In a move to bring back the excitement to Eurovision, in a similar way that exploding nipple-clamps brings back excitement to a doomed marriage, the powers that be have decided that the 2016 dross-a-thon will have a public vote. Oh yes, I can hear the joy on your breath already - because, like I do - this brings to the forefront of the world's largest abuse of the word "talent" show, two of the things I love the most in the world: voting systems and throwing heartfelt and whimsical abuse at the Eurovision Song Contest.
First, the technical side of things. Previously the vote was done by each country getting a jury of "music experts" / coked-up shaved monkeys to vote on the best act, the people of each nation that actually think Eurovision is worth voting on, to hit their phones to record their vote, and then it gets averaged out to give out the countries votes in preferred order/Russia as number one if within invasion range. So far, so inevitably not England winning and, because of the number of countries involved and a max of 12 points to hand out, it meant that half of the voting section of the show was wasted as a quarter of the way through someone had mathematically inevitably won and there are only so many times over twenty minutes you can show the same person trying to emote shock, surprise, and joy over something only an act of a god with a decent taste in music could stop.
The new system "creates TV magic" (their honest to god words, all complaints to info@eurovision.tv) by giving each countries' public an equal number of votes to their jury. After all, the official voting is drummed out with the monotony of a Thursday afternoon school assembly, and they will then, in reverse order, read out how many total votes each country got from the plebiscite. Technically this means that no-one knows who will have won until the very last moment, in reality it means that you get to sit through even more tedium on an already interminably slow show. Oh yeah, and it'll give the public an enhanced sense of empowerment, so it'll drive a lot text messages and give them more dollar. There is also, thanks to the app, the increased chance of someone trying to rig the vote in a more direct fashion, however Eurovision have assured everyone that that isn't possible, mostly by not admitting it is.
Anyway: on a technical level its main advantage is that "politics" (i.e. Russia) can't be too involved with the final decision and the Jury can't disagree as much with the public as before, so there will be less outcry if "the wrong act" wins. However, you still have the same basic issue as before of, if a countries Jury gives an act a 2 and the public give it a 10 it still averages out as a six, it's just now out of a possible 24 rather than 12. You also continue to have the problem of the public voting politically, rather than on an "is it actually a good act" level (Russia is basically never getting another point from the Western public) that the jury may actually be skilled to vote on. You also continue to have the issue of Cultural Closeness, wherein countries with similar musical traditions and cultures will tend to vote for each other because they 'just like the tune' because it sounds like what they hear on the radio all the time, rather than being able to make an objective evaluation of it. Oh yeah, and boobs are really going to come into play here, as there are going to be a lot of votes up for grabs if you can convince the audience that there is a chance of seeing more butter being churned, even though
So will any of that change things for the UK? No, obviously it won't because our selection criteria continues to be "are they a bloody disgrace compared to everything else we have on offer?". It's just that now we get to firmly see how much the voting public of Europe hates it, in unequivocal terms. But mostly it's just a bit of pointless deckchair moving. As an attempt at trying to be a bit more representative of the public tastes it fails, as populations aren't taken into account, as an attempt to inject some excitement it fails, as there is still the tedium of the jury section before most of what's gone before gets made pointless by the lighting round, and as an attempt to remove politics it fails, as the assumption that the audience isn't political has been proven well and truly false over the last couple of years.
About the only thing it really does is prove that the Eurovision are unwilling to deal with the basic overblown nature of the show, and that they think a bit of mid 2ks interactivity will shake things up in any meaningful manner. Because as far as Eurovision are concerned, the show will always go on, and on, and on, and on....
So a couple of days ago, everyone who thinks that the Eurovision contest is important got all excited about headlines like this one that implied that the Great British Public (known connoisseurs of good musical taste) were actually going to have something to do with the selection of the song that will represent us to Europe. Yup, for a brief few seconds we actually thought that we might get to find and pick a blinder of an act (rather than raid the colonies for a ringer) that could go forth to Johnny Foreigner and show them what the British Music scene has to offer (from a selection of acts that don't want to risk the career suicide of 'nil pois').
Only it's not going to help at all, in any way, due to two major reasons. Firstly, the songs entered (of which I assume there will be many containing nothing but expletives) have to go through the OGAE, i.e. the largest collection of people in this country who have sat through every Eurovision ever, including the secret ones where Wogan started demanding whisky and launch codes. These are people who have bought into the chintz of Eurovision to the point of being willing to spend £15.00 a year in the internet age to get a magazine about one of the most heavily promoted and publicised events out there. They are indoctrinated into and educated in the ways of Eurovision, the voting cycles and the tactics, the politics and the power-plays. Fundamentally, these are the people who would tell Lordi to turn it down or be worried that Conchita Wurst would upset the Russians too much, so the chances of an outsider or oddball choice is instantly gone as they focus on what will get "The Win".
So once anything that is either new, exciting, or edgy (i.e. most of the music coming from anything even vaguely not-top-30) is binned, we get the barrier of "a professional panel and the public". The first bit sounds nice, but then you remember that professional panels were also why Electro Velvet, Scooch, Daz Sampson, Blue and other such aberrations were allowed to ever be thought "a good thing". Plus, because it'll be on the BBC and thus the decision process will be gunning for TV viewer eyes, it means the panel will include "names" like the git-demon Wil.I.Am, who will be going out of their way to make 'bold decisions' to promote their own agenda, rather than thinking "can we win this?" And then "the public" roll in, specifically the aforementioned TV viewing public. The kind of people who watch the X-Factor or The Voice for "the drama", which basically means someone having a good sob story or being attractive in a trying-hard way. Talent, beyond a certain base level, won't be the issue - it'll be about likeability.
So, after several months of being promised that we might actually win this time and that it's really going to be different, we are going to get something that is scientifically selected to win last year's event, that has been vetted by people more interested in their own next album, and then approved by people who fundamentally wanted to watch Eastenders but with a bit more of a tune. And then folks will wonder why we hit the bottom and ask if we can just bring in a ringer again.
Of course it's easy (and fun) to mock, Eurovision is an easy target for awfulness But there is a way that this could all be fixed and it's an incredibly easy one: actually let the public decide. Have an open list, have anyone be able to enter a song if they want, and then let people vote directly from that list. Have one big show where you announce the winner if you want, and then have the experts work with them to spruce up whatever it is they are going play to the absolute peak of it's potential (you can make a documentary out of it if you want). But make it actually picked by the public, actually representative of the British Public. Because if we lose, it will be on our own terms - but if we win, it will be something we can actually be proud of for more than five minutes.
A wise man once said of rock music, "Don't analyse it, man. Don't try to understand it, just enjoy it at face value".
That man was Lemmy of the mighty Motorhead, a band famed for having released possibly the greatest and most well known Heavy Metal track of the last 30 years: The Ace Of Spades. It is a song that has been used to sell things from cars to snack food, a song referenced as a go-to 'look at the long hairs!' sting, and a song they consistently play as the second to last track at each of their shows. It is a great song, but it has overshadowed the song they consistently end on: I refer to the lesser known, often overlooked, and the literally show stopping Overkill.
