Cultural Catch Up

[Bird on a Fire]

That's true. Assuming the fans have good taste. I suppose something voted for by the fans, rather than some random on spotify or you tube.

Well, playlists on Spotify/YouTube are ranked by how many people listened to them, which is as good a metric of popularity as purchasing singles (possibly slightly more democratic, as it doesn't involve spending money).

If I'm going to check out a new-to-me old band I often start by googling a few articles about them and see if there's any consensus on where to start.

Whole albums are generally a much more honest representation of the artists' artistry, especially if their career spanned several "periods".

But chacun a son gout, I don't think there's a "wrong way" to rummage in the past.

[tom p]

That's true. Assuming the fans have good taste. I suppose something voted for by the fans, rather than some random on spotify or you tube.

Well, playlists on Spotify/YouTube are ranked by how many people listened to them, which is as good a metric of popularity as purchasing singles (possibly slightly more democratic, as it doesn't involve spending money).

If I'm going to check out a new-to-me old band I often start by googling a few articles about them and see if there's any consensus on where to start.

Whole albums are generally a much more honest representation of the artists' artistry, especially if their career spanned several "periods".

But chacun a son gout, I don't think there's a "wrong way" to rummage in the past.

Me neither. I was just responding to lpm's fondness for working her way through those '100 greatest albums' type lists & JDC's suggestion that time & critical reputation has filtered out the dross.
Personally I'm less of a top 100 kinda guy and prefer looking for obscure things which have been overlooked, ere it be oldies or new stuff

[Bird on a Fire]

That's true. Assuming the fans have good taste. I suppose something voted for by the fans, rather than some random on spotify or you tube.

Well, playlists on Spotify/YouTube are ranked by how many people listened to them, which is as good a metric of popularity as purchasing singles (possibly slightly more democratic, as it doesn't involve spending money).

If I'm going to check out a new-to-me old band I often start by googling a few articles about them and see if there's any consensus on where to start.

Whole albums are generally a much more honest representation of the artists' artistry, especially if their career spanned several "periods".

But chacun a son gout, I don't think there's a "wrong way" to rummage in the past.

Me neither. I was just responding to lpm's fondness for working her way through those '100 greatest albums' type lists & JDC's suggestion that time & critical reputation has filtered out the dross.
Personally I'm less of a top 100 kinda guy and prefer looking for obscure things which have been overlooked, ere it be oldies or new stuff

Fair dinkum. I think you've turned me onto a few good 'hidden gems' over the years too.

[Stephanie]

Everyone listens to pop music, it's... er... popular. The 3 minute pop song is one of the great art forms of our time. And loads of people love to form their own bands and play a bit of rock and roll. And everyone knows The Beatles are one of the greats, the best selling in history and creating huge innovation in their era.

You'd have thought basic human curiosity would drive people to want to listen to 12 hours of their studio albums for free, if only to hear the progression. People don't though.

Millennie Al has a good point that the original innovators will get overtaken by newcomers making better use of the techniques. But listen to 12 Beatles albums and you'll hear the first concept album, the first of loads of studio recording tricks such as the first fade in, the first electronic music, the first fusion with eastern instruments, the first psychedelic rock, the first heavy metal...

But maybe something has been lost through time. The greatest strength of pop music is it's ephemeral. Which means it links very closely to a particular month in our lives, which means it triggers nostalgia. Any bit of crap works as an oldie - for example Mambo No. 5, virulent across Europe in the summer of 1999, will make people recall that summer. Much of The Beatles work is linked to the 60s and their huge cultural impact on society, leaving a chunk of their musical power lost to those of us who weren't even born at the time.

mambo no. 5 is now a meme https://www.stereogum.com/2042152/music ... ing-board/.

[plodder]

You lot like sh.t music and worse books and there's more being produced now than historically anyway so this entire thread should be locked then confined to the bin and never read again.

The only cool old music is stuff that is so obscure it challenges what you hear now and sets it in a new context. Otherwise it's basically Pink Floyd.
Same with movies otherwise you'll start fawning over crap like the Breakfast Club because a Stuart Maconie clone has popped up and told you to like it.

It's great to explore, if that's actually what you're doing. But ticking off lists is soul destroying and you'll get everything you deserve.

