He was blatantly talking bollocks though - the whole "Great Rock n Roll Swindle" "documentary" (which is presumably what you're talking about) that he comissioned was basically to massage his own incredibly inflated sense of self-importance; Julien Temple, the director of the documentary, himself later denounced it and made amends by doing a documentary telling the real story of The Sex Pistols - "The Filth and the Fury". McClaren tried to manipulate Johnny, Steve Jones and Paul Cook (Sid was always too wasted to care if he was being manipulated or not...) and they were having none of it and dissolved the band. The Sex Pistols existed before McClaren came into the picture (with Glenn Matlock on bass) and all the songs were written by the Pistols, he manufactured precisely bugger all except his own inflated ego....

 

 

wasnt those documentaries just general overviews of the period something like those 70s shows on channel 5 but about punk.

Well, when Morgan Spurlock went on a diet of Fast Food for a month it almost ended up giving him a heart attack, so I suspect a diet of Will Young and his ilk will eventually turn your brain to mush.... :lol: :lol: (just kidding...)

 

 

 

well i cant remember if he had a heart attack or if his liver just turned into Foie gras :lol:

 

however thanks for reminding me that this film is free in the guardian tomorrow!!!!

You also don't realise that nowadays it is very difficult for a band or singer to just turn up at a pub or club and do a gig.

 

dont nizlopi just come round to your house?

I see plenty of young, fresh talented acts around where I live (in Camden) so dont insult my intelligence by telling me I'm "living in the past"; there are about a half dozen or so dedicated live venues within about a two hundred yard fukkin' radius as well as plenty of pubs who cater for the occasional live band as well....

 

did you do the crawl? if so see any good acts (review on teletext today0

well i cant remember if he had a heart attack or if his liver just turned into Foie gras :lol:

 

however thanks for reminding me that this film is free in the guardian tomorrow!!!!

 

Come to think of it, coulda been his liver.... Or maybe both..... Cheers for the info about the film though, must get the Guardian tomorrow..... ^_^

 

wasnt those documentaries just general overviews of the period something like those 70s shows on channel 5 but about punk.

 

There's an element of overview, but that's there to put things in context more than anything, the main focus of those docs was on The Sex Pistols...

 

There's an element of overview, but that's there to put things in context more than anything, the main focus of those docs was on The Sex Pistols...

 

Was Glan Matlock the sex pistols memeber who was served 'special sandwiches'? or was it another, erm :lol: , member? or was it an urban rock myth like mick jagger, marrianne and the mars bar? :lol:

Come to think of it, coulda been his liver.... Or maybe both..... Cheers for the info about the film though, must get the Guardian tomorrow..... ^_^

 

must have a look at the thread at digitalspy to see if anything else is free over the weekend

interesting thread, pity i wasnt online..

 

generic terms.... gah!!!! theyve all evolved, changed, and generic terms in use today bare little resemblance to the criteria for their initial use..

 

todays 'indie', 'alternative' simply arnt independant or alternative.

 

like scott (grimly) i live in the past somewhat, as for 40 years 'pop' has meant all popular music, and not just the manufactured money making products that are here today, gone tomorrow, contributing nothing to 'yoof culture' along the way.

 

thats not historically how pop evolved. from the clown like antics of glamrock, to the filth of punk, each genre left its impression on our heritage. so i think that historical referances are very pertainent to the discussion! :)

 

 

good points about elvis, sinatra etc.. were they not products too?

 

wasnt motown the first 'hit factory'?.. as guilty as waterman!!!

 

 

"no body manufactured me" john lydon ..... watch 'the filth and the fury'... NOT the great rock n roll swindle... also listen to 'public image' byt public image ltd.

what about the sandwich?

good points about elvis, sinatra etc.. were they not products too?

 

Why thank you kind sir! :D

Four lads gigging in Hamburg clubs and dives singing Chuck Berry/Elvis, rock numbers etc.. Leather jackets, guitars, 'Elvis' stylee, get spotted by a fella who gets the hots for one of the group. Brings them back to Britain, takes away their leather jackets and jeans and gives them nice haircuts and suits. Agressively promotes them and - hey presto - the Beatles are born. You can 'manufacture' a look but you can't manufacture a natural-born talent.

 

All artists who are signed to a label, be it small or large, are 'products' to be sold and, hopefully, a healthy profit made on the investment.

 

Pre-internet, groups all hoped eventually to get a record deal, isn't that what it's all about ?. Why are those who haven't made it big after travelling around in a battered Transit van doing pubs and clubs so scathing of others who take whatever opportunity arises to get into the business. If they don't want to lose their 'integrity' then why moan. Sour grapes.

