Top Of The Pops

[lowregisterhead]

6 hours ago, lowregisterhead said:

 

 

Sorry, I'm not going to bite. It's all been said elsewhere, and a TOTP thread isn't really the right place for it. I will say this - it's still a rigged game, and the digital age has only made the odds of exposure and/or success even longer. Everything changes over time, and I fully accept that. The internet has knocked the music business as it was into a cocked hat, and streaming is the way forward for now. That doesn't make it any kinder a mistress than the system that went before it, however. The current state of smoke, mirrors and general confusion (and let's be clear, the same people and huge corporations are still behind it) is the labour pains of what's yet to come, and nobody knows how it will turn out. One thing is certain though - whatever is born out of this will be just as ugly a brat as its older siblings. So please, don't blame the musicians.

 

1 hour ago, xgsjx said:

I'm not going to derail the thread & I can get where you're coming from, but the main cause of pubs & clubs not wanting to pay much for bands is because of the twazzicks that either play for very little or even pay to play.
I had the same issue with cakes.  People saying "I can get a wedding cake for less than £200 elsewhere".  I'd tell them to go elsewhere as I was already struggling to make a profit.  Numpties making "wedding cakes" & charging peanuts.  Though the cakes spoke for themselves.

I was actually talking about originals acts, but some of the same principles apply to covers and functions bands etc - I'm with you there. I've been knocking about doing all sorts of gigs for a long time, and the standard in the pubs that remain where live music is being played have definitely fallen. Part of the reason is less venues, more bands, and landlords who can pick and choose, and state their price. As you said, there will always be some idiots who'll do the gig for next to f-all, but price, of course, is often proportional to quality. Not always, though. I've seen many high-end function bands who command a 5-figure fee that seem slick and impressive for the first couple of numbers, then you realise it's all the same for the rest of the set and it's dull, dull, dull. Or maybe I'm just a twisted old cynic. Yes, now I come to think of it, I am.

[Bluewine]

If not for TOTPs I would have never heard this song by The Foundation. They're the first guest on this show.

Blue

Edited March 20, 2018 by Bluewine

[Hobbayne]

That reminds me. The Yew tree in my garden needs trimming.

[ead]

The thing I liked about OGWT was that there was just nothing like it at the time and as a registered old git I watched "season 1" live.  The OGWT pretty much invented videos when bands weren't able to play live as well.  Groundbreaking, and yes, quite nerdy.

[steantval]

This might be a bit controversial -

Pans People were very good looking ladies but not particularly great dancers.

[PaulWarning]

of course Pans People would never be allowed in this political Correct age, how degrading for women. you lot ought to be ashamed of yourselves for reminiscing about it 

 

Edited March 21, 2018 by PaulWarning

[SpondonBassed]

On 19/03/2018 at 19:29, Bluewine said:

I just noticed  that every Top Of The Pops show is now on YouTube.

Loving it!

Blue

Thanks for the heads up.

That's the best bit of Anglophilia I've heard for a while.  We could do with a bit more of that please.  You see, we're not allowed to be patriotic, it upsets our Belly-Ache Brigade.

TOTP '64 to '74

'70 to '75

'80s

Did you find a playlist that collates all decades?

[Barking Spiders]

8 hours ago, steantval said:

This might be a bit controversial -

Pans People were very good looking ladies but not particularly great dancers.

They were all fine looking girls but any issues about the dancing lay with their choreographer who had a very literal way of interpreting songs e.g. would get them prancing around with umbrellas to Raindrops Keep Falling  On My Head

Edited March 21, 2018 by Barking Spiders

[steantval]

16 minutes ago, Barking Spiders said:

They were all fine looking girls but any issues about the dancing lay with their choreographer who had a very literal way of interpreting songs e.g. would get them prancing around with umbrellas to Raindrops Keep Falling  On My Head

The choreography was done by Flick Colby.

[casapete]

1 hour ago, Barking Spiders said:

They were all fine looking girls but any issues about the dancing lay with their choreographer who had a very literal way of interpreting songs e.g. would get them prancing around with umbrellas to Raindrops Keep Falling  On My Head

Agreed. All were stunning ladies, and could vary from gorgeous to ridiculous purely due

 to the choreography. Some of the routines were cringingly bad, even to a school boy like

myself at that time. Think PP later morphed into Legs and Co, and then Ruby Flipper?

[BigRedX]

10 hours ago, PaulWarning said:

of course Pans People would never be allowed in this political Correct age, how degrading for women. you lot ought to be ashamed of yourselves for reminiscing about it 

 

So what about all those pop acts that have a load of scantily dressed women (and men) dancing behind them? Perhaps while pretending to do backing vocals. Is that any different?

[Marc S]

On 3/19/2018 at 19:29, Bluewine said:

I just noticed  that every Top Of The Pops show is now on YouTube.

Loving it!

Blue

Thanks for the heads-up Blue  

[Marc S]

On 3/19/2018 at 21:32, ezbass said:

I remember being in school and my fellow pupils asking if you’d seen TOTP the previous night and then discussing it; good times.

