Sign In:

Just what is 'real music for real people'?

When was the last time you saw or heard something truly, defintively original in the music media recently?

So, I've put myself out on a limb there, but think about it: What is truly new and original?

Maybe I'm showing my cynicism here, but things don't seem quite as fresh to me as they used to be. When I heard Andrew W.K. last year it sounded like an over- commercialised piece of 80s hair metal a la Bon Jovi thrown through a sampler. (well, actually, it had much much more in common with bands like Tigertailz and Pretty Boy Floyd, and if you’ve never heard of them, then you're lucky). Despite sounding so dated, somehow, it was all over the media like a rash. How come? Was it new? was it original? Or was it just a case of the emperor's new clothes?

It amazing how much a little bit of hype in the right ears can do. When I hear a new band, well - maybe it's because I’ve got thousands of CDs - but I can tell exactly whose ideas they're recycling, reheating and repackaging for a new generation - a target market, who find it all fresh 'n' exciting and novel. Look at Marilyn Manson– Take the image and stageprops of Alice Cooper, the Sound of Skinny Puppy and the songs of Nine Inch Nails and voila! A winning formula. What’s the deal with Rancid? It’s The Clash for people who don’t remember them , or were too young, for the first time around. Or The Offspring (aka Bad Religion-lite)? In all fairness, I’ve got to admit: when I was 15, the bands I loved sounded new and fresh to me. I didn’t know that Iron Maiden were just an amalgamation of Jethro Tull, Led Zeppelin and Golden Earring did I? Nope. It was fresh, novel and exciting for me. And that’s good for profits. That’s the bottom line.

I spot a pattern forming. The recycling of music being presented to us as something new, innovative and groundbreaking; like the way Oasis copy every Beatles record, yet get lauded genius rather than merely charlatan copyists. But coming on a wave of hype will come the next big thing; every six months, like clockwork. What's that about? Listening to and supporting the latest bands, or bands that labels backed by majors have spent enough on on promo and nicely targeted demographic analysis ?

Or is it about music? Listening to music that moves us? Music that inspires us? Music, old and new, that makes us feel that way? Or chasing our own tail in an attempt to fit in? What we’re told we should listen to? Or what we are led to believe is good for us?

That’s classic media manipulation: the same trick propagandists and dictators have been pulling whenever they needed to mould public opinion. In this case, it's about exploiting a target market (the 14-25 age bracket) - It’s a well recognised fact by marketing specialists in the music industry that this is the prime age for an audience, with disposable income, without kids or commitments, who don’t have to resort to ‘pester power’(unlike the 4-12 market). After all, I’m sure that Ticketmaster / EMI / name yer own multinational organisation would love to help you spend all that dosh. After all - you are free, to do as we tell you. Conform. Obey. Die. But please, please buy our records first.

And no, it's not the same old ‘real music for real people’ argument over and over again – all too long used to promote safe, boring inoffensive Middle of the Road shit with guitars, and sweet lyrics that get played on Radio 2. Real music is about music, no matter what it is made with, - guitar, samplers, whatever - as long as it's made with a heartfelt desire to say something rather than to be a mere product to be sold like McBurgers. Following trends, no matter what trend it is - be it Steps or the Stereophonics , be it the NME or Smash hits magazine, – isn’t about music. Its about herd mentality. Following like blind little sheep.

It shouldn’t have to be about conformity, about peer pressure. It shouldn’t have to be about ‘fashion’, even though the majority of us would never even think of it that way – the way we’re cynically exploited by demographics and marketing. It's easy to turn the blinkers on and fool ourselves we’re not as cynically targeted by marketing campaigns, not being a targeted market demographic. Not about some bigwigs at a multinational trying to sell copies of their latest single ; to whom it makes no difference if it's Hundred Reasons or H from Steps. Not about how we’re cynically told to feel, to think, to conform and to fit in. I mean, if you're concerned about people laughing at you for not fitting in ... why? Do you really need the approval of others? To conform? How sheep-like is that? And what do you mean, you don’t have a pair of Vans ?