But why is it such a great song and what is it about it that makes it such a perfect way to end an hour and a half of concert? I wanted to put this into words, because whilst it may look and sound very simple, there is a hell of a lot going on that deserves closer inspection.
First, the intro. Starting on a solid, speedy, hammering drum rift which essentially stays the same through the whole song, we have 16 bars of pure, primal pounding. Nothing flash, kick drums and cymbals laying down a 4/4. Then the first guitar kicks in for another 16 bars, a bass riff sounding more like a rhythm guitar and made of two notes being hammered away with more boogie than you can find in some pop-'funk' albums. Next spirals in the lead guitar, diving down and joining the bass for another 16 bars of raw rock and roll with a similarly limited set of notes in perfect accompaniment: simplicity given form and drive, an announcement of the power trio in it's most on target glory. To paraphrase Sun Ra: anyone can play it, only a genius can write it. The tune continues, almost without variation, through the first verse and chorus.
"The only way to feel the noise is when it's good and loud"
A straightforward observation on the live music experience, but the usage of "noise" bringing a truth to the levels involved at a Motorhead performance and of the oeuvre of Heavy metal as a whole. Also "when it's good and loud" carries the mixed meaning of the music being of a high standard and the pure quantity of output having a positive quality all of it's own. This is not simple language, this is simple words used as poetry.
"So good I can't believe it, screaming with the crowd"
A line that captures the duality of the concert goer in that you experience it as an individual whilst feeding off everyone else there. It also gives permission to let it all go, to just express emotion in an incoherent level, a rock and roll tradition from the bobby-sock era reborn and given validity. The usage of "I" is important though, as it also bridges the gap between the performer and the audience, bringing them in as a whole. This is a unified experience, the singer working with the people who have come to listen and be an active part of what is happening. The line is critical, as it binds everyone together.
"Overkill, Overkill, Overkill"
A word by itself, perfectly expressing a multitude. Excessive, over what is required, but carrying a certainty of completion with it. Could everything until this point have been laid down quieter, slower, and with more complication? Yes, but it would not have been as good.
Under a minute in and it's time for the first bridge. The backline keeps things as before, but the guitar jazzes things up a bit - however, importantly, not too much. The core sound is still there, the tempo and attack has not restrained or reset itself. It's the musical equivalent of a minute's straight dash, exhausting but exhilarating. And then the second round begins.
"On your feet you feel the beat, it goes straight through your spine"
Motorhead have, on many occasion, held the official title of "worlds loudest band" so this is quite possibly a literal statement of what the audience is experiencing on a purely acoustic level. But the second section also expresses the release and euphoria many feel at such times. The tendency to foot tap to a beat, the urge to do things when highly motivational music comes on, and the endorphins release associated with music as a whole.
"Shake your head"
A clear reference to headbanging, the hallmark of heavy metal fan appreciation, and an extension of the original 'rocking out' that accompanied the earlier hard rock and heavy rock from which Motorhead came (and were the source of the term, as per the "Motorheadbangers" collective noun for their fans).
"You must be dead, if it don't make you fly"
Testament again to the euphoria gained from the live experience, but with more of the synthesis of the event. What will make you fly? Both the music and the engagement with the music. Also a brag as to the uplifting and inclusive nature of what is going on. Only the dead won't be excited by this song, but it is an un-rarefiedexperience open to all.
"Don't sweat it, Give it back to you"
There is no need to worry, the band will give unto the audience as well as the audience giving unto them. Again, the experience is not one way, or even two way. This is a group effort - a social event.
"Don't sweat it, Give it back to you"
Seriously guys, we're all going to have a great time.
"Overkill, Overkill, Overkill"
Further restatement of the overall impact of what is happening, and the set up to the second bridge. This time the lead guitar is a bit more wild, a bit more free. But still the backline is locked in tight, unbreaking at the minute and a half mark - then be rejoined at the two minute point for another couple of rounds of the main hook, before the final set of lyrics
"Know your body's made to move. Feel it in your guts"
No instruction on how you should move, but pure license to move in any manner you want. By now you should be lifted, you should be elated, and on a primal level you will be acting how you see fit. Action is the key, to what end is down to the individual.
"Rock 'n' roll ain't worth the name, if it don't make you strut"
A key line, possibly the most important and certainly worthy as the finishing statement. This is Rock & Roll, pure and simple. This is Blues, bubbled through fifty years and mutated through a Marshall stack, but it's rock and roll - and it needs to make you feel good. This is a gauntlet thrown down to others, this is a testament to everything you have heard in the show and it is the final closing endorsement of all previous markers highlighted in the song. Right here, right now, this is how rock and roll makes you. Anything else is a shame - accept no substitutes.
"Don't sweat it, get it back to you Don't sweat it, get it back to you OVERKILL, OVERKILL, OVERKILL"
A re-enforcement of the above, a final sing along of passion, a final one word chant that carries volumes with efficiency.
Lyrics sung, we have the finale. The guitarist is let loose, unrestrained but still running with the pack, darting around the unstoppable force of the drums and bass. They have done so little but it has filled vast voids, given the six-stringer the backing needed to highlight and carry it's work. Then the first tempo change, the first deviation from the last 180 seconds of breakneck rocking. Things slow, the notes are fewer, the cymbals are pounded in the classic marker that it is all done. Slightly over the regulation 3 minutes for a pop-song, but still on form for a classic.
But wait, it was a ruse! The drums start again, the same loop and the same pressure. We are literally back to the start of the song, as all the parts fill in again for another round. A second rush of steam, although with a more intense guitar lead from the off. Unleashed, unbound, unburdened by needs for words. You know everything there is to know about what will happen now, there is no need for communication as all there is is understanding. The band are off, the audience are off, it's pell-mell to the real finishing line! One last huzzah, one more minute of life at it's best. Then over, done, spent.
...Not really. It's called "Overkill", not "just enough". The pounding starts again, the engine now running on empty. The band gave it their all, the listener gave it their all, how can anything else be dragged up? Well, it is rock and roll so we best get going with it even if we are running on fumes. The bass and the lead are more urgent, still working the core tune like sirens going off. Rabid and exhausted, the song almost doubled in length from anything that previously seemed the requirement. And then, finally, a ridiculous five minutes after it all began, the actual conclusion of the song that has left you shattered and unable to go any further.
Although, with the live version - it does. The band leaves the stage, but their instruments continue though strength of pure feedback, the music no longer needing to be anything but literal force and presence. The wash over the crowd is total, nothing can be heard other than the aftermath of what has come before, a post orgasmic chill that can continue under its own existence, an adrenaline rush given musical form. You have survived, you have experienced - and you are going to have it ringing in your ears for days, as the concert, the rock and roll explosion, continues to be a part of your life from there on.
Ace of Spades is the classic, it's is the jab that startles and delights, but like all "one, two" combos, it is the second blow that floors you - and that does the real work.