[Stephanie]

anyway, I picked it depends. In terms of music, I do like finding new things to listen to, and sometimes that can be older stuff if it's not an artist or genre I'm familiar with. I mainly use Spotify or bandcamp for discovery, although I'm also in a few discords where people post youtube links, so I can find out about stuff that way. Sometimes I might then listen to all the stuff that person has done, sometimes I might have stumbled only on one good song (in which case, I might add it to my own playlists). I think there's a lot of younger people listening to older stuff though (my youngest brother got hugely into Bowie and started buying vinyl) simply because it's much easier to discover, or there's memes of stuff (everyone who got into Fleetwood Mac off the Ocean Spray tiktok).

[jdc]

That's true. Assuming the fans have good taste. I suppose something voted for by the fans, rather than some random on spotify or you tube.

Well, playlists on Spotify/YouTube are ranked by how many people listened to them, which is as good a metric of popularity as purchasing singles (possibly slightly more democratic, as it doesn't involve spending money).

If I'm going to check out a new-to-me old band I often start by googling a few articles about them and see if there's any consensus on where to start.

Whole albums are generally a much more honest representation of the artists' artistry, especially if their career spanned several "periods".

But chacun a son gout, I don't think there's a "wrong way" to rummage in the past.

Singles collections work for someone like the Buzzcocks partly because they didn't keep going from one style to another as some artists do. Also because they made great singles. Singles Going Steady is a different beast to something like Bowie's Greatest Hits.

[jdc]

You lot like sh.t music and worse books and there's more being produced now than historically anyway

Money where your mouth is time, plodder. Play me the best three tracks you've heard this year.

It's great to explore, if that's actually what you're doing. But ticking off lists is soul destroying and you'll get everything you deserve.

That is what I'm doing. I actually cheat and skip the albums I don't like the look of, but don't tell lpm.

[plodder]

Money where your mouth is time, plodder. Play me the best three tracks you've heard this year.

To be fair, it was probably "this town aint big enough for both of us" by Sparks which I had this massive urge to hear again and which was just astonishingly good and led me down an enormous Sparks rabbit hole.

A track which of course probably features on "top 100 wackiest tunes of the 80's" or "top 100 wedding classics" or "top 100 tunes you won't believe until you've heard them" or "top 100 f.ck off and die with your gormless lists for lazy morons"

[nezumi]

Everybody's looking in the past for a different thing.

I don't touch music made after about 2005 because I have aged and music has objectively got sh.t I look for interesting rhythms, unusual keys or key changes and genuine skill, talent and often an unusual hook. I also look particularly for songs I can sing along with or learn to sing myself. I've inherited a vast taste in music from everyone I've been around for any length of time so my taste spans from the 1940s to 2005 as I said. I like a few classical bits and pieces but find most of it irritating. Sorry, not sorry. I especially despise opera, musicals and anything romantic or sad. I find that whichever artist you delve into from whatever time period there is great stuff and there is dross and the popular filter of decades does not necessarily filter out dross and keep great stuff. Sometimes recognised artists have hidden gems or somehow awful, awful songs are still on compilations 40 years later. This is the only explanation I can offer for Phil Collins' "version" of that Supremes song. Sometimes you find a band or an artist from the 1950's, forgotten by all but your great aunt and it's nowt but a work of genius. Time and people are a crap judge.

With TV for me, I'll happily sit and watch shows with subtitles because I'm a quick enough reader and besides, I have enough of a few foreign language to rest my eyes sometimes However, I just can't deal with black and white. Only exception: Marx Brothers movies. I adore them.

Much of The Beatles work is linked to the 60s and their huge cultural impact on society, leaving a chunk of their musical power lost to those of us who weren't even born at the time.

I can't agree with that at all. I was brought up with total immersion in music from the 50s-70s and my brother and I both absorbed a whole chunk of musical and cultural history from my Dad. So I don't think it's necessarily a function of "having been there" but a function of cultural heritage, it's just sad that so many miss that through lacking that priviledged upbringing.

[jaap]

Money where your mouth is time, plodder. Play me the best three tracks you've heard this year.

To be fair, it was probably "this town aint big enough for both of us" by Sparks which I had this massive urge to hear again and which was just astonishingly good and led me down an enormous Sparks rabbit hole.