I love music. I don't care who knows it. It's not about marketing budgets, but music that moves you. If music doesn’t move your soul, then it's not music. It's noise pollution, like a vacuum cleaner. There are bands out there that were far more innovative than the even the so-called ‘alternative’ media are willing to admit, but they’ll never get recognition, simply because they won’t shift units.

It's the MUSIC that matters. Not the trends. Not chasing your own tail. Because if conformity to a herd, matters, you’re not into music – that's trend following. And that’s not music. That’s conformity. That’s capitalism. That’s the biggest sell out of all.

Just what is 'real music for real people'?

sometimes it's difficult to actually
find music that is different and
inspiring, i wish i could i'm bored
of the same old recycled crap, the only
band i like at the moment is queens
of the stone age. please graham name
some for me as i'm very bored of whats
around at the moment

Re: Just what is 'real music for real people'?

Try and get a listen to Tool's second album "Aenema" (or "Lateralus" for that matter). They're the first band I've heard for ever who actually sound like their onto something with any semblance of originality.

Re: Just what is 'real music for real people'?

oi, what's wrong with 'undertow'?!?!

Just what is 'real music for real people'?

you make a good point - unfortunately, it's the same point that's been made a million times before.

Just what is 'real music for real people'?

You spend half the article complaining abuot nothing sounding original and the rest saying how you are moved by great music. (and yet say you are a fan of yy28s?)

First of all there are shitloads of bands that are making original music. The obvious place to look is the electronica scene. But I have no doubt in your mind whoever it is will just be rehashing Kraftwerk.

Next if you listen to music for it to move you why does it matter if it is original? It seems most of the people capable of doing this can do it with nothing more than a couple of chords and an accoustic guitar.

Re: Just what is 'real music for real people'?

Well, I think you are all talking a bunch of bollocks. At this stage in music, nothing can be wholly original but this doesn't mean that it's crap or pointless. I notice in your rant, you only really mentioned stale rock outfits, I mean come on if you haven't realised yet that rock is the stalest genre of music and has been since well, since perhaps the early 80's ( except a few minor rumblings throughout the past two decades ). If you profess to love music the perhaps you should open your ears slightly and check out some dance-orientated music. Now, as upsetting as it is to many purist indie-kids, this is where all the action is...whilst early grooves such as disco, jazz, funk, R'n'B, soul etc are clearly namechecked, they certainly put a new spin on things...now come on, believe it or not, there is more to music than angsty teenage shit-rock.

Oh, and by the way, regardless of how most people profess to be in it 'for the music,man'...the minute you cut a record, you're looking to make a buck. Not capitalism...FACT.

Re: Just what is 'real music for real people'?

What people need to realise is that you need to work out what you like to listen to. That's why i like FourTet (I've just got the first album, dialogue and I love it!) Boards Of Canada, The Cokyees, Felix da housecat, and The Smiths, Belle and sebastian And emo.
I'm not boring and I'm certainly not rascist if I don't like r'n'b - I just don't like the music much.
Listen to what you love people, if you like steps you like steps - its not a crime, you've just got bad taste. And r'n'b fans have got bad taste - do you really think that this isn't manfactured music, or are just listing stuff that you think is cool at the moment.
As for your last comment, ever heard of independant labels or Dischord (£7 an album - looking to make a buck - no way!
The last commnet was written by an idiot - grow up and get your own taste in music - stop just trying to be cool

Re: Just what is 'real music for real people'?

"If you profess to love music the perhaps you should open your ears slightly and check out some dance-orientated music. "

IMHO opinion, 99% of dance -orienttated music is repetitive music made by programmers who can't write songs, but woudl rather showcase soem nifty new programming trick they've learned. the Art of writing a song seems to have been compromised by the idea of gettign a good "groove", "beat" or "cut" - a simplistic and dull aural enhancement which forgets howi tow rite sogns but to provide a soundtrack to the clubbing, chemcial geenration.

Looking over my CD collection will reveal such well known "stale rock artists" such as Aphex twin, irrestiable Force, FSOL, the shamen, cornelius, dj punk rock, porter ricks, chicane, sash, cassisu, black dog, nightmares on wax,mirwais, a pretty comprehensive colelction fo paul oaken fold stuff, and BT. So shove that up yer arse when you accuse me of being prejudcied against dance music: im just prejudiced against souless, commericalised crap.

