Tony Thompson wrote:
>1) I think one of the most important factors in British popular music is
>that it is now a pretty pisspoor place for gigging musicians,
How true. It is frightening quite how much this has changed over the last
30 years. Makes you wonder where for example the Musicians' Union's head's
been at all this time in not putting together some kind of a viable
strategy to help counter this.
>many start-out local venues have closed the doors to gigs
>because of management apathy or our dippy music performance licensing rules.
Pet peeve of mine too. It's the same with radio though, as well. Used to be
that, for example, a start-up band in a local area could get a gig and get
some of their hits played just in the local area, and then gradually things
would grow from that. Nowadays you call up Radio In-You-Face to tell them
about a good local band you know that's really beginning to make a noise
and they just tell you to come back when that group's outselling Michael
Jackson and maybe they'll be interested.
>Other venues simply don't pay well,
>so that gigging seems like a heck of a lot of work for little reward.
Agreed that it's not nice when the money's not good, but on the other hand
it's worth the slog when there's a genuine hope that there's a genuine
reward at the end of the tunnel, namely being able to break out. Lots of
gigging just doesn't seem to have the potential to do that any more.
>This means that bands can form, with lots of good ideas, but
>that they simply don't get the chance to polish their act, to gell together
>as a unit, before thinking about recording and making it big.
Whooops. You just went on to say basically what I was trying to say above.
>I'm well aware
>that being a muso isn't a passport to worldly success in the States, but you
>are a big enough country with enough venues of varying sizes to give a band
>willing to put the effort into some travelling at least some chance of
>reward.
Well ... again ... the USA isn't my area of expertise, but my overall
impression is that being a really good local band isn't quite enough to
help you -- in general -- to pay all of your bills or sustain a really
great career, and so eventually, I think, the frustration kicks in and so a
lot of good bands die an untimely death for lack of that extra little
whatever-it-might-be that carries them through. However, I do think you're
right about the better potential that the situation has in so for as the
rewards to a band creatively for travelling and gigging in the context of a
long-term career. The decline in this aspect of the British scene is very
sad and IMO a big contributor to the current state of affairs.
>This means in the UK that acts with media savvy, flamboyance or on a
>'wave of the moment' are far more likely to stay together and make a degree
>of success, irrespective of basic talent or current skill levels;
True.
>US bands can have success while being, perhaps, more substantial,
>more craftsman-like and with less glitz.
... but ... I am not sure that I agree with this overall conclusion simply
because of what I said above ... namely ... that as far as I can see good
regional success does not immediately and always translate into the ability
to maintain an ongoing and successful musical career. My evidence is
entirely anecdotal, so some US musician would have to verify, but Teddy
Kumpel wrote in the other day and pretty much verified the general
impression I have gained of the US musical scene. By and large, local
success does not seem to be enough to sustain a long-term musical career
(i.e. beyond 5-8 years) and members of good local bands may well be able to
keep up a musical 'presence' in local festivals and such like for decades
afterwards, but they are forced to do something else, get some day job or
go into production, radio, management or the like, in order to pay the
bills that aging brings (marriage, raising kids and such like). Also, I'm
not sure I agree about the higher standard of craftsmanship and less
glitziness of US bands. The music industry is what it is and a lot of it is
about presentation. Yes ... the possibility of gigging and such like does
give bands a bigger opportunity to build up relevant skills, but in the end
I don't think it's that big a determining factor in who is actually going
to make it. It just gives a slightly bigger scope to those who are
determined to grit their teeth and hang on in there that little bit longer.
>2) on the other hand, we don't suffer from the level of music radio station
>formatting which is prevalent in the US,
Actually, you know, I've always found it kind of nice that if you want some
of this style of music there's a whole radio station devoted to it all day,
and if you want some of that again there's a whole station devoted to that.
>so that you can listen to our national popular music station
>and still hear quite a range of stuff,
... on the other hand ... it's also kind of nice to keep people's tastes
broadened. I know a couple of people, for example, who only ever put on
their favourite old-time music station with stuff from the 60's through to
the 80's on the grounds that there's nothing good being made today. When I
challenge them about this and ask them how they could know if they don't
listen to it they basically say that they don't need to listen to it to
know, and anyway they can tell by the 3 milliseconds they catch of
something while spinning the dial from one favourite station to the next. I
think it's nice that there are so many specialized stations, but against
that I kind of think that consumers should make more effort to spin their
dials a bit more than they do.
>though it could always be improved.
True. As above, local radio stations in the UK seem to have somehow been
taken over by the corporate mindset of the biggies and simply are not what
they used to be.
>... generations of live talent are being wasted.
I'm totally with you on this one.
>As for all this stuff about the British class system,
>that sounds like yet another item from the treasured cliche collection,
It is true that it's not as big a factor as it used to be and has declined
quite a lot over the last 30 years, but sadly it is not a cliche. The
sports of cricket and soccer, for example, is the classic place where this
class issue is discussed and seen at its clearest. A certain class of
person always used to play cricket and a certain class of person always
used to play soccer. Not only that, but a certain class of person always
used to monopolize the batsman's positions, while a certain class of person
always seemed to end up doing the donkey work of being a fast bowler and
hurling projectiles at them. Same kind of thing held for football where IF
the upper and middle class people would ever deign to play soccer, then
they tended to make sure they were the captains and took the flashier
positions on the field. Any book on the sociology of either sports or music
on this topic will document this for you, and there are so many studies
about it that I'm not even going to bother to refer you to them. Just go
stand in any bookshop and stand in the right section.
However, you are perfectly correct in that it's not as big a factor as it
used to be, but the discussion seemed to be about bands from yesteryear ...
and in yesteryear it was certainly a big factor being one of the important
things in motivating people to seek a career in rock and roll.
>along with Dick van
>Dyke's 'cockney' accent in Mary Poppins and this bizzare idea that a lot of
>Americans have that London has regular heavy fogs (they were serious smogs
>resulting from the use of coal fires and died out in the late 50s/early 60s
>after the introduction of clean air legislation)
I agree that it's annoying to see that kind of thing being perpetrated ...
>Every country has a class
>system. - the British system is simply more visible and codified than most
>and is in any case shifting all the time.
The simple point being that since it's more visible and codified then it
affects every arena of life and is a big factor, often unstated, in helping
divide people in the country up into 'appropriate' and 'inappropriate'
jobs. We have not yet got to the point where people don't comment every
time the BBC, say, appoint a national newscaster who has a clearly regional
accent. Some classes of people see music as a serious career alternative
because of the 'vibes' around them due to the opportunities made available
to them on account of their class, and some never really see it as a career
alternative and so never put much more into it than playing the odd guitar.
I agree about the 'shifting all the time' bit,
and I do agree that it is less of a factor than it used to be, but it is
still not a zero factor.
>Most British musos come from white collar backgrounds as the industrial
>workign class is shrinking in any case.
If it's shrinking all the time, then what else is one to expect?
>A surprising number are from quite
>posh backgrounds
And ... the proportion will likely increase as the industrial working class
base decreases.
>(and I'm not just talking about Genesis who formed at one
>of the top public schools)
Well ... what would all the members of Genesis have done if they hadn't
started making some serious money?
Kool Musick
Keep Musick Kool
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @... address at http://mail.yahoo.com