Rick Beato gets all uppity about “Yacht Rock”…

[TrevorR]

Rick  must have got a lump of coal in his Christmas stocking this year as he’s definitely in Grumpy Scrooge mode here. He seemingly takes huge offence at the term “Yacht Rock” as being denigrating to the music and musicians who made it. Bah humbug!
 

 

Let’s face it, pretty much all genre tags are a bit crap and there are outliers in all of them. None of them works properly. Won’t stop me using a term that everyone now knows and understands or make me like the music lumped in there any less. Maybe Rick needs to have a nice lie down and listen to some  Steely Dan tunes…

[ezbass]

32 minutes ago, TrevorR said:

He seemingly takes huge offence at the term “Yacht Rock”

As it makes good click bait. His posts recently seem to have become more like this, rather than his clever analysis of songs. I’m disappointed in him.

[gjones]

Unless my band was a ironic tribute to that genre (such as Young Gun Silver Fox) , I wouldn't want my music to be classed as 'Yacht Rock' which is seen as pretty lightweight vacuous stuff. Steely Dan certainly isn't lightweight or vacuous and Donald Fagen obviously shares my opinion.

[Doctor J]

Clicked and shared. That's some high-quality clickbaitin', yes ma'am.

[odysseus]

Am I the only person who has, until this thread, never heard of the term 'yacht rock'?  👽

[RAY AGAINST THE MACHINE]

17 minutes ago, odysseus said:

Am I the only person who has, until this thread, never heard of the term 'yacht rock'?  👽

Me neither 😬

[Happy Jack]

28 minutes ago, odysseus said:

Am I the only person who has, until this thread, never heard of the term 'yacht rock'?  👽

 

9 minutes ago, RAY AGAINST THE MACHINE said:

Me neither 😬

 

You guys need to get out more ...

 

😂

[ezbass]

48 minutes ago, odysseus said:

Am I the only person who has, until this thread, never heard of the term 'yacht rock'?  👽

 

30 minutes ago, RAY AGAINST THE MACHINE said:

Me neither 😬

Pretty much what was previously referred to as AOR. 

[Old Man Riva]

1 hour ago, ezbass said:

As it makes good click bait. His posts recently seem to have become more like this, rather than his clever analysis of songs. I’m disappointed in him.

It’s apparently now a requirement of the professional YouTubers to present their content in this way. I watched a Rhett Schull video recently, who explained how it all works, and that those dopey/angry/bewildered looks in the thumbnails, along with easy-to-digest, simplistic titles (“Is this the WORST pedal EVER for a Libran to use IN THE SHOWER?!?!!!!) are all there to ensure Mr/Mrs YouTube treats the videos kindly, and in a way that the money flows in more readily for the creator…

I’m not particularly a fan of his (and aware that I’ve fallen into the cunning trap set by Mr Schull!), but here goes…

 

 

[Doctor J]

Yes, capitalising one word from the title seems to be compulsory now.

[Beer of the Bass]

I do feel like Beato's videos have taken a turn towards the tone being "You are not a big serious studio pro like me, and will simply never understand what makes me and <namedrop> pals so great". All a bit self-aggrandising and tiresome IMO.

[Mykesbass]

The term is blooming awful, and coined some 40/50 years after the music was first made. I'm totally with him on this.

[Burns-bass]

He just needs the clicks for cash. Fair play. I won’t waste time on it but his interviews can be excellent so will watch those.

[TimR]

Is it anything like Surf Rock or Pirate Rock?

[Happy Jack]

Real Pirates don't surf.

[TimR]

2 hours ago, Doctor J said:

Clicked and shared. That's some high-quality clickbaitin', yes ma'am.

 

Exactly. Seems to have worked quite well.

 

To be fair, he has even complained about the algorithm forcing him to create content like this and label it in a click bait way.

 

Some content creators are at least better than others. Someone shared some seemingly misinformation piece that wasn't particularly well done, I watched a minute of it and decided a) not to watch any further and b) not to follow the guy. I find out I should have watched it all, as he then went to debunk his first section. Which seemed seemed a very odd way to get new subscribers.

