
>most sophisticated, the offerings of the pop music world have become
>so narrow? It seems the whole pop world has become about T&A Divas &
>Pretty Boy/Girl groups.
Young folks with money are the easy target for the Marketeers. Why?
Having little experience they are easily manipulated plus there are a
new crop every year. Very easy to mingle sex with music with fame to
push their buttons.
>
>When was the last time there was an instrumental chart in the top 100?
>I think back even a few years ago - Toto, Genesis, Miami Sound
>Machine, Kenny G. (alright, quit throwing things at me). Or going back
>a littel farther, Chuck Mangione. When's the last time an actual band
>had a hit? Hanson?
Talent is a variable; variability is the enemy of "quality". If music
is and industry and industries turn out predictable products then
music must be predictable.
>
>The Country world seems to be a little better in this respect, but I
>understand that the Dixie Chics for example had to fight to play their
>instruments on stage.
Every night? I'd pay to see that especially if they did it in jello.
>
>I think of all the super singers/songwriters who wouldn't even get on
>the air now - Carly Simon, James Taylor, John Denver, Carole King,
>etc. Jeez, has the capacity of the American youth market to enjoy
>songs and variety simply disappeared into thin air?
Pit confused teenagers against experienced teams of Marketers. Who
gets their way?
Adam.
Tony Done
likened her to Carole King.
Tony D
"James" <muzic...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4e5a357c.0303...@posting.google.com...
> Anyone have any theories as to why with recording technology at its
> most sophisticated, the offerings of the pop music world have become
> so narrow? It seems the whole pop world has become about T&A Divas &
> Pretty Boy/Girl groups.
>
> When was the last time there was an instrumental chart in the top 100?
> I think back even a few years ago - Toto, Genesis, Miami Sound
> Machine, Kenny G. (alright, quit throwing things at me). Or going back
> a littel farther, Chuck Mangione. When's the last time an actual band
> had a hit? Hanson?
>
> The Country world seems to be a little better in this respect, but I
> understand that the Dixie Chics for example had to fight to play their
> instruments on stage.
>
James
> newsgroup etiquette, crossposting is frowned upon.
I'll have to remind the folks that designed the system to be able to
do it and all those who use that function of this. Oddly enough, it
doesn't seem to bother my sensibilities at all when I see people do
it, nor apparently does it seem to bother the majority of non-pissy
folks who feel no compulsion to say anything about it.
> Just one of those conventions that evolve in communities. Easier to
> just go along.
What the hell kind of Big Brother-Jim Jones just-drink-the-koolaid
speak is that? "Easier to go along"? Why, no it isn't. Takes no more
effort to simply ignore self-appointed "nettiquette police".
David F. Cox
news:4e5a357c.0303...@posting.google.com...
> Anyone have any theories as to why with recording technology at its
> most sophisticated, the offerings of the pop music world have become
> so narrow? It seems the whole pop world has become about T&A Divas &
> Pretty Boy/Girl groups.
I do not like cross-posting, but this topic has some excuse, so, from my
usual rmms hideout I reply..
"pop" music is measured by what people are buying. They do not need to buy
what they already have. The best of the previous fashionable genres is
already in peoples collections. Market forces are such that we are unlikely
get live bands to equal the best of genre of those of the past, except where
modern instruments and techniques have something to offer. The modern
musician is competing with the entire worldwide musical heritage. They are
being left with smaller and smaller niche markets. "Popular", i.e.
fashionable, music will get less and less popular. Due to modern technology
there is more varieties of music being made now than ever before. Most of it
just is not getting bought in a sufficient .surge to make the charts.
As a lyricist I concentrate on what matters to me in the hope that it may
matter to someone else, and what is in the news, because that matters to
most people. I have little hope of competing with our heritage.
I am listening to, repeatedly, as I write this:
Www.chivalry.com/cantaria/sounds/raglan-road.mp3
To me that is songwriting.
David F. Cox
bill
"Tony Done" <tony...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:bBWaa.211$LT....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> Norah Jones comes as a surprising (to me) breath of fresh air. My wife
> likened her to Carole King.
I like her too, but her music is a bit on the dull side. It is interesting
that music has to be jazz to be refreshing.
johnj
David Kilpatrick
Matthew Windwer wrote:
> she's too fat. nobody would ever want her.
>
All too often, a superb singer will be fixated on doing chart material,
for which the rest of the package has to be chart format - figure, face,
the lot.
It always saddens me that sometimes these singers will try for 25 years
to make it doing covers, trying originals, copying chart styles, aiming
for record label signings, just because that's where their taste and
aspirations lie. Then maybe at the age of 40 or so, they discover a
particular musical tradition, or an ethnic connection in their
background which begins to speak to them - and realise 25 years too late
that non-standard-size, non-standard-appearance blues, dixie, gospel,
folk, opera, musical show, variety hall, historic recreation, world
fusion, cultural tradition etc singers face no such barriers.
And they also realise that any good singer who decides to do THAT stuff
at age 15 has every chance of making a lifetime's career and reputation
- but of course they want to do pop instead....
David
Richard Wilcox
> Mike Morgan wrote <snippeys inserted)
>
> >
> >I don't think its anything to do with the punters. From what I remember of
> >being a teenager, I spent most of my time complaining that chart music was
> >shite and trying to find something interesting to listen to.
>
> Glad to see I'm not the only one who isn't wearing rose-tinted glasses.
These are a number of artists who have had chart success in the UK
between 40 and 10 years ago. Amongst the list are pretty boys and
girls, a couple of cute kiddies (I thought this was supposed to be a
recent musical development), comedians and actors who struck lucky
with a song or 2, a few didn't actually sing on their own records
(obviously pre-autotune), a couple have gone on from their bands to
become A&R in a couple of record companies. The list is far from
complete, but I defy anybody to say the music was better then ;-))
Alvin Stardust
Bay City Rollers
Bow Wow Wow.
Brian & Michael
Bros
Brotherhood of Man
Cilla Black
Clive Dunn
Dave Dee Dozy Beaky Mick & Titch
Dollar
East 17
Edison Lighthouse
Esther & Abi Ofarim,
Flowerpot Men
Foster & Allen
George Baker Selection
Gidea Park
Guys and Gals
Hale & Pace
Herman’s Hermits
Indeep
J J Barrie
Jimmy Roselli
Jive Bunny
Joe Dolce Music Theatre
Kajagoogoo
Ken Dodd
Lee Marvin
Lena Zavaroni
Leo Sayer
Little Jimmy Osmond
Love Affair
Lulu
Marbles
Milli Vanilli
Napoleon XIV
Renee & Renato
Right Said Fred
Rocky Sharpe & The Replays
Rubettes
Sandie Shaw
Scott McKenzie
Shag (and anything by Jonathan King)
Telly Savalas
The Bachelors
The Herd (notwithstanding Peter Frampton went on…)
Tina Charles
Tommy James & The Shondells
Wham (notwithstanding George Michael went on…)
Whistling Jack Smith
Wigan's Ovation
Windsor Davies & Don Estelle
Note : Any omissions or inclusions are purely accidental and is the
result of a purely subjective opinion. This poster will not enter into
any discussions regarding the list on the grounds it would prove
nothing ;-))
Richard
Ken Cashion
wrote:
<some snippage>
>"pop" music is measured by what people are buying. They do not need to buy
>what they already have.
David, I agree with almost everything you wrote. Good post.
Our "pop" music is a youth-driven market and the young have
never been known for their consistency but for their faddish behavior.