I'm looking forward to The Sparks Brothers, the documentary by Edgar Wright that should be released this summer.

[jdc]

Money where your mouth is time, plodder. Play me the best three tracks you've heard this year.

To be fair, it was probably "this town aint big enough for both of us" by Sparks which I had this massive urge to hear again and which was just astonishingly good and led me down an enormous Sparks rabbit hole.

A track which of course probably features on "top 100 wackiest tunes of the 80's" or "top 100 wedding classics" or "top 100 tunes you won't believe until you've heard them" or "top 100 f.ck off and die with your gormless lists for lazy morons"

I did actually have a go at listening to some 2021 music after I posted that but I didn't have much luck. I'd have been better off listening to Sparks.

So far my top 3 for this year is a top 2. And one of those is from 2020. Which is why I keep trying to convince other people to do the hard work for me.

[jdc]

That's true. Assuming the fans have good taste. I suppose something voted for by the fans, rather than some random on spotify or you tube.

Well, playlists on Spotify/YouTube are ranked by how many people listened to them, which is as good a metric of popularity as purchasing singles (possibly slightly more democratic, as it doesn't involve spending money).

If I'm going to check out a new-to-me old band I often start by googling a few articles about them and see if there's any consensus on where to start.

Whole albums are generally a much more honest representation of the artists' artistry, especially if their career spanned several "periods".

But chacun a son gout, I don't think there's a "wrong way" to rummage in the past.

Me neither. I was just responding to lpm's fondness for working her way through those '100 greatest albums' type lists & JDC's suggestion that time & critical reputation has filtered out the dross.
Personally I'm less of a top 100 kinda guy and prefer looking for obscure things which have been overlooked, ere it be oldies or new stuff

There's nothing wrong with increasing yer breadth, I think lpm is just wondering whether people are as interested in increasing their depth. I think everyone going on about '100 greatest' lists is missing the point here.

[dyqik]

Money where your mouth is time, plodder. Play me the best three tracks you've heard this year.

To be fair, it was probably "this town aint big enough for both of us" by Sparks which I had this massive urge to hear again and which was just astonishingly good and led me down an enormous Sparks rabbit hole.

A track which of course probably features on "top 100 wackiest tunes of the 80's" or "top 100 wedding classics" or "top 100 tunes you won't believe until you've heard them" or "top 100 f.ck off and die with your gormless lists for lazy morons"

That track just sounds like a band trying to make the first one of those lists, or die trying.

[basementer]

Money where your mouth is time, plodder. Play me the best three tracks you've heard this year.

To be fair, it was probably "this town aint big enough for both of us" by Sparks which I had this massive urge to hear again and which was just astonishingly good and led me down an enormous Sparks rabbit hole.

A track which of course probably features on "top 100 wackiest tunes of the 80's" or "top 100 wedding classics" or "top 100 tunes you won't believe until you've heard them" or "top 100 f.ck off and die with your gormless lists for lazy morons"

That track just sounds like a band trying to make the first one of those lists, or die trying.

True, and prescient, as it's from 1974.

[tom p]

Money where your mouth is time, plodder. Play me the best three tracks you've heard this year.

To be fair, it was probably "this town aint big enough for both of us" by Sparks which I had this massive urge to hear again and which was just astonishingly good and led me down an enormous Sparks rabbit hole.

I'm looking forward to The Sparks Brothers, the documentary by Edgar Wright that should be released this summer.

Oooh, I'd like to see that!

[plodder]

Money where your mouth is time, plodder. Play me the best three tracks you've heard this year.

To be fair, it was probably "this town aint big enough for both of us" by Sparks which I had this massive urge to hear again and which was just astonishingly good and led me down an enormous Sparks rabbit hole.

A track which of course probably features on "top 100 wackiest tunes of the 80's" or "top 100 wedding classics" or "top 100 tunes you won't believe until you've heard them" or "top 100 f.ck off and die with your gormless lists for lazy morons"

That track just sounds like a band trying to make the first one of those lists, or die trying.

what other motivation could there possibly be for being in a band?

[Rich Scopie]

Who wouldn't want to listen to all 213 songs,

Ever heard Rocky Racoon?