Just what is 'real music for real people'?

Haven't we heard all this so many times before? Pop music is, by its very nature, driven by hype. It's also self-consuming, inevitably. Find me an art form that doesn't involve plagiarism masquerading as innovation. If today is any worse than previous decades, it's because capitalism has been further evolved, deregulated, expanded. Frankly I think it's time certain members of the alternative music community leave the holier-than-thou, let's-tut-pityingly-at-the-masses attitude behind and concentrate on either finding music that appeals to them, underground or overground, or directing their ire at more general, political targets. And I'm not sure equating the techniques of record executives with murderous tyrants is particularly helpful either - reeks of adolescent exaggeration if you ask me.

Re: Just what is 'real music for real people'?

"Haven't we heard all this so many times before?"

yes. yes we have.

Just what is 'real music for real people'? twat!

that article stinks of intellectual snobbery - you're much better than the rest of us cos you don't follow trends.
Why hasn't it occurred to you that, despite fashion and trends, that people might actually like the music that they listen to ?

Re: Just what is 'real music for real people'? twat!

The only snobbery that comes in it is seeing through the commericial cashcow bullshit that passes for popular music nowadays for the soul-less, heart-less crap that is. Whether you enjoy it or not is up to you: but i'd rtaher listen to soemthign more meaningful than music which to all intents and purposes might as well be an advert for soft drinks. thats the point I was trying to make, and one which flew over your head.

leave a proper email address next tiem if you dare...

Re: Just what is 'real music for real people'? twat!

You only want to continue the argument through email because you're scared your argument will be ripped apart in public. Like an over-rated bunch of wankers beloved by precious little fools once said: what difference does it make?
Bang man and you will be able to conduct exactly the same argument through here.

Re: Just what is 'real music for real people'? twat!

ah, but c'mon ... your article says that people only like what they like because they're like sheep following a trend and that they aren't even aware of it.
bollocks.
hype can expose a band to a wider audience but it doesn't MAKE anyone like it.

and people who ramble on about songs having to mean something are the ones who are in danger of ripping the heart and soul out of music. Why judge music ethically when you can judge it, y'know, musically?
It is, after all, music. So long as the line is drawn at the likes of racism and other such unpleasantries, who gives a stuff?
in my favourite records i want good tunes, not mind numbingly pretentious lecturing. don't judge records on their ability to inspire thought - it's the trait of a self-absorbed fucknut.

but the original point still stands. the people who love Andrew WK and Steps do it for their own reasons - so end the tedious conspiracy theorising about hidden agendas and mass brainwashing and get the fuck over yourself now. or i'll kick your ass. like a fucking lord.

Re: Just what is 'real music for real people'? twat!

I don;t hide my email address, becuase ive nothign to hide. im passionate about music - can't you tell? oh, and in terms of getting over myself, whats your point? get over what exactly?

Music is there to be enjoyed, but the moment it becoems a product, the moment its about selling shit like pepsi-cola rather than using it an artistic expression, is the moment it becomes utterly meaningless. Do you really think people learn guitar so they can sell fucking soda drinks with it? no. they learn guitar becuase they want to sing songs, write songs. And yesh, i write songs to express the way i feel about the world, not about "buy snickers, buy coke!!!"

You're a fucking idiot if you think Stock-Aitken and Waterman or Max MArtin do it for the love of music, to express soemthign, to make art. They do it for the love of money. For fucks sake, go love Andrew W.K. or Steps if you like, its your decision. im not stopping you.


But what i do object to is peopel who blindly listen to music without realisinng they are beign manipulated for the simple sake of making money. being commerically exploited , and not even caring that they are. But if you're blind to the reason why such soulless music is made, then its not art any more than a Coke commerical is. its shit. its aural noise pollution. Im not judging records on their ability to inspire thought - though I'd rathe rlisten to Consolidated than S Club 7 anyday - I judge records on the fact whether the people making them have doen so for artistic, or commerical considerations.

If you make records for the primary purpose of exploiting an audience, for the purpose of gettign rich, then you aren;lt making music - you're doing somethign with all the artistic integrity of a tesco's ad, its meaningless and shit. Its not my fault I want my music made by musicians, not fucking pop muppets like Will fucking young.