>The best of the previous fashionable genres is
>already in peoples collections.
I think there are many people who like music but have no
understanding of the historical development of it and consequently,
they are ignorant of passed music, meaning the performers and writers.
They often want something that appeals to them right now...and this
means in their context. They are not interested in trying to
understand the context in which the song was written, performed, and
more importantly, heard.
>Market forces are such that we are unlikely
>get live bands to equal the best of genre of those of the past, except where
>modern instruments and techniques have something to offer. The modern
>musician is competing with the entire worldwide musical heritage.
I don't know if you meant "heritage" as the modern musicians
are familiar with the music of their heritage...I don't know if this
is correct. Modern musicians are being compared against all the
musicians with which the listener is familiar but I maintain that
their familiarity is limited in scope.
I have a narrow view on the subject and I am aware of it.
Rod Stewart has put out a CD of some of the old standards and
I am told it is good and that I would enjoy it. I looked at the songs
on the CD and decided that I already had those songs done by three or
four artists of the period in which they were written.
Since I do not care for his voice, I didn't buy it...I already
had "that music." I don't dislike his voice; I just don't like it.
Still there are people who will hear this old music for the
first time because he put out the CD. Unfortunately they will
identify the music with him and never learn where it came from or why
it was around for him to do in the first place.
This is natural. I could name many songs that people would
identify with a particular performer "for making it famous" when the
only reason the song was around for them to hear and learn was that a
few decades before, someone else had "made it famous" (first).
>They are
>being left with smaller and smaller niche markets. "Popular", i.e.
>fashionable, music will get less and less popular. Due to modern technology
>there is more varieties of music being made now than ever before. Most of it
>just is not getting bought in a sufficient .surge to make the charts.
>
>As a lyricist I concentrate on what matters to me in the hope that it may
>matter to someone else, and what is in the news, because that matters to
>most people. I have little hope of competing with our heritage.
>
>I am listening to, repeatedly, as I write this:
>
>Www.chivalry.com/cantaria/sounds/raglan-road.mp3
>
>To me that is songwriting.
>
>David F. Cox
Good post, David.
Ken Cashion
OSSONGS
>> weight... they put her on these crazy diets and hired a private trainer
>> and everything... and right now her success is equated with losing
>> weight. it's sad>
Tell her to give a listen to the TV show 'NASHVILLE STAR' final next Saturday.
There's a girl in there, no toothpick, OK, on the plump side, but she can sure
sing, and she beat out a lot of other singers, weighing less than her.
Her name is Brandi (can't remember the surname) but she is great.
Give a listen too to one of the best country voices around that I've heard,
Buddy Jewell.
He's a demo singer from Texas, who is also in the final.
He's recording a demo for me in April, unless he gets too posh for me now :-)
>>>>
>> her mother once said to me "the music is the least important"
Her mother doesn't know what she is talking about.
Dolores
Irene Jackson
<sigh>
--
IJ
"James" <muzic...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4e5a357c.03030...@posting.google.com...
Jenna
place to start... :)
> > she's too fat. nobody would ever want her.
> >
>
>
> All too often, a superb singer will be fixated on doing chart material,
> for which the rest of the package has to be chart format - figure, face,
> the lot.
The charts are a consumers' market--if they don't like what they see,
then they won't buy it. Of course, the consumer only sees what the
labels provide. However, despite that, Jill Scott, Missy Elliot, and
other ladies who do not present the physical "chart-topping ideal"
have had substantial success. It's a harder road to market, yes, but
it's more likely and profitable to build a long-term audience for
talent such as this, and not go for the teen chart-topper bit.
>
> It always saddens me that sometimes these singers will try for 25 years
> to make it doing covers, trying originals, copying chart styles, aiming
> for record label signings, just because that's where their taste and
> aspirations lie. Then maybe at the age of 40 or so, they discover a
> particular musical tradition, or an ethnic connection in their
> background which begins to speak to them - and realise 25 years too late
> that non-standard-size, non-standard-appearance blues, dixie, gospel,
> folk, opera, musical show, variety hall, historic recreation, world
> fusion, cultural tradition etc singers face no such barriers.
Yes, it is incredibly sad!
>
> And they also realise that any good singer who decides to do THAT stuff
> at age 15 has every chance of making a lifetime's career and reputation
> - but of course they want to do pop instead....
"But people *like* pop more" is the argument I hear. Never mind that
MOST of the world's music is *not* pop. Pop is what you hear about.
Shoot, if you do a latin-style, Spanish speaking song that's fun and
danceable, you're likely to hit big all over the world, and you don't
have to be the skinny type. Celia Cruz still hits and wins Grammies,
even though she's now a much older woman. What I would give for my
artists to have that opportunity!
-----Jenna, GRex
GREX - For people who like great music
Toby Rider
>
> It always saddens me that sometimes these singers will try for 25 years
> to make it doing covers, trying originals, copying chart styles, aiming
> for record label signings, just because that's where their taste and
> aspirations lie. Then maybe at the age of 40 or so, they discover a
> particular musical tradition, or an ethnic connection in their
> background which begins to speak to them - and realise 25 years too late
> that non-standard-size, non-standard-appearance blues, dixie, gospel,
> folk, opera, musical show, variety hall, historic recreation, world
> fusion, cultural tradition etc singers face no such barriers.
>
> And they also realise that any good singer who decides to do THAT stuff
> at age 15 has every chance of making a lifetime's career and reputation
> - but of course they want to do pop instead....
>
I think (or at least hope) some of this is slowly changing.. Sure there's
always going to be the bubble gum/heavily produced studio wonders. Those
type of acts go back all the way to the 50's, at least.. Lately there have been some
pretty good bands/performers with some connection to traditional & ethnic
music that have been able to reach out and connect to a much larger audience.
The Cranberries, The Rankin Family and Ashley MacIssac come to mind. Looking further back, some
of the most interesting pop acts have been influenced by styles
outside of the "pop" music at the time. The Byrds had that American folk
music & country connection.. All of those folk singers like Bert Jansch,
Joni Mitchell, etc.. obviously draw from the timeless tradition of the singing
bard :-)
Plus, there have been plenty of bands in recent musical history (let's
say the past 20 years) that are/were really good, that have received
recognition and compensation for their abilities.. The Smiths for example, sure they were
never as "big" as Debbie Gibson, Tiffany, Brittany Spears, or whoever else
is the flavor of the week on the pop charts, but the music they made holds
up very well, and I don't think that either Johnny Marr or Morrissey are
hurting for money now. Plus they influenced a whole generation of
musicians (like myself) to learn how to develop some real musical ability.
So I think all is not lost :-) I have always just ignored the crap and
focused on the good
stuff.
Toby Rider
Lynn
news:3E6BCBA...@optonline.net...
<snip>
> you can't be a hit singer "these days" (i'm young so i feel weird saying
> that) unless you have looks, looks, and looks
> she's too fat. nobody would ever want her.
> what about equating success with hit songs and talent?
>
> -matt
The music industry has always been an image driven business but never more
so than in the last 5-10 years.
I think its not only very sad but an utter disgrace to the product of music.
The business moguls are of the opinion that consumers only buy with their
eyes, not with their ears. Hence, the mainstream is devoid of new artists
who don't conform to the perfect look, and we are sadly deprived of many
very talented artists just because they don't look like the latest models.
What they don't realise is that when you are perfoming on stage, looks don't
matter to everyone. People have different tastes in music just as beauty is
in the eyes of the beholder.
