Although to be fair, what's worse? SAW themselves? Or the moronic sheep public who lapped up every soundalike no matter how talentless and bland the "artist"?

 

good point... i guess without the moronic sheep S/A/W couldnt have 'ruined music'.... which in a democracy legitimises S/A/W 's work :wacko:

But the public buy anything that;s forced upon them no matter what genre or how good...

Pete should be forced back out on a Saturday night to do the Hitman and Her.

But the public buy anything that;s forced upon them no matter what genre or how good...

 

do they?... i dont think it is 'forced' on them/us.

 

i think that S/A/W's hit machine took off because it appealed to a new (very young) generation of music fans.

 

i think theres simularities to why glam rock took off in the early 70's.

 

the 'cool' 60's generation grew up and their tastes developed and they lost interest in 'chart' music. a new young generation then developed their own style. same with punk... and simularly with S/A/W's c**p... suddenly ten year old girls were able to buy pop, it was (very) easy listening after the heady days of punk and new romantics, heavy, deeper mid eighties pop.

Well forced may be a strong word, but since I've followed music I've just found whatever record labels decide they want heavy airplay and videoplay rotation sells. What doesn't get it doesn;t sell...

Well forced may be a strong word, but since I've followed music I've just found whatever record labels decide they want heavy airplay and videoplay rotation sells. What doesn't get it doesn;t sell...

 

this highlights my point EXACTLY!

 

'what record labels decide'... pre S/A/W it was generally what the musicians decided, with the record labels facilitating it. ok, the record labels wanted to make money, they always have, and they did encourage artists to have a quick string of commercial hits... but the direction the music took was down to the youth of the day, so creativity was all around with new artists wanting to stand out by discovering a new trend or fashion. this is why our heritage is so rich and diverse.

 

but alas, the last 20 years has been dominated by the 'guru', the 'quick fix' and it seems as if the general public have got very lazy, settling for mass produced c**p <_<.

but alas, the last 20 years has been dominated by the 'guru', the 'quick fix' and it seems as if the general public have got very lazy, settling for mass produced c**p <_<.

 

I really cannot agree with this, this is all so completely one-sided. Surely the mass-produced SAW initiated a backlash, just like the reality TV rubbish Simon Cowell drums into the the telly addicts of the UK?

 

 

I really cannot agree with this, this is all so completely one-sided. Surely the mass-produced SAW initiated a backlash, just like the reality TV rubbish Simon Cowell drums into the the telly addicts of the UK?

 

if there was such a backlash..then steps would never have existed. but yes, there was a minor backlash in the early 90's against the hit factory. nowdays there is no backlash or even disgust at manufactured acts. just look at the saturdays thread.... the harshes criticism was unanimously from us oldies, russ, grimly, t.i.p.

 

fact... pre S/A/W there was very very few 'manufactured' acts about as WE didnt accept products like that without a fight, it was not on, it wasnt done... nowdays nobody cares if an act is manufactured or not.

 

manufactured acts and guru driven products have thrived ever since S/A/W hit machine days.

 

it isnt 'one sided', its FACTUAL, the very fact that you (a young person) has your views on this that S/A/W were credible and acceptable proves the whole point of this thread... its only those who grew up with this style of music that accepts it, us who were already adult 20 years ago hate it.

if there was such a backlash..then steps would never have existed. but yes, there was a minor backlash in the early 90's against the hit factory. nowdays there is no backlash or even disgust at manufactured acts. just look at the saturdays thread.... the harshes criticism was unanimously from us oldies, russ, grimly, t.i.p.

 

fact... pre S/A/W there was very very few 'manufactured' acts about as WE didnt accept products like that without a fight, it was not on, it wasnt done... nowdays nobody cares if an act is manufactured or not.

 

manufactured acts and guru driven products have thrived ever since S/A/W hit machine days.

 

it isnt 'one sided', its FACTUAL, the very fact that you (a young person) has your views on this that S/A/W were credible and acceptable proves the whole point of this thread... its only those who grew up with this style of music that accepts it, us who were already adult 20 years ago hate it.

 

Spot on.

 

A great example of what Mushy is talking about is look at the so called pop acts of the first half of the 1980s with the likes of Duran Duran, Wham!, Culture Club, Adam & The Ants, Spandau Ballet, etc (in a nutshell just look at the original Band Aid record).

 

All of these acts back then were looked negatively upon for making disposable pop music by music critics who much preferred the likes of U2, The Jam, The Cure & The Smiths. Yet all of those acts were responsible for writing their own material and playing their own musical instruments.

