Grumpy Old Man...
Getting older comes to us all (hopefully). And one of privileges or getting older is that you get to talk about what it was like when you were younger as if it was the best time which ever existed in the world ever. Every summer was hot and long, you could get 10p if you took your glass (GLASS!) lemonade bottle back to the shop, and there used to be a half-pence piece. Why wouldn't that be brilliant?
Sir Elton John has been getting older for longer than most, and like a lot of men his age, he can't resist taking a swipe at the vacuous nature of modern society, in particular the internet, which, it's fair to say, he does not like.
In fact, this is what he had to say to the Sun about it: "The internet has stopped people from going out and being with each other, creating stuff. Instead they sit at home and make their own records, which is sometimes OK but it doesn鈥檛 bode well for long-term artistic vision. It鈥檚 just a means to an end."
鈥淲e鈥檙e talking about things that are going to change the world and change the way people listen to music and that鈥檚 not going to happen with people blogging on the internet."
HEY! HANG ON A MINUTE! SOME OF THESE BLOGS ARE ALRIGH...oh fair enough...
He went on: "Hopefully the next movement in music will tear down the internet. Let鈥檚 get out in the streets and march and protest instead of sitting at home and blogging."
Seriously, fella, if you mention blogging one more time, the wig's coming off. I don't claim piano-playing is ruining architecture, do I?
Wait, there's more: "I do think it would be an incredible experiment to shut down the whole internet for five years and see what sort of art is produced over that span."
How would we know? No internet, see? Art critics would do reviews by semaphore, presumably.
And here it is, the defining Dad moment: "In the early Seventies there were at least ten albums released every week that were fantastic. Now you鈥檙e lucky to find ten albums a year of that quality. And there are more albums released each week now than there were then.鈥
Oh be quiet.
In the early Seventies there were at least ten albums released every week. I'll go that far. Some of them were certainly amazing. And some of them were rubbish. And the reason I know this is that those self-same albums are still being re-released on a weekly basis. That's got to account for a huge chunk of the 'new' product he's talking about.
Repackages, box-sets, Millennium Editions, all that guff. The past is constantly being reshuffled and put back up on the CD shop shelves. With perhaps a tiny bit of room here and there for some of the bigger new acts around. None of which has anything to do with the internet.
And why chose a moment when more and more people are getting out there, forming bands and going to see the bands they've formed - BECAUSE of the internet - to claim that the web is holding everyone back? Could it be fear of the unknown? A generation gap, perhaps? Just a thought.
Plus I've seen footage of Elton John shopping for CDs. He looks like an impoverished housewife who's just won a minute-long trolley-dash, and he's only got 20 seconds left. Choosy, he is not.
*exhales* There. Finished.
Comments
the net has made music much more avaliable, DOWNLOADS!! hey i dont like 'em the same as cds but its made accessing music a whole lot easier.
myspace has been the key to the sucess of many bands recently, without them some wont have been given record deals and the arctic monkeys would still be playing in basements or whatever (i say lock them in the basement for good but again thats just me).
and this site, one with BLOGS, sir john, lets people talk about the music they like whilst having a bit of fun, or have you lost your sene of humour in your old age?
im pretty sure people have spent a fair amount of dosh downloading elton hits. i bet he has his own web page too, maybe even with those music destructing blogs on them :P
Hem-hem... has Elton forgotten that without the internet there would be no Arctic Monkeys, Lily Allen, Kate Nash and unsigned bands that could soon be feeding our eardrums? But I do prefer CDs. Enough said.
Oh shut up Elton. You've been made even more successful by internet. People downloading all your songs and cd's and stuff. No one should bother now, and see how he likes that. Ha.
And he should shut up about blogging. Some blogs are rather alright. And the internet HELPS bands and solo artists get more publicity. Think myspace, websites for things like the hits, Kerrang! etc, THIS website....you can also go on youtubeand musicjesus and stuff and watch bands music videos and any number of other vids they own. Not to mention downloads. So Elton, the internet is a good thing for most artists. So why don't you crawl back down your hole until you re-release a song you released in the 80's? Thank you!
xxxxx
Oh heck! He's on a roll isn't he?