I hope that girl doesn't get discouraged. She should gather her fans...the
ones who love her as she is...and tell the record company where to stuff
their diet pills! I have been in the business for 30 years and I've always
been VERY large ... but I've never been short of fans and admirers! ... and
I'm just a drummer!
Lynn.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 25/02/03
Lynn
> > But by long evolved
> > newsgroup etiquette, crossposting is frowned upon.
WHY??? Illogically petty rule, I must say.
Although I agree to a certain extent with another poster who said that it
spreads unecessary traffic. It just goes to prove that the same people read
a multitude of newgroups and don't like to see the same message in them all.
So what is better? ... To post only to the most active group and let all the
others die? .... or to post to several groups in the hope one or two
different people may see it?
Lynn.
"James" <muzic...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4e5a357c.03031...@posting.google.com...
Lynn
crossposting is petty. I'm with James on this.
Lynn.
"Irene Jackson" <i...@nospamirenejackson.com> wrote in message
news:OK2ba.436862$Yo4.16...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
porl
"Lynn" <lynn...@btclick.com> wrote in message
news:b4iodm$e76$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
> It doesn't bother me, James.
>
> > > But by long evolved
> > > newsgroup etiquette, crossposting is frowned upon.
>
> WHY??? Illogically petty rule, I must say.
It's frowned upon because it doesn't take into account the various charters
that each newsgroup has regarding spam, binaries, top -posting,
bottom -posting, off-topic posts, etc, and therefore when the replies start
digressing you get an inordinate amount of irrelvant traffic in all the
newsgroups involved and slanging matches because someone's posted something
they shouldn't.
That, and it's one of the tools of the newsgroup trolls who often pick
potentially oposing newsgroups as their target such as rec.digital.music and
rec.traditional.music (I made those up but you get the picture) and set them
against each other. This hasn't happened here yet but it's still not worth
the risk. It's why there are newsgroups and we don't all post to the same
one.
I'm surprised this guy hasn't been accused of trolling coming from a web
account as he does. I guess people know him from somewhere.
Toby Rider
>
> The music industry has always been an image driven business but never more
> so than in the last 5-10 years.
I'd go even further then that. I'd say never more so then in the past 20
years.
> I think its not only very sad but an utter disgrace to the product of music.
> The business moguls are of the opinion that consumers only buy with their
> eyes, not with their ears. Hence, the mainstream is devoid of new artists
> who don't conform to the perfect look, and we are sadly deprived of many
> very talented artists just because they don't look like the latest models.
>
> What they don't realise is that when you are perfoming on stage, looks don't
> matter to everyone. People have different tastes in music just as beauty is
> in the eyes of the beholder.
>
> I hope that girl doesn't get discouraged. She should gather her fans...the
> ones who love her as she is...and tell the record company where to stuff
> their diet pills! I have been in the business for 30 years and I've always
> been VERY large ... but I've never been short of fans and admirers! ... and
> I'm just a drummer!
I hope that she keeps making music for the pure love of it.. That's
what really matters.. There are independent record labels that
actually look for *real* talent..
porl
> What the hell kind of Big Brother-Jim Jones just-drink-the-koolaid
> speak is that? "Easier to go along"? Why, no it isn't. Takes no more
> effort to simply ignore self-appointed "nettiquette police".
Why don't you ask all those with a 56k con who now have to download a thread
that's already turning into a self-referential discussion on posting
etiquette ffs.
If you don't understand the reason why netiquette exists, ask.
Jenna
> > likened her to Carole King.
>
> I like her too, but her music is a bit on the dull side. It is interesting
> that music has to be jazz to be refreshing.
Strange, isn't it? I like Norah a lot, but I, too, find that sort of
jazz a bit dull. Refreshing from current radio fare, yes. My first
choice to run out and buy, no.
Take Prince's most recent work, for example. I find it to be boring. I
LOVE what he used to play. His jazzy stuff is not as great, or as
passionate. I'll put him up against anybody else out now, but he isn't
what I used to love about him anymore.
I love it that some music coming out now revolves around notes and not
loud 3-bar chords (although those can be great, too). However, there
simply isn't enough. Also, there is no young, prominent male whose
main instrument is keyboard/piano. We've got 3 pop ladies all ready
(Norah, Alicia Keys, and Vanessa Carlton), but no boys. AND none of
them get up to sing and dance. Wouldn't you know it that I *have* such
an artist, and I can't place him in a record company! And, yes, he's
quite attractive!
I'll likely never understand some marketing decisions, but I'm trying
to work around this one!
Bard
"TracyLOZ" <trac...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030309221213...@mb-bh.aol.com...
> >If the record industry wanted to feed the public "good music" they'd
> >eat that up too. Just not as fast as what's being fed right now.
>
> This interests me...What is "good music". It's all subjective isn't it ?
Yep, that's why I placed the quotes around "good music". It is all subjective.
While it varies, what genuine artists consider as "good music" is usually much
more consistent than what public taste considers as "good music".
> Like an abstract painting...make of it what you wish...
> Is there not a "market" for real simple, yet catchy tunes...ones where you
need
> not have to think too deeply about what the singer is singing
about...Something
> you might mindlessly hum while stuck in traffic?
> And what about something "doof doofish" , with just a few catch phrases sung
at
> cha to remind you that it IS actually still a SONG, but that you can bump and
> grind to your hearts content to...
> It all has it's place, and as much as we sneer in disgust and tut tut over
it's
> lack of apparant originality and masterful creativeness, it's what's SELLING
> ain't it!
> We just aren't the ones buying it..for the most part :)
Art becomes art when someone tries to express an idea. Sometimes the idea is
expressed with clay, sometimes with paint, and sometimes with what you're
probably most familiar with - notes. I call music a composite art form because
notes and words are crafted together with the use of time intervals. After the
advent of recording, production values became a part of the composite art form.
After the advent of selling recordings for money, many artists became less
concerned with the art (expressing ideas) and more concerned with personal gain.
So that's why I think the line between art and 'commercial product' is so blurry
with music.
IMO, just because people really like something doesn't make it art. When the hit
wizards crafted Avril's latest smash (whatever that may be) they were probably
trying to express ideas (both musically and lyrically) that young people would
really like. So one could argue it as art and I would agree. The reason why I
don't think a lot of chart topping songs are great art is because they don't
accomplish anything new. We've already managed to excite teenagers - that's
nothing new. Elvis did that pretty darn good. The art is sterile in many ways.
But they do manage to create a new sound now and then and that's commendable.
Some of my favorite artists were very concerned with selling records. But it was
their artistic accomplishments that I appreciate. Their record selling success
allowed everyone to hear to their accomplishments. I would personally like their
songs just as much if it was just them playing with their guitars into a tape
recorder. But that's just my subjective opinion.
Bard
Ken Cashion
<bes...@optonline.net> wrote:
>she's too fat. nobody would ever want her.
I liked it the way it was...I was listening to my Mama Cass LP
just yesterday. Fellows, that was a great voice -- distinct and with
wonderful modulation.
And everyone knew how fat the fat lady was who sang when it
was over...Kate Smith.
It would be interesting to consider how many performers failed
because they were ahead of their time; and how many great people we
are priviledged to listen to today, but we'd have never have had a
chance to hear if they were showing up today.
Ken Cashion, who thought Margaret Whiting a wonderful singer
long after she had liver spots.
Ken Cashion
<lynn...@btclick.com> wrote:
>"Matthew Windwer" <bes...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>news:3E6BCBA...@optonline.net...
