skankdelvar

[quote name='discreet' timestamp='1340458101' post='1704711'] Hee hee, I knew you'd have something to say about that! [/quote] Have I become so predictable? Though I'd agree that [i]unbridled[/i] capitalism is the enemy of creativity and originality. Balance is everything, y'see, and at the moment the Music Biz is unbalanced. That and those annoying bastards with their phone cameras.

[quote name='discreet' timestamp='1340456897' post='1704689'] Capitalism is the enemy of originality and creativity. [/quote] Bollocks is it, particularly if we consider the Ziggy gig. See that name on the creds, Tony DeFries? One of the biggest sharks out there (allegedly) and you can be sure he was counting the gig cash backstage even as Mr Bowie was strutting his thighs to the adoring throng. Without Mr Defries' services as manager, Bowie would have been nothing and [i]you'd[/i] be telling us about this busker you saw once, dog on a string, fantastic songs and what a performer. Dave someone? Anti-capitalism is an evergreen nostrum among the young, but I always counsel them to try running their rig off two copper pins shoved into a potato before they fully embrace the delusion that being potless is a good thing. [quote name='steve-soar' timestamp='1340456587' post='1704681'] these days the audience is more self obsessed than the pefrormers [/quote] That's more like it. I said exactly this to herself while watching the Ziggy gig last night and she agreed wholeheartedly: "What are you going on about? I'm trying to read my book" she concurred. [color=#ffffff].[/color]

[quote name='silddx' timestamp='1340448165' post='1704533'] Why don't you buy the mag?[/quote] Presumably for the obvious reason. The woman sitting at the check-out sees the words 'Bass Guitar' and looks up at you with a mixture of contempt and pity. I mean, be realistic, ffs. [color=#ffffff].[/color]

Oh, bogus claims. I saw 'Marketing Ploys' and immediately thought of stuff like this: Me, I'm a total sucker for it.

All very lovely and watching the Ziggy concert movie got me to thinking. * Blowing bad harp while sporting a giant kimono never goes out of fashion * How far ahead of his time Bowie's stage image and moves were. And such was his 'camp' that he made dear old Freddie look like Dave Courtney * Dreadful concert sound compared to the BBC gig. And maybe I won't be buying a Gibson EB, after all. * Ziggy audience in transports of ecstasy. Waves of engagement to and from the stage. When and why did 'Rock' lose the capacity to generate such intensity?

[s][/s] [size=3]Bowie's first attempt at 'Facepalm' meme, subsequently dropped[/size] [size=3][size=4]Yes, Indeedy. I'll be there. [/size][/size] [size=3][size=4]Mick Ronson in culottes, Trevor Bolder's unfeasibly large side-burns, Woody Woodmansey's U-Boat. Let joy be unconfined![/size][/size] [size=3][size=4]"Ziggy plaaaaaayed - git-tarr-arrrrrr."[/size][/size]

[quote name='paul torch' timestamp='1340358109' post='1703199'] the Verve "Bittersweet Symphony" where I believe someone forgot to clear the Stones sample and they found themselves in a bit of bother[/quote] That was good, that, when the toad-faced junkie, poseur and professional miserabilist Richard Wossname came unstuck. One of my happiest dreams was the one where I spent an afternoon stood over him, kicking him in the bollocks.

[quote name='cheddatom' timestamp='1340274299' post='1701992'] These services which predict what you'll enjoy are great[/quote] Remember when I was arsing on about music radio earlier? And that it was dying? This will be one of the reasons why. I mean, who needs a programme director trying to predict what you're going to like when your existing tastes can drive a personalised playlist? If you've got a mobile device or an internet connection, you don't need a radio anymore, particularly if the choice is: * Free to listen but not keep. No control over streamed music sequence. Advertisers pay the costs. * Periodic subscription - listen all you want to anything you want, pay once a year * Pay once, keep forever on any device It's only a small step beyond the historic arrangement, except it puts prattling DJ's out of a job.

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1340214265' post='1701243'] Perhaps it doesn't matter if the music business dies and no more music is ever produced again. Give things another decade, two at the most, and there'll be more video, audio and books online and freely available than anyone could actually watch/listen/read in their entire lifetime. [/quote] Perhaps the most dispiriting thing for me is that there are not enough mealtimes left in my life to try every recipe from the (not that many) cookbooks on my kitchen shelf. There's another happy thought, eh? [color=#ffffff] [/color] [color=#ffffff].[/color]

[quote name='Twigman' timestamp='1340214015' post='1701235'] So did we ever get airtime?[/quote] No - it was a country music station Heeeeeee-haww!!