Has he not seen how much music is on the net and how many people are making their own music and promoting themselves online as well as marketing their own events with success?
Elton just doesn't get it does he - there's a new way of doing things rather than grovelling in vain for a chance to see if a record producer will listen to your demo tape! Things have evolved and the internet has opened up doors for new and upcoming artists to get their music out there - we don't all need to shop in Woollies to get out music nowadays, not like they did in the olden days..lol
Open your eyes Elton...perhaps he should have gone to Specsavers.
I agree with Elton John with regards to music being better in the past. That is exactly why there are so many repackaged older CD's coming back onto the market. Many people prefer to listen to it simply because much of the bubblegum nowadays is total dross.
One more point of note: Why oh why would I want to thank the internet for Lilley Allen ?? She's hardly an 'Artiste' is she ??
Nah, Elton, you fire away. You've earned the right.
[Sean, what's your criterior for an 'artiste' then? How come Lily's not allowed in your Old Man's Club? - Fraser]
Fraser,
'Artistes' hone their craft over many years.
You can't say that about many of the superficial acts nowadays, and you certainly can't say that about Lilley Allen. She 'sings' simple ditties for a throw-away era of music, and having been on the scene for 2 minutes, she's slating everyone else like she's been here as long as Elton. There are too many acts like this nowadays.
Strip them away and what's left ? Remember when the word 'band' actually meant BAND? Today, it does mean one person at a computer, and a bunch of puppets performing the vocals......Very sterile and mechanical. No room for improvisation or adventure.
It's not about the 'old man's club' at all. It's about ability.
You can wrap it up any way you like, but the sad fact is the majority of 'pop' performers at least, can't string a musical bar together without the help of an in-house writer / arranger. Some of us need more substance to our music.
[You're saying Lily Allen is bad because she's not a band? Is Elton John a band because he can improvise? I can name you any number of performers from the past whose 'only' talent was singing other people's arrangements of songs. Sinatra, Elvis, ...y'know, just the shallow 'pop' performers. No-one of real 'substance'. - Fraser]
No, I am saying Lily Allen (like many other 'acts' out there now) has very limited talent. Elton John on the other hand is a musical genius. There really is no comparison when it comes to musical credibility between the two. Seriously, which act would you rather see ?
Re 'Band', Remember a bass player, a lead guitar player, percussion player ? A keyboard player ? ALL on the same album cover or stage ? All being part of it ? All getting the recognition ?
The industry today has tidied all these 'surplus to requirement' members away and just paints them into the mix using a mouse and several pieces of software and loops.
When a live pop act performs nowadays, the hired help invariably sits down in a pit somewhere unseen. 'Play that, and don't deviate or your fired'.
A band today in 'pop' circles means 5 karaoke singers sitting on bar stools, or 3 or so girls trying to move sexually (an singing badley)..... It just doesn't cut it for me.
As for Sinatra & Presley, not my thing either so I won't rebutt that one.
[Para 1 - Lily Allen. Seriously. Elton John hasn't ever really done it for me. That's just my taste. And 'credibility' is a word people trot out a lot. It means nothing. When it comes to music you either like it or your don't.
Para 2 - Give me examples. Cos almost all touring bands have a core band who get the credit and hired musicians (backing singers, brass, you name it) who don't. Elton being a perfect example.
Para 3 - Clearly you don't go to a lot of pop gigs. Never mind.
Para 4 - See para 2.
Para 5 - Vocal harmony groups have been with us longer than rock 'n' roll has. Ever heard of Doo-Wop? The voice is still an instrument.
Para 6 - But you do concede they're considered to be artistes, right? - Fraser]
Re. Para's 1 to 6 : Speaking as a professional musician myself, I'll have to agree to disagree. I guess I'm a rocksnob.
