Conference marvin::uk_music

    
    
    >>  Are New Kids on the Block the LEAST TALENTED GROUP OF PRATS ON EARTH?

    
    Possibly after Depeche Mode (post VC).
    
    
    
    Michael
    
    

    RE -1 & -2
     
    Who cares really ?
    I'm sorry if anyone doesn't agree with me but I joined this file
    for the appreciation of music (all types that I'm interested in).
    AND for interesting information.
       Who gives a fig if so-an-so's better than 'oo-jar' !
    Yes I admit that I have got involved in "justifying  MY TASTE" but
    no more.  If you read my general album reviews (Elton John etc)
    you will see what I'm getting at . I didn't even buy some of them,
    my other half did, but that doesn't mean the review is damning
    because the material isn't my choice. Lets be FACTUAL AND INFORMATIVE.
       I'm SURE I will PROBABLY never buy any "New Kid's" material as
    it Probably is aimed at the younger listeners/or is just not my
    'type' of stuff! So what!
        If you don't like, or don't have anything informative to say
    about someone maybe you shouldn't bother.,e.g I don't enjoy Gary
    Gillmour (sorry if I've mis-spelt that!) but your'e NOT interested
    right?!!!!!   
       Let's have more GOOD reviews and info'.
    
    David.
    P.S: I DO enjoy the useful notes/info I just hate stagnant water!
       

    David,
          I appreciate what you're saying. It's fine with me too that
	  they're are 800 Brosettes wandering around Basingstoke wondering
	  whether this is Music class or Wogan...etc. i.e. everyone has
	  every right to listen to whatever they want to.

	  However, in exactly the same way we can all `sound off' about  
	  music we find utterly vaucous and `sugar-sweet' (rot!) or
	  whatever. It's all part of God's Big Plan maaaan...

	  By the way *I* hate ELO, Clapton, The Eagles, Chicago
	  dirge-ballads, U2 (no comment!) and Fishy Marillion cods.
	  'Nuff said ??

	  - Tim 

    Mark, Michael an' Tim 
     
    Please don't take my last note as being rude ,it's not meant to
    be and I wouldn't dream of denying ANYONE'S right of opinion or
    speech!  I just got frustrated and tired on Friday (had to go
    home and kick the cat.) . So this is not taking back what I
    said but to apollogise if it offended anybody.
    
    David.
    
    (before anyone says anything- I haven't got a cat!)
    
    
    
    
    
    I kicked the neighbours. 

    No problem with me David. The more opinions in here the better.

    All the best

    - Tim

    
    No problem here either.
    
    I find that a good way of extracting a response on something is
    to start of with a (perhaps overly) contreversial opener (although
    in this case I stick unreservedly by my first note).
    
    No-one has put forward any argument against my initial statements,
    which can only mean you either all agree or can't think of any decent
    response to counter what I said, or that you don't really care.
    
    I hope it isn't the latter as I would really like to try to understand
    the popularity of groups as apparently devoid of ability as the
    Brats. This isn't a new situation, but this particular group seem
    to have got no popular support base (unlike the SAW factory), so
    how have they achieved such rapid and great success?
    
    Mark

    Not trying to start a riot, but is there a note discussing hypeing
    up of bands and groups these days, as a way of selling records.
    If not it could be a good talking point, as it happens with all
    music...
    
    Without trying to offend anyone, it seems that marketing a group
    OFTEN (not always) helps to manufacture sucess. Without trying to
    ressurect any bitter infighting, I can for example, see a definate
    parrallell with the Stone Roses and New Kids... 
    
    How could music coverage in magazines be informative and free of
    hype...Any suggestions ?  Do we need fewer Radio1 pluggers, more
    indie labels or what ? 
    
    Opinions please ?
    
    Juju
    xxxx
    

re .6

They ARE backed by a producer (can't remember his name- quite famous american 
tho').

Remember seeing an interview with them & their manager a couple of months ago,
they were talking about how they were formed etc...

Two were from a school band that were seen/discovered by their producer who 
wanted to create a white band in the style of that other hasbeen kiddy (black) 
group (from where Bobby Brown originates). So they were picked from there.



...Art.

    re .7    HI There.  I think an important point (and the difference
    between New Kids and Stone Roses) is the line between a group who got
    together thru a natural/organic process, and a group artificially
    constructed as a straightforward profit-making exercise.  New Kids seem
    to fit into this last category, while Stone Roses are a group who have
    been together a few years and have worked thier way up, and write thier
    own songs.  (Defending the Stone Roses - Bruce'll kill me!!!).
    