Cappiche? If you dont' understand i'd rather listen to music made by people who are doing it for the sake of wanting to make music than listen to
a fucking piece of transparent money-orientated popshit like Britney, then you never will. I dont care what you think about my taste in music e- go listen to some money making pop masheen like westlife if you like.Thats your choice, not mine. I'd rather listen to someone who makes music for the love of music than the love of cash anyday, or someone who amkes music becuase they want to express the way the fell , rather than telling us which poxy soft-drink to buy. If you wanna go watch advertising manipulated pop-muppets fopr the rest fo your life, go back to reading smash hits will yer?

(yes, I am argumentative, and yes, I am unrepentant. But the whole point of the article was to make people think and challenge blind acceptance of a culture which embraces shite like HEar'say and Pop Idol).

Re: Just what is 'real music for real people'? twat!

"You're a fucking idiot if you think Stock-Aitken and Waterman or Max MArtin do it for the love of music, to express soemthign, to make art. They do it for the love of money. "

you're right. and they've made lots of money. and their audience of kids get simplistic pop records which they adore. problem?

"I judge records on the fact whether the people making them have doen so for artistic, or commerical considerations"

so, the actual music is irrelevant then?

"i'd rather listen to music made by people who are doing it for the sake of wanting to make music than listen to a fucking piece of transparent money-orientated popshit like Britney"

what if the latter is superior ? y'know, S Club 7 are loads better than Fugazi

"shite like HEar'say"

i've never heard hearsay, but they were selected from thousands of people and so i assume they're better than a load of boring men with rubbish hair and rubbish clothes playing rubbish songs that they really feel deep in their heart.


most of us go through a stage where we want to kill Britney Spears - cos, like, she doesn't even play an INSTRUMENT, let alone write her own songs ... but most of us get over it by the age of 16.

Re: Just what is 'real music for real people'? twat!

wouldn't it be REALLY annoying if poor graham here couldnt decide what music he liked cos there was no hype. where would he be without his hated capitlaism. if we brought him some records from the future, a selection of 'commercial' music and a selection of undergroud 'real' music, would he be able to tell the difference.

i don't dislike steps cos they're everywhere, their music is shite, but i don't mind the 'hype' claire is hot!

i think some1 needs to work out why he bothered writing the article in the first place. does he not have better things to do?

humph

Re: Just what is 'real music for real people'? twat!

Isn't all that going at Pop Idol being a bit more specific (and less interesting) than the actual article? I thought the main point of the article was that all of us were blindly following trends even if we were listening to real musicians (well, except for you, obviously) and that we should go and find some more inovative music 'as long as it's made with a heartfelt desire to say something rather than to be a mere product to be sold like McBurgers'.
But my problem with that is that there is no real reason why having a message and especially innovation should make a record any more likely to move your soul than music made by people with no desire other than to make good records. Surely looking out for people who're doing something new, no matter how shit it actually sounds, so you can make yourself believe you're being cutting-edge and not following trends or whatever has just as little to do with music as Will Young.
Personally I'll continue to listen to music that moves me regardless of its popularity, be it Coldplay, The Cooper Temple Clause or Black Nielson. I don't expect people to agree with me because everyone is different and there's no point trying to justify why music moves you, but I'm not going to be ashamed of it just because it doesn't fit into some anti-establishment ethic.

Re: Just what is it that you wan to do?

You guys are just so f!cking pathetic. Graham has raised a proper, thought out point, and I very much agree with him. There is no soul. I hardly buy any 'new' music anymore, I just know exactly what it will be like. Every album these days is just a rip off of a rip off of a rip off. For example, Goldfrapp's album, it's heralded as the best thing since sliced bread... No it isn't! It's just basically Zero7 or 4Hero (both these bands sound the same i hasten to add to a point), or kate bush, or sinead. It's all the fucking same. I got FC/Kahuna's new album - Machine Says Yes, that's wank also, a poor chemical brother's rip off. It's all so rubbish. At least if you're going to add to a style it isn't worth ripping it off note for note, there needs to be variation. The Strokes, The Hives, The Vines, The Timewasters if you ask me... I wouldn't buy a record buy an artist these days with a 'The' infront of their name if you paid me. Everyone is cashing in and milking that big beauty of a cash cow for all it's worth.

