Trilogy closes doors

[Jonathan]

There is an NME driven fixation with music being 'innovative,' I don't know why. Constant (re)invention is to be admired, but people that look for something to be different just for the sake of being different, are actually only following the crowd themsleves.

For me, good music can still be class without being groundbreaking. I could sit here and list endless dross from recent times; Joe McEldry, The Kooks, Akon, whatever empty crap you want to pick out, but equally I could pick out countless brilliant bands and artists from the era I've grown up through. From The Stone Roses, to Oasis, Blur, Radiohead, The Libertines, The Coral, Arctic's. I glance down at my CD collection and it never takes me long to find something I really want to listen to from the last 20 years, whether it's something mindlessly uplifting like Black Grape, or a little more cultured like Elbow. Britain still has great music without having to delve into the Simon Cowell driven rubbish or the mock gangsta tripe.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Because it's only by innovation that music moves on. Otherwise, it slowly atrophies and turns into pastiche.

Pop/Rock music always has been (or at least, always was) the ultimate dialectic process. Thesis and anthithesis woven into a new thesis. Simple example - Human League taking Kraftwerk and Phil Spector as influences to produce a totally new pop idiom. Or The Jam fusing Ray Davies and Joe Strummer into an archetypal English sound. Happy Mondays were another example, welding Acid House to David Essex/Karl Denver MoR pap to produce something astonishing. It wasn't about imitating - it was about merging influences into something original. And it absolutely was not conscious - it was a wonderfully organic process.

I'm struggling to see where that happens today, at least in bands that have any sort of mass appeal. Possibly Arctic Monkeys, but I don't see them as producing anything that wasn't being done in the late 70s - just a vaguely updated version of it.

PS: The NME was always shite. Melody Maker was where the REAL intellectual pretentiousness was going on.

[Jonathan]

Oasis were mauled in some quarters for being derivative, but they ruled the world for a time and brought real music back to the masses. It may not have been original, but I’ll always be audibly pleased if you give me Live Forever, Columbia, Cigarettes and Alcohol, and latterly Falling Down or the Importance of Being Idle.

Every so often you'll get a band that can move things along with something new and appealing, but until then I'm very happy with a lot of what we've got.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Jonathan wrote:

Oasis were mauled in some quarters for being derivative, but they ruled the world for a time and brought real music back to the masses. It may not have been original, but I’ll always be audibly pleased if you give me Live Forever, Columbia, Cigarettes and Alcohol, and latterly Falling Down or the Importance of Being Idle.

Every so often you'll get a band that can move things along with something new and appealing, but until then I'm very happy with a lot of what we've got.

Oasis were THE culmination of the dialectic process. At least for the first album and a half, after which they settled down to be a Beatles tribute band.

They combined so many influences, listening to them was like a segue of the previous 25 years of English pop/rock, only better. Beatles, Gary Glitter, Slade, JAMC, Stone Roses and a dozen in the cracks in between. And they appealed across the board, not just to the musical sophisticate. Just like Happy Mondays, Human League, Jam etc had done before them. THAT was what pop music was supposed to be about. And that is what seems to have evaporated over the last decade and a half.

[MrFrost]

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

Because it's only by innovation that music moves on. Otherwise, it slowly atrophies and turns into pastiche.

Pop/Rock music always has been (or at least, always was) the ultimate dialectic process. Thesis and anthithesis woven into a new thesis. Simple example - Human League taking Kraftwerk and Phil Spector as influences to produce a totally new pop idiom. Or The Jam fusing Ray Davies and Joe Strummer into an archetypal English sound. Happy Mondays were another example, welding Acid House to David Essex/Karl Denver MoR pap to produce something astonishing. It wasn't about imitating - it was about merging influences into something original. And it absolutely was not conscious - it was a wonderfully organic process.

I'm struggling to see where that happens today, at least in bands that have any sort of mass appeal. Possibly Arctic Monkeys, but I don't see them as producing anything that wasn't being done in the late 70s - just a vaguely updated version of it.