    I think that marketing is another issue altogether.  Pumping money into
    a group does seem to help, but there seem to be a lot of groups
    recieving this treatment, and very few actually make it.  Perhaps, at
    the end of the day, people only buy a record if they actually like it,
    and all the money/marketing/hype only helps people to become aware of a
    record in the first place.  ( Not that I'm defending the prtactice
    here).
    
    Mikef
     

    Perhaps one should bear in mind that the object of the exercise (from
    the record company's perspective) is to make money and NOT necessarily
    to make good music. Unfortunately there is no way that I can think of
    to change that! The same is true of commercial radio stations: they
    exist to make the shareholders money, not to provide balanced,
    entertaining [et cetera] programmes. As an example of each of these,
    look at Jive Bunny and - IMHO - Capital Radio (*was* excellent; now
    prides itself on having the biggest listening figures for an
    independent station in the UK).
    
    Hype *does*, and always has and always will, sell records...

Also one of the other things about manufactured groups is that they don't seem
able to last very long at all. I can't think of one manufactured group that
lasted very long after the second album, except, for maybe the monkeys.

For the record company, however, this doesn't matter. They aim to get as much
as possible for the first album, and then ditch their 'discovery', and look for
someone else.

Mark.

    It P|$$e$ me off that there are so many talented groups out there, who
    write, produce etc, their own songs, and don't reach the charts, while
    artists, such as the SAW protog�s (SP), who are relaying someone else's
    songs and ideas, are virtually guaranteed airplay and TV coverage and
    therefore will chart.
    
    
    Having said that, I can respect Bros.  They perform live and seem to have
    the right attitude towards their fans and how to conduct themselves.  I
    know in years gone by that it was understood that most bands would be
    able to play live.  It's just a pity that their songs are cr@p.
    
    But now, the ability to play live should be looked upon as a bonus.  It
    is just the same in that the Beatles, for instance, used to put out
    singles that weren't to be found on LP's, but now, the George Michael
    LP, for instance, produced 6 singles out of the nine tracks it contained.
    
    RE. SAW.  It seems to me that it is SAW that are the talented ones.  It
    gets my goat that Kylie, Jason, or Big Fun should scoop up all that
    fame, and receive all that adoration for just miming to someone else's
    produce.  It is, in effect, a conspiracy to make money.  The kids are
    brainwashed by TV and the rest of the media into liking the music that
    is put in front of them.  They don't have much of a choice, because
    hardly anything else comes in front of their eyes.  They don't know
    better.  SAW are just businessmen who are cornering the market from all
    angles using different tools, the artists.  They wouldn't have the same
    success with a solitary artist and therefore wouldn't make the money
    that they do at present.
    
    The problem is made worse by all these indie groups who say they don't
    want to get in the charts.  I wish people like New Order would release
    their best songs and have them promoted.  This would be the alternative
    and would only suceed with help from the media.
    
    How about this?  You have a band that says the charts are full of $hit
    and that they don't want to be a part of it.  Yet they want radio play.
    Radio stations have to please the majority and this can only be done by
    playing the most popular music - chart music.  You have to get into the
    charts to get the play and to put out an alternative.
    
    Only when indie bands make a full assualt on the chart will they change
    what people like, and therefore the chart.  It is starting to happen
    with the Stone Roses - Radio 1 wanted to play `Fool's Gold' and
    regularly did.  But I can't see it lasting until everyone else follows
    suit.
    
    A final point.  It is dance music that seems to be advancing most
    quickly and therfore the indie bands must aim to crossover into that
    spectrum.  They won't acheive constant success otherwise.
    
    
    MattyB

    Not to sound cynical but:
    
    >> a conspiracy to make money.
    
    Isn't that what makes this world go round?  
    
    I agrred with basically everything you said, but to go one step
    further, I find that we can't really blame the kids for perpetuating
    the useless "music" that we're bombarded with.  Its a vicious circle
    really ... if that's the only thing they're presented with, then they
    don't know what else they're missing, so they buy whatever they hear 
    most often.  The powers_that_be see Record X is selling well, so they
    produce Record X;2 - the producers aren't going to cut their own
    financial throats by gambling on something new.  It would mean giving
    up that new 200 mile/hr. Jag they'd put a deposit on.
    