Re. Para 7 : I'll concede Presley was probably an artiste, but Sinatra was a gangster, considered by many to be an artiste. Lily Allen is neither, although she thinks she's both ;-)
By definition I would summise all of them as artists. They create 'art', albeit aimed at different target audiences. An artiste is a master of an artform ala Elton John. Lily Allen is not that. If the use of lame lyrics & simplistic melodic bath time vocals are considered the upper echelon of artistry, then I guess I am wrong and Lily Allen is indeen an 'Artiste' in every sense of the word.
[Ah good. I was hoping for a definition! For some reason you've a bugbear with Lily Allen, and that's OK. That's your taste. But you can't really just pick two music acts and compare them like this. So Lily Allen is no Elton John...so what? Elton John is no Mozart. Does that make him suddenly rubbish by comparison? I say no. Also, I'm a musician, and I can tell you Lily Allen's backing band is very, very good. And they play live, on stage with her. And she credits them at gigs. - Fraser]
sean was saying the word band alot. there are still plenty of BANDS out there with all the required jobs filled eg guitarists (that come up with the guitar bits), drumers (which come up with all the drum bits), singers (that still write their own lyrics) etc. all those without the abilty to play their own music, meaning they have 5 people singing or whatever is a group.
Fraser, my bugbear isn't with Lily Allen, it's with the 'pop' industry in general.
I'd also throw stones at the Westlifes, S Club type bands, Atomic Kittens, Girls Alouds.......the list goes on.
When you go to see these types of groups, the talent is invariably 'in the pit'.
Now, when we talk about bands, thankfully there is still so much going musically for the UK. Then again, I wouldn't catagorise those bands (Keane, Coldplay, Arctic Monkeys, Razorlight etc etc..) as pop bands. They are all worthy of their recognition even if they are not my preferred listening.
With regards to Elton John and Mozart , they have both spent countless years honing their crafts, as no doubt have Lily Allen's backing band. Lily Allen hasn't, and is by comparison to her peers, not upto the mark. Having character assasinated Lily Allen, good luck to her. She's in a niche that is bringing reward. I doubt she'd lose any sleep knowing that I won't be buying into it.
[Who's to say Lily Allen won't spend countless years honing her craft? Even Elton John had to start somewhere. And Mozart was a child prodigy, he started off a genius and got better. Music isn't like other skills, hard work alone won't get you to where you need to be.
Don't get me wrong, Sean, I hear what you're saying. It's just if you say Keane are 'worthier' than Girls Aloud, or that people should like Razorlight more than S Club 7, even if they don't really like Razorlight and DO really like S Club... I'm going to have to suggest that that's crazy. Sorry! - Fraser]
No apologies necesary Fraser. I guess it's just the over sensitive musician in me. I have more respect for the Elton John's and the Keane's of this world than I do of the participants of the "five minutes of fame" culture we live in.
Regards.
[Backatcha, Sean. Although I honestly do recommend you try seeing Lily live. She's much more 'real' than she may appear on record. With you on Westlife though! - Fraser]
It seems to me Sean that you are talking more about your preferential taste in music rather than what the original subject was about.
Whether you think a 'pop' group is famous for 5 minutes or 50 years makes no difference to whether someone enjoys their music or not, and lets face it, if people don't like your music, then they won't buy it.
The internet is playing a vital part in allowing new artists to introduce their music to the public (as previously said), and there is plenty of 'ability' there as well as talent, and as long as people are enjoying it, going to gigs and buying their music, why moan?
Nicky,
Read my first post again.
"I agree with Elton John with regards to music being better in the past. "
and
"Why oh why would I want to thank the internet for Lilley Allen ??"
Both are relevant to this discussion, and all that followed on thereafter ? Also relevant in an attempt to explain one's point.
It has absolutely nothing to do with my personal taste in music. I have not divulged what my music tastes are, only that I prefer music with more creative depth.
I would imagine creative depth (or the lack of it ) was at the forefront of Elton John's train of thought when he made his remarks.
lol elton really had become a grumpy old man.... i never liked him anyway-always seems more than a bit up himself
p.s can i just thank you fraser and the rest of the chart blog team for not dumbing youselves down, it's so nice to read something that's actually well written on the internet
x