So the fact that nightclub are closing all over the show finally hit the headlines today, about 5 years after everyone involved in the industry knew that it was happening, and a myriad of reasons as to why it's happening have been put forth. Of the ones flying around, mostly from people who can't remember the last time they put their head in a club, for the biggest one is "because pubs can now stay open into the small hours". And, worryingly, they're right.
11pm till 11:30pm used to be the golden hours at many a club, when it went from all but a few dedicated clubbers (or, in a rock club, those who turned up for the "Shite Death & Thrash Hour") to rammed and buzzing. These days any set before midnight has a good chance of being thought of as a warm-up slot for the new guy, which says a lot about why people used to go out and makes you wonder how important the music ever actually was. However there is a second reason that a lot of these folks are missing out on: a lot of pubs are now also nightclubs in and of themselves. Whilst not all of them have a dancefloor (though a growing number do), they will often have a nightclub grade sound-system and a some kind of DJ providing the tunes. So this isn't so much a change in consumer habits as it is in product availability for the portion of the market that liked expensive booze, deafening music, and shouted conversation.
Speaking of product availability, another big reason cited is that everyone is going off to festivals. "We can see all the DJs in one place over three days!" they say. This is true, but there is a silent "whilst off our tits on lashings and lashings of drugs!!" which isn't being spoken of. Whilst drugs in clubs are still available and consumed it has, in the majority of instances, become a more tricky proposition. Councils have been enforcing drug policies harder, which encourages clubs to do more monitoring and ejecting of people off theirs heads than before (plus there is a recession on, so a lot of clubs would rather you bought their booze than someone else's pills), especially at the smaller venues (which, often, the council are looking for an excuse to close down. More on that later). Add to this the outright prohibition on the countries' favorite illegal substance due to the smoking ban and it's a situation where the "true experience" can only be safely enjoyed in a field with 10,000 other people (though I'm not sure what's safe about being blitzed out of this world in a mudbath).
Next up you have people talking about the costs. Which is sensible, as nightclubs are bloody expensive to run. However the biggest issue isn't so much the running costs, it's the opportunity costs. Because, financially, nightclubs might as well be run on a foundation of burning money. No-one in their right mind would start a discussion with a bank manager by going "I want to hire a really large amount of floorspace but I only want to open it from when a lot of people are thinking about going to sleep till when people are either asleep or thinking about waking up. Oh, and I want it to be half full for most of the week and unusable during the day because of the smell that that many people dancing generates.". Obviously a number of venues get around this problem, using their sites during the day. But not everywhere has the ability to do that successfully, or without vast investment, and however you plan it there is going to be a "switch-over" time that is a financial deadzone when a lot of potential money is walking on by. On top of this is the amount of money that could be made from the venue (often in an attractive part of town, or somewhere cheap) by redevelopment (see Eddie's in Birmingham). Even if your venue isn't that tasty a prospect, it's presence can screw up developments in the area (Ministry of Sound is a prime example), or just piss off the neighbors a lot.
This is where the councils come in by the way, because they really don't like nightclubs at the moment. For whatever reason (pissed people making noise) they get way upset at nightclubs and are, according to some, "attacking the night-time economy". They aren't though, they are just attacking the part that has a whole load of people all leaving at the same time and in the same state (pissed and making noise). Late night pubs have more of a steady flow in and out, even if they have the same problems (making noise whilst pissed, seriously can folks not just learn not to yell or throw-up when leaving a venue?!), so they don't get so much trouble.
Another popular pundit choice is technology and The Internet! Specifically Tinder, the popular "dating" app. Personally I don't think that app alone makes that big a difference, however the technology issue is certainly an issue and dating apps/services as a whole will certainly have an impact. However the true story includes the increase of alternative digital distractions as a whole to going out on a Friday night, the growth of music distribution meaning you can now hear anything from any scene almost anywhere, and, quite importantly, the continued drop in the price of a sound system and lights. For five hundred quid / the price of a top of the range mobile phone you can have a mobile sound and lights rig, so why go out to a club when you can just setup at a friends house, a pub backroom, or somewhere out of town. It's not quite the resurgence of the 80's rave scene, but it's having it's impact on the traditional locations.
So, many, many reasons. And many, many club getting shut down. But is it a bad thing, beyond the loss of trade and jobs? Is it not just another phase in the ongoing changes that have been happening since the dawn of time? In many ways "yes", because nightclubs aren't going to die out as a whole and music nights are still going to be able to carry on in other locations. A lot of lazy venues, who didn't keep up with the trends, are going to be shut down or modified into late-pub style affairs (or even, horror of horrors, trendy bars! Which, as the high-street retail sector dies it's painful death, are going to be the phone-store and coffee-shop plague of the next decade),. It's part of the eternal cycle of popularity, the swing from one thing to another. The same happened with swing clubs and jazz hops and disco and even raves. Things just move on and change, and in this case they have changed because people who weren't that into the music side of the clubs have now got a whole raft of alternatives available to them. The market has changed, because it's quite possible the market was never actually there.
But, and this is a big but, it is sign of removal of a hell of a lot of small and medium sized venues (regardless of how good or well managed they may be) as the market switches to the Big and Super venues as being the only viable prospect in the bulk of places, and the death of those venues is another marker of the entrenchment of the Eternal Now, as niche scenes fail to have the chance to make it big. Micro-venues may continue to be the spawning grounds of new things, but without the small and middle sized places for them to grow and mature there is so much less hope of making it into the remaining big and super clubs (even on a Wednesday!). Small and medium sized venues are, for a number of folks, social nexus's where they could meet people from their same style tribes. Micro venues are often feared to be too cliquey, big or super ones too intimidating (or just too large for a scene to even consider being able to fill it). With these going that facility is gone, and whilst we can pretend that we are a more accepting world it means that people in the more outsider and alternative style tribes can't go out as themselves.
On top of this distinct youth movements like we have seen over the last 60 years won't happen in or be centered around the music, they will be tried out at festivals and online - but I'm honestly worried they will either be too broad an appeal to actually be exciting, or too niche to ever get traction. Music might get picked up by the movements to come, but it won't be the driving force of it. I hope I'm wrong, I hope this is just my age kicking in and failing to get what the young are doing these days, but it's a further step towards a world that has a pop culture that, like the 50's, is dominated by the thirty-plus market (because they are the ones willing to pay for it).
So how do you stop this happening? Simple, you go out to a nightclub. All of this is happening because people aren't going out, so if you're worried or upset by it then the only act you can ever do to help is to go out (and tell your friends that you are going out, so they might come out with you). Keep an eye out for events you want to go to, consider hiring a venue and running an event if you don't find anything you like (trust me, there is going to be a final splurge of cheap hiring as the death knell rings), and if all else fails contact the venues and go 'I would go to something like X if it did Y' - because if things don't change, it's going to be a world of bars playing "Now that's what I call X-Factor 37", and I just don't want to leave that as a legacy for our children.
About 3 people got this and lightly smiled. Totally worth it!