    I do disagree with your final point, however.  Anyone wanting to get
    their music heard, wanting to stay true to themselves artistically,
    should *not* "aim to crossover into <whatever> spectrum".  In my book,
    that's called selling out, jumping on the band wagon.
    
    Sue
     

    For what it is worth, I think that it is a problem that people do
    not hear an alternative to the chart music like Kylie for most of
    the teenage years, when people are most influenced by the fasion
    of music. I did not discover indie music intil I was about 17, about
    4 years ago. 
    
    Perhaps it explains who so many people liked the Police as a group
    for example, not that the music was so good (it was) but that compared
    to much other music it was a million times more class.
    
    However, much Indie music appeals to Niche's and not a broad enough
    spectrum of people. I would not buy 80% of the music played on the
    John Peel show for example, as Extreme Noise Terror, Lawnmower Death
    and Co. doesnot appeal to me. Very few indie bands are accessible,
    perhaps only New Order with their "dance music" and a handful of
    others are appealing to enough tastes. Many people may even regard
    the "Darling Buds " as a row compared to the blandness  of the typical
    S.A.W produce......A vicious circle indeed!
    
    Juju
    xxxx
    

    
    The Police were probably one of the top two or three groups when
    they were at their peak, but then the early eighties were a good
    period for music. People did gamble on something new (after Punk
    shook out all the old 70s dross), but things have slipped back again.
    
    I remember reading an article some years ago which said that a new
    musical trend occured every 7 years to shake out all the rubbish.
    The trouble was the last one was due in 1986! It never arrived and
    (with one or two exceptions) nothing new or influential has occured
    since then.
    
    Maybe it's a case of the commerciality of our society that very
    few people really feel the need to challenge what's happening as
    long as they can buy their new cars, and houses and Water shares.
    
    After all, a contented society doesn't breed rebelious rock 'n'
    roll groups does it?  How would 'My Generation all own their own
    houses and have company BMWs' sound? :^)
    
    Mark

    Matty dear chap you surely mean 'it swings both ways' and NOT
     "I swings both ways" !! 
    I'd be careful with your typing if I were you !! 8^)
    
    As far as I can see it's always been pretty much the same . Wasn't
    Micky Most the "SAW" of earlier years?
       AS long as it stays this way we will have the Indie "culture"
    producing bands who supply us with alternative fodder. Imagine
    if every band had the "chart focus" yuk.
      Then again aren't SAW's recordings classified as being "Indie"
    8^)
    
    David

    >>>      Then again aren't SAW's recordings classified as being "Indie"

    a saw point ! 
    
    Juju
    xxxx
    

re .1

>    >>  Are New Kids on the Block the LEAST TALENTED GROUP OF PRATS ON EARTH?
    
>    Possibly after Depeche Mode (post VC).

>    Michael
    
    
Well Michael statements like the above demonstrate your profound ignorance
of both groups.  Maybe your confusing 'taste' with 'talent'... 

will

    
    Re .18
    
    Brave words, but can you substantiate them?
    
    Mark

    R       A       T       H        O         L          E        !
    

    
    Re .20
    
    W		H		Y 			?
    
    :^)
    
    Seriously, though, why does the writer of .18 think that the Kids
    have talent (or did I misunderstand AGAIN!)?
    
    I could tell everyone that Kylie is the greatest (well she is isn't
    she?), but unless I tell you it's because of her stunningly strong
    vocals and deep soulful interpretation of the lyrics (I SHOULD be
    SO lucky!) it's just my opinion and you can't argue with it or 
    discuss it.
    
    This note could easily become a rathole, but until .18 it seemed
    to be doing quite nicely as a discussion.
    
    Mark

    Taste is personal...I like blue shirts, but I do not say pink ones
    are less well made! 
    
    Seriously, until recently, I did'nt believe hyping could be all
    that sucessful, I mean, I still listen to my Adam & the Ants records,
    and ok may be a bit naff, but the music is still good, with a
    surprisingly heavy overtone to the music. Hovever, I believed even
    with the hype, that the band were good.
    
    The housemartins, a group that I feel were underhyped deliberatly,
    but still I feel tallented. 
    
    But where will New Kids be in 2 years time ? Massive i imagine!
    But in 5 years ? Even the latest Bros records to my mind do not
    seem to be shaking the chart like they did....
    
