80s bands now the only way to fill venues

MikeyTaylor · 12-10-2018 10:48AM

seamus wrote: »

I'd like to interject here with a short essay about suvivorship bias and why it leads people to believe that "music/TV/art was better when I was young".

Think about all the mainstream stuff being played today. In fact, here is last week's top ten
https://www.officialcharts.com/charts/singles-chart/

In a years' time, probably 6 or 7 of those songs will still be getting regular airplay. In five years' time, 3 or 4 of them. By 2030, you might hear two of them every now and again on a "classic hits" station. (I'd go with George Ezra and Calvin Harris)

Expand that out across the year and across the decade, and what happens is that you forget about the crap. You forget the other 8 songs because you haven't heard them in 10 years. When you think of "songs from 2018", you only remember the "classic songs" that are being played.

Thus, compared against the current chart, it feels like there were more classic songs written in the past; that everything which came out of a particular era was pure gold.

Case in point, here is the top fifty from this week, fifty years ago:
https://www.officialcharts.com/charts/singles-chart/19681009/7501/

Look at that top ten. Two of those bands would still be household names - The Beatles and Status Quo. Even then I imagine plenty of people under 30 would have no idea who they are. The rest are names mostly lost to time.

Only one song that your average Joe would recognise and that would get any airplay - Hey Jude. The rest of the songs, which were at one point "mainstream" and no doubt playing everywhere that they could be, you don't hear any more. They're gone and forgotten.

I've no doubt someone will go, "Hey, I know who Mary Hopkin is!". But you're in a minority. She was a one-hit-wonder, the "rubbish, manufactured pop music" of her day.

This is the survivorship bias - you focus on the songs which "survived" from that era as being representative examples of the whole. When they're not. They're the best of the best from that era of music. 99.9% of the music produced in the 60s, 70s & 80s was at the time also considered "bland rubbish , incomparable to the brilliance of the past", and as a result we don't hear it any more.

I have heard of the Tremeloes, Johnny Nash, and the Dave Clark Five (and Dave Clark wasn't the lead singer) in addition to Mary Hopkin.

I'm 24 by the way.

seamus · 12-10-2018 10:49AM

MikeyTaylor wrote: »

I have heard of the Tremeloes, Johnny Nash, and the Dave Clark Five (and Dave Clark wasn't the lead singer) in addition to Mary Hopkin.

I'm 24 by the way.

You have, most people haven't.

And none of these people get any airplay on mainstream media. Unlike the Beatles.

Ash.J.Williams · 12-10-2018 10:56AM

seamus wrote: »

You have, most people haven't.

And none of these people get any airplay on mainstream media. Unlike the Beatles.

There's actually loads of popular stuff there. Sunshine of your love by cream is played all the time, the doors are there too.

loyatemu · 12-10-2018 10:57AM

seamus wrote: »

You have, most people haven't.

And none of these people get any airplay on mainstream media. Unlike the Beatles.

you're only looking at the top 10 - the full top 40 from that week also contains:

Aretha Franklin
The Bee Gees
The Doors
The Beach Boys
Tom Jones
The Hollies
Cliff Richard
Otis Redding
The Band
The Four Tops
T Rex
Cream

You're obviously right about there being a lot of crud as well. There is still plenty of good music being made in various genres today, but very little of it is in the charts due the fragmentation of the market. The charts have become exclusively kid/teen orientated to an extent that they weren't in the past.

The Horrors are a great band, in a past era they might have gone on to become a stadium act but it's unlikely now - the last traditional rock bands to take that path were probably the Killers and Kings of Leon both of whom started out 15+ years ago.

monkeybutter · 12-10-2018 11:09AM

seamus wrote: »

I'd like to interject here with a short essay about suvivorship bias and why it leads people to believe that "music/TV/art was better when I was young".

Think about all the mainstream stuff being played today. In fact, here is last week's top ten
https://www.officialcharts.com/charts/singles-chart/

In a years' time, probably 6 or 7 of those songs will still be getting regular airplay. In five years' time, 3 or 4 of them. By 2030, you might hear two of them every now and again on a "classic hits" station. (I'd go with George Ezra and Calvin Harris)

Expand that out across the year and across the decade, and what happens is that you forget about the crap. You forget the other 8 songs because you haven't heard them in 10 years. When you think of "songs from 2018", you only remember the "classic songs" that are being played.