[quote name='Twigman' timestamp='1340213490' post='1701224'] i must admit I've enjoyed it more than any other thread on BC ever[/quote] Splendid! You're a good egg, Twigman. And if I'm to be entirely honest, I well remember your band from the first time around

[quote name='Ben Jamin' timestamp='1340212791' post='1701211'] Sincerest apologies to all.[/quote] Not required in the least. Good thread once we got past the whole moral thing.

While we're at it, congratulations to the OP Mr Ben Jamin - his first sixteen-page thread, I do believe

[quote name='silddx' timestamp='1340210211' post='1701155'] cute kittens balancing plates[/quote] Good example that. Not easy at all. Took me hours and about a gallon of superglue.

My chum bought himself a 2011 Strat pre-Xmas - £1029. Went back a week or two ago and saw an identical example for about £200 less. Very sad little face he had on him.

[quote name='KevB' timestamp='1340103775' post='1699031'] Never got the whole 'fingers only' argument [/quote] Fnarr.

[quote name='Twigman' timestamp='1340208695' post='1701109'] really? File sharing is free. It kept my band 'alive' for years. Can't get better vaslue for money than that.[/quote] Look, in this particular debate your band is outstanding in a field of one. It came back from the dead entirely by chance. Which is nice and lovely and God knows I'll probably go check it out and undermine my entire proposition. But if you were trying to make it now, from scratch, you'd be lying down in a darkened room, dabbing your temples with eau de cologne. And if it's so [i]easy[/i] to do the whole band internet marketing thing, why don't guitards or frontmen take it on? Why is it always the bass player? Eh? Eh?

[quote name='cheddatom' timestamp='1340207457' post='1701081'] crushed under the heavy desire to get the f*** home and sink a beer.[/quote] [/thread]

[quote name='cheddatom' timestamp='1340206146' post='1701053'] And you would admit that a great number of sh*t bands have been signed up and pushed to radios, right? so you're saying that record labels filtered out the sh*te, but you also seem to agree that the record companies ensured the sh*te got played. [/quote] Yes, if by 'sh*t' you mean 'bands you and I don't like but ordinary people probably will'. Look, it's not about being good or talented, It's about being saleable. Doesn't matter if the band's any good or not. If you want to make some cash, better some clothes-horses and a good backroom writer than some worthy plug-uglies with a meaningful, musicianly dirge In the old days, the labels had a more limited pool to draw from and they spent more time developing them. Hence the quality was better, even if it was sh*t. It was good sh*t. Then they muscled their good sh*t into the public eye. Don't knock it. If the swashbucklers of the 60's hadn't bullied, bribed and cajoled their acts onto the airwaves and news pages we'd still be listening to Doris f***ing Day. Que Sera, Sera. Godawful crap. Sold a bundle though. [quote name='Dave Vader' timestamp='1340206531' post='1701064'] I however fully accept that it has only made it MUCH better for those of us who realise we are a niche interest and will only ever reach 3 people that like us. [/quote] See, Dave gets it. Smart chap.

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1340205306' post='1701022'] Where did you get your sh*t-O-Meter to make such a definitive statement?[/quote] What? That 'things are definitely more sh*t than they were'? It's the Basschatters' motto - I thought everyone knew that

[quote name='cheddatom' timestamp='1340204264' post='1700993'] when I was at school we used to complain about how the radio stations always played the "commercial crap" and how little merit there was to the acts that were "broken" by the music industry. Rightly so! There is some sh*te on the radio and always has been. Getting more acts out there is only going to open up the possibility of there being less sh*te on the radio. Getting less acts out there will reduce this possibility. Isn't it simple maths? [/quote] Now you're on my turf. In all my years in mainstream radio (he said, to widespread yawns) the thing that mattered was record company support, interview availability, TV appearances and marketing schedules. And a bit of charlie on occasions. Plenty of great music [i]didn't[/i] get played, not because programmers are tasteless (in fact most I knew were passionate about the subject) but because it was the [i]commercial [/i]side that mattered. Why d'ya think Peel went out at nights rather than breakfast? Low demand, low support, niche interest. Even when I worked on a specialist music station and had a commercially neutral playlist meet, we'd listen to the first 30 secs and / or the hook. That's all. Anything that wasn't signed didn't get into the meet because 99% of unsigned is sh*t so why waste valuable time. Don't expect this to change. And radio's dying anyway, so who cares. Anyway, back OT, Same as with multi-channel TV, the internet hasn't opened things up or improved matters. It's just lowered the barriers and the quality threshold's gone with it. Which is what makes me laugh about illegal downloading - 25,000 tracks on the hard drive and only thirty-odd are any good.