PS: The NME was always shite. Melody Maker was where the REAL intellectual pretentiousness was going on.

Arctic Monkey's took a massive step away from their usual stuff with their last album, and it worked. It is now difficult to compare that with anything else, especially with the lyrics and metaphores Alex Turner uses.

Add to that his side project, Last Shadow Puppets, much more than your usual pop or indie album.

[CusworthRovers]

Music will move with the times. Of course the early 80's were desperate times as said, with all sorts happening in this country and across the globe. Writers and musicians had plenty to reflect on and thus write it. We had many mainstream bands who could pen a decent song with an edge to it and still chart high and have all and sundry buying it and praising it. Jo Dolci penned 'Shaddup your face' as a direct reference to our battles with General Galtieri.


We have some cracking bands today, and just because they aint working class lads/lasses doesn't make them shite. Mumford and Sons have a cracking innovative sound that I'm really enjoying, as are Bombay Bicycle Club, that's on top of the established mainstream we have

[coventryrover]

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

coventryrover wrote:

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

Ah well. If there's one sliver lining to the cloud of economic woes, it's the fact that music and youth culture improve as the times get harder. In 78-83 we had Joy Division/New Order, Two Tone, The Jam, the birth of British Electro-pop and a dozen other innovative groups/movements.

In the economic fat years over the last two decades, we have had a plethora of manufactured boy/girl bands, bone idle derivatives of 25 year-old techno-pop and shit, comfortable middle-class pap like Keane/The Kooks/Coldplay. There's been nothing truly innovative in British pop music since the days of Madchester and the rave culture 20 years ago.
Maybe things will improve now. Last time all the clubs were being closed down, it spawned THIS.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ2oXzrnti4

Err..... Radiohead, Dizzie Rascal, Massive Attack, Super Furries, British sea power, Nitin Sawhney, Foals, Wild Beats etc etc etc

I hate the attitude of \"music was so much better/angst/innovative (delete as appropriate) in the past\"

1) Your choice of \"new\" music almost makes my point for me. Radiohead were formed in 1985, Massive Attack in 88 and Super Furry Animals in 1990.

2) In any case, these are (predominantly) minority interest groups. Of course there are some interesting and innovative bands these days, just like there were plenty of shit ones in 1980. But the difference is in how many of the edgy bands were MAINSTREAM in the years that I quoted. Look at the charts from 79-82. Number ones for The Specials, The Jam, Tubeway Army, Human League, Kraftwerk, Dexy's etc. All of them either developing new musical genres or producing a new synthesis of older styles. All of them challenging accepted attitudes and approaches. Who is doing that AND GETTING TO NUMBER ONE today? Or for the last 20 years?

3) And that's before you start looking at who were the other innovative bands defining new directions in music. Back in 79-82, you had U2, Joy Division, The Cure, early Simple Minds, Cabaret Voltaire, Cocteau Twins, UB40, even someone like Vince Clark who was defining stripped-down electro-pop for a generation. All of them doing something new, risky and innovative and ADDING to pop music culture across a huge range of genres, rather than just regurgitating it.

I really don't think it's old-gittishness. I genuinely think that fat and lazy economic times generates fat and lazy youth culture. And this is predominantly what we have had for the last 15-20 years. In 1980, unemployment was horrific, and we never more than 4 minutes away from worldwide annihilation. It was fcuking grim. And these things affect the culture that they produce. That's why music by the likes of Joy Division, Cabaret Voltaire, Empires and Dance by Simple Minds were so hauntingly disturbing AND attracted discerning audiences - they reflected the times. That's why poppier but still grim stuff like Ghost Town or Are Friends Electric, or Going Underground got to Number 1. What has there been to be truly disturbed and haunted by for a kid coming to cultural maturity over the last 15 years?

