Leona Lewis

[trophyshy 7083]

but you could argue that people will spend their money on things that they like purely because that is the status quo.

You absolutely can argue that, because it's absolutely true. At the same time, though, "pop" music has been largely dead in this country for the last few years as the wave of dull guitar bands with "The" in their name has taken hold, so I have no problem with the mainstream success of a lass who can sing a bit and has some decent pop tunes, however manufactured her profile may be.

 

It's a lovely thought that we should all discover music organically and not be dictated to by radio stations, record companies etc., but it's not like things work that way in any other part of our lives, really - we buy from supermarkets, we drive cars from companies we've heard of rather than clunking around in some Bulgarian rustbucket, we follow peer pressure in a way that isn't substantially different to outside "marketing". And besides, most of the people who rant about OMG ÜBERMARKETED MUSIC would be devastated if the record industry as we know it disappeared overnight and everyone was forced to muscle in on their "I was there first" badge of discovering bands and singers as soon as they pop out of the womb, or whatever it is they do that makes them so much superior to your average, regular consumer. There's no point in being "indie" if there's no mainstream to rebel against, is there?

 

You make fair points mate, but by your own admission the "pop" in this country has been poor, and there has been a disturbing trend towards throwing the weight of the PR machine behind anyone who ticks the boxes of "Alternative". I saw that "Unsigned" thing on T4 over the weekend and there was a judge who summed it up quite well and though I paraphrase I'll try and get what he said down properly.

 

"You have the gift of reality, many bands try to be, where as you just are."

 

My point being that although many guitar bands wear the clothes and strut the swagger under the banner of"indie", few of them actually are. I'd wager many are as manufactured as the pop bands I love to hate. I afford those bands as much gravity as I would the next X-Factor winner.

 

I don't mind pop, this isn't a rant against pop, it's a rant against creating false Gods in mediocre singers who's only gift is bestowed upon them by Simon Cowel and Louis Walsh.

 

Watched a documentary on The Saints last night (arguably the first punk band to release a record with (I'm) Stranded in 1976).

Anyway the amazing thing was these guys came from Brisbane and after they pressed their single they sent it to everyone and anyone in the UK, Europe and the States resulting with NME, Melody Maker and the rest of the English music press raving about this new, great punk band and with EMI in England rushing to sign them before someone else got them.

Now you have to remember the great punk movement was all about rebelling against everything, including the music industry and yet once these guys actually travelled to England to play some shows, the press, the fans and their record company all changed their tune because they didn't buy their clothes from Malcolm McClaren's shop, they didn't spit at their audience, they didn't have piercings or mohawks, they wore average clothes, grew their hair to shoulder length as a reaction to the punk style and although they were generally obnoxious and agressive didn't piss on their equipment or the few fans they had.

And yet because they didn't fit the mould, in the eyes of the press they weren't punk after all!

 

Indie, pop, EMO, etc, it doesn't matter what the genre; once a record label becomes involved there becomes a look.

Pearl Jam was Sony's response to Nirvana, The Pet Shop Boys were SAW response to the 80s camp dance scene, James Bl©unt is some fucking A&R idiot's response to some other talentless shit, it goes round and round and round.

 

like a record baby?

 

good post btw.

[zico martin 89]

but you could argue that people will spend their money on things that they like purely because that is the status quo.

You absolutely can argue that, because it's absolutely true. At the same time, though, "pop" music has been largely dead in this country for the last few years as the wave of dull guitar bands with "The" in their name has taken hold, so I have no problem with the mainstream success of a lass who can sing a bit and has some decent pop tunes, however manufactured her profile may be.

 

It's a lovely thought that we should all discover music organically and not be dictated to by radio stations, record companies etc., but it's not like things work that way in any other part of our lives, really - we buy from supermarkets, we drive cars from companies we've heard of rather than clunking around in some Bulgarian rustbucket, we follow peer pressure in a way that isn't substantially different to outside "marketing". And besides, most of the people who rant about OMG ÜBERMARKETED MUSIC would be devastated if the record industry as we know it disappeared overnight and everyone was forced to muscle in on their "I was there first" badge of discovering bands and singers as soon as they pop out of the womb, or whatever it is they do that makes them so much superior to your average, regular consumer. There's no point in being "indie" if there's no mainstream to rebel against, is there?

 

You make fair points mate, but by your own admission the "pop" in this country has been poor, and there has been a disturbing trend towards throwing the weight of the PR machine behind anyone who ticks the boxes of "Alternative". I saw that "Unsigned" thing on T4 over the weekend and there was a judge who summed it up quite well and though I paraphrase I'll try and get what he said down properly.

 

"You have the gift of reality, many bands try to be, where as you just are."

 

My point being that although many guitar bands wear the clothes and strut the swagger under the banner of"indie", few of them actually are. I'd wager many are as manufactured as the pop bands I love to hate. I afford those bands as much gravity as I would the next X-Factor winner.

 

I don't mind pop, this isn't a rant against pop, it's a rant against creating false Gods in mediocre singers who's only gift is bestowed upon them by Simon Cowel and Louis Walsh.

 

Watched a documentary on The Saints last night (arguably the first punk band to release a record with (I'm) Stranded in 1976).

Anyway the amazing thing was these guys came from Brisbane and after they pressed their single they sent it to everyone and anyone in the UK, Europe and the States resulting with NME, Melody Maker and the rest of the English music press raving about this new, great punk band and with EMI in England rushing to sign them before someone else got them.

Now you have to remember the great punk movement was all about rebelling against everything, including the music industry and yet once these guys actually travelled to England to play some shows, the press, the fans and their record company all changed their tune because they didn't buy their clothes from Malcolm McClaren's shop, they didn't spit at their audience, they didn't have piercings or mohawks, they wore average clothes, grew their hair to shoulder length as a reaction to the punk style and although they were generally obnoxious and agressive didn't piss on their equipment or the few fans they had.

And yet because they didn't fit the mould, in the eyes of the press they weren't punk after all!

 

Indie, pop, EMO, etc, it doesn't matter what the genre; once a record label becomes involved there becomes a look.

Pearl Jam was Sony's response to Nirvana, The Pet Shop Boys were SAW response to the 80s camp dance scene, James Bl©unt is some fucking A&R idiot's response to some other talentless shit, it goes round and round and round.

 

like a record baby?

 

good post btw.

 

agree, though a little unkind to Pearl Jam imho. Unless Im being overly defensive and reading too much into the implication!

 

reading it again perhaps it is the latter