><snip>
>> you can't be a hit singer "these days" (i'm young so i feel weird saying
>> that) unless you have looks, looks, and looks
><snip>
>> she's too fat. nobody would ever want her.
><snip>
>> what about equating success with hit songs and talent?
>> her mother once said to me "the music is the least important"
>> maybe that's whats wrong with modern pop music
>>
>> -matt
>
>The music industry has always been an image driven business but never more
>so than in the last 5-10 years.
Even farther back than that the people putting up the money
were sensitive to the public's perception of the commodity. Great
performers fell from favor for things the young folks would think
"intriguing" if it happened today.
In the older days, it was more the performer who had to sell
himself and once he had a following, those financing him did what they
could to make sure the image didn't change. They were more concerned
with protecting a reputation than creating one.
>I think its not only very sad but an utter disgrace to the product of music.
>The business moguls are of the opinion that consumers only buy with their
>eyes, not with their ears. Hence, the mainstream is devoid of new artists
>who don't conform to the perfect look, and we are sadly deprived of many
>very talented artists just because they don't look like the latest models.
>
>What they don't realise is that when you are perfoming on stage, looks don't
>matter to everyone. People have different tastes in music just as beauty is
>in the eyes of the beholder.
>
>I hope that girl doesn't get discouraged. She should gather her fans...the
>ones who love her as she is...and tell the record company where to stuff
>their diet pills! I have been in the business for 30 years and I've always
>been VERY large ... but I've never been short of fans and admirers! ... and
>I'm just a drummer!
Yep, this young lady is suffering like many others because of
their weight, and there is little we "old folks" can say that will
alter their perceptions of self. They could be on top of the world
and an unkind comment from one individual could send them into another
funk for weeks.
I remember when the professional axiom was "Publish or
perish." And I remember a guy telling me, "Hell, I published and
STILL perished."
Maybe the overweight performers could watch skinny girls fail
from lack of talent.
Ken Cashion, life is so much better without the pressure.
Ken Cashion
<lynn...@btclick.com> wrote:
>It doesn't bother me, James.
>
>> > But by long evolved
>> > newsgroup etiquette, crossposting is frowned upon.
>
>WHY??? Illogically petty rule, I must say.
>
>Although I agree to a certain extent with another poster who said that it
>spreads unecessary traffic. It just goes to prove that the same people read
>a multitude of newgroups and don't like to see the same message in them all.
>
>So what is better? ... To post only to the most active group and let all the
>others die? .... or to post to several groups in the hope one or two
>different people may see it?
I agree with you, Lynn, though I have never (deliberately)
crossposted a message.
The net is to increase communication; if crossposting
contributes to this, it would seem not only permitted but to be
encouraged.
Ken Cashion
Rick and Debbie Caudill
wrote:
Well, let's see, this is rec.music.country.western.....this post came
here, as well as to:
rec.music.misc,rec.music.rock-pop-r+b.1960s,rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic,rec.music.makers.songwriting,
The thing about cross posting is, ok this is a country western
newsgroup, the original topic was about pop music. We evidently don't
care about pop music and enjoy our country music or we wouldn't be in
this newsgroup so why would we want to read about pop music? Don't
get me wrong, I'm not trying to be argumentative about it, but that's
the whole reason there are so many newsgroups, so you can get into a
group with a subject that you enjoy talking about.
Sure it would increase communication but where would the order be
there? You would have to scroll through a ton of messages to find
something that is interesting to you. ie; I might have to scroll
through 100+ postings about Brittney Spears to find a decent post
about a Country Artist......
Deb
David F. Cox
>
> > > But by long evolved
> > > newsgroup etiquette, crossposting is frowned upon.
>
> WHY??? Illogically petty rule, I must say.
>
> Although I agree to a certain extent with another poster who said that it
> spreads unecessary traffic. It just goes to prove that the same people
read
> a multitude of newgroups and don't like to see the same message in them
all.
>
> So what is better? ... To post only to the most active group and let all
the
> others die? .... or to post to several groups in the hope one or two
> different people may see it?
>
> Lynn.
There is always the option of posting the same message in each newsgroup, so
that each newsgroup has its own individual discussion of the aspects of the
topic that concern them. When crossposted and someone hits reply group in
many cases they do not realise they are actually replying groups. Different
groups have their own ethos and ways of conducting themselves, and people
they know, and they usually like it like that.
If I want to make some point about songwriting in this context I do not want
to have to hand edit the send to list. I don't want to wade through posts on
the merits of fat vocalists compared to thin ones, or the demise of the
acoustic guitar or rock groups. It is a sensible and logical rule. If we
wanted to know the opinions of another group we would join it.
David F. Cox
Charlie Gibbs
muzic...@yahoo.com (James) writes:
>Anyone have any theories as to why with recording technology at its
>most sophisticated, the offerings of the pop music world have become
>so narrow? It seems the whole pop world has become about T&A Divas &
>Pretty Boy/Girl groups.
I can't answer this question because I don't listen to pop music
anymore - it all sounds alike.
--
/~\ cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
David F. Cox
> account as he does. I guess people know him from somewhere.
I plonked him.
David F. Cox
Ken Cashion
<dcau...@cinci.rr.com> wrote:
<big snip>
>Well, let's see, this is rec.music.country.western.....this post came
>here, as well as to:
>rec.music.misc,rec.music.rock-pop-r+b.1960s,rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic,rec.music.makers.songwriting,
>
>The thing about cross posting is, ok this is a country western
>newsgroup, the original topic was about pop music. We evidently don't
>care about pop music and enjoy our country music or we wouldn't be in
>this newsgroup so why would we want to read about pop music? Don't
>get me wrong, I'm not trying to be argumentative about it, but that's
>the whole reason there are so many newsgroups, so you can get into a
>group with a subject that you enjoy talking about.
>
>Sure it would increase communication but where would the order be
>there? You would have to scroll through a ton of messages to find
>something that is interesting to you. ie; I might have to scroll
>through 100+ postings about Brittney Spears to find a decent post
>about a Country Artist......
Deb, you have made the point very well. I was responding to a
particular posting on a particular newsgroup. I would not have posted
my comments to "your" newsgroup. I thought the original posting to
multiple groups opened the original posting to other groups and not
all the off-topic ramblings that result from the original.
I offer my apologies to your group and other groups for this
intrusion.
I would not have posted my views to your other groups
otherwise.
See, I am 68 and I am still not to old to learn.
Ken Cashion, slow sometimes, but not dim.
Ken Cashion
wrote:
>"Lynn" <lynn...@btclick.com> wrote in message
>news:b4iodm$e76$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
>> It doesn't bother me, James.
>>
>> > > But by long evolved
>> > > newsgroup etiquette, crossposting is frowned upon.
>>
>> WHY??? Illogically petty rule, I must say.
>>
>> Although I agree to a certain extent with another poster who said that it
>> spreads unecessary traffic. It just goes to prove that the same people
>read
>> a multitude of newgroups and don't like to see the same message in them
>all.
>>
>> So what is better? ... To post only to the most active group and let all
>the
>> others die? .... or to post to several groups in the hope one or two
>> different people may see it?
>>
>> Lynn.
>
>There is always the option of posting the same message in each newsgroup, so
>that each newsgroup has its own individual discussion of the aspects of the
>topic that concern them. When crossposted and someone hits reply group in
>many cases they do not realise they are actually replying groups.
That is what has just been explained to me. Sorry for my
posting to groups not at all interested in the near- and off-topic
postings.