Taking your point number 1 BST, those bands are still innovating, still making quality tunes today, does that make them anyc less relevent.

The Jam etc got to number one because there was only one way to access their music, i.e. by a 45.  Now kids can download etc so much more of a chance the other music can dominate because those into r&b may be more arsed to buy the tunes whereas indie kids might fileshare tunes etc

You seem to advocate that harsh times = great music but thats just forgetting all the shite like Bay City Rollers etc etc that were out the same time of year.  Selective memories? You are from a certain era and everyone fights their corner for music from their youth but it is a tad blinkered

Music is all about stirring up the emotions and it doesnt always have to be anger/angst like Clash, JAm, Joy Division etc.  There is merit in music being uplifting, taking you away from mundane life.  I've had the pleasure of seeing bands like Arcade Fire, Sigur Ross, Radiohead (seminal97 glasters) and Elbow in the last twenty years.  They can rock but do have other strings to their bows to give kids coming to cultural maturity (whenever that is).

[CusworthRovers]

I'll leave Billy to reply, but Bay City Rollers were early mid 70's. Jam really made it big in 79/80/81. The punk era seperates these 2 bands. Different era, different government, different times for such a short space of ....time IMO

The Jam had countless number 1 singles and albums. They still had to compete with all that was around them to do that. That 'only 1 way to access music' was the same for every band wanting to make themselves known.

Also like Arcade Fire and Elbow.

[coventryrover]

CusworthRovers wrote:

I'll leave Billy to reply, but Bay City Rollers were early mid 70's. Jam really made it big in 79/80/81. The punk era seperates these 2 bands. Different era, different government, different times for such a short space of ....time IMO

The Jam had countless number 1 singles and albums. They still had to compete with all that was around them to do that. That 'only 1 way to access music' was the same for every band wanting to make themselves known.

Also like Arcade Fire and Elbow.

Talk about splitting hairs:)

But why does \"important\" music have to be about sticking it to authority?

Yes music is an art form, thus is there to provoke thought.  However, I also like music to take me away from mundane life, to another level

PS I am not knocking the Jam although weller  see quote below

Weller Refuses To Be Labeled 'Middle Class'

Rocker PAUL WELLER was mortified when THE WHO frontman ROGER DALTREY called him 'middle-class', because he is still close to his working class roots despite his fame and fortune. The 48-year-old enjoys the trappings afforded him by more than 30 successful years in the music business, but misses the sense of community he experienced growing up in a working class family. Daltrey remarked at a recent meeting, \"Isn't it funny how we're all middle class now?\" Weller refuses to accept his comment and says, \"I really wasn't having that one. \"People have said in letters to me to give it a rest, banging on about the working class - but it's very important for me. \"I don't miss many things but I miss the sense of community there was growing up. \"It's something that is missing from a lot of people's lives. You need a sense of roots - your next door neighbour could be dead now and you wouldn't know about it.\"

[BillyStubbsTears]

coventryrover wrote:

You seem to advocate that harsh times = great music but thats just forgetting all the shite like Bay City Rollers etc etc that were out the same time of year.  Selective memories? You are from a certain era and everyone fights their corner for music from their youth but it is a tad blinkered.

A bit of a misinterpretation there. I said that good times militate against innovation in Youth Culture. That means, by extension, that bad times ENCOURAGE interesting music, not GUARANTEE it. Of course you got Bay City Rollers in 1974 when times were hard. You always get shite like that. My argument is about the relative balance between that sort of cack and the more interesting stuff, and the chances of the interesting music surfacing in the mainstream. You cannot possibly argue that the balance is better these days than it was in, say, 1980.

Music is all about stirring up the emotions and it doesnt always have to be anger/angst like Clash, JAm, Joy Division etc.  There is merit in music being uplifting, taking you away from mundane life.  I've had the pleasure of seeing bands like Arcade Fire, Sigur Ross, Radiohead (seminal97 glasters) and Elbow in the last twenty years.  They can rock but do have other strings to their bows to give kids coming to cultural maturity (whenever that is).