Also, tell you what, NME stinks. That's why I use THIS site to get reviews, at least it's not biased. Generally, the reviews here are excellent. I just read the review on Dog Soldiers and it's exactly what I'd have said about it. The music reviews are great too. NME on the other hand is written by a bunch of mugs. I bet they get cash hand-outs for reviews by major labels just so that they can all cash in and have a good time whilst sticking two fingers up at all the good music that's still merrily swimming around out there trying to get a look in.

I think I've digressed a bit but the main jist of it is, that all the stuff we're getting pummeled with by the music industry is shit. It's fucking crap. So called 'Indie' bands are all on major labels, how can you describe Oasis as Indie? I wont even start on pop. Rap is quite literally crap at the moment, just look at MTV BASE; you can turn it on one minute, turn it on an hour later and the video showing will be a clone of the video you watched previously, but with a different artist and the same jiggling scanty clad females in the background.

No-one does anything with passion or meaning no more. It's all for money, and personally I think that's a real shame.

Re: Just what is it that you wan to do?

Surely there is a difference between passion and soul and originality?

Re: Just what is it that you wan to do?

<>

surely you can see why that makes you sound like a wanker?

<>

the music industry is corrupt on ALL levels. see playlouder.com

<>

argh! no, really, ARGH! who gives a fucking shit about what record label a band is on if the output is good?

<>

stop being so bloody self righteous. just because you're not passionate about the Hives doesn't mean that the Hives aren't. they've been making records for years and it's only now that they've started becoming sucessful.

you're the ones ranting on about how it isn't about "the music" anymore - but YOU aren't concerned with music: you're concerned with whether or not bands are signed to a major label or not.
and is it not completely reasonable for a band to want the whole world to hear them? wilfully underachieving bands are awful. and if you're in a band and you want more people to hear your music then it's logical that a major label is the way to do it.
As the lead singer of the Action Faction said: "If I could be in the biggest band in the world and still be on an indie label then I world. But it's about as likely as finding a Yeti on Kirkcaldy High Street ."


bollocks, quotations deleted - read this instead

ach, why does it have to delete the quotes ?

"I wouldn't buy a record buy an artist these days with a 'The' infront of their name if you paid me"

surely you can see why that makes you sound like a wanker?

"I bet they get cash hand-outs for reviews by major labels "

the music industry is corrupt on ALL levels. see playlouder.com

"So called 'Indie' bands are all on major labels"

argh! no, really, ARGH! who gives a fucking shit about what record label a band is on if the output is good?

"No-one does anything with passion or meaning no more"

stop being so bloody self righteous. just because you're not passionate about the Hives doesn't mean that the Hives aren't. they've been making records for years and it's only now that they've started becoming sucessful.

you're the ones ranting on about how it isn't about "the music" anymore - but YOU aren't concerned with music: you're concerned with whether or not bands are signed to a major label or not.
and is it not completely reasonable for a band to want the whole world to hear them? wilfully underachieving bands are awful. and if you're in a band and you want more people to hear your music then it's logical that a major label is the way to do it.
As the lead singer of the Action Faction said: "If I could be in the biggest band in the world and still be on an indie label then I world. But it's about as likely as finding a Yeti on Kirkcaldy High Street ."

their argument is ...

... you're no good if you're famous or happy

Re: Just what is 'real music for real people'? twat!

trem, thats genuinely one of the funniest things ive rad in a long long time mate! :-D

Re: Just what is 'real music for real people'?

Well done Raziq!! As a manager of a band that play great music I find it increasingly annoying that people judge the band on whether they fit into a particular genre or not or fit into the fashion of the moment. Trying to promote the band can sometimes be extremely difficult having to pidgeon hole them or get a marketing angle when in actual fact the band play great music that cuts across many genres and age groups. Sometimes this idea that bands have to fit into boxes can actually limit the chance that bands have to get their art across to a wide audience and also creates narrow minded listeners who will chose only to listen to bands who fit into their chosen box.
The music industry in this country would benefit if we could encourage young people to listen to all types of music and I'm sure music as an art form would also benfit.