Given the recent flooding massive thanks have to be given to Roger and the team for have done an excellent job of drying the Q Club out and putting in the new sound system. Rumors that wellingtons and inflatable armbands were now the "must wear" thing for all the cool kids were clearly false. everyone knows that all the really cool kids are wearing silver spray paint on their faces this year as anything else is mediocre.
On the technical front it was the first time playing out with a projector running off of my DJ laptop. Technically it worked really well but because of not wanting/being allowed to blind the audience it was projected on the ceiling and got all stretched out and avant-garde for anyone who wasn't in the booth.
The next War is in about three months time, keep an eye on the Facebook for more details and turn up for awesome industrial clubbing fun.
My next DJ outing will be the Cambridge Meet and Geek in September, turn up for a day of geek based activities and me doing a Psychocandyish set.
11:30 - 12:45
Danceslut - Nano Infect
Emergent disfigurement - venal flesh
NFN9 - 3JEAN
Medicine - Empusa
Not entertained - Tactical sekt
Beatendwn - DYM
Etika - DREDDUP
Bad girl - LSD project
Product - XMH
Hope - Strictures
Mindphaser - Electro synth rebellion
Lovely day - front 242
Ssssnakepit (Hamilton Mix)- Enter Shikari
Voodoo Peoples - Pendulum
Ace Of Spades - The Chaos Engine
Never Wanted To Dance - Mindless Self Indulgence
White Knuckle Head Fuck - Caustic
The main booth discussions were: Thomas The Tank Engine, MP3 DJing software, the breeding habits of cables and wiring, why Raggedyman isn't allowed to play with the smoke machine...no...stopit!, how people who turn up to an industrial night and demand we play Prince really can fucking do one, Pimms o'clock, the delicate balance between thumping bass and noise pollution law.
I have a pet theory: the musical landscape was irrevocably
altered in 2005, and since then no new scene has managed to get
"Big". I appreciate that it's a controversial comment to make, and
that it also happens to bearound the time science says I stop listening to new music,
so I want to make it clear that I'm not saying good new music stopped being
made then (because you can find awesome new music everywhere). I'm simply
saying that "Big" slowed down as being possibly for new acts and
scenes, at least in the context of what had happened before. And why am I
saying 2005? Because that was the year that YouTube landed, marking it as the
year that the shared cultural youth experience (one of the most vital things
for new things to become Big by) finally got a nail in the head and that
scarcity in youth culture stopped being a thing.
Back in the day when the internet was just
this weird thing that either hadn't been invented by computer visionaries, was
a wild idea of computer science theorists, or was that strange thing the
computer students swore they weren't using to look at porn with, there was a
high cost of entry into any youth culture, driven by scarcity of the resources
relating to that culture. For example, if you wanted to listen to music you had
to go and buy the record, or at the very least the tapes to copy it from
someone who had bought the record, and you had to buy the means to play that
record, But even if you had that record you were limited on where you could
play it and you were limited by possibly not even knowing that the record
existed or how to contact the people who sold the record. Similarly if you
wanted to join a scene you had to spend a large amount of time finding out that
the scene existed, where it was, and then you would have to go along to it with
no real clue what the culture was like and with the likelihood of sticking out
like a sore thumb. If you then wanted to join that culture you would have to
invest a considerable amount of funds and effort on buying the uniform of that
scene, mostly due to the small number of places actually selling the clothing
in question. To put it bluntly: it was a total arse, and because it was a total
arse a lot of people didn't move that far outside of their youth scene, even
before the tribal violence and rejection fears of the times.
Additionally there were very few media
outlets at all for youth music of any kind, let alone whatever scene you may
have happened to have been into. On the telly there was Top Of The Pops, and at
any given time one or possibly two other music programs (including "Youth
TV", which doesn't really count as that has always been terrible) which
generally compressed the whole world of music into one show so your rockers and
your indie kids and your ravers would all be watching the same show, and
'booo'ing and 'yayyy'ing along like football fans because they all had a lot of
stuff that you didn't really like but were willing to watch through for the one
or two acts that you did. But even then you would be more likely watching
because it was an act from the scene you liked rather than a bad you actually
raved on about, with you watching to represent and go "more of this kind
of thing please!". This is why The Stone Roses and The Happy Mondays on
the same Top Of The Pops was heralded as the triumph of Madchester when they
sound like two difference scenes, why Blur vs Oasis was the battle of Britpop
rather than retro-pop vs indie-rock, why Rage Against The Machine got big with
the rave party kids via The Word and why everyone with a leather jacket I knew
watched Slipknot literally destroy the cameras on TGI Friday (even though half of
them couldn't stand them). Yes, from the mid 90's if you had access to the
mysterious "cable TV) you could watch MTV but that basically meant
"20 hours of Radio One a day, with one or two specialist genre shows a
night", so if you're scene wasn't flavor of the month then you still had
the bottleneck happening where everyone on your scene was watching the same
thing.
Now, whilst this may all sound like a pain
(it was) those bottlenecks were also very useful because it gave
"Bigness" and avoided the cultural balkanisation and scene hopping
that is now happening (two contradictory but linked concepts). Because you had
a lot of people knowing the same songs (regardless of if it was their thing)
the songs could get "big" and get a decent floor going in the club,
because you were listening to a lot of music you would never think of listening
to a band could find an listeners from a wider audience, because niches were
part of a larger overall scene you had more people turning up to broad interest
events (well, at least outside of London) so there was more crossover, and
because you had to go an engage in a scene to discover things you actually had
to get out there and partake of it. From my personal prospective this gave us
things like the genre spanning Llollapalooza and leather jackets turning up at
raves because The Prodigy had thrown in some guitars and the goths had dug a
few Ministry Albums,(then again it also gave us the ubiquitous "Crap
Thrash Hour" at the start of every rock club so it may not of all been
good). New sounds, new scenes, new tastes could gain traction due to all the
reasons listed above.
Then 2005 happened, and Youtube removed
the first bottle neck of scarcity. Very rapidly any music you wanted to hear
would be accessible to you in minutes, your very own Top Of The Pops playing
just what you want whenever you want it. So people ended up listening to just
what they wanted, because if you just wanted to listen tohardbag orpornogrind you could do, all day if wanted. You could
go as niche as you want and never have to touch anything else. Then MP3 players
and broadband became mainstream and took down the second bottleneck, meaning
that you could download a bands discography in less time than it would
previously of taken to find their single in a shop and you could carry it with
you everywhere you wanted with no compromise of availability. Then eBay removed
the bottleneck of stylistic scarcity, by making all the clothing available. You
didn't have to live near or travel to that one specific store that sold the
clothing you wanted, you could sit at home and have 5 stores come to you (and
at competitive prices!). All of this was aided by Google having taken down the
final bottleneck of knowledge scarcity, so if you wanted to know anything about
a scene, from what was happening where to where you could hire a venue to how
to spread the word to what was trendy and wearable, you could get it in a
couple of minutes.