Of course. But you're talking about (relatively) obscure bands again here. Ones that don't break into the mainstream. My argument is not directed at YOU (since you're 35, you're exempt anyway). It's aimed at Youth Culture in general, which (in general) has become flabby and idle and prepared to take whatever is shoveled towards it, while rejecting the more challenging stuff that used to form the bedrock of Youth Culture.

[coventryrover]

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

coventryrover wrote:

You seem to advocate that harsh times = great music but thats just forgetting all the shite like Bay City Rollers etc etc that were out the same time of year.  Selective memories? You are from a certain era and everyone fights their corner for music from their youth but it is a tad blinkered.

A bit of a misinterpretation there. I said that good times militate against innovation in Youth Culture. That means, by extension, that bad times ENCOURAGE interesting music, not GUARANTEE it. Of course you got Bay City Rollers in 1974 when times were hard. You always get shite like that. My argument is about the relative balance between that sort of cack and the more interesting stuff, and the chances of the interesting music surfacing in the mainstream. You cannot possibly argue that the balance is better these days than it was in, say, 1980.

Music is all about stirring up the emotions and it doesnt always have to be anger/angst like Clash, JAm, Joy Division etc.  There is merit in music being uplifting, taking you away from mundane life.  I've had the pleasure of seeing bands like Arcade Fire, Sigur Ross, Radiohead (seminal97 glasters) and Elbow in the last twenty years.  They can rock but do have other strings to their bows to give kids coming to cultural maturity (whenever that is).

Of course. But you're talking about (relatively) obscure bands again here. Ones that don't break into the mainstream. My argument is not directed at YOU (since you're 35, you're exempt anyway). It's aimed at Youth Culture in general, which (in general) has become flabby and idle and prepared to take whatever is shoveled towards it, while rejecting the more challenging stuff that used to form the bedrock of Youth Culture.

But its your and other opinion of what is interesting.  As music is art (sounds well poncy so apologies) then its hard to run down any music.....even if i would love drop kick The Kooks into a vat of HCl

ps Arcade Fire, Sigur Ros or everywhere now thanks to the beeb utilising their music to highlight how shit England were at the world cup

[CusworthRovers]

I love all music Coventry and will accept all the new stuff, like you. I'm on your side.

Tbh Billy my 16yr old got me into MGMT, Reverand, Mumford, Bombay, Vampire Weekend and many many more a long time ago and all before they got mainstream or nearly mainstream...........and I actually enjoy listening too these. There are many like her. The difference is, they don't seem to shout about it or advertise it like we did. I think that was because there was a fashion/culture or place to go with our types of music. Also we were into one type of music and styled ourselves on that type of music. Today, it's just one of the many many varieties of music on offer where there is not one certain type of music on offer with a new style, fashion or label attached to it.

In all honesty, they have it good today, they can have what we had and all that is apparent now, then again so can we.

[nice one rovers]

Filo wrote:

CusworthRovers wrote:

Then we had Mainline, which was always busy and concentrated on the Indie scene. Pubs in Donny played certain types of music and got a certain type of crowd.

And don`t forget Mr Davids, that attracted your kind of crowd Cussie!  

was that the bar under the main line, or was that billypauls?

[Wellington Vaults]

Reference is made above to laziness and it's implications on musical taste.

Well you need not look any further than X ***ing Factor to demonstrate this, and it's not just restricted to yoof.

I find it apalling that a large chunk of society seem more than willing to sit back and let Simon Cowell and co decide, ON THEIR BEHALF, who will be the current flavour of the year.  Christ, the Christmas number one is virtually guaranteed to be the winner of X Factor by pre-orders alone, regardless of who actually wins.

I am always amazed to hear the conversations that go on around me in Autumn as if music begins and end with the vapid attention-seekers that are served up to the public every Saturday night.