[quote name='Twigman' timestamp='1340204189' post='1700991'] Who is he to decide what I like or should be listening to? [/quote] Well, he's the one paying for it so you can listen for free. Seems fair to me.

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1340204081' post='1700988'] What "things" have you in mind and have they all got worse because of the internet? And "worse not better" is rather subjective so that's a doubly-sweeping statement which probably makes it doubly pointless. [/quote] What I originally said was: [quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1340196175' post='1700773'] Since the internet came in, are more bands touring or fewer? Are there more 'stepping-stone' mid-level venues or fewer? Is it easier to get a gig or more difficult? Is more good music being made or less? [/quote] So I'm not saying the internet has made these issues worse. But it certainly hasn't improved them. Despite what some may misguidedly aver, things are definitely more sh*t than they were. But I [i]am[/i] saying the internet has made marketing bands a far more complicated and expensive exercise. That's worse, depending on one's POV. Of course, if one is in a band with little or no appeal, the internet must seem like a marvellous thing. So, bands that broke through off the back of the internet? Arctic Monkeys? and - er ... It's all bollocks and everyone is ghastly.

[quote name='Twigman' timestamp='1340200677' post='1700925'] I strongly disagree.[/quote] That's OK. [quote name='Twigman' timestamp='1340200677' post='1700925'] The internet is the greatest markrting tool ever given to the artist [/quote] Lots of people say that. And they're wrong too. Inexpensive ubiquity might [i]seem[/i] like a good thing on the surface, but when a market's barriers to entry are so low and the numbers of aspirant bands are so high, it is almost impossible to achieve the kind of cut-through necessary for an artist to build awareness and move on to the next stage of their career. Fact is, it was easier to break a band when there were fewer 'channels'. Fewer numbers of deals to strike, less dicking around with amateur pundits and know-all internet reviewers. Few bob in the right DJ's pocket, beer up a couple of brown-nosing print journos and job done. All gone, now of course. It is far more expedient that power be in the hands of few. And a bit of quality control might ensure that most of the crap would never reach an audience's ears. This pious 'internet for the little people win' thing is a romantic mirage that just gets in the way of business. Fact is, there are too many bands out there and 95% of them are commercially useless - either technically, musically or just in terms of marketability. It would benefit the greater cause of 'music' - if not those crowds of hopeful hobbyists - if 95 'musicians' out of 100 gave up and sold their instruments. That way the accomplished and the marketable could garner sufficient gig and record income to support themselves. The rest of us could go watch them and say "They're great. I used to be in a band once, but we were sh*t." As it is, the talentless hordes are smothering the worthy few. [color=#ffffff].[/color]

[quote name='Twigman' timestamp='1340198831' post='1700873'] Since the internet came in, are more bands touring or fewer? More Are there more 'stepping-stone' mid-level venues or fewer? About the same number Is it easier to get a gig or more difficult? Easier Is more good music being made or less? More What's your point? [/quote] My point is that that things have got worse not better. Had the internet had any benefit we would be enjoying it. But I think the majority here would agree we are not. Your post is also quite eye-poppingly incorrect about 'good music'. Music today is mostly complete toilet-spackle. The idea that unleashing a technologically-driven tidal wave of unaccomplished, derivative drivel is good and somehow 'levels the playing field' may be a commonly-held belief but that doesn't make it correct. Try hawking the proposition 'music today is better than it was' around this forum and most would disagree. It's just an issue of perception and taste. The fact is, any dweeb with a DAW can knock out a few chords and parade the result on the web. Doesn't make it any good, whatever his mum and his mates might say. BTW, I'm genuinely pleased that your old band has enjoyed a late flowering among discerning afficionados. But I don't accept that this is proof of the promotional benefits of downloading because it's such a statistically microscopic one-off that it is irrelevant to the debate. NOI. The other thing is, don't take me too seriously on anything I say. One way or another, I couldn't give a f*** about the 'future of music'. I play Country, y'see. [quote name='cheddatom' timestamp='1340199116' post='1700880'] Yes but I think "your day" is longer ago than you realise [/quote] Oh, my trick knees, bad back, agonising gout, bald head and white beard are a constant reminder. Fact is, quality is timeless, which is why the old is good and (most) of the new is inferior. Same goes for music, too. [color=#ffffff].[/color] .