This was, and will continue to be, mostly
awesome. New things to listen to, new places to go, new sounds to hear.
But not all of it is that great, as with
the removal of scarcity meant there was no underground for this to dwell in for
all that long before they go prematurely big. Or, at the very least, latched
onto an chewed through by the novelty hungry machine that was the media. As
more and more obscure things came into sight they were all now given their
moment in the sun, but often before they could organically grow enough of a
following to survive that moment or capitalize on it. Scenes didn't have enough
time to become actually big before being pronounced the Next Big Thing and then
tossed aside as the long queue of Next Big Things was worked through as rapidly
as possible. Things also haven't been helped by the increased discover-ability
to the listening public has come along an increased dispensability, as it too
goes through a thirsty journey towards novelty and freshness. It is perfectly
possible to hear about a new scene on the Monday, have listened to the music on
the Tuesday, to have sourced all the fashions on the Wednesday, and know about
all the events on the Thursday. Weather someone will then actually go to the
event on the Friday is up for debate, as they could easily have moved onto the
next thing before then. Scene-hopping and a cultural flatness brought on by
observing rather than engaging is developing, you don't even have to go to the
shows any longer as you can see it through someone else’s phone video so how
can a new scene maintain the excitement needed to become "big" when
all of it's mystique is gone at the very first whiff of discovery?
Instead of bigness we have, in most cases,
an outbreak of smallness. Niches and specific scenes are totally possible
because you can find enough people to keep them going, which is a great thing
in many ways but it also leads to the balkanisation that was described above
and a staleness that people don't seem to quite get. For example I recently had
a friend make the very reasonable and true comment that nothing new had
happened in Classic Metal for years now, but I had to point out that that was
because all the things that could happen with it had happened about 20 years
ago with Nu Metal. With any kind of music its the simple case that if you're
going to have a genre described by standing still and a scene made up of people
who want a very specific thing it can't evolve or significantly grow because
it's whole reason to exist is it's constraints, it's like looking at Baroque
and going "well I like it but can we throw in some synths and
blastbeats?" The availability of the niche scene has created its own
bottleneck where things can't evolve without having to exit the scene, and
because there isn't as much group experience available it's not by gathering
more people around it but by going and creating it's whole own new scene.
The fact that hardly any new acts that
could authentically be described as "underground" are making it into
the charts (even the previously awesome 40 to 20 region) is testament to this
by itself, with theaging of the headline acts at underground events giving
further fuel to it. And it's only going to get worse, as the money is falling
out of music so bands and events have less ability to hang around that long and
more intensive to find and focus on a specific market. The removal of the
bottlenecks has leveled the playing fields, it's just that it appears to have
done it by driving things down rather than bringing everyone up. This is why,
more than ever, it's important to get out there and represent not just your
particular scene but the broad umbrella scene that it came from, to help and
keep everyone afloat. Plus, you never know: you might hear something you like
but never thought of listening to before.
Of the many things about the modern music scene that really piss me off (trust me, there are plenty of them) my single most consistent gripe has been people's usage of decades to define genres of music. It's a habit that has been around since the 80's (IMO pushed along by The Rock And Roll Years, possibly the UKs biggest contribution to the rise of retro culture) even though it is a term that says nothing of any actual value, unless you use it as a highly weighted code. Actual genre terms can be a highly useful tool to give a rough description of what you can expect to hear and the intent of the content, however the most you can ascribe to a decade is the kind of instruments and recording technology that was available and, broadly speaking, what music hadn't happened until that point. These are not very useful for what the music actually is, especially when you take into account what you are actually trying to say.
A decade in pop culture/pop music is, if people are honest, an incredibly long time. Hundreds of thousands of songs get released in a decade (possibly millions), whole scenes will rise and fall, the zeitgeist will move and mutate beyond all belief. Even if you look a headline acts they don't have half the impact people think they do, Elvis had a career from 53 to 77, but was only culturally relevant for 5 years before becoming a re-run pop-has-been (all be it with some outbreaks of performances and songs) by joining the army, so he doesn't count as being "so 50's" even if you do ignore all the folk music going on around him. The Beatles are constantly considered one of the most "60's" bands ever but were only around for 7 years in the public eye and had a massive contrast in their works. You can't even describe "Sgt Pepper's" as 'the sound of the 60's, as that was only released in 1967. The 70's pretends to be chintz-pop and prog/stadium, but it was also a lot of pub/punk/blues rock and the influence of soul and reggae. The 80's had "New Romantics" for about 3 years, but that covers everything from The Blitz-Kids to Post-Punk to Plastic-Soul so is neither that big a chunk of the decade or that definable a thing, and it totally ignores the nuclear impact of rap, As you go up the timeline towards things just get more cluttered, as recording, promotion, and distribution costs go crashing down and scenes can be created around thousands and eventually hundreds of people from around the globe. Any attempt to encapsulate even a five year period into "a defining theme" is going to fail, hard, as there are just too many sounds and too many intentions going on, so how you are going to double that is anyone's guess.
Having said that it's always possible to go "oh, well I mean the music that was in the charts", but that doesn't work either once you get around to looking at the histories. The bulk of the charts has always been made up of either generic pap that is indistinct enough so as not to cause any offence (and thus noone in their right mind will listen to it again once it's done it's job) or things distinct enough from the rest to be remembered but too much of their own thing to be able to form into a cohesive narrative of what was happening at the time. It's also almost always utterly different to the music that will eventually be seen as important or significant in that time period. For example on sales The Sound of Music is the single most 60's album ever.
What you need to do to use a decade of as a genre is to use it as a code, and what you are using it to do is say "This is how I wanted that period to be, even though I know damn well it wasn't". It's a willful rejection of what actually happened and a replacement of it with your own 'best of' collection (much like all of the retro-scene). It's also an attempt to gain authenticity for your choice, to empower your selection as the most valid version of what happened. It's an attempt to gain simplicity, to reject other songs as not passing the mark so requiring rejection from the records. It's also quite often an attempt to replicate the youth that you miss the most, because everyone is convinced that the music they listened to between 14 and 23 was the most authentic thing ever. And, yes, it's also a quick and simple marketing code to enable folks to go "generic collection of pop you heard from time X", and when have marketing folks ever worried about the terms they use being utterly nonsense?
So is there ever a time to use a decade as a genre? Yes, whenever you are using it to describe a specific style or sound. If you go "Oh, I mostly do 70's ska and 80's electronic" then that actually says something useful and accurate about what you listen to. It shows a distinction, a vintage, and a musics place within the wider context. It also shows that you know what you are talking about, that you care about your music. Because there is nothing wrong with old-school music I listen to them all the time), but there is something about not giving them the respect that they deserve.