Well I've had enough.  I'm retreating to a croft in the Outer Hebrides, with the full back catalogue of Devo, Durutti Column and Ivor Cutler recordings.

[coventryrover]

Er Opportunity Knocks etc etc etc.

Plus it is the public who decide who wins X Factor

[BillyStubbsTears]

coventryrover wrote:

Er Opportunity Knocks etc etc etc.

Plus it is the public who decide who wins X Factor

Comparing Opportunity Knocks or New Faces to X-Factor is like comparing a Molotov Cocktail to an atom bomb.

As for the public deciding who wins X-Factor, doesn't that kind of make the whole point about how idle and consumer-driven pop culture has become? The business end is now pretty much wrapped up by the Cowells of the industry, to a level that was never the case in previous generations, fed by a bone-idle public who are given a list of \"stars\" to consume.

It's enough to make you pine fore the days when a Duran Duran or Spandau Ballet would emerge naturally as world stars from youth culture, and THAT is saying summat.

[jucyberry]

Wellington Vaults wrote:

Reference is made above to laziness and it's implications on musical taste.

Well you need not look any further than X ***ing Factor to demonstrate this, and it's not just restricted to yoof.

I find it apalling that a large chunk of society seem more than willing to sit back and let Simon Cowell and co decide, ON THEIR BEHALF, who will be the current flavour of the year.  Christ, the Christmas number one is virtually guaranteed to be the winner of X Factor by pre-orders alone, regardless of who actually wins.

I am always amazed to hear the conversations that go on around me in Autumn as if music begins and end with the vapid attention-seekers that are served up to the public every Saturday night.

Well I've had enough.  I'm retreating to a croft in the Outer Hebrides, with the full back catalogue of Devo, Durutti Column and Ivor Cutler recordings.

I saw in the paper the other day, one of the wierdos, I mean talented wannabe's is suing Cowell.. Believe it or not, for loss of earnings. She says that her audition was a job interview, and that by not picking her she has suffered from loss of earnings. She wants something like a couple of million if i remember correctly. She says she was discriminated against cos she has a disability... Nothing to do with her being a bagof shite..lol.. I'll try to find the link when i get home from workies...

[River Don]

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

coventryrover wrote:

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

Ah well. If there's one sliver lining to the cloud of economic woes, it's the fact that music and youth culture improve as the times get harder. In 78-83 we had Joy Division/New Order, Two Tone, The Jam, the birth of British Electro-pop and a dozen other innovative groups/movements.

In the economic fat years over the last two decades, we have had a plethora of manufactured boy/girl bands, bone idle derivatives of 25 year-old techno-pop and shit, comfortable middle-class pap like Keane/The Kooks/Coldplay. There's been nothing truly innovative in British pop music since the days of Madchester and the rave culture 20 years ago.
Maybe things will improve now. Last time all the clubs were being closed down, it spawned THIS.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ2oXzrnti4

Err..... Radiohead, Dizzie Rascal, Massive Attack, Super Furries, British sea power, Nitin Sawhney, Foals, Wild Beats etc etc etc

I hate the attitude of \"music was so much better/angst/innovative (delete as appropriate) in the past\"

1) Your choice of \"new\" music almost makes my point for me. Radiohead were formed in 1985, Massive Attack in 88 and Super Furry Animals in 1990.

2) In any case, these are (predominantly) minority interest groups. Of course there are some interesting and innovative bands these days, just like there were plenty of shit ones in 1980. But the difference is in how many of the edgy bands were MAINSTREAM in the years that I quoted. Look at the charts from 79-82. Number ones for The Specials, The Jam, Tubeway Army, Human League, Kraftwerk, Dexy's etc. All of them either developing new musical genres or producing a new synthesis of older styles. All of them challenging accepted attitudes and approaches. Who is doing that AND GETTING TO NUMBER ONE today? Or for the last 20 years?