 

This was the way of popular music in the early 1980s. But come the mid 1980s Stock Aitken & Waterman came along (as well as mogul managers like Maurice Starr (New Kids On The Block, New Edition & Tiffany) and Tom Watkins (manager of Bros)) and changed the musical landscape by taking the art out of music to produce lowest common denominator product that sold by the shedload using manufactured pop star who could not play a note or write a song reaching the natural nadir with Frank (Boney M) Fabian's Milli Vanilli who did not even sing on their records. A great example of that being Jason Donovan. Unlike Kylie Minogue he could barely sing for toffee, yet SAW released the potential of taking a young teen soap star and put in front of songs that Rick Astley had rejected as not being good enough and voila a run of monster selling hit singles.

 

By the end of the 1980s the musical landscape had been rapidly changed (just look at the ghastly line up on 1989's Band Aid 2 record for the worse) thanks to the success of the likes of SAW productions & PWL Records.

I really cannot agree with this, this is all so completely one-sided. Surely the mass-produced SAW initiated a backlash, just like the reality TV rubbish Simon Cowell drums into the the telly addicts of the UK?

 

Oh, but there was, big time.

 

In the early 1990s all things manufactured pop went out of vogue. Just look at how the likes of Kylie's, Jason Donovan's & Rick Astley's singles did in the early 1990s and how the likes of New Kids On The Block, Paula Abdul, Debbie Gibson, Betty Boo, Cathy Dennis, etc careers died out chartwise. By 1992 disposable Pop music was dead thanks to the rise of Alternative Rock Music, Dance & Urban Music. So much so that Pop magazine Smash Hits stopped using Pop Stars on their front covers and use teen TV stars, Comedians, Sportsmen and soap stars on their front covers.

 

Indeed a great example of the backlash against Stock Aitken & Waterman is this shortlived girl group:

 

Boy Krazy - That's What Love Can Do (1991)

 

This single was released late 1991 (the same week as Nirvana's Smells Like Teen Spirit in the UK) and peaked at UK#86 due to a total lack of airplay that occurred to most SAW produced tracks by then. However the song picked up airplay in America and by January 1993 had peaked at USA#18 and #1 on the Billboard Pop chart (further proof how pop music was out of vogue then). It was subsequently re-released in the UK where it reached its new peak......... of UK#80.

 

This was the case of pop music being out of fashion until a certain 5 piece boy band from Manchester came along called Take That and even then pop music did not go fully overground again until the latter half of the 1990s with the likes of the Spice Girls, Backstreet Boys, Boyzone, Steps, Britney & Christina, etc.

 

Spot on.

 

A great example of what Mushy is talking about is look at the so called pop acts of the first half of the 1980s with the likes of Duran Duran, Wham!, Culture Club, Adam & The Ants, Spandau Ballet, etc (in a nutshell just look at the original Band Aid record).

 

All of these acts back then were looked negatively upon for making disposable pop music by music critics who much preferred the likes of U2, The Jam, The Cure & The Smiths. Yet all of those acts were responsible for writing their own material and playing their own musical instruments.

 

This was the way of popular music in the early 1980s.

 

not only the early 80's though... even in the 60's you had the 'credible' inovative acts pushing pop music forward (kinks, beatles, yardbirds, small faces etc) and the 'pop' pop groups playing their own material but which were essentially 'easy listening'... (hermans hermits, tremeloes, dave clarke 5, love affair, even the monkees).

 

but all these groups played/performed their own music in their style... youth lead, not old businessmanwantingtomakemoney lead.

 

hell watertwat even BOASTED about being able to make a 'star' out of a 'teaboy'... he reckoned he could make ANYBODY a pop star... thats utterly repugnant! that aint what music should be about! it should be about anybody being able to create a vehicle to convey a message, an emotion, a story, a true life witness.

fact... pre S/A/W there was very very few 'manufactured' acts about as WE didnt accept products like that without a fight, it was not on, it wasnt done...

 

manufactured acts and guru driven products have thrived ever since S/A/W hit machine days.

 

well i suppose it could have been worse if they had been invented in the 50s kylie and jason would have been no doubt rebranded as Kylie Zoom-Zoom and Jason Sunnyhead in a manner like all those empressio moulded rock n roll stars like like Georgie Fame, Marty Wilde, Billy Fury, Vince Eager, Sid Vicious, Dickie Pride, Lance Fortune, Johnny Rotten, Johnny Gentle and Duffy Power :lol:

 

he reminds me of thatcher....

 

...but music shouldnt be run solely as a business because its an art form, a means of expressing emotion.

 

and i bet you found ben elton funny in the 80s as well :lol: :lol:

 

Oh, but there was, big time.

 

In the early 1990s all things manufactured pop went out of vogue. Just look at how the likes of Kylie's, Jason Donovan's & Rick Astley's singles did in the early 1990s and how the likes of New Kids On The Block, Paula Abdul, Debbie Gibson, Betty Boo, Cathy Dennis, etc careers died out chartwise. By 1992 disposable Pop music was dead thanks to the rise of Alternative Rock Music, Dance & Urban Music. So much so that Pop magazine Smash Hits stopped using Pop Stars on their front covers and use teen TV stars, Comedians, Sportsmen and soap stars on their front covers.