Upon it's launch, back in the mists of October 2014, Tidal was a brave streaming site with the novel idea of offering really high quality music, rather than the perfectly serviceable bitrates offered by the myriad of other streaming services all desperately trying to be the next Spotify. Then it was bought by Jay-Z, and that apparently made it even more interesting a contender to the title of "The Next Spotify" as the world plus it's dog lost it's collective shit about a business man with a portfolio including footwear, video games, champagne, and the occasional ground breaking album, decided to get a slice of the streaming pie. Then they gathered their collective shit and lost it again when he and around a billion dollars worth of close friends did a fancy launch of the service, desperately screaming to the world "This Is The Next Spotify!".
And it's all very lovely, all very impressive, Madonna got to be a briefly erotic granny, there was a lot of talk about paying artists more money than the other services (mostly by charging twice as much for in subscription as everyone else), and given that Mr Carter is somewhat of the entrepreneur it's going to make money. But will it conquer the world? Nope, I really don't think it will, because it's missing out on a couple of key things.
Firstly it's claim of being better for the musicians, by boasting about how much it will pay the artists. This is actually somewhat misleading, as it will pay The Rights Holders more than other services. If you are an artist who owns their recordings then you are going to be doing good, however a lot of people aren't on that great a contract when it comes to streaming so until they get those changed they will mostly be making not that much times two. Don't get me wrong, double is good. But when it's double of almost bugger all once the record label has taken the cash it's not really that awesome, assuming that Tidal can get enough subscribers which it intends to do though sound quality and guilt trips.
The sound quality thing is a curious "and" for me, as it's a kind of pointless exercise on a couple of fronts. If you are streaming at home then the other services product is available at sufficiently high quality as it is that you won't really notice the difference (especially when with high quality content you rapidly reach a point where the speakers rather than the source define a lot of what you hear). If you are streaming on the go then high-quality means lots of data means a service that's going to eat your monthly plan and/or your battery, assuming that you can connect to a solid enough signal to get the stream onto your phone. So you basically have something that you can already get at home via other services or that you are going to have to not use to it's full extent if you are on the go. This is before you reach the question of "can the listener really hear the difference?" which isn't being snobby but repeated experience of no-one I've meet really being able to tell if something is over 300kbps MP3 quality unless they really, really, concentrate very hard. I'm sure someone with a couple thousand pounds of audio equipment in their lounge would be able to tell the difference, but at that point you have to ask 'why haven't they got the CD, as that will always sound better'? And yes, you can download and listen offline, which is now basically the standard anyway and is done at perfectly acceptable quality levels by everyone else). BTW if you think you can tell the difference then take the test.
As the for the guilt trip? Given how much they go on about the artist and the way they "didn't like the direction the music was going" then it's clear that they are trying to attract the "real" music fan, by which they mean 'people who are willing to pay more for their music' and 'anyone who doesn't use those other, cheaper, nasty exploitative services'. Right... because history has proven that the average internet user is always willing to listen to moral arguments when faced with the choice of free-by-piracy or expensive-through-unnecessary-purchase. I can totally get that they are going to try for encouraging the fans, and week long exclusivity contracts, but other services had to keep their costs low for the single reason of the public's unwillingness to pay and I don't think having some of the richest starts in popular music standing in a line to go 'please, we need more cash!' is really going to help things. Maybe if they head a couple of unknowns or not so massive names on there as well it would have been different, but right now it's hardly presenting a radical redistribution of wealth that it's proportioning to be.
So, will it work? Yes, it'll work. There is enough artistic weight behind it and Jay-Z is a great businessman who is brilliant at PR. But I can't see it becoming gigantic, and I certainly can't see it becoming the next Spotify. It will become, gradually, a premium option, something for people who want to show their support or opulence off with. It'll find an audience of it's own and that will grow, but the chances of mass appeal are limited, especially with its key product differential being so mostly pointless and limited by the improvements of various supporting technologies. Still, it gave everyone on stage some nice hype, so it worked out in the end.
There is something magical about a concert ticket, something about what is quite often just a simple bit of paper with a touch of ink on it. Mass produced and designed to last, at most, a couple of months, they are a prized item for the music fan that carry far more emotions than simple reminiscence of the night itself.
For a start there is the sense of occasion that a ticketed event brings with it. This is not a ‘turn up if you can’ show you may get down a pub or small venue (delightful though those are), this is an event that could sell out and that has asked you to confirm that you will be there with cash in advance. This is not a casual affair, this is an RSVP event for a limited few. And that limitation brings with it the apprehension of trying to get the damn thing in your hands. If it is a major event you have the phoneline and website hounding, waiting for the flag to be raised for you and the rest of the world to charge and grab the trophy; if it is a smaller event, it’s the quiet fear that you won’t get the ticket in time before the rest of the world realises how awesome the band is and decide to join in the fun. Either way, should luck or planning be on your side, once you have the ticket you want to hold it up high and show it off to the world as the rare prize it is.
But then, in a strange metamorphosis, it turns from a thing of joy into a totem of apprehension. The gig is only a few months away, but how many things can go wrong in those weeks? What if the band have to cancel? What if you can’t make the show? What if you don’t get there on time? What if you lose the ticket? So many things could happen, all of them turning those few cubic inches of printed matter from the token of high entertainment into a totem of bitter disappointment. But at the same time it also becomes a beacon of solace and a way to get through the daily trudgery. Whatever the world throws at you is survivable, as you have the solid reminder that the gig is coming. The magic that is live music, that is a live crowd, will be upon you soon. It’s a feeling that gets bigger as the date gets nearer: the ticket becoming more and more real, until it’s in your hand and you’re on the way to the show with it brandished like a pass to the riches of the world.
And then you arrive, you hand over the golden-ticket, and it’s just a bit of paper. Everything is on the music, the performance, the event. Until it’s all over, at which point it becomes a reminder of what went by; a thing to look at and remember with, the trophy to mount on your wall amongst your other mementos of great nights of music. But it’s not a simple reminder of where you were or what you saw, it’s more complicated than that. You didn’t get to see a movie or a broadway show, this wasn’t a performance that will have been repeated a hundred days before and after. And it’s not the tour t-shirt, showing a multitude of concerts that you may or may-not have been at, that can be bought without even having to be near the venue. This is an indelible marker of that show at that place on that date, this is a point in time that you were a part of.
This is your place in rock history, not just of the history of your own journey, as the show will never happen again. And it is the tool for the whole ride that is live music, of the emotional journey you have gone through with that ticket, from hope to triumph to foreboding to consolation to eagerness to elation to remembrance and permanency.
Being up to date on everything musical I recently caught this video from Bull Drummond, first posted in February, 2013.
Whilst I have nothing but respect for Mr Drummond, along with all of his assorted works of art, and I cannot discount his own personal experience, for it was his to have, his proclamation does about how Punk was dead before it even started does eark me for a variety of reasons. And whilst I appreciate that I'm saying this in the position of being a 30 something middle-class muso punk fan who never wore a spiked mohawk or who smashed the system I thought I would try and put the earking into words, because his comments encapsulate a lot of what I've been feeling about the constant proclamation that "Punk Is Dead".