3) And that's before you start looking at who were the other innovative bands defining new directions in music. Back in 79-82, you had U2, Joy Division, The Cure, early Simple Minds, Cabaret Voltaire, Cocteau Twins, UB40, even someone like Vince Clark who was defining stripped-down electro-pop for a generation. All of them doing something new, risky and innovative and ADDING to pop music culture across a huge range of genres, rather than just regurgitating it.

I really don't think it's old-gittishness. I genuinely think that fat and lazy economic times generates fat and lazy youth culture. And this is predominantly what we have had for the last 15-20 years. In 1980, unemployment was horrific, and we never more than 4 minutes away from worldwide annihilation. It was fcuking grim. And these things affect the culture that they produce. That's why music by the likes of Joy Division, Cabaret Voltaire, Empires and Dance by Simple Minds were so hauntingly disturbing AND attracted discerning audiences - they reflected the times. That's why poppier but still grim stuff like Ghost Town or Are Friends Electric, or Going Underground got to Number 1. What has there been to be truly disturbed and haunted by for a kid coming to cultural maturity over the last 15 years?

I'm not disagreeing with your point about the early 80s creativity being affected by the economy but something else was going on then.

Technology was becoming more affordable and for the first time musicians were starting to get their hands on synthesizers, drum machines and sequencers. It's easy to forget how new these sounds were. The sequencer that clockwork electronic tempo was revolutionary. Kraftwerk demonstrated it and the likes of Human League, New Order, Soft Cell, Cabaret Voltaire, Depeche Mode, Pet Shop Boys and the rest had a whole new medium to explore. Then HipHop and House did it again but then it wasn't quite so fresh. You're unlikely to see a step change like that again, since technology is so much more affordable now. Basically you can create any possible sound with a PC now but it narrows the possibilities because we've heard it all before or something pretty similar.

Back in the 80s these were genuinely new noises to explore but I think the sequencer was the most unique part because it gave the music that machine precise quality that handn't been heard before.

[Cultured_Dave]

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

1) Your choice of \"new\" music almost makes my point for me. Radiohead were formed in 1985, Massive Attack in 88 and Super Furry Animals in 1990.

2) In any case, these are (predominantly) minority interest groups. Of course there are some interesting and innovative bands these days, just like there were plenty of shit ones in 1980. But the difference is in how many of the edgy bands were MAINSTREAM in the years that I quoted. Look at the charts from 79-82. Number ones for The Specials, The Jam, Tubeway Army, Human League, Kraftwerk, Dexy's etc. All of them either developing new musical genres or producing a new synthesis of older styles. All of them challenging accepted attitudes and approaches. Who is doing that AND GETTING TO NUMBER ONE today? Or for the last 20 years?

3) And that's before you start looking at who were the other innovative bands defining new directions in music. Back in 79-82, you had U2, Joy Division, The Cure, early Simple Minds, Cabaret Voltaire, Cocteau Twins, UB40, even someone like Vince Clark who was defining stripped-down electro-pop for a generation. All of them doing something new, risky and innovative and ADDING to pop music culture across a huge range of genres, rather than just regurgitating it.

I really don't think it's old-gittishness. I genuinely think that fat and lazy economic times generates fat and lazy youth culture. And this is predominantly what we have had for the last 15-20 years. In 1980, unemployment was horrific, and we never more than 4 minutes away from worldwide annihilation. It was fcuking grim. And these things affect the culture that they produce. That's why music by the likes of Joy Division, Cabaret Voltaire, Empires and Dance by Simple Minds were so hauntingly disturbing AND attracted discerning audiences - they reflected the times. That's why poppier but still grim stuff like Ghost Town or Are Friends Electric, or Going Underground got to Number 1. What has there been to be truly disturbed and haunted by for a kid coming to cultural maturity over the last 15 years?

I’ll make my declaration of interest now – I’m 37 so not (sadly) one of ‘the kids’.

Hmm ok – I think you’re very wrong and that this is the best time to be  listening to music ever, whatever age you’re at.