 

[Happy Jack]

1 hour ago, Old Man Riva said:

It’s apparently now a requirement of the professional YouTubers to present their content in this way. I watched a Rhett Schull video recently, who explained how it all works, and that those dopey/angry/bewildered looks in the thumbnails, along with easy-to-digest, simplistic titles (“Is this the WORST pedal EVER for a Libran to use IN THE SHOWER?!?!!!!) are all there to ensure Mr/Mrs YouTube treats the videos kindly, and in a way that the money flows in more readily for the creator…

I’m not particularly a fan of his (and aware that I’ve fallen into the cunning trap set by Mr Schull!), but here goes…

 

 

I get what he's saying about the importance of thumbnails & titles, but I can't help feel that part of his poor YouTube performance may be down to needing 9:23 to tell us something that requires two minutes tops. The rest is endless padding, repetition and irrelevance.

[Happy Jack]

The clickbait thing certainly has the potential to become self-defeating.

 

At least a quarter of all videos that YouTube offers me unprompted involve thumbnails showing attractive women suffering some sort of wardrobe malfunction ... their synthetic boobs are just about to escape from their blouse, or their split skirt is just about to ride up and show her crotch.

 

If I spent my time watching porn or clicking on insulting thumbnails like that, then I can see how that might be happening. In practice, the opposite is true. I refuse pointblank to click on anything that's obvious clickbait. End of.

 

And still YouTube drenches me with boobs and crotches. 

[Skinnyman]

7 minutes ago, Happy Jack said:

The rest is endless padding, repetition and irrelevance.

90% of YouTube summed up nicely in that one sentence.
 

The other 30% being maths stuff I never watch. 

[Beer of the Bass]

6 minutes ago, Happy Jack said:

The clickbait thing certainly has the potential to become self-defeating.

 

At least a quarter of all videos that YouTube offers me unprompted involve thumbnails showing attractive women suffering some sort of wardrobe malfunction ... their synthetic boobs are just about to escape from their blouse, or their split skirt is just about to ride up and show her crotch.

 

If I spent my time watching porn or clicking on insulting thumbnails like that, then I can see how that might be happening. In practice, the opposite is true. I refuse pointblank to click on anything that's obvious clickbait. End of.

 

And still YouTube drenches me with boobs and crotches. 

 

For some reason I've been targeted for "comedian DESTROYS Woke heckler" and a lot of "Western values" far-right pipeline stuff in my YouTube recommendations. I wouldn't even mind the odd boob or crotch by comparison with that stuff!

[oldslapper]

55 minutes ago, Doctor J said:

Yes, capitalising one word from the title seems to be compulsory now.

It’s the new world order. Conviction “trumps” facts these days (see what I did there???)

If you shout loudly, or use the equivalent type face, the more factualdiddly you is. 

[Dan Dare]

It's fun seeing Beato & Co getting their knickers in a twist about this. The comments on the video are good for a laugh. Yacht rock is a tongue in cheek term used to describe music for those who perhaps take themselves a mite too seriously and therefore want their taste in music to tell the world how they are fellows (it's almost always blokes) of taste and discernment. You can't imagine such people admitting to liking punk or country music. It's to be expected that Mr B, who likes to boast of being chums with all those LA super session cats, will not approve. I think it's quite amusing.

[odysseus]

2 hours ago, Happy Jack said:

 

 

You guys need to get out more ...

 

😂

 

Probably right in my case..... 😬

[chris_b]

I do the scaled down version. . . . Paddle Boat rock.

[TimR]

1 hour ago, Happy Jack said:

I get what he's saying about the importance of thumbnails & titles, but I can't help feel that part of his poor YouTube performance may be down to needing 9:23 to tell us something that requires two minutes tops. The rest is endless padding, repetition and irrelevance.

 

1 hour ago, Skinnyman said:

90% of YouTube summed up nicely in that one sentence.
 

The other 30% being maths stuff I never watch. 

 

The optimum length for a YouTube video in order to monetise and place ads is 8 minutes. Hence all the 9 minute videos of padding.