|
Post by Mr. FOLLARD on May 7, 2020 15:00:58 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sloopjohnc on May 7, 2020 15:04:58 GMT
Yeah, I don't buy that at all. In the '60s, technology was embraced by musicians and the Bealtles quit touring because they couldn't replicate their sound, live, although I think that's an excuse and they didn't need to tour. It's how you use the technology. Well yes and no. Yes it's ultimately down to how the individual utilises it, but your argument fails to acknowledge how much technology has changed even from the early 90s. Ease and rapidity creating programmed sounds means it requires little human input,whereas in the 80s you still had to construct these sounds in an often laborious process. I wonder if technology would enable me to create a G clone that agrees with everything I write. I'd like that.
|
|
|
Post by sloopjohnc on May 7, 2020 19:33:58 GMT
I'm really interested in changes in the way young people appreciate music - or what they expect from it. I suspect naked emotion in whatever extreme form is valued more than melody in 2020. I was talking to my son about this yesterday and he said he was glad he didn't have to listen to a whole album for one or two good songs. I said that was a problem when I was buying albums in high school. I remember Pat Clark, in my fourth period English class, telling me he hated the new Ian Hunter album, You're Never Alone with a Schizophrenic because it only had the one good song from the radio he liked. I told him I'd buy it if he brought it in the next day, which I did.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. FOLLARD on May 7, 2020 19:41:54 GMT
Yeah, your son's got a point. We've all spent shitloads on albums for one or two good songs. It doesn't make sense to today's generation, I suppose!
|
|
fange
god
Listening to long jazz tracks
Posts: 4,555
|
Post by fange on May 7, 2020 22:40:20 GMT
Yeah, your son's got a point. We've all spent shitloads on albums for one or two good songs. It doesn't make sense to today's generation, I suppose! No, especially not for the download and streaming generations.
|
|
|
Post by oleandermedian on May 8, 2020 11:03:22 GMT
So what do Sugababes add to the killer synth riff, exactly? Precious fucking little. A bit of sass and attitude.
The Elton John one – the way he sings “symphony” annoys me – it’s a recurrent vocal mannerism with him. Apart from that it’s one of EJ’s more palatable tracks – very smooth and soul. I still loathe it though.
SQ – it does tend to thump a bit but I love it all the same. Like fange I prefer Devilgate Drive.
TCB – It does little for me. Certainly not at this time of day, anyway.
AG – she sounds terribly world-weary! So completely does this song disappear up its own arsehole that three minutes after the event I’m no longer sure I’ve even heard it before.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2020 15:38:06 GMT
I only voted for one.
I considered voting for the Sugarbabes one but I have a strong dislike of Gary Newman. His voice mostly but it put me off the songs to the extent that I won't vote for a song even without his voice. I do like the Sugarbabes and have played them in the car, forwarding to the next track when this comes on.
Hell will freeze over before I vote for Elton John.
I really like Setting Sun but I prefer the original (Tomorrow Never knows).
Didn't even play AG. Actually, just played a few seconds - nasal autotune cack.
Which leaves Suzy Quatro.
Oh yes it's limited, it isn't clever, it isn't deep. But it's very cool. Or it was. People take female artists in the charts and female groups for granted but back in the seventies there were no real rockers or female pop acts in the UK. I'm sure I'll be corrected on that (Soul singers etc) but I remember from the time she was out there alone with this stuff in the pop world. I like it.
|
|