Comments on: Homer Simpson was right!

By: Tim Hall

Tim Hall — Thu, 16 Aug 2012 19:00:59 +0000

There is dross in every decade, and great music in every decade too. And the dross does get forgotten. But there’s still evidence to suggest there’s far less crossover between the underground and the mainstream than there was in the 70s and 80s. Is an equivalent of David Bowie or Kate Bush even possible now?

By: Red Death

Red Death — Wed, 15 Aug 2012 09:29:09 +0000

I am sure you are right about radio playlisting shepherding the masses to buy certain records.

Gabe is right about history allowing filtering of mediocrity. I couldn’t help snigger at your comparison of Led Zep and Nickleback, but for all that there is clearly rubbish now was the 70s any better? I am sure there would have been masses of dross then, but we filter that out and remember what appeals to us.

By: Tim Hall

Tim Hall — Mon, 06 Aug 2012 13:48:29 +0000

Nowadays the underground and the mainstream almost exist in separate universes. There used to be a lot more crossover than their is today.

I think a lot of this is down to the way radio playlisting works today, with records played to death before being officially released, which more or cuts the general public out of the loop when deciding what’s a hit. It’s harder for things that don’t fit a small number of commercial formulas to break out their respective underground ghettos.

Direct-to-fan sales mean independent music can be economically viable without breaking into the mainstream, but I feel an impoverished mainstream isn’t a good thing.

By: Gabe Kagan

Gabe Kagan — Sat, 04 Aug 2012 04:54:13 +0000

Honestly, who’s going to remember Nickleback and Justin Bieber in 30 years? Music historians, I suppose. Either way, time allows us to filter out the mediocrity. That being said, these guys did at least compare a more diverse base of past pop to present pop, which a lot of people don’t seem to do. The thing here is that in the 1960s, there wasn’t nearly as much of an independent music ‘industry’, and culture was a lot less fragmented. Hence, the mainstream was bigger and could afford to occasionally cater to a greater variety of interests.

By: PaulE

PaulE — Mon, 30 Jul 2012 13:48:25 +0000

The corporates will try to sell more of whatever is in the charts and proven to sell. Can’t really fault them on just doing what other businesses do. But I do think they are making a mistake to only sell that. It risks undermining the independence of the chart mechanism by feeding back only the same thing. How can consumers express choice if nothing else is available ? Of course, it is, which is where the mass media do us all a disservice by selecting essentially the same stuff for playlists. Proving that information – knowing about what is available – is a major part of the problem. Piracy is causing trouble, but so is consumer apathy. Can anything else properly explain why the album charts are breaking records for some of the worst weekly totals to reach number 1 and, at the same time, the chart contains an album that is one of the best sellers of all time? There are over 4 million proven purchasers out there – and probably very many more, but a lot of them seem to be looking at the current chart and saying “no thanks”.

By: Amadan

Amadan — Sun, 29 Jul 2012 15:26:31 +0000

I admit, my taste in music is completely unsubtle. I like what I like, and a lot of what I like is brainless pop music because I can zone out listening to it. I don’t grasp “chord progressions” and all the other things by which aficionados like you describe what distinguishes good music from bad. (I mean, I grasp what they are, obviously, but such nuances just don’t register on me when I am listening.) So yeah, I enjoy Led Zeppelin, but I also listen to Nickelback because, eh, sometimes I am in the mood for loud catchy ballads.

OTOH, I do like prog rock and have enjoyed a lot of the bands you have recommended.