 

...did you watch that programme on 4music the other week...no not one with Nick Grimshaw but one counting down the biggest hits of 1992..presented by pete waterman along with neil fox...and as one of them said it may have been known as the year of nirvana but they dont turn up in the bigest sellers show...instead full of overproduced stuff like curtis stigers (meaning maybe 1992 was the arse end of all that overproduced sickly 80s stuff - that might feature saxaphones - esp when soulful michael macdonald types are concerned)

 

on the other hand dance represented by 2 unlimited and utah saints...and its know wonder that there is a new video as the original is one of the worse ever cheaply recorded..maybe it would have been better if it had just gone out as a kate bush remix with all of the original video...

 

don't know what else was on as i think i turned over to watch either dark angel or roswell on e4...

and i bet you found ben elton funny in the 80s as well :lol: :lol:

 

but ben elton WAS funny in the 80's.... young ones, blackadder, solo work...

The Top selling singles don't represent what is really happening very often. Here is the top ten from 1995 (The year of Britpop as I'm sure everyone will agree) Apart from Oasis creeping in at #10 this does not really represent 95 at all so as per usual Waterman's point (or Fox's - another complete t***) is rubbish.

 

Best-selling singles 95

01.Unchained Melody / White Cliffs Of Dover - Robson & Jerome

02.Gangsta's Paradise - Coolio ft. LV 0

3.I Believe / Up On The Roof - Robson & Jerome

04.Back For Good - Take That

05.Think Twice - Celine Dion

06.Earth Song - Michael Jackson

07.Fairground - Simply Red

08.Missing - Everything But The Girl

09.You Are Not Alone - Michael Jackson

10.Wonderwall - Oasis

Edited September 7, 200816 yr by grebo69

The Top selling singles don't represent what is really happening very often. Here is the top ten from 1995 (The year of Britpop as I'm sure everyone will agree) Apart from Oasis creeping in at #10 this does not really represent 95 at all so as per usual Waterman's point (or Fox's - another complete t***) is rubbish.

 

Best-selling singles 95

01.Unchained Melody / White Cliffs Of Dover - Robson & Jerome

02.Gangsta's Paradise - Coolio ft. LV 0

3.I Believe / Up On The Roof - Robson & Jerome

04.Back For Good - Take That

05.Think Twice - Celine Dion

06.Earth Song - Michael Jackson

07.Fairground - Simply Red

08.Missing - Everything But The Girl

09.You Are Not Alone - Michael Jackson

10.Wonderwall - Oasis

 

Maybe the top ten album chart of this year represents a better reflection? But then, I'm finding this thread a completely ONE SIDED view on a topic with absolutely NO ROOM for any views that might show opinoins that differ so, that may be why?

 

it isnt 'one sided', its FACTUAL, the very fact that you (a young person) has your views on this that S/A/W were credible and acceptable proves the whole point of this thread... its only those who grew up with this style of music that accepts it, us who were already adult 20 years ago hate it.

 

Well, no it isn't factual. Your views are a personal account on a controversial production team. I'm a young person, I guess so, (I probably am on this forum, not so on the Britney forum if I posted on there ha!). I have never said S/A/W were credible, I would be the first to say the bulk of their work was trash, some of it having a passing charm and the very odd track being a bloody great pop classic!

 

I understand, and to a certain extent agree on what you say about S/A/W, but I think the so-called chronic 'aftermath' you claim they created is, to me personally, exagerated.

Maybe the top ten album chart of this year represents a better reflection? But then, I'm finding this thread a completely ONE SIDED view on a topic with absolutely NO ROOM for any views that might show opinoins that differ so, that may be why?

 

Well maybe that is because there is very little reason to praise Stock Aitken & Waterman's contribution to British popular music.

 

If you watched the quite brilliant BBC4 (repeated on BB2) Pop Britannia you would have seen the context as to why they are rightly reviled within the UK music industry for blatantly taking the art out of British music (for the first time since the Pre Rock & Roll era) and being proud about that fact, whilst setting up a cancerous blueprint that the musical parasites Simon Cowell & Louis Walsh are continuing today.

 

Or do you regard these tracks as classics?:

 

Reynolds Girls - I'd Rather Jack (1989)

 

Sinitta - Toy Boy (1987)

 

Big Fun - Blame It On The Boogie (1988)

 

Jason Donovan - Nothing Can Divide Us (1988)

 

Mandy Smith - Boys & Girls (1988)

Yup! Big Fun, Sinitta and Reynolds Girls are up there with the greats like New Order, The Smiths, Joy Division and other 80s innovators.

 

Of course not. I'm not an idiot. They are rubbish. But like I said before, this is just a one-sided view of SAW.

a cancerous blueprint

 

OK now, this is seriously becoming way out of hand now!