> Different
>groups have their own ethos and ways of conducting themselves, and people
>they know, and they usually like it like that.
I understand...now.
>If I want to make some point about songwriting in this context I do not want
>to have to hand edit the send to list. I don't want to wade through posts on
>the merits of fat vocalists compared to thin ones, or the demise of the
>acoustic guitar or rock groups. It is a sensible and logical rule. If we
>wanted to know the opinions of another group we would join it.
David, I agree. I apologize.
Ken Cashion
Irene Jackson
others, I've never met such a civil bunch!
Mind you, the last time this happened in OUR newsgroup,
rec.music.makers.songwriting...someone brought in an unruly bunch from
alt.music.ledzepplin. Say no more :-)
I'll shut up now...
--
IJ
Irene Jackson
http://www.irenejackson.com
MP3 Songs
http://www.mp3.com/irenejackson
Tips
http://www.irenejackson.com/tips.html
"Ken Cashion" <kcas...@datasync.com> wrote in message
news:3e6d43b6...@news.datasync.com...
Steve Holt
> I just wanted to say that in my past experiences with crossposting by
> others, I've never met such a civil bunch!
>
> Mind you, the last time this happened in OUR newsgroup,
> rec.music.makers.songwriting...someone brought in an unruly bunch from
> alt.music.ledzepplin. Say no more :-)
>
> I'll shut up now...
Probably because they are pseudo-Zeps, born in the eighties or something. I
was a kid playing music when the first Led Zep album came out. It was a
totally new sound in rock music, and I remember bunches of us transcribing
guitar solos (even though I played piano) and checking out the groove of the
rhythm section. It was music back then. There was also this unknown
guitarist named Jimi...
Steve Holt
INNER MUSIC
Music Creation & Production
http://www.inner-music.com
JD
> Anyone have any theories as to why with recording technology at its
> most sophisticated, the offerings of the pop music world have become
> so narrow? It seems the whole pop world has become about T&A Divas &
> Pretty Boy/Girl groups.
>
> I think back even a few years ago - Toto, Genesis, Miami Sound
> Machine, Kenny G. (alright, quit throwing things at me). Or going back
> a littel farther, Chuck Mangione. When's the last time an actual band
> had a hit? Hanson?
>
> The Country world seems to be a little better in this respect, but I
> understand that the Dixie Chics for example had to fight to play their
> instruments on stage.
>
> I think of all the super singers/songwriters who wouldn't even get on
> the air now - Carly Simon, James Taylor, John Denver, Carole King,
> etc. Jeez, has the capacity of the American youth market to enjoy
> songs and variety simply disappeared into thin air?
People have been saying the same thing in one way or another for the
past 20-some years. In the early 80's people called Bands like
Journey, Speedwagon, styx etc commercial corperate crap, the later
80's was all the hair bands, the 90's rap took off and everyone put it
down. Today's music is the same as always, hits hits hits! is what the
public wants. I was watching a VH-1 special where they were talking
about all these radio tests they did in the 80's and 90's... I won't
go into the details but when it comes down to it the radio listening
public at large wanted all the hit songs on radio and less album cuts
like in the 70's. This is modern day life in music.
mcdonald
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 3:02:17 -0700, James wrote:
>> Just one of those conventions that evolve in communities. Easier to
>> just go along.
>
> What the hell kind of Big Brother-Jim Jones just-drink-the-koolaid
> speak is that? "Easier to go along"? Why, no it isn't. Takes no more
> effort to simply ignore self-appointed "nettiquette police".
Hey James, I'm really enjoying your posts. You should hang out a bit on
rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic, it's a group that could use a perspective
like yours.
Whenever people crosspost, the Crossposting Police show up in droves and
claim a violation of netiquette. The funny thing is that according to Usenet
etiquette guidelines:
1) Crossposting is perfectly acceptable Usenet etiquette, as long as it's
done appropriately.
2) Crossposting is preferable to multiposting, which is often inappropriately
suggested as an alternative.
Particular newsgroups can make up their own guidelines, but the general
Usenet protocol is to crosspost if the message is truly aappropriate to
several groups, to limit the crossposted groups to about 5, and to set a
followup group to consolidate the replies.
References follow for the doubters.
************************************************************************
from the Net Abuse FAQ
2.3) What about cross-posting?
Here's the difference between cross-posting and multi-posting: cross-posting
is where you list all the groups on the Newsgroups: line of a single post.
Multi-posting is where you have some idiotic program fire an individual copy
of the post to each group. (If you do it manually, that's even more idiotic.)
A cross-post only takes up the space of 1 post (one on every newsserver in
the world), no matter how many groups; multi-posting takes up the space of
dozens or hundreds of posts (on every newsserver in the world), which is why
it infuriates so many people.
So, cross-posting is better than multi-posting.
************************************************************************
From The Usenet FAQ
If the article is really relevant to multiple newsgroups, then "cross-post"
to the relevant newsgroups by posting the article only once with all
newsgroups named on the "Newsgroups" header line. For example:
Newsgroups: comp.fish, misc.sheep, talk.ketchup
would cause an article to be posted to comp.fish, misc.sheep, and
talk.ketchup simultaneously.
By posting a single article to all the newsgroups you wish to reach, the
news software is able to transfer a single copy. Furthermore, users with
"smart" newsreaders will see the article only once. Making separate
postings of your article for each newsgroup you wish to reach tends to
annoy readers rather than emphasize the message content as well as waste
computational resources.
************************************************************************
From the Crosspost FAQ
What is cross-posting and multiple posting?
==========================================
Cross-posting is when one article is posted to several newsgroups at the
same time. Multiple posting is posting the same article several times
in many different newsgroup.
Net etiquette insists that if the same text must appear in multiple news
groups, you *must* cross-post it to all the groups at once instead of
submitting separate articles to each group.
************************************************************************
Multiposting vs Crossposting
by David Stevenson
If you prepare an article, and send it out three times, once to each group,
then people like myself who take each group will download it three times, and
come across it three times as an Unread article. Annoying, and an unnecessary
cost [outside the USA most of us pay per second of downloading time]. That is
multi-posting.
Alternatively, you could send it out once, and in the Newsgroups line you
could put:
rec.pets.cats. misc,alt.cats, alt.animals.felines
It will now only be downloaded once [assuming reasonable software]. It will
appear in each group, and once it has been read any one group, it will be
marked as read in all of them. That is cross-posting.
************************************************************************
A FOOLISH CONSISTENCY
by Greg Morrow
Some How's and Why's on Doing Things the Usenet Way
A lot of time, the overlap is handled by crossposting the post to both
newsgroups where it's on-topic. Crossposting is efficient. Only one copy of
the article is transmitted, and newsreaders will only show the article to the
reader once, even if the reader reads both groups.
************************************************************************
From Internet Tips and Secrets
Not only is this an issue, but if you multipost then anyone who is a member
of the same newsgroups as you has to read the same message more than once.
If, however, you crosspost, then the message will usually be filtered
properly by most newsgroup clients. This means if someone reads the message
from alt.binaries.clip.art he will not have to download it again from
alt.clipart and alt.fantasy.clip.art.
************************************************************************
--
TracyLOZ
else ! Enough is enough...Who cares ! This started out to be an interesting
thread. I don't care who posts where or what or why but to throw in a debate in
the middle of this thread does absolutely nothing FOR the thread except piss
people off !