Thus, compared against the current chart, it feels like there were more classic songs written in the past; that everything which came out of a particular era was pure gold.

Case in point, here is the top fifty from this week, fifty years ago:
https://www.officialcharts.com/charts/singles-chart/19681009/7501/

Look at that top ten. Two of those bands would still be household names - The Beatles and Status Quo. Even then I imagine plenty of people under 30 would have no idea who they are. The rest are names mostly lost to time.

Only one song that your average Joe would recognise and that would get any airplay - Hey Jude. The rest of the songs, which were at one point "mainstream" and no doubt playing everywhere that they could be, you don't hear any more. They're gone and forgotten.

I've no doubt someone will go, "Hey, I know who Mary Hopkin is!". But you're in a minority. She was a one-hit-wonder, the "rubbish, manufactured pop music" of her day.

This is the survivorship bias - you focus on the songs which "survived" from that era as being representative examples of the whole. When they're not. They're the best of the best from that era of music. 99.9% of the music produced in the 60s, 70s & 80s was at the time also considered "bland rubbish , incomparable to the brilliance of the past", and as a result we don't hear it any more.

Just no

Unless you have some sort of memory loss

The 80's appeared to be a **** decade for music because the good stuff didn't get played.

You had to put effort into finding the good stuff, or been lucky enough to know someone who already did

Not to mention the cost of actually buying music ( and making a sneaky copy)

The charts would lead you to believe it was ****

Pop music is ****

Tuns out it was an awesome decade for music

now you can listen to any music any time, your choice

Some people still consume pop music, you can't account for bad taste, **** it some people listen to nathan carter

It's as **** now as it was in the 80's

and the 90s

Most people have more time in their teens and 20's to listen to music and that tends to stay with them

scuba8 · 12-10-2018 11:18AM

I have to say that Iwould still listen to most of the artists from the top 50 of 50 years ago. ' The Good the Bad and the Ugly' is still a wonderful piece of music which I listen to regularly. I wouldn't listen to any of the current top 50.
Remember one truism, good music is always good music,trash is always trash.

Dakota Dan · 12-10-2018 11:24AM

Harry Palmr wrote: »

****e like Ed Sheeran and Taylor Swift can sell out large venues but whether they'll be doing so in 20/30 years is another matter - it feels like there are not many acts and even fewer actual bands of the last 10 years who could sell out a stadium tour.

Sheeran is only a fad and he only has a certain timeframe but he have his money made from people with no ear for music.

loyatemu · 12-10-2018 11:33AM

Dakota Dan wrote: »

Sheeran is only a fad and he only has a certain timeframe but he have his money made from people with no ear for music.

harsh - he's far from the worst. The danger for him is that he'll be a modern Gilbert O'Sullivan; huge for few years then regarded as irredeemably naff afterwards.

seamus · 12-10-2018 11:36AM

Dakota Dan wrote: »

Sheeran is only a fad and he only has a certain timeframe but he have his money made from people with no ear for music.

Ed Sheeran has been in the charts with new releases pretty consistently for 7 years.

The Beatles did the same for about ten years.

Now, I'm not saying that Sheeran is comparable quality-wise, but to claim he's a "fad" you may as well have said the beatles were a fad.

monkeybutter · 12-10-2018 11:39AM

loyatemu wrote: »

harsh - he's far from the worst. The danger for him is that he'll be a modern Gilbert O'Sullivan; huge for few years then regarded as irredeemably naff afterwards.

Sheeran, your music is naff right now....

can you hear me? from atop your giant mountain of cash

look, the 80's was the best time for music alright

the 1880s that is

a phonograph is the only way to listen to music, it's just more real ye know

Joe_ Public · 12-10-2018 11:42AM

If people want to listen to Ed Sheeran that’s fine by me, but I will say if he’s regarded as half as good a songwriter as Gilbert O’Sullivan in 40 years time, then he’ll be doing damn well. Of course the chances of him ever writing a song to compare with Alone Again Naturally are slim to nonexistent to begin with, but that goes for the majority of them in fairness.

maccored · 12-10-2018 11:44AM

leakyboots wrote: »

(there isn't a single Irish radio show worth listening to for music in my opinion, but maybe that's just my own taste)

Dan Hegarty plays tons of new (and usually decent enough) Irish bands, as do a few local stations - but yeah, generally theres not much

monkeybutter · 12-10-2018 11:44AM

seamus wrote: »

Ed Sheeran has been in the charts with new releases pretty consistently for 7 years.