Back in the olden days, it was really difficult to get hold of music.  There weren’t many record shops, they didn’t carry loads of stock and they were expensive.  Places like Woolies sold the top 40 and that was about it.  There were no minority bands then in the sense that there are now, there was the mainstream and that was it.  It’s not surprising that the handful of decent bands were able to rack up big sales when there was nothing else decent to buy.  Sales are spread over loads of genres nowadays and so it’s not surprising that pure pop and R&B dominate the top of the charts.  Kids now have the run on the sweetshop and can pick and choose whatever they want.  Far from being lazy, they venture off into the genre hinterlands, back into history or off to find unsigned gems.  Lazy is just buying the same stuff as everyone else and that’s not what they’re doing.

All the bands you cite are basically standard line-up guitar bands with verse/chorus songs or electro-pop bands (with an honourable exception for Kraftwerk – the genuine innovators in that list and one hit wonders).  All the genuinely innovative stuff had already happened earlier in the 70’s with disco and punk and they were just riding the coat-tails of that.  Was what Joy Division doing that risky? Wasn’t it just punk?  Weren’t Vince Clark and Gary Newman just sanitising Krautrock and West Coast experimental stuff?  They were adding new sounds and broadening the musical palate for future generations but it wasn’t any newer than what goes on now.  Sampling, hip-hop, the dozens of flavours of dance music, nu-folk, Americana all combine to give us a Technicolor range to chose from rather than the handful of styles available then.

‘Hard times make great youth culture’ is one of those statements that get trotted out regularly with no actual evidence.  Were the sixties (economically booming) worse than the seventies (oil crisis, etc) musically?  I’d suggest not.  And if you’re some council estate sink kid, I expect life’s always been pretty grim, regardless of what the GDP figures say.  Teenagers don’t benefit from house price rises or soaring stock markets and so I expect the pressures on them remain relatively similar.  I don’t think the kids who form bands are sufficiently part of the economic cycle to be affected.  And I had a quick look on Wikipedia with regards to Joy Division – ‘Love with Tear us Apart’ (which is a towering work for me) only reached number 13 in 1980, so it’s not as though this despairing and nihilistic youth culture were rallying around this song, they were too busy drinking and getting laid to Blondie, Abba and Olivia Newton John.  Times don’t change much do they?

Anyway, there's more choice now, more interesting new bands and it's easier to get hold of it.  There are tons of gigs (here in Nottingham anyway), they're cheaper than ever and quite a lot of them are U14 (so no need to sneak in).  There are always loads of kids at these things and good luck to them, lucky sods.

Stuff that relates to my ramblings that you might enjoy (you might have read them already actually) are ‘The Long Tail’ by Chris Anderson and ‘The 17’ by Bill Drummond.

[CusworthRovers]

Good thread this and some very sound points.


I'd just like to say that Opportunity Knocks did not spawn laziness. I mean you had to move your hands furiously to make it register on the clapometer.


Where is that clapometer, and would it now be associated with VD?

[Bentley Bullet]

There may be more choice now of more interesting bands that are quite easy to get hold of if you look for them. But the point is it never had to be looked for in the past, when quality music was mainstream, and delivered to the public in the form of the pop charts.
The pop charts then contained the most popular music of the day,because they were compiled by listeners who bought the records they liked and therefore created a league table of the current most popular songs.
Nowadays music is downloaded free of charge, and to a great extent is done so willy nilly before it has even been previewed due it costing next to nowt.
The mainstream now is full of karaoke singers covering old songs,and is all you hear on mainstream TV/radio.
No one really knows what is popular anymore.....No wonder pubs don't know what sort of music to play!

