No diversity anymore

[Rogin the Armchair fan]

This isn't a thread about the dancing troupe releasing a single. Or about white sons of barristers winning MOBO awards (Mike Read's song, incidentally, is the only Calypso-based song to make the UK charts this year).

No, this is about, I don't know, the sheer homogeneity of chart music at the moment. You basically have three kinds of acts. A female singer banging out a fairly bland but catchy pop number, that normally has a bit of a ballad in it somewhere (Gaga, Minaj, J, Knowles). A boy band put together by Louis Walsh doing the same kind of song. Or a guitar-playing band occupying the "indie" space (Kaiser Monkeys, Arcticabian) who are about as indie and cutting-edge as Ed Miliband in a false mohican wig.

Now this may be an evolutionary thing. Maybe that's the only kind of music that can possibly be chart friendly nowadays. Well no, it clearly IS the only kind of music that is chart friendly nowadays. But upon Alvin Stardust's death, some of the links you follow through to TOTPs shows from the mid-70s highlight the fact that in those days you had him (basically still a popular throwback to the 50s rockabilly era, and Shakin Stevens would follow even him) rubbing shoulders with Glam Rockers (Slade, or Mud!), heavy metal acts (well, Alice Cooper at least), disco, soul, country (Dolly Parton), early punk, and even novelty acts (Terry Wogan, or the Wombles. Actually the Wombles might count as early punk). And all this going on while Pink Floyd were there releasing their stuff. And NO-ONE bats an eyelid that all this lot are on the one programme, sharing the same stage.

Why do we not have that huge spread of choice of genres in the charts/on the light entertainment programme nowadays?

[ale]

No diversity anymore

ironically given the thread title its the diversity of opportunities to access music of your choice that means theres little room for diversity in main stream entertainment...pre satellite & internet you could only listen to music that everybody else was listening to..whoever was buying that music in sufficient numbers was dictating what the few TV & radio stations were broadcasting..

[Fussbudget]

No diversity anymore

Rogin the Armchair Fan wrote: No, this is about, I don't know, the sheer homogeneity of chart music at the moment. You basically have three kinds of acts. A female singer banging out a fairly bland but catchy pop number, that normally has a bit of a ballad in it somewhere (Gaga, Minaj, J, Knowles). A boy band put together by Louis Walsh doing the same kind of song. Or a guitar-playing band occupying the "indie" space (Kaiser Monkeys, Arcticabian) who are about as indie and cutting-edge as Ed Miliband in a false mohican wig.

This is just not true at all. Have a look at the current top 40 and I bet most of the acts in there won't fit any of these categories, baring extraordinary contortions to fit people like Jesse Ware, Lorde or Paloma Faith in your first group. I'd also be surprised if there was more than one representative of that third category, they don't make that much of a dent these days (Kasabian? What is this, 2007?)

Also, as much as I like 70s chart music, I think you're overstating how diverse some of the acts you mentioned actually were. Alvin Stardust, Mud and glam-era Alice Cooper are not exactly a millions miles away from each other musically.

[Satchmo Distel]

No diversity anymore

I think there's diversity in there but I worry that the tastes it reflects are of young teenagers because those of us who might buy a 6-Music act are not going to download it in sufficient numbers to make it mainstream, whereas in 1972 you could get Bowie into the charts just by him doing Starman on TOTP (ditto Roxy Music doing Virginia Plain)

OTOH punk usually only grazed the Top 40, as did 80's indie.

[Bored Of Education]

No diversity anymore

There is huge amounts of diversity but no TOTP or, indeed, charts that mean anything. There just isn't the same central reflection of the current music scene on TV nor radio. Possibly on the internet but it isn't all collected together.

I always say that the issue for me was when Tower REcords came over to Britain with its American style ordering by genre that mirrored the atomised radio stations over there. Before they turned up, we went into a record shop and everything was in alphabetical order and there was no genre segregation so you would have ABBA next to ABC next to AC/DC and so on.

[Reed John]

No diversity anymore

Bored of Education wrote: There is huge amounts of diversity but no TOTP or, indeed, charts that mean anything. There just isn't the same central reflection of the current music scene on TV nor radio. Possibly on the internet but it isn't all collected together.

I always say that the issue for me was when Tower REcords came over to Britain with its American style ordering by genre that mirrored the atomised radio stations over there. Before they turned up, we went into a record shop and everything was in alphabetical order and there was no genre segregation so you would have ABBA next to ABC next to AC/DC and so on.

I wouldn't call that "American style."

At the record stores I went to as a kid - not Tower - the only categories were "rock/pop," country," "jazz," and "classical."

[Janik]

No diversity anymore

ale wrote: ironically given the thread title its the diversity of opportunities to access music of your choice that means theres little room for diversity in main stream entertainment...pre satellite & internet you could only listen to music that everybody else was listening to..whoever was buying that music in sufficient numbers was dictating what the few TV & radio stations were broadcasting..

Yep, this. The spread of music is far wider now than it ever was. The top selling tunes still fit a 'mainstream' as much as they ever did, but the ratio of the amount of units they shift to the amount of units more esoteric stuff shifts has significantly leveled up. Some radio stations seeking coherent messages focus on the guys selling 2:1 more than the others. But so what? Radio is not how people find out about music these days.

Basically there is no zeitgeist here. You make your own. The charts? Close to completely irrelevant.

[Duncan Gardner]

No diversity anymore

Fussbudget wrote: Also, as much as I like 70s chart music, I think you're overstating how diverse some of the acts you mentioned actually were. Alvin Stardust, Mud and glam