Stacks of music is made now that wasn’t made thirty years ago.

Give examples then. (Edit : I’m talking more about sheer diversity. Of course there will be genres around now that weren’t around then.)

Progressive gabba techno cybergrind.

Edit. Damn your edit!

I’m talking more about sheer diversity.

So what are you talking about then, what’s the difference between “variety” and “diversity”?

In the top 100 singles chart from 1985 (hardly the best of the 80s btw) banal rubbish dominates. It always does. But you’ve also got acts influenced by prog-rock, reggae, guitar rock, electronic music, musicals, opera, punk and goth. From Springsteen to Jimmy Nail, Madonna to Kirsty MacColl. Plus Russ Abbott and McCartney and his frog chorus.

Look at the top 100 from last year, does it exhibit as much variety (or diversity 😉 ) as 85? (And that’s a real question btw. I’m not as informed on some of these modern acts. But I still recognise most of the names and the music they produce.)

And to pre-empt the answer that all of the innovative stuff is being released through the internet, there was always plenty of interesting underground music, internet or not. It’s just easier to access these days, rather than having to rely on friends supplying terrible quality bootleg tapes.

Oh and another thought. In 1984 I think it was, Deep Purple reformed. One single boy in my class loved them, but only one. Deep Purple were thought of as dinosaurs and were even interviewed and asked why they were touring again when they were obviously too old. They were 40ish!

Recently I saw Foo Fighters in Milton Keynes. Grohl is my age, 47. Older than DP were in 84. The crowd was dominated by people way younger than me. Basically, if you’re in your twenties sod off and find your own music like we used to. The Foos are my age, they are my music!

😆

Basically, if you’re in your twenties sod off and find your own music like we used to. The Foos are my age, they are my music!

Most to the stuff I listen to is made by people in their 20s. Rock music by 40 year olds is dull and uninteresting as it was when Deep Purple reformed. The interesting, ground-breaking, CREATIVE music comes from the young… As it ever was. (Adele aside, of course!)

It’s like being in the school play ground when kids used to come up with the most obscure band that no one have ever heard of because that made them cool 8)

Fact is a lot of people like her, in fact she is one of the most popular singers in the UK hence why she got prime time TV slot.

Sorry if that’s not cool enough for some 8)

The interesting, ground-breaking, CREATIVE music

That may be true, but many people listen to a type of music because they like it, not because it’s ‘creative’ (whatever that means).

IdleJon – Member
In the top 100 singles chart from 1985 (hardly the best of the 80s btw) banal rubbish dominates. It always does. But you’ve also got acts influenced by prog-rock, reggae, guitar rock, electronic music, musicals, opera, punk and goth. From Springsteen to Jimmy Nail, Madonna to Kirsty MacColl. Plus Russ Abbott and McCartney and his frog chorus.

Look at the top 100 from last year, does it exhibit as much variety (or diversity ) as 85? (And that’s a real question btw. I’m not as informed on some of these modern acts. But I still recognise most of the names and the music they produce.)

And to pre-empt the answer that all of the innovative stuff is being released through the internet, there was always plenty of interesting underground music, internet or not. It’s just easier to access these days, rather than having to rely on friends supplying terrible quality bootleg tapes.

The top 100 chart, just like 30 years ago, doesn’t represent the diversity of music available (e.g. underground stuff has never charted). It does represent what the biggest labels want you to buy, however. Things have a changed a lot – fewer labels, internet, globalisation, more music media, much more music being produced. There is too much to fit into one chart, so the top 100 can only represent the most sold which is always going to be what appeals to most people. If you want to find interesting stuff and you’re relying on the chart to find it you’re looking in the wrong place.

Have a wander around youtube, patreon, bandcamp, soundcloud, beatport etc.

perhaps beeb should be ppv per program, and then we’d be able to pick and choose.

imho its time anyway for the bbc to go private and advertise. the licence fee is an outmoded concept in this day an age,

It’s like being in the school play ground when kids used to come up with the most obscure band that no one have ever heard of because that made them cool

Except it’s nothing like that at all – what is ‘obscure’ these days? The internet is swamped with artists you and I haven’t heard of. Obscure is meaningless when there is so much out there.

Obviously a lot of people want music to be like a comfy pair of slippers. Other people are into S&M of an evening 🙂 (I know what I mean anyway!)

perhaps beeb should be ppv per program

If you did that there’d be nothing on but Adele etc from morning till night, as that is what the vast majority of viewers want to watch – or think they want to watch. The beauty about the Beeb is that they can show things that are of minority interest without worrying about ppv or adverts. Or at least that’s the principle. Of course now they only show what the Tories tell them to.

The top 100 chart, just like 30 years ago…

I used the top 100 because lemonysam pointed out how banal the chart toppers were 30 and 20 years ago.

Except it’s nothing like that at all – what is ‘obscure’ these days? The internet is swamped with artists you and I haven’t heard of. Obscure is meaningless when there is so much out there.

As I said, the only difference from now to then is that the internet makes accessing these bands easier. Do you think more people are making music now compared to 10, 20, 50 years ago? The fact that anyone can upload a video on youtube doesn’t equal good music.

The interesting, ground-breaking, CREATIVE music comes from the young… As it ever was

I agree and that was sort of my point. But it’s also been a long time since any group of people made a significant change in popular music. When was the last major step change? Has anything changed in music in the last twenty years? Are young groups on the net making a type of music, a style of music, so radically different to what has preceded them? Or is it just derivative of the last 50 years of popular music.

Whether you think Adele is safe, predictable is one thing but it’s consistently high quality and she writes and performs herself – that is the very definition of creative

as for the show… “An evening with” isn’t a new format is it, even Des O’Connor got one

As I said, the only difference from now to then is that the internet makes accessing these bands easier. Do you think more people are making music now compared to 10, 20, 50 years ago?

Maybe not 10, but definitely 20 or 50 years ago… Soundcloud, Bandcamp, sites like that give people the access to make music available. that was never there before. You had to learn an instrument, record, get a record deal … Why wouldn’t more people be makin music, knowing they can unleash it on the public in minutes! Obviously I don’t know the actual figures, there may in fact be less people making music..

badnewz – Member

Each to their own in terms of music, but with Ed Sheeran, Adele and Sam Smith ruling the UK music scene, it does seem to be a case of the bland leading the bland

Don’t forget Ellie Goulding….

Doesn’t seem to matter what playlist I select on Spotify, within a few songs Ed Sheeran, Ellie Goulding or Justin Bieber will pop up – even if the playlist is called something like “90’s grunge death metal fusion”…..