Yes, and of course, it was a few years till Video recorders were available - so you couldn't even re-watch your favourite episodes or bands....
You had to hope and wait for a repeat

[PaulWarning]

5 minutes ago, BigRedX said:

So what about all those pop acts that have a load of scantily dressed women (and men) dancing behind them? Perhaps while pretending to do backing vocals. Is that any different?

not a lot, it's the latest thing though isn't it? they've stopped scantily clad girls parading around at Formula 1, boxing is next,  I was just wondering if, in another 40 years, they'd view the way women are used to try and make events more glamorous the way we now view racism in the 1970's.

Personally I think it's an infringement of female rights by not allowing them to make their own minds up whether to partake in such events, history may prove me wrong

[Woodinblack]

16 hours ago, Hobbayne said:

That reminds me. The Yew tree in my garden needs trimming.

Be careful - Yew is a very poisonous tree, make sure you don't let your kids near it

[bazzbass]

23 hours ago, Barking Spiders said:

 I don't buy into Spotify etc are killing music claims. 

an artist who gets 500,000 streams gets around $300

you can't seriously think this is adequate remuneration?

[bazzbass]

On ‎3‎/‎20‎/‎2018 at 20:15, PaulWarning said:

I sort of agree with him on the putting effort in, it requires a lot of dedication and hard work to 'make it' and even then the chances are very very low, as for not making money from record sales, welcome to the digital age, the Gene is not going back in the bottle no matter how much we wish it would

no one is asking for the genie to be put back into the bottle. All that needs to happen is for the publishers who hold the rights to demand a better deal from the streamers, that is all that is needed. It first needs all musicians to band together (pun intended) and refuse to allow their music to be streamed at the current rate. Sue for a fairer return for their music. It wouldn't be too hard to argue in court.

[SpondonBassed]

5 minutes ago, bazzbass said:

no one is asking for the genie to be put back into the bottle. All that needs to happen is for the publishers who hold the rights to demand a better deal from the streamers, that is all that is needed. It first needs all musicians to band together (pun intended) and refuse to allow their music to be streamed at the current rate. Sue for a fairer return for their music. It wouldn't be too hard to argue in court.

...because, lord knows, nobody has tried that before.

[BigRedX]

49 minutes ago, bazzbass said:

an artist who gets 500,000 streams gets around $300

you can't seriously think this is adequate remuneration?

One of the problems is that all streaming services are losing money even when they are only paying peanuts in royalties. Until someone can work out a way of making streaming profitable without it being propped up by VC investments or other parts of the parent company's business that do actually make money, royalty payments are going to continue being low.

[lowregisterhead]

3 hours ago, BigRedX said:

One of the problems is that all streaming services are losing money even when they are only paying peanuts in royalties. Until someone can work out a way of making streaming profitable without it being propped up by VC investments or other parts of the parent company's business that do actually make money, royalty payments are going to continue being low.

Whilst that may be true, my main gripe is it’s not (and, to fair, never has been) a level playing field.

You can bet the lawyers and publishers for the Taylor Swifts of this world will extract a FAR higher per steam rate on behalf of their clients than Joe Blow who self-publishes and has a growing fan base.

To him, the returns from streaming services could make the difference between being able to forge a career creating albums of life-changing music, and fading into obscurity.

If that happens, all we’re left with are the part-timers and the trust fund kids. Not to say their music would necessarily be bad, but talent needs to be nurtured and supported for it to really flourish and have half a chance to produce something remarkable. Ms Swift really doesn’t need the money. 

Edited March 21, 2018 by lowregisterhead

[Barking Spiders]

2 hours ago, bazzbass said:

an artist who gets 500,000 streams gets around $300

you can't seriously think this is adequate remuneration?

Like me I guess a lot of people stream to see whether they wanna buy stuff. I mainly use Last FM and use the 'similar artists' links to check out unfamiliar music. With each artist I'd probably stream half a dozen tunes but if I don't like them then I wont bother further. Quite a lot of the time I do like what I hear and then will seek out used CDs on Discogs or Amazon.

[bazzbass]

young people don't buy music. They think it should be for free and will pirate it or stream it. Soon as you give something away for free you have set it's price forever

[bazzbass]

19 hours ago, BigRedX said:

One of the problems is that all streaming services are losing money even when they are only paying peanuts in royalties. Until someone can work out a way of making streaming profitable without it being propped up by VC investments or other parts of the parent company's business that do actually make money, royalty payments are going to continue being low.

you are correct, they should be shut down, it is an unsustainable business model. Theyoung can listen to streaming radio and listen to ads like we did, THAT'S what pays the musicians  

[FinnDave]

And, of course, none of us ever used to borrow a mate's album and tape it...

[mikel]

TOTP. Will always have a place in my heart. I remember back in the day when Cream were on the show with I Feel Free. Pandemonium at school, a "Proper" band on TOTP, we talked about it for days. Jethro Tull were on playing Living in the Past, in 5/4 time. Can you imagine such a thing now?