The Forum > Article Comments > We’re so pretty, oh so pretty … vacant > Comments
We’re so pretty, oh so pretty … vacant : Comments
By Ross Buncle, published 3/8/2007The 60's dream and Beatlemania was sold out virtually overnight by the baby boomers. Now marketing, packaging, branding are everything: where is the substance?
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Page 5
- 6
-
- All
Posted by Ross Buncle, Sunday, 5 August 2007 9:31:21 PM
| |
Ah Ross. Nice to see you haven't lost the fire in the belly. Though it's more like Grumpy Old Men than Angry Young Punks...
I certainly agree that music marketing has exploded in the last couple of decades, but everywhere I look, I'm inundated with marketing and PR spin. My email inbox is filled with spam, my letterbox overflows with junk mail and I can't pick up the phone without someone from India informing me of an exciting new phone plan. I arrived in Sydney from the country in the late 1970s, as a fan of prog rock and heavy metal but I quickly found Sydney's punk and post-punk movement. The music I saw actually meant something to me and I remember those gigs with great nostalgia. I don't see that kind of interest in live music among the young people I know and I don't believe that has much to do with marketing. I find they're more interested in playing computer games, talking on their mobiles or surfing the web. None of this was available in my youth. The music industry is on the point of collapse, CD sales have fallen by 20% this year alone http://www.downhillbattle.org/?p=596 As you pointed out, this is not due to a lack of decent music, but it does look like the big labels are about to crash and burn. I think we're on the verge of the biggest shake-up the music industry has ever seen. What emerges from the wreckage will be (I hope) a host of small players creating some great new music. As for "do yourself a favour", well I saw that as an ironic homage to a great Australian icon. No offence meant. As for everyone misinterpreting your article, it seems there are a couple of possible explanations: (a) All the posters are idiots (b) The posters are only interested in their own obsessions (c) Nobody cares (d) Your argument wasn't sufficiently clear Plenty of people have called me an idiot over the years, so (a) is a possibility. If I were you, though, I'd be looking at (d). Posted by Johnj, Sunday, 5 August 2007 10:38:12 PM
| |
Just saw your post, Ross, which I can't leave unanswered. Spice Girls at No. 1 for 7 weeks? Perhaps you've forgotten that in 1976, Fernando by ABBA was at No. 1 (when that really meant something) for 14 interminable weeks.
Can you hear the drums Fernando? Posted by Johnj, Sunday, 5 August 2007 11:07:14 PM
| |
Guys, you can make a difference.
Instead of sitting around bitching......do something. Posted by Goddess, Monday, 6 August 2007 1:39:11 AM
| |
Ross, I think we are both using the actual term "rock and roll" differently. In my lexicon R&R is only one component of a very diverse collection of styles comprising popular music - and perhaps as you started off with the early Beatles stuff I guess I misread you. After all, even Lennon and Harrison moved away from that style later on.
And c'mon - how many Hendrix, Cocker etc. fans were into the simple lead guitar, bass back-beat type (a la Gerry and the Pacemakers?)of music that got people up on the dancefloor? The reason I categorised the others (Carpenters et al)together therefore might be a little clearer: - that was also popular music and sold millions (hell, in China its STILL selling)and attracted hype, but it also 'ain't Rock n Roll. And it certainly wasn't great or substantive. So, sorry, yeah, I guess I am also guilty of misreading what you said as a kinda Pythonesque lookback to other times. But I still am not sure I get your point? Yes, undoubtedly there's more marketing and "extravaganzas". But smoke and mirrors don't turn good music into bad and people who respect music are still not fooled. Those people are in the minority now as they were then and a lot of crappy stuff came out then as it does now. And what the hey, all the fx make going to see a mediocre group a much better experience now than it was then, I guess. While serious musos and their fans don't go for all that stuff anyway. I think I subscribe to the "tout ca change, tout c'est le meme.." school of thought rather than agreeing fully with you. Posted by Romany, Monday, 6 August 2007 1:48:10 AM
| |
Johnj - Ross explained his ideas perfectly clearly, I just thought the toothbrush in the bubble-wrap was Mr Rudd.
There might just be something in what you say about obsession - although I would prefer to describe it as "applying new ideas to previous experience". Goddess - you don't like Chris's song, you want the guys to stop sitting around and do something, and you want me to stop what I am doing. Grump, grump, grumpy Goddess. Posted by Dealing With The Mob, Monday, 6 August 2007 2:32:31 PM
|
Apologies – I didn’t understand your point as expressed earlier. I do now, and agree. I expressed something similar in my previous Onlineopinion article: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5999
Romany,
I don’t understand your claim that Hendrix, Purple, Joplin etc were “anathema to rocknroll” – most rock historians would place them among the rocknroll icons of the time!
I find your grouping of The Carpenters, Partridge Family and Singing Nun into one category bizarre – never mind.
Not correct that only the teenies were “sucked in by all the materialism and hype” of the time (the 60s movement rejected materialism BTW, though this creed was sold out by the mid-70s). One of the main points of my article is that rocknroll was central to a massive cultural movement (which went way beyond mere hype) in the 60s/70s that involved an enormous sector of the population, from teens to mid-30s and older - plainly not the case today.
I know all those contemporary bands you mention; my point is that their impact on the masses is minimal today, whereas during the 60s/early 70s a lot of quality product had a massive audience among a demographic with a 20 year+ range (eg: The Who, Kinks, Dylan, Beatles, Stones, Doors, Zombies, Zeppelin etc – and that’s a BIG etc!).
Thus, I don’t agree with the poster who contended that in all eras 99% of mainstream popular music is crap. This really was not the case in the 60s/early 70s. Indeed, many young bands today acknowledge this era as the golden age of rock that it truly was. That is not to deny that there is great stuff around today – it’s just not celebrated en masse as it once was.
I’ll leave you with a stat that I think speaks volumes. The fastest-selling British act since The Beatles is The Spice Girls. “Wannabe” remained at Number 1 on the charts for 7 weeks – surely a classic demonstration of packaging over substance…and global marketing has come a long way since the Spice Girls! You can only shudder at the prospect of what awaits in the future…