Check out http://www.fulc.co.uk
and listen to a band with many influences

Just what is 'real music for real people'?

Would it be ok to like Is This It if it hadn't sold in excess of 938597581623732532000000 copies though, even if it sounded exactly the same? Because that wouldn't be following a trend.

Re: Just what is 'real music for real people'?

OOOOH! You must like, really be into music after naming all those diverse acts from your CD collection ( flicking through Mixmag were we?).

At a guess, I would say that you were a second year uni-student, wide-eyed at the prospect of new theoretical ideas, pissing your pants at being able to be controversial and challenging, crying over the injusticies of the world. Heaven forbid you getting as passionate about something really important like, oh I don't know, world politics or something?

Let's get something straight right? I never accused you of anything, other than maybe being as bad the people you were bitterly slagging off; sounding to me as though rather than have an opinion or individual taste, you wanted the masses and hordes of dribbling idiots that we are to stop being led so easily by the brainwashing corporate pigs that dominate music, and come around to your enlightened and 'meaningful' regard and understanding of music. Stinking of hypocracy?Hmmmm...
You need to stop listening to stuff that you think impresses people ( not if you genuinely like it of course)and stop intellectualising music - it's this kind of musical snobbery that kills music. Music doesn't have to have a political/sociological/historical/musical point, it's a personal affair and no-one has the right to criticise so vengefully.Does something become commercial and henceforth, 'soul-less' simply because alot of people like it?

Who knows, but Shakespeare was regarded, in his time, as a writer of pap, accomadating the masses, popular low-culture and yet today he is regarded as the being the Bard, the greatest british writer...ever, perhaps the same accolades await the likes of SAW in 400 years time. This is clearly a joke, before the barrage of literary attacks come!

Lighten up, it's only music.

Oh yeah, Paul Oakenfold, BT and The Shamen?????

Re: Just what is 'real music for real people'?

only if they became a bunch of miserable cunts .... cos they're happy and consequently soulless

Re: Just what is 'real music for real people'?

2nd year uni student? hardly.

graduated 1994 with a degree in history, with a paper written on economic policy under Stalin. I cant deny that music is liek religion, in so far as you can never logically assert why the music that touches you and moves you does so, it just does. (in the same way that i don't think you can choose a religion by proof of Logical deduction).

Can't imagine the last time I bought Mixmag. I think we were still under a tory government then.

the shakespeare / SAW comparison ; simply becuase its remembered as beig popular doesn't make it the best. Just the best people know of. ( I mean the highly regarded chaucher had fart jokes in his work : does that make him the frank skinner or ben Elton of his day?)

Oh bollocks, im off to have breakfast.

Re: Just what is 'real music for real people'?

If you're still around are you so ill-informed that you think that dance music=r'n'b?? Give me strength. Don't talk to me about manufactured music and think that guitar-based music is exempt from such lameness...have you even seen 99% of the unsigned/signed -to-crap-student-based-indie-labels??It's the most contrived and stylised crap I have ever seen. At least Steps don't pretend to be anything other than hand-made crap.

And whilst you go on about 99% of dance-music being this that and the other, you cite a handful of the most commercial dance acts ever known to man...you know, some dance music remains underground and would you believe it, good! But I guess you wouldn't know this because you wouldn't get into let alone know where any of these places were - there's more to 'new' music than the friggin' Monarch.

I've heard of plenty of indie record labels such as Dischord - I work in the record business (shock,horror) and I have to say that through my contact with them they are usually formed a) to put their friend's 'brilliant' new band out, b) to get free promo's and demo's sent - it instills quite a feeling of 'importance' to have someone desperately send you a demo when in reality you can't actually do anything with it because you have no money/contacts or c)becuase you're a rich-kid and it's cool. Most indie's that actually are indie's fold within a few months. This is because they sign shit. Not because the horrible big record companies sap the money out of everything, it's because on the whole they wouldn't know decent music if it bit them in the arse. The only indie's to ever succeed have been those that have allowed themselves to become an imprint of a major - those corporate pigs.

Add your comment

Reply


 or Abandon