Punk didn't start in 1977, and it most certainly didn't start in Liverpool or even the UK. The first track ever described as Punk was "96 tears", performed by ? & The Mysterians in 1966, over in America. The term was used to describe a visceral type of Garage Rock which can trace it's line back to bands like The Sonics, The Stooges, The Pink Fairies and a hundred other bands who harked back to the original fires of pre-bobbysock and bubblegum Rock and Roll. The UK in 1976-1977 wasn't ground zero for a new movement, it was the latest part of a saga that had been blazing away for over a decade. Given the folly of youth it may have felt like the start of something totally new, and it clearly had its own take on it, but it's pedigree was clear for all to see.
Never Mind The Bollocks may well have been overhyped, and it may not have been the ultimate punk album of all time, but it was hardly the pinnacle of punk. The Saints, The Damned, The Angelic Upstarts and countless others had already got albums out, far more filled with invention and revolution than the Sex Pistols offering. The Pistols, by the time of that release, were poster boys for an idealized scene that their masterful manager had invented. To have everything hinge on that one album was to believe the hype, it was to buy into the very pop myth that punk was working against. What else do you expect to happen but disappointment when you willfully back the wrong horse?
Regardless of the music there was a revolution happening, it was just more of action than of tunes. The DIY ethic, in the publication and distribution of records, magazines, and all other forms of art, did kick off in the UK with the movement known as Punk in the late 70's. Or, at the very least, it stepped up a gear and broke people out of the "you have to wait for someone else to give you permission/publish your work" mindset that had befallen the British youth scene since the 50's. It blasted away the idea of signing to a record label of 20 years before it and it blasted away the idea that you had to be rich to get your work made by yourself of 10 years before that. It also laid down a network and an approach that stormed through the 70, into the 80's and beyond. It was also the groundwork of the very music scene that Bill Drummond made it big in with The TimeLords, The KLF, and all his other works.
Punk is "a genre waiting to be aped by generations to come" (Paul McCartney once said "The Sex Pistols were just another band playing Chuck Berry". All forms of music are, as "It is each generations duty to invent sex, drugs, and rock & roll". Everything has been done before, but each time it has been done differently. You could hardly compare something like The Victims to X-Ray Specs to Black Flag to NOFX to My Chemical Romance and say 'oh, they sound the same', yet all are indisputably punk. Just look at what was happening at the same time in the same country with Two-Tone or Psychobilly. Even "I feel love" by Donner Summer fits into the mix of it all, as it was both an attempt to shift copy and a rebel yell from an outsider scene.
Now I wasn't there, and so most of my knowings are based on reading, watching and listening to relics of the era, so if you want to dismiss all of the above as invalid due to me not having been in the trenches at the time then feel free to do so. But all I know for sure is that it's a genre and a movement that has put a fire in my belly, a bounce in my step, and a direction to my purpose, and I'm feed up with the old timers dismissing it and declaring it dead so readily. Because it started before you and its not going to finish till way after me, so you have no right to call it dead. Your revolution didn't happen, just like it didn't for the hippies, but excuse me whilst my generation finishes having a stab at it and it fully passes on to the next to give it another go.
The news broke today that Dave Brockie, lead singer and creative force behind The Dave Brockie Experience, X-Cops, and GWAR, had died at the age of 50 on March the 23rd. The cause of his death is currently unknown, but that isn't that important right now. What is important is that a great musician & performer is gone, and we are unlikely to ever see anyone else like him for a while.
In someways the Weird Al Yankovic of metal, in many ways just a great entertainer and lovable character. He was able to observe the absurdities of heavy metal, and produce something that highlighted it excesses, ridiculing its excesses with mock revelry, but also tapped into the core positive sensibilities of community, freedom, and escapism from the dull realities of the world. Yes, his bands all wore exceedingly silly costumes and did overblown theatrics (often featuring 10+ performers on stage at any one time) with insane lyrics. But its easy to forget that each of the projects was simply an extension of what was already being done in the scene anyway, and rather than taking the music to the logical extremes of death-metal or black-metal he took them in the direction of the illogical, and far more accessible, extremes of Saturday morning cartoons.
With GWAR misogynistic sexism was replaced by impossible levels of perversion (often with the female characters coming out on top), stylish disinterest in the audience was surpassed by a wish to destroy the planet, suggested violence was bypassed with regular death on stage (always including major celebrities, normally picked form the local to cause maximum upset), and a hip-upbringing story was replaced by galactic myth and outright bullshit of the first order. All done with a massive respect for the rest of the world and a total appreciation that what they did was ridiculous but, most importantly, that that didn't make it any less important or stop it from being wonderful. And they could play, be it sleazy fast rock, funky dance metal, songs about killer penguins, possibly the most metal song ever, or 70's classic AOR, because no-one gets to do something for 30 years unless the basis of it is solid skills and talent. Always bubbling away at the edge of social acceptability with Grammy nominations and Beavis and Butthead mentions (even managing to get a gig on Fox News for a while), they have always been too out-there to break big yet always great enough to always be unmissable. Sadly Brockie's death is likely to give them the fame they always deserved, mostly because with such an unpredictable band its going to be safer playing the tapes than letting them into the studio.
Meanwhile X-Cops (always criminally underrated IMO) was the answer to the question "what happens if a bunch of pissed off police formed a band" (and also 'how badly does a band suffer if they are their own support on a tour") when tracks like "Cop Killer" were all the rage and the LA Riots were still kicking up a storm of dissension. It was antagonism and ridicule at its highest, as well as tapping into the raw politics of what you could and couldn't sing about as a rock band. The Dave Brockie Experience was just weird, with simple, almost punky, little tunes about things like being a squirrel because why the hell not. Minimal irony or post-modernism, simple good fun.
So 'Thank You' Dave, for three of my favorite bands ever, and for an unrelenting willingness to be utterly serious about doing things for a joke. Thank you also for one of my favorite live performances ever, which much like your death ended abruptly and with me (and others) hungering for more. You are gone too soon, and we will miss you.
A while ago a friend observed that the headliner acts at major festivals are getting older and older, with his theory being that 'there are no new acts good enough to be headliners these days'. Initially I disbelieve him, thinking it was "things were better in my days" type thinking, so I set forth to see what was actually happening. Mostly because my theory is that there are plenty of great, acts out there who can do just as well as the more established groups, both in terms of musical quality/ability and performance giving.
I selected Reading and Download/Monster Of Rock as my data set, mostly because they have been running the longest and partly because they have consistently aim for a similar audience through all their years (if you discount Reading's origins as a Jazz festival, which Reading has). Glastonbury has been running for a comparable length of time but its audience has changed dramatically, going from being a drugged-up hippy-fest to a drugged-up middle-class-fest through its promotion by the BBC (but that's another story). They have also been relatively consistent since the start of the 80's, which is when recent musical history starts in the minds of most of my chums/people likely to read this blog. So, over the course of several hours, I went over all the headlining acts (as defined by the Festival, and counting 2nd and 3rd stages) and compared the year the headliners performed against the year of their first album release (as the actual starting year of many bands is a contested issue). After crunching through the data I came to the all important truth: Darren Douglas was right.