 

Just my opinion of course.

 

Pop has come to mean something entirely different. Rhythm & Blues as it's known today has no relationship at all with the rhythm and blues I know. Muddy Waters, Eric Clapton, Howlin' Wolf, etc. etc. - that to me is rhythm and blues. Not the American black music we hear now. Music is music - it's the media and music snobs who like to put things into a box marked with a special name. Take away all the awards ceremonies and there would be no need for labels.

 

If you want an example of 'manufactured' - Jonathan King got backing singers to record without telling them that they were in fact the 'main' singers on the records he released. Pete Waterman was the biggest 'manufacturer' of modern pop music - calling his company The Music Factory churning out a product not allowing his stable of 'stars' any input whatsoever expecting them to just turn up to the studio, record all day, then go home. And who was his biggest 'star'? :) And who could forget Milli Vanilli :lol:

Edited April 22, 200619 yr by munchkin

Terms like these seem to change. Even the music changes with a term.

 

Back in the 60s what is now called Heavy Metal was called Underground - in the 70s it was called Progressive.

 

Same as R&B was classed as Soul.

5 years ago what was called GARAGE was a type or urban - In the 60s it was a type of Rock mainly from the US and much of it was psychadelic. US bands like ? & The Mysterians, Electric Prunes, Iron Butterfly, Paul Revere & The Raiders, Tommy James & The Shondells, Count 5, Kingsmen, Shadows Of Knight, Seeds, Balloon Farm and many more.

A full list can be seen HERE

The trouble is, much of the young fresh talent that's out there doesnt get the breaks they deserve because the record industry is all about pre-packaged, manufactured, marketed Louis Walsh/Simon Cowell/Pete Waterman-type sh!te and the talent has to make do with being on underground or small Indie labels who don't have a hell of a lot of resources to promote their bands properly.

 

Too true. My band are experiencing the same problem now.

 

I think the problem is, the public WANT the pap that Simon Cowell et al are churning out, at least, those that actually buy records.

Four lads gigging in Hamburg clubs and dives singing Chuck Berry/Elvis, rock numbers etc.. Leather jackets, guitars, 'Elvis' stylee, get spotted by a fella who gets the hots for one of the group. Brings them back to Britain, takes away their leather jackets and jeans and gives them nice haircuts and suits. Agressively promotes them and - hey presto - the Beatles are born. You can 'manufacture' a look but you can't manufacture a natural-born talent.

 

All artists who are signed to a label, be it small or large, are 'products' to be sold and, hopefully, a healthy profit made on the investment.

 

Pre-internet, groups all hoped eventually to get a record deal, isn't that what it's all about ?. Why are those who haven't made it big after travelling around in a battered Transit van doing pubs and clubs so scathing of others who take whatever opportunity arises to get into the business. If they don't want to lose their 'integrity' then why moan. Sour grapes.

 

Just my opinion of course.

 

Pop has come to mean something entirely different. Rhythm & Blues as it's known today has no relationship at all with the rhythm and blues I know. Muddy Waters, Eric Clapton, Howlin' Wolf, etc. etc. - that to me is rhythm and blues. Not the American black music we hear now. Music is music - it's the media and music snobs who like to put things into a box marked with a special name. Take away all the awards ceremonies and there would be no need for labels.

 

If you want an example of 'manufactured' - Jonathan King got backing singers to record without telling them that they were in fact the 'main' singers on the records he released. Pete Waterman was the biggest 'manufacturer' of modern pop music - calling his company The Music Factory churning out a product not allowing his stable of 'stars' any input whatsoever expecting them to just turn up to the studio, record all day, then go home. And who was his biggest 'star'? :) And who could forget Milli Vanilli :lol:

 

BIG difference between The Beatles and sh!te like Westlife, Will Young, Kylie, etc, The Beatles had actual songwriting talent and defined a generation, something that you could never say about the manufactured acts.... If they'd been around today, I'm betting The Beatles would've been considered an 'Alternative' or 'Indie' act and not the glorious Pop that they were. And by the way, the modern R&B actually stands for Rhythm and Bass, but don't worry, I got mixed up with that one too..... ;)

 

And you're utterly wrong about it being sour grapes, the facts are I regularly hear bands around my neck of the woods (Camden) who are about 10 times better musically than stuff like Kaiser Chiefs, Arctic Monkeys, etc, who are all mind-numbingly average, but they're considered 'awkward' because they dont fit into the record industry's and Music Press' little pigeon-holes..... It really is all about the marketing, raw talent comes a very poor second....