[River Don]

Bentley Bullet wrote:

There may be more choice now of more interesting bands that are quite easy to get hold of if you look for them. But the point is it never had to be looked for in the past, when quality music was mainstream, and delivered to the public in the form of the pop charts.
The pop charts then contained the most popular music of the day,because they were compiled by listeners who bought the records they liked and therefore created a league table of the current most popular songs.
Nowadays music is downloaded free of charge, and to a great extent is done so willy nilly before it has even been previewed due it costing next to nowt.
The mainstream now is full of karaoke singers covering old songs,and is all you hear on mainstream TV/radio.
No one really knows what is popular anymore.....No wonder pubs don't know what sort of music to play!

There was a terrible period in the mid 80s when the Pop Charts were largely manipulated by marketing men and PR people. The likes of Stock, Aitken and Waterman had a stranglehold on Top of the Pops and Radio 1 and their playlist went a long way to informing the British public about what was available. Anything new or interesting tended not to be heard unless John Peel played it on the graveyard shift. That was as bad as any period I can remember.

[MrFrost]

Rigoglioso wrote:

MrFrost wrote:

Have read today that the Trilogy Nightclub in town has shut down.
Now, I always thought the place was a shit hole, so I wont miss it. However, it leaves Doncaster without a regonisable night club, which surely will be very detrimental to the night time economy.

To be honest, the choice of late night venue's is pretty poor in town. You've got Walkabout or Priory, and that's about it.

Maybe the town's famed nightlife is coming to an end.

Can't say I'll miss it. However, where are all the little \"ten men\" kn0bs going to go now they haven't got Trilogy?

My thoughts: Takings will go up in Walkabout/Priory on a Friday night, but so will anti-social behaviour as well.

At least on the positive side, I've only got a matter of days left before I leave Donny (hopefully for good).

What's wrong with Donny? I love how people are quick to slag it off/

[MrFrost]

Rigoglioso wrote:

Several things. Take a look at the council as one example.

Why not look at the good things Doncaster offers.

[MrFrost]

World class racecourse
The area is steeped in history if you can be bothered to look.
We still have a top notch market, despite reports that try to bring it down
Excellent transport links for road, rail and air
As you said, decent football team
There's plenty to do, if people dare to look past the mainstream things.

The bad points Doncaster has, can be found in any other major town or city.

[CusworthRovers]

There are no finer places than Doncaster.

Broddy and Cussie Halls, Mansion house, a bustling vibrant town that will be a city one day. We have a major river, we have heavy and light industry, we have green belt, we have Thorne Moors, lovely green wooded areas and walkways. On the eye, Donny is very asthetically pleasing. We have many reminders on the landscape, that shows that Doncaster was an important place in making Britain work. We have reminders how people used to live a 1000 years ago in Conisbro Castle and Stainforth.

[Bentley Bullet]

We also have very contrasting villages, all unique in their own styles.
A couple of instances are twinned with other famous places in the world.

Bentley = Hollywood
Hexthorpe = Beamish

[Jonathan]

The criticism of Doncaster also gets on my nerves. The amount of people you see bleating about how they can't wait to get out - just go! Nobody is stopping you, but don't project any of your own issues onto the town.

I've been brought up here for all of my years, I know it has faults but it's home and I love the place. I could never dislike the town that houses nearly all my family, friends and social circles. It has the football club that has been my lifelong passion, the only thing it doesn't have is my job but I'm happy to stay living here and travel for that.

[Mike_F]

I'm in full agreemaent with Jonathan here. It's easy to pick up on the weaknesses of the town and decide to piss off in search of pastures greener. You'll soon find that every town and/or city across the country has the same issues to much the same degree.

Many of the bigger cities are wider ranging in their problems. Nottingham, for example may be better for designer shopping but it has one of the worst gun crime rates in Britain.

I'm of the opinioon that if there are problems with my home own then I'd rather stick around to become part of the solution rather than turn the other cheek and burn the bridge on my way out.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Rigoglioso wrote:

As Jonathon says, plenty of people leave Doncaster and are quick to slag it off. Do all those of us have a point or are we all deluded?

Neither. You're just nest-shitting t**ts.