Tracy
http://www.desertrosemusic.com/
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/8/tracylundgrenmusic.htm
David F. Cox
This response is intentionally crossposted, with deepest regret.
> On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 3:02:17 -0700, James wrote:
>
> >> Just one of those conventions that evolve in communities. Easier to
> >> just go along.
> >
> > What the hell kind of Big Brother-Jim Jones just-drink-the-koolaid
> > speak is that? "Easier to go along"? Why, no it isn't. Takes no more
> > effort to simply ignore self-appointed "nettiquette police".
>
> Hey James, I'm really enjoying your posts. You should hang out a bit on
> rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic, it's a group that could use a
perspective
> like yours.
>
> Whenever people crosspost, the Crossposting Police show up in droves and
> claim a violation of netiquette. The funny thing is that according to
Usenet
> etiquette guidelines:
>
> 1) Crossposting is perfectly acceptable Usenet etiquette, as long as it's
> done appropriately.
>
> 2) Crossposting is preferable to multiposting, which is often
inappropriately
> suggested as an alternative.
>
> Particular newsgroups can make up their own guidelines, but the general
> Usenet protocol is to crosspost if the message is truly aappropriate to
> several groups, to limit the crossposted groups to about 5, and to set a
> followup group to consolidate the replies.
and they do - paragraphs of them. I am neither intimidated or contrite.
I think a cross-posted message should always be identified clearly as such
in its first line.
If you must do it the usenet way, setting a follow-up group is VITAL.
Otherwise geometric progression may set in, and bring the afflicted groups
to their knees.
I think that if you have a subject that really should be discussed on
several groups then you should either:
multi-post by hand individual posts that broach the subject in a way that
is appropriate for that group,
or invite people over to a particular newsgroup to discuss it there.
I will spare you all the analysis of my reasoning - if particularly
interested private email to
bigdji...@netscape.net (remove NOT)
Mike Morgan
> Why are you wasting so much effort on something you're not interested
> in? Do you think I'm going to change to accomodate you? Start making
> me dinner and doing my laundry and we'll talk.
I noticed you didn't respond this way to my post when I made a similar
remark about your cross-posting. Would it help if I changed my name to
Michelle? Perhaps then you'd find it easier to pump up all that adrenaline.
David F. Cox
Sorry you are off-pissed, but it must be discouraged. It is a threat to
Usenet.
David F. Cox
John Robin Devany
> Anyone have any theories as to why with recording technology at its
> most sophisticated, the offerings of the pop music world have become
> so narrow? It seems the whole pop world has become about T&A Divas &
> Pretty Boy/Girl groups.
>
> When was the last time there was an instrumental chart in the top 100?
> I think back even a few years ago - Toto, Genesis, Miami Sound
> Machine, Kenny G. (alright, quit throwing things at me). Or going back
> a littel farther, Chuck Mangione. When's the last time an actual band
> had a hit? Hanson?
>
> The Country world seems to be a little better in this respect, but I
> understand that the Dixie Chics for example had to fight to play their
> instruments on stage.
>
> I think of all the super singers/songwriters who wouldn't even get on
> the air now - Carly Simon, James Taylor, John Denver, Carole King,
> etc. Jeez, has the capacity of the American youth market to enjoy
> songs and variety simply disappeared into thin air?
What was it you ordered?
Pop = New? Far, far, far, from narrow. Have you listened to the stuff
thats available from the newsgroups you (cross) post to?
There is more varity of music available on the Internet than (I guess)
anyone could have imagined. Oh look, it "harms" the music industry...
right on, let it flow.
Pop = Pop? Who gives a rats ass, we've all squandered our pocket money.
Ł0.02 - no charge
--
John Robin Devany
http://www.devany.com
porl
"David F. Cox" <bi...@kbnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:v6sa29r...@corp.supernews.com...
Irene I think brought it up, presumably because she's been around long
enough on usenet to appreciate how detrimental it is. For reasons why,
Tracy, read the other posts.
As a side note, if everyone posted as you do with no attributions as to who
you're replying to it would be utter, utter chaos. I remember it being
remarked on before but I can't remember what your reply was. Maybe it's a
good reason, but I for one have blocked you (hence replying to David's post)
because it's too much effort to work out the context of your reply, which is
a shame.
Lynn
> There is always the option of posting the same message in each newsgroup,
so
> that each newsgroup has its own individual discussion of the aspects of
the
> topic that concern them. When crossposted and someone hits reply group in
> many cases they do not realise they are actually replying groups.
Different
> groups have their own ethos and ways of conducting themselves, and people
> they know, and they usually like it like that.
>
> If I want to make some point about songwriting in this context I do not
want
> to have to hand edit the send to list. I don't want to wade through posts
on
> the merits of fat vocalists compared to thin ones, or the demise of the
> acoustic guitar or rock groups. It is a sensible and logical rule. If we
> wanted to know the opinions of another group we would join it.
>
> David F. Cox
That is a good point Dave. I will admit I wasn't aware that all the
responses to this thread were being posted to all those groups. I have
edited the reply accordingly. It doesn't change my mind, however, that if I
wanted to start a thread that I thought was relevant to more than one group,
I would still post it to more than one group.
The fact that threads often lead into different discussions that bear no
relevance to the original topic is a bit of a problem, but something we have
to live with I guess.
Lynn.
Irene Jackson
news:b4lbpc$21fs7c$1...@ID-84137.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "David F. Cox" <bi...@kbnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:v6sa29r...@corp.supernews.com...
> > "TracyLOZ" <trac...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:20030311063210...@mb-fb.aol.com...
> > > Oh Please ! Take your darn cross posting debating posts and post them
> > somewhere
> > > else ! Enough is enough...Who cares ! This started out to be an
> > interesting
> > > thread. I don't care who posts where or what or why but to throw in a
> > debate in
> > > the middle of this thread does absolutely nothing FOR the thread
except
> > piss
> > > people off !
> > > Tracy
> > > http://www.desertrosemusic.com/
> > > http://www.soundclick.com/bands/8/tracylundgrenmusic.htm
> >
> > Sorry you are off-pissed, but it must be discouraged. It is a threat to
> > Usenet.
>
> Irene I think brought it up, presumably because she's been around long
> enough on usenet to appreciate how detrimental it is. For reasons why,
> Tracy, read the other posts.
Yes, cross-posting appears quite harmless until people get into exhaustive
flame wars and end up in all kinds of irrelevant posts. I don't see the
harm in cross-posting to two groups, but even THAT can turn into a mess,
depending on the other group. I mean, sometimes we can barely keep our
heads above the in-fighting in RMMS and we are a relatively tame bunch :-)
If the original poster was a regular, even just lurking in RMMS and the
other newsgroups he cross-posted to, it would be no skin off his nose to
read all the responses separately.
I think the 'cross-posting uprise' a few years ago came from the
overwhelming amount of spam that used to occur. Usenet has settled down
quite a bit since then, probably because they've got all of our private
email addresses by now :-(
Irene
TracyLOZ
>good reason, but I for one have blocked you (hence replying to David's post)
>because it's too much effort to work out the context of your reply,
Oh for God's sake...How utterly childish!
There was NOTHING not to be understood about my previous "pissed" off post that
couldn't be understood without copying reams of text to make my point!
David F. Cox
James, muzic...@yahoo.com who started this, posts to newsgroups on all
sorts of subjects. He quite regularly gets over 50 replies a thread, often
over 100. He posted to here to 6 groups. Do you want to see possibly
hundreds of replies from other groups, too many of which are complaining
about cross-posting?
