Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: Ghastly Glee...
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
Chris Retro |
A big problem I feel is compartmentalised radio, it creates boundaries. Commercial radio is dead in the water as anything other than the few old songs on rotation - the best we can expect in the UK is a station that blends the old with the new, but the focus groups tell them they must rotate the same bloody tracks (see this discussion www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=1429221 )
The BBC has been bullied into transforming Radio 1 into a "new music only" station - but with zero integrity and no musical sense. What that means of course is it's listeners are deprived of any kind of musical perspective whatsoever. Just look at the responses in this discussion to see how entrenched this dogma has become!
www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=1430023
There are, music-wise, really only 2 stations worth bothering with in the UK - R2 of course, and 6music (which is hampered by being on DAB only and therefore not in cars) |
|
GG |
Jimmy Iovine, "You could put the Three Stooges on TRL for a week and they would have a platinum album"
Smartest thing he's ever said.
Glee's response to all of this is that they are getting kids interested in music.
Well from my experience..... kids, when exposed to GREAT music will almost always be interested and pick that instead of the schlock.
Its mind numbing to me that kids think a ghastly act like Maroon 5, in my opinion a poor ripoff of Jamiroquia, is what white soul is. Another example of where we are at.
Kind of nuts. |
|
DJKZ |
From the perspective of the song, Glee only need to perform the song and it goes into the chart.
This is what I am talking about. Music + exposure = Sales. This is how it should be.
Radio should pick songs on merit but don't. Advertising on TV is very expensive and the only alternative
to TV is Youtube. But things are changing. Online video will prove to as effective as Glee and Idol in
breaking hits. Trust me when I say this. The indications are very good and the formula is getting simpler
and simpler. |
|
DJones |
"Glee sells music straight off the bat. This is how music should be sold instead of nonsense like marketing plots and the other nonsense labels have to jump through in order to get a chart hit and they can't because of all the drivel from America"
Glee and similar TV shows are "marketing plots" for "all the drivel from America". The participants have to "jump through" all sorts of "nonsense" to reach the finals.
Glee and similar TV shows don't "raise the profile of music". At least 95 per cent of the teenagers who want to take part in these kind of shows are not even interested in music, only in fame.
Cowell & Co are not looking for new music (genres, styles of interpretation, "real" talents etc.), but for singers who can provide carbon copies of already proven formulas.
What does the success of Susan Boyle mean for "music" (as something involving artistic creativity)? Nothing. Compare Boyle to The Velvet Underground who had never much success, but who inspired countless musicians.
The current crop of casting shows are great for TV-producers and -networks, for ad agencys and brands and (in the short run) for the majors labels. |
|
Chris Retro |
I'd compare Glee more with Fame than anything else... except of course Fame dealt with original compositions not High School kareoke of (mainly) 30 year old AOR.
Its something else to fill the creative void in the charts - and like every 21st Century "success story" over-hyped.
Without wanting to sound like an "old fart", you have to look at it like this: to kids born in the mid-90s they have actually never known in their lifetime what we (I'm only mid-30s myself mind) took for granted for for the previous 40 years - a healthy progressive pop music scene. Most commercial radio stations play ridiculously restricted playlists, limp though it may be Glee is introducing these kids to "old songs" they might otherwise never hear.
I still think it sucks thought  |
|
|
|