The Beatles did the same for about ten years.

Now, I'm not saying that Sheeran is comparable quality-wise, but to claim he's a "fad" you may as well have said the beatles were a fad.

The beatles were a fad, they haven't had a top 10 in years

monkeybutter · 12-10-2018 11:47AM

Joe_ Public wrote: »

If people want to listen to Ed Sheeran that’s fine by me, but I will say if he’s regarded as half as good a songwriter as Gilbert O’Sullivan in 40 years time, then he’ll be doing damn well. Of course the chances of him ever writing a song to compare with Alone Again Naturally are slim to nonexistent to begin with, but that goes for the majority of them in fairness.

I still enjoy a bit of HMS Pinafore from time to time, don't get me started on the Pirates of Penzance

eviltimeban · 12-10-2018 12:35PM

seamus wrote: »

Case in point, here is the top fifty from this week, fifty years ago:
https://www.officialcharts.com/charts/singles-chart/19681009/7501/

1968 is when the charts moved back to bubblegum pop and one hit wonders, as the "serious" bands moved away from the singles market and concentrated on the albums market, a result of the influence of Sgt Pepper.

Led Zeppelin never released a single in the UK. Pink Floyd's last single for over a decade was in 1968 as well. And they are household names.

Look at the top 10 albums chart for the same week. You've got The Hollies, Simon and Garfunkel, Cream, Tom Jones, Aretha Franklin, Canned Heat, and Fleetwood Mac. All artists that have had long careers.

Dakota Dan · 12-10-2018 01:42PM

monkeybutter wrote: »

The beatles were a fad, they haven't had a top 10 in years

That’s true.

PGE1970 · 12-10-2018 02:22PM

Times have changed and the internet has changed how music is produced and received.

I'm 48. Back "in my day", TOTP was a must see show and you spoke about it in school, college etc.The music scene was also vibrant in Ireland and I was lucky enough to be able to see some wonderful Irish bands like The Stunning, A House, Light a Big Fire, Fountainhead, In Tua Nua, The Golden Horde, Microdisney/Fatima Mansions, Fat Lady Sings, 4 of us, Aslan, Toasted Heretic and my beloved That Petrol Emotion on our doorstep.

You had almost iconic venues like McGonagles, The Warwick, Sir Henrys and The Boxing Club in Drogheda packed every weekend and rag weeks in college was like a mini Feile. Throw in the Uk/international scene of the time being my favourites like the Smiths/Morrissey, Stone Roses, New Order, Jesus & Mary Chain etc and music just seemed to be "alive".

We didnt have youtube or spotify so had to "search" for our music be it for chart stuff on the Beat Box or Casey Casem, TOTP etc or swapping records and singles with mates!

My kids are grown or growing up (20 & 13). I couldn't tell you what modern stuff they like other than Ed Sheeran but my son (13) came to see Noel Gallagher with me in May. He also knows his Morrissey from his Smiths and his Noel/Liam from Oasis. He likes Pulp, The Stone Roses and Lloyd Cole but then he has no choice what is played in the car!

My last few gigs have been Noel Gallagher, Morrissey, Jesus & Mary Chain, Echo & the Bunnymen, Suede, Lloyd Cole and the like. Next up is The Stunning. Are 20 year old going to Whelans now or is there a McGonagles out there now for them?

But god knows what my son will do for music in his space shuttle in 30 years time because all I hear is Kanye and some other similar rubbish or radio friendly type soft rock like Ed Sheeran, The Script or Kodaline!

But then, there's no fool like an old fool!!!!

eviltimeban · 12-10-2018 02:24PM

monkeybutter wrote: »

The beatles were a fad, they haven't had a top 10 in years

I know it's a joke, but interestingly enough their last release "Live at the Hollywood" bowl went to number 3 in 2016!

Harry Palmr · 12-10-2018 02:37PM

Live at the Hollywood Bowel should have been released at all. You can understand why they quit live performances.

bnt · 12-10-2018 03:06PM

Depends on the venue, of course. Last gig I went to was Steven Wilson at the Olympia this year, which was sold out. He could have put a serious dent in the O2 had he wanted to, but that place is too big for his kind of technical / emotional music - the details get lost in such sheds.