I do not see much evidence of him contributing to the threads he starts.
Troll or trollish behaviour.
I do not like the coincidence of a virus attack, and the follow up spam
advertising anti-virus software.
Please do not consider cross-posting for genuine threads. If you must do it
say it is a crosspost, and direct all replies to one forum.
David F. Cox
TracyLOZ
>I think the 'cross-posting uprise' a few years ago came from the
>overwhelming amount of spam that used to occur.
I appreciate the explanation Irene.
Toby Rider
> On Sun, 09 Mar 2003 23:17:29 GMT, Matthew Windwer
> <bes...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>she's too fat. nobody would ever want her.
>
> I liked it the way it was...I was listening to my Mama Cass LP
> just yesterday. Fellows, that was a great voice -- distinct and with
> wonderful modulation.
Oh yes.. Mama Cass.. I remember having to listen to her over and over as
a boy, my Dad probably wore out all of their old vinyl records.. She
definately had some talent..
OSSONGS
>Please do not consider cross-posting for genuine threads. If you must do it
>say it is a crosspost, and direct all replies to one forum.
>
>David F. Cox
Good idea.
Dolores
Richard Wilcox
>I do not like the coincidence of a virus attack, and the follow up spam
>advertising anti-virus software.
>
I checked, some of the RMMSers who got the mail didn't post to this thread.
Richard
Songwriting, recording and creative & links
http://www.angelfire.com/music2/richhoncho/index.htm
A selection of RMMS at
http://www.angelfire.com/music2/richhoncho/RMMS.htm
porl
> >Maybe it's a
> >good reason, but I for one have blocked you (hence replying to David's
post)
> >because it's too much effort to work out the context of your reply,
>
> Oh for God's sake...How utterly childish!
> There was NOTHING not to be understood about my previous "pissed" off post
that
> couldn't be understood without copying reams of text to make my point!
Well, I'm sorry you feel like that. I (and others) have asked you before to
attribute your replies, without response. I'd hoped that taking the time to
listen and comment on your music might lend some weight to my opinion of
posting netiquette. Perhaps in the future you'll be more considerate and
appreciate I wasn't referring to this particular post but every post you
make.
I don't know what newsreader you have that requires any effort from you to
include and snip previous replies but you're obviously too busy anyway so
I'll leave it there, notably without the returning the offensive remarks I
hope you see, and stick you back where you're happy to be.
Good luck.
David F. Cox
news:20030311184242...@mb-ct.aol.com...
> David wrote :-
>
> >I do not like the coincidence of a virus attack, and the follow up spam
> >advertising anti-virus software.
> >
>
> I checked, some of the RMMSers who got the mail didn't post to this
thread.
>
> Richard
Not relevant. The virus email attachment was opened by somebody who had the
email addresses of a lot of rmms people in their address book. The virus
automatically posted to all of them.
It may just be a coincidence. However the email mentioned a March (fake)
update. Either this is a very smart virus that changes the date, or someone
has recently altered the email to make it current, and posted it, which
brings the source much closer to home.
David F. Cox
OSSONGS
hope you see, and stick you back where you're happy to be.>
"returning the offensive remarks
I hope you see
and stick you back
where you're happy to be."
Sounds like you have a song coming on...;-)
Dolores
porl
"OSSONGS" <oss...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030311190714...@mb-fd.aol.com...
Waaaaay ahead of you:)
PhillyGuy
find a cool radio station; so as one the plays the "Drops Of Jupiter"
album (CD) by that
wonderful San Francisco outfit "Train". They have IT. Rock music
with blues feeling, crisp and tasty instrumental support, and the
timing in the tunesmithing, and last but not least, heartfelt vocals.
The title track is an
artistic hit par excellence, and "Hopelessly" is pretty damn good too.
I would love to see this band at full power in a movie-theatre size
venue.
How about COLDPLAY, the young hotshots from England? Have you
listened to
Parachutes CD or Rush Of Blood To The Head? Don't miss listening to
"Shiver"
from Parachutes, and be prepared to be knocked over? Or the
ultra-gorgeous "Trouble" from same?
Have you heard New Jersey's Pete Yorn's debut CD from a couple of
years ago (2001)? Some fine tracks to be found within.
I like the Nelly Furtado debut "Whoa Nelly!" This is a great young
talent.
Although it's just starting to get a little brown around the edges, a
young woman named Dido from England had a great debut that quite a
winner entitled
"No Angel" and you should hear "Hear With Me" from that, among other
fine tracks. The whole thing is a superb listening experience.
Not too long ago either was Jonatha Brooke's extremely fine "Steady
Pull" and
"Linger" (not the Cranberries' song AT ALL) really grows on you
quickly. A first rate effort.
Why don't you check out the Dave Matthews Band for gosh sake?
And although it's a few years back in the mid-90's, Joan Osborne's
"Relish" CD
was exciting and compelling.
Although the post-mortems are in for a great mid-to-late 90's band Gin
Blossoms,
you can find out what all the excitement was about on Best of Gin
Blossoms.
Have you checked out Ben Folds' fine solo outing, with a great piano
rocker, a little bit of a throwback, "Not The Same" from "Rockin' The
Suburbs"?
Or the good-time hard-rockin' and ballad-offering country-rockers from
Dallas,
The Old 97's, and the very fine "Satellite Rides" CD of recent
vintage?
This is the tip of the iceberg. You do need something other than a
top 40 or sales oriented commercial station to turn you on to these
types of things.
Why don't you see if you can get webcast of KBCO or WXPN or something
during the afternoon. David Dye has a great World Cafe show playing
old and new on NPR for a couple of hours a day on many of their
outlets.
Tom from Philly
PhillyGuy
> On 9 Mar 2003 13:28:13 -0800, muzic...@yahoo.com (James) wrote:
>
> >When's the last time an actual band had a hit? Hanson?
>
> are lots of actual bands who've had hits in the past few years.
>
> Bob Roman
Re-iterating, he needs to get acquainted with groups like San
Francisco's "Train" ("Drops Of Jupiter") and people like the Dave
Matthews Band.
Hit or not hits, quality, real quality, and full-scale excitement is
available.
-Tom
(interloping as usual)
PhillyGuy
> Norah Jones comes as a surprising (to me) breath of fresh air. My wife
> likened her to Carole King.
>
Norah Jones and the Dixie Chicks are fine, but don't let the Grammies
be the only thing that selects your music for you. This fact (re: the
Grammies having more than one or two clues) is probably as true today
as it was in the 60's or 70's.
-Tom Blumenthal
Sean Holland
po...@LADIDAGUNNERGRAHAM.btinternet.com wrote on 3/11/03 4:06 PM:
No kidding. On my newsreader this post is shown as having been sent at 4:06,
while the post to which it is replying was sent at 4:07. Holy faster than
light, Batman!
---
http://www.nowhereradio.com/seanholland/singles
http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/456/sean_r_holland.html
TracyLOZ
Does this ...above....make you happier?
If I remember correctly there was ONE thread where I questioned the validity of
posting so much text in order to make your reply understood and you along with
a few others explained to me why.
Since then I have made a concerted effort to remember that out of courtesy.
Since that time not ONE person has complained about the issue...except you,
now.