No two ways about it, the headlining bands are getting older. So why, when there are so many good new bands, is this happening? It is counter intuitive to the whole 'joy and power of youth' element that rock has always espoused. Why did two musical events, aimed at different demographics in the market ( in broad terms Reading is more 18-25 whilst Download is more 21+), end up having a similar trend? From a bit of research, and from talking to some 'industry insiders', I came the following conclusions:
The growth of festival audiences has changed who can headline
Both of the events listed have grown in size since the 80's, so where as you could previously have had a headlining act that could attract a couple thousand people you now need someone that pull in the tens of thousands. Both events have 90,000+ tickets for sale and the headliner acts are still the main draw, so to cover that many tickets you need a band with a proven track record who can regularly sell out venues like the O2 Arena (which only holds 23,000 so its 'multiple nights' rather than 'one off show' territory). These kinds of acts are not that common, to give you an idea I've been able to find four rock acts currently billed to play +15,000 venues this year.
Additionally many headliners are booked two or even three years in advance now, to ensure that they will attend the event. A 5 year old band might still be together in 3 years time but its not as likely as one that's been going for 15+. This means you need a band that you know will still be together by the time the festival comes around, so reliable and seasoned acts are less of a gamble on that front.
It also gets worse when you find out that record sales are one of the factors involved when calculating the size of a band, something that not all new bands are focused on in the new media age, which leads to the next issue.
The new media has reduced bands ability to headline
Previously if a band could get championed by MTV, Kerrang, Melody Maker, or NME they had a decent chance of success, and potential headliner status. This was due to their being a very narrow amount of information that could be transmitted, for example if you were into alternative rock in the 90's you had a two two-hour shows a week on TV in which to actually listen to new stuff being released, meaning that each band had a far larger mindshare to play with (around an 80th a week) where as now you can happily hit youtube and watch 3360 completely new videos of alternative rock if you wish. This is good in many ways, because more people can find music they really like, but is also bad in some as there is no central path or 'gatekeeper' that can result in a band getting big. You also have a lack of major co-defined movements in rock: the 80's had NOBHM and thrash, the 90's had Alternative and Nu-Metal, whilst the 00's had an outbreak of minority interests like the varying forms of extreme and noise. Diversification has become the rule, rather than focus or exemplar bands.
The medium-to-big sized bands scene has shrunk, whilst the small-to-medium has exploded. From a festival viewpoint this means you are more likely to get to play at one of them with a smaller audience, however its going to be harder to get the critical mass needed to headline. Bands starting now are in a 'post-headliner' world, to a great degree, where diversification has taken over the market. As stated previously many of them are actually good enough to headline, it's just that they will never be able to get the kick needed to get that big. This is further complicated by headlining keeping the older acts big, you may not go to a festival to see the headliner but you are very likely to end up watching them which will help perpetual their bigness. All of this is reducing the chance of a smaller act picking up new audience, and keeping them away from the headliner spot. And even if a small band lucked out and got that slot would it actually do them that much good?
Not everyone will want to headline a festival
The idea of headlining a festival is a lovely one, but the reality of it is quite different. To begin with there is the simple pressure of putting on an hour and a half show, but you soon have to add in the fact that everyone is watching. If you go out there and don't perform perfectly word is going to get around very quickly, and very publicly, around both the fans and the industry. Doesn't have to be a major thing, doesn't even have to be your fault, but if it goes wrong you'll be remembered for it and never be able to get rid of that history. This will impact record sales, PR opportunities, and booking opportunities. From what I have had explained to me that pressure alone has caused internationally renowned acts to give a 'thanks, but no thanks' response when offered the headline. Much better to go second or third, especially when you realise that unlike an arena performance: This crowd is not "your crowd".
If you can sell out the big three arenas in the UK that means around 60,000 people in the UK want to spend money to see you live. If all of them turn up to see you headline a major festival that means that only 1 in 3 of the audience may not actually give that much of a damn about you. One in three is a lot of people that you have to convert to your side, so you have to be damn confident that a large section of the crowd isn't going to go from 'disinterested' to 'outright hostile' on you. It could mean them walking home early (embarrassing) to a being booed all the way through to a 'Reading Salute' of projectiles being thrown onto the stage. Not something that everyone would be interested in having to face, regardless of the prestige or money, when they are used to a positive home-field audience.
There could be other reasons as well, for example families now going to events so organisers having to find more cross-age-group appealing acts or the lack of major co-defined movements in rock during the 00's resulting in a lack of big enough exemplar bands for particular scenes. However hopefully the above goes someway to explaining why it's not just a case of 'no good new bands' and more of a changing market that has made it far harder for a new band to get to the top.
If anyone has thoughts on this one I would very much like to hear them by the way, so please post up whatever you may have. Also the raw data is available if anyone else wants to have a play with it.
No, I'm not going to blog about the Brit Awards 2014. For an event that claims to represent the UK record industry they are highly unrepresentative, focusing purely on Pop/Mainstream acts, and consistently fail to give any regard to hard rock, dance music, or anything else that sells millions but doesn't fit their cookie-cutter view of how Hip British Music will be marketed that year. They get a ton of coverage because they are on the BBC, so are given over due amounts of hype and attention. Occasionally they are exiting but mostly its a gong-party to signpost who's albums should be on your coffee table to make you appear interested in music. They also gave James Corden employment, which is always a bad thing.
So the betting money is on Lily Allen's version of "Somewhere Only We Know" being the 2013 Christmas Number One, and this makes me smile for a number of reasons:
It encompasses the true spirit of Christmas! Its from an advert for Christmas shopping.
It's a cover of a classic old tune! It's nine years old and proves that we now live in a retro free-fall.
It isn't a Simon Cowell X-Factor hit! Instead it is corporate music by a totally different set of producers and media manipulators.
It isn't a "Get X to Christmas Number One!" campaign song! Because that was cool in 2009 with Rage Against The Machine and has since deteriorated into repetitious nonsense.
We now have scientific proof that you can make a Keane song worse!
So all in all a win for the biting cynic in me. Then again I gave up on the importance of a Christmas Number 1 years ago for a number of reasons. The first is that singles sales have gone through the floor, so where as in the 70's, 80's, 90's & early 00's you needed to shift a two and a half millionish to get the gold you can now do it with four hundred thousand. Still an achievement but also 16 times less sales needed. Secondly is that if you check the history of the Christmas Number One there have only been 12 Christmas Number One's that have actually been about Christmas (including 2 versions of "Do they know its Christmas" which is actually about famine), so the idea of 'a proper Christmas Number One' is a major reworking of history. And finally Christmas is no longer about when people who are into music go and buy music, it's about people looking for a gift in Tesco and spotting something they heard on the radio by Inoffensive & Clean-Shaven. This is why major artists don't bother releasing anything good at this time of year, they know they aren't going to get the top slot so wait till the New Year sales slump for a cheeky go (looking at you, Iron Maiden). And if you really want to see what's happening in music go and check out the album chart.