    And how about people Like Rick Astley, o.k i do not like the style
    ect, but he CAN sing, holds his notes, sings in tune and all. People
    with talent like Rick do deserve the fame ect they get. Singers
    are like houses, if the foundations are steady, the house ought
    have a long life, if the foundation is week, no amount of hype will
    prevent it from collapsing!
    
    Juju
    xxxx
    
    Steering the discussion back...
    

    Mark,
    Point taken.
    
    Is the discussion about  'pre-packaged' vers 'naturally-formed'
    bands or which band is better/worse that 'Kids'?
    
    I saw a picture of them today -- aren't they SO YOUNG!! Are they
    linked to Janet Jackson's producers/musicians?
    
    David

    
    Take it where you like as long as it isn't down a rathole! :^)
    
    My initial feeling was that the Brats are not very good (obviously
    a matter of taste), but have achieved massive success in this country
    with little or no exposure (no tour, no previous 'half-hit' singles,
    no TV soap!). I don't believe that they are just what people want
    to hear (there's nothing original about them) and they appear to
    be aimed at the teenage girl market (hence my comparisons with the
    Osmonds and the Bay City Rollers), so how did they get so popular
    so quick?
    
    My suspicion is that they were hyped through the media (kids TV,
    girls magazines, etc) before they even released a record here.
    
    Cynical manipulation of a market indeed, if it's true.
    
    Mark

    I know they are HUGE in America , I was in New York in November
    and heard them EVERYWHERE! I do remember seeing their faces on many
    posters, thinking back, but never linked the two!!
                                                                       
    David.

    They are rather popular here in the Boston area because they're
    local kids, so I don't really know how widespread their popularity
    is.
    
    I was surprised to see them so high up the British charts a couple
    weeks back.  (Shouldn't have been though, knowing the nature of
    British pop - even worse than ours!! ;-))

    Forget 'New Kids On The Block' they don't come near our own 'Chip
    Of The Old Block'...none other than....
    
    
    
    	D A N I E L   O ' D O N N E L L
    
    

This weeks NME singles are reviewed by Steven Wells, one of my favourite Muso
Journo's.  He awarded "Hangin' Tough" the single of the week award.  Mind you,
it was a joint winner with two other groups called Fudge Tunnel and The Child
Molesters, but that's just the kinda guy he is.  Here's his review as I think 
he's got some good points to make on this band, plus their ilk in general.  I
suppose I ought to put the oblig. language warning though as he does swear a 
bit, so. 

OBLIG. LANGUAGE WARNING!


NEW KIDS ON THE BLOCK: Hanging Tough (CBS)
A single of the week because this record so *blatantly* illustrates what a 
bunch of lilly-livered pig-ignorant vom-sucking vermin we have working in some 
of our major record companies.  Seems that they're too yellow (or too white) to 
handle a black teen-orientated rap band and as a result have constructed an 
ersatz versh so pink, pukey and ugly that they're not going to frighten anyone.

Mothers of America!  Do not let your daughters listen to Negro music!  I've 
nowt against manufactured pop - The Monkees and the Rollers both created some 
blissful listening and it must save those poor A&R men an awful lot of work - 
but this is cheesiness verging on recism.  We don't get to hear 99 per cent of 
the good stuff being created by Black Americans and this cak is NOTHING more or 
less than a blatant and obnoxious attempt to turn rap into a safe, *white* 
commodity.

Nothing new in that but at least the Beastie Boys were able to add their own 
equally gritty punk and metal leaning to the music they were co-opting.  This 
sounds like a metal-rap single put together by faceless accountants with 
incredibly minute penises.  On the sleeve, the boys appear dressed in bandanas 
and hip hop gear: this isn't parody, it's pesticide.

This is Schooly D put together by the Blue Peter team.  Champions of Black 
Music often make the mistake of seeing the entire history of pop music as 
whites ripping off blacks.  Bollocks basically.  Elvis and the Stones *added* 
to their source music. *This* shit is the real problem.  Inarticulate, 
cack-handed and insulting kiddie porn.  So blatant it's almost breathtaking.

    
    Re .29
    
    True.
    
    Mark

    Don't stop millions from buying it though....
    
    Dont forget, the N.M.E currently spend their life pushing the Stone
    Roses, like they pushed the mary chain, and always are looking for
    the "New big thing in indie world...."
    
    Juju
    xxxx