James
> Well, let's see, this is rec.music.country.western.....this post came
> here, as well as to:
> rec.music.misc,rec.music.rock-pop-r+b.1960s,rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic,rec.music.makers.songwriting,
>
> The thing about cross posting is, ok this is a country western
> newsgroup, the original topic was about pop music. We evidently don't
> care about pop music and enjoy our country music or we wouldn't be in
> this newsgroup so why would we want to read about pop music? Don't
> get me wrong, I'm not trying to be argumentative about it, but that's
> the whole reason there are so many newsgroups, so you can get into a
> group with a subject that you enjoy talking about.
Hate to break the news to 'ya but in today's world, Country IS pop
music... I was addressing ALL forms of pop music. As things are, I
feel like country has the most going on among the mass consumption
venues. More solid (and varied) melodies and lyrics, and at least some
of the performers are recognized for being instrumentalists beyond
just having a guitar slung around their neck such as Allyson Krause,
The Dixie Chics. Though from what I heard the Chic's label didn't
really want them to include their instruments as part of their act and
I'm glad the Chics prevailed. I think it really adds depth to a
performer when they can show they're more than just another singing
pretty boy/girl.
Unfortunately, even still, in the modern country world, someone like
Chet Atkins or Floyd Cramer would never have become the stars they
were being strictly first class instrumentalists.
James
>
> I'll shut up now...
Do you feel the time you've wasted bitching and moaning about this
non-issue wouldn't have been better spent engaging in your craft of
songwriting or in some activity related to bettering and/or marketing
your songwriting?
James
> "Lynn" <lynn...@btclick.com> wrote in message
>
> There is always the option of posting the same message in each newsgroup, so
> that each newsgroup has its own individual discussion of the aspects of the
> topic that concern them. When crossposted and someone hits reply group in
> many cases they do not realise they are actually replying groups. Different
> groups have their own ethos and ways of conducting themselves, and people
> they know, and they usually like it like that.
>
> If I want to make some point about songwriting in this context I do not want
> to have to hand edit the send to list.
So I guess you didn't know that in your response you can delete groups
from the heading that you don't want to send the message to.
Richard Wilcox
>email addresses of a lot of rmms people in their address book. The virus
>automatically posted to all of them.
>
>It may just be a coincidence. However the email mentioned a March (fake)
>update. Either this is a very smart virus that changes the date, or someone
>has recently altered the email to make it current, and posted it, which
>brings the source much closer to home.
>
>David F. Cox
David,
It is relevant, because the virus was also sent to a number of fake addresses
- ie. richh...@aol.comedian.
David F. Cox
That is because they had fake addresses in their address list. It happens
when people respond to a fake address, and have the automatically add option
set.
Did you see it got sent to JD? :(
David F. Cox
porl
"Sean Holland" <seanh...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:BA93DC95.16392%seanh...@telus.net...
> No kidding. On my newsreader this post is shown as having been sent at
4:06,
> while the post to which it is replying was sent at 4:07. Holy faster than
> light, Batman!
No, not faster than light LOL- that's impossible at the moment.
I am however, living slightly in the future. If anyone wants to know what's
going to happen in 2 minute's time let me know.
--
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/8/sonsofpriam.htm
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/6/sonsofsisyphusmusic.htm
http://www.btinternet.com/~porlp/songs/
Boddekker
> today as it was in the 60's or 70's.
Too right... and this is illustrated by the recent Rock and Roll Hall
of Fame induction. Elvis Costello and The Police were both
inducted... once upon a time they both lost the Best New Artist Grammy
to that evergreen favorite, Taste of Honey.
(Remember "Boogie Oogie Oogie?)
b.
Daniel Humphrey
have to look further than the billboard (i think thats wot u call ur
charts).in england the alternative scene is brilliant and its a shame
that more bands like coldplay dont reach u in america.a rush of blood
to the head by coldplay is pure genious and if u look further into the
english market u'll see bands like the doves,elbow or even bands like
idlewild or ash if u like ur guitars a bit harder.the music are over
there at the moment.see them if u like a bit of indie/dance stuff.also
there are bands from u lot that are actually good! the white stripes
for example are truly brilliant.eminem is also a true talent wotever u
think of him.u just have to watch him in 8 mile to know that.just dont
always look at the charts and u'll find all sorts of cool
stuff.especially in england
Snabbu
I got mine from you but there was no attachment and it said not to open it or
something like that .
Cheers
Gary
-- --semper sume remedium casum--
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/garyyeomans.htm
http://www.mp3.com/GaryYeomans
Rick and Debbie Caudill
Well, now if you want to talk about Faith Hill, Shania Twain, LeAnn
Rimes, yep they're pop.......people such as Travis Tritt, George
Strait, Tracy Lawrence, Brooks and Dunn, Trace Adkins, need i go on?
They're all country, We discuss country in this newsgroup, not
pop...well, you do get the occasional Shania fanatic in here who
refuses to acknowledge the queen's sliding into pop, but other than
that, this is a country newsgroup.
Ya wanna know what's nice about country? You can understand it.
Steve Carras
No variety? Hmm. Avril Lavigne. Backstreet Boys. Eminem. Dixie Chicks.
Michelle Branch. Her friend Carlos Santana (the hardest working
instrumentalist in recent years IMO). Oh yeah. Enya.
I'd say there is a LOT of variety, just not as there was back in the
seventies (hopefully I see this changing a tad.) Of course biases on
the part of stations will keep various extremes from Charlotte Church
to the newest Beastie Boys off most mainstream stations, which is the
gauging stick for what is "out there". look at the CCD collection,
rather than judging from what is played on air (but even at that, I've
given examples of who gets played on stations sharing one format!)
Tammy
The Soundtrack of Our Lives - Behind the Music (amazing Swedish Rock
band; not to be missed)
Budapest - Too Blind To Hear (same vein as Coldplay, great UK band,
moody, melodic music)
Feeder - Comfort in Sound (not out in the US yet, but a great rock
album. another UK band. a bit more mainstream than the other two bands
mentioned)
All very much worth checking out.
tomfro...@yahoo.com (PhillyGuy) wrote in message news:<9aedb077.03031...@posting.google.com>...
Bob Olhsson
<bard_re...@meta-world.com> wrote:
>In my opinion, pop radio effectively died in the 70s when record executives
>realized just how much crumpled paper they could sell in shiny boxes.
Record executives are NOT who determine what gets on the air. In the
United States we have commercial broadcasting that is controlled
entirely by Madison Avenue and their checkbooks. What goes on the air
is precisely what the advertisers who are paying the bills decide will
attract the audience they want to reach.
It's time for people to stop whining about record labels and begin
working towards getting the message across to advertisers and
broadcasters that they want to hear more interesting music and will no
longer bother listening to radio unless it becomes more enjoyable than
background music.
--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery Recording Project Design and Consulting
Box 90412, Nashville TN 37209 Tracking, Mixing, Mastering, Audio for Picture
615.385.8051 FAX: 615.385.8196 Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
40 years of making people sound better than they ever imagined!
Brett A. Pasternack
> > > This fact (re: the Grammies having more than one or two clues) is probably as true
> > > today as it was in the 60's or 70's.
> >
> >
> > Too right... and this is illustrated by the recent Rock and Roll Hall
> > of Fame induction. Elvis Costello and The Police were both
> > inducted... once upon a time they both lost the Best New Artist Grammy
> > to that evergreen favorite, Taste of Honey.
> >
> > (Remember "Boogie Oogie Oogie?)
Costello did, but The Police did not. The other nominees that year were
the Cars, Chris Rea, and Toto.
(That's OK...there's an episode of the TV show Sports Night which claims
that Costello lost to the Starland Vocal Band!)
rockrupert
Best wishes
Vince Tracy