Personally, I see far too many derivative bands, trying to copy the styles and sounds of older & better bands. If I hear Mumford & Sons, for example, I hear nothing that The Band wasn't doing better fifty years ago. :rolleyes:

super_furry · 12-10-2018 03:07PM

Surprised to see Lana Del Ray play Malahide Castle next summer. Might show that I'm out of touch but I didn't think she was that big at all.

eviltimeban · 12-10-2018 03:29PM

^^ Steven Wilson is one of those artists who is actually huge but no one has heard of him. He could easily fill large arenas, but the audience would be mostly older and male.

MikeyTaylor · 12-10-2018 03:39PM

eviltimeban wrote: »

^^ Steven Wilson is one of those artists who is actually huge but no one has heard of him. He could easily fill large arenas, but the audience would be mostly older and male.

I've heard of him.

oceanman · 12-10-2018 03:44PM

Birneybau wrote: »

Would be hard to find a non sold out Radiohead gig.

or coldplay..

riclad · 12-10-2018 03:48PM

Bands like sigur ros, the internet do,nt sell out stadiums .
They do,n,t sell millions of albums.The point of this thread is there,s no new
bands like queen ,the rolling stones, oasis that can sell out large venues.
The people who like mumford and sons probably have never heard the Band, Most young people do not listen to music from the 60,s or early 70s.
Every generation thinks new music is awful or strange,
thats why music is constantly changing, every generation has its own trends and style of music .
It would be strange if the average teen liked the same singers as their
50 year old mother.
I don,t even try to understand the different genres of hip hop music,
what is grime, garage etc

sameoldname · 12-10-2018 04:34PM

riclad wrote: »

Every generation thinks new music is awful or strange,
thats why music is constantly changing, every generation has its own trends and style of music.

I think what people are saying is that todays music isn't strange and doesn't have it's own style of music.

Sigur Rós have been mentioned here more than once and is a good example. They formed when I was in primary school and became as well known as they were ever going to be when I reached my 20's. They belong to my generation as much as they do to this one I would say. And my generation didn't exactly do much to move the needle when it came to the musical art-form I'm sorry to say.

DEFTLEFTHAND · 12-10-2018 04:38PM

sameoldname wrote: »

I think what people are saying is that todays music isn't strange and doesn't have it's own style of music.

Sigur Rave been mentioned here more than once and is a good example. They formed when I was in primary school and became as well known as they were ever going to be when I reached my 20's. They belong to my generation as much as they do to this one I would say. And my generation didn't exactly do much to move the needle when it came to the musical art-form I'm sorry to say.

The likes of Sigur Ros always had a ceiling.

They were never going to become a global mainstream mega act with their style and use of the Icelandic language.

Joe_ Public · 12-10-2018 04:45PM

People complain today’s bands sound unoriginal or derivative but to a certain extent that’s been the case for decades. When it comes to indie or guitar based rock in particular, what’s left to do new anyway? It’s all pretty much a variation on a number of different chord progressions that have been mined and moulded into shape for generations. I loved, still love, punk and people speak about the 76/77 revolution but, as far as the music went, punk could never have existed without the mod and 50s rock that preceded it and to which it owed a huge debt.

sameoldname · 12-10-2018 04:47PM

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

The likes of Sigur Ros always had a ceiling.

They were never going to become a global mainstream mega act with their style and use of the Icelandic language.

I agree. I'm only using them as an example because people are saying that that's what today's youth are listening to. We were listening to them too along with other niche bands but we still had bands that crossed over to the mainstream. That seems to have disappeared nowadays.

buried · 12-10-2018 04:52PM

Joe_ Public wrote: »

People complain today’s bands sound unoriginal or derivative but to a certain extent that’s been the case for decades. When it comes to indie or guitar based rock in particular, what’s left to do new anyway? It’s all pretty much a variation on a number of different chord progressions that have been mined and moulded into shape for generations. I loved, still love, punk and people speak about the 76/77 revolution but, as far as the music went, punk could never have existed without the mod and 50s rock that preceded it and to which it owed a huge debt.

Go to a Sunn O))) gig if you ever can. Went to last years show in the Button Factory and I came out not knowing where I was or what exactly happened but was out of this world enjoyable. Unreal sonic spectacle. I also damaged my hearing bigtime but was totally worth it.

80s bands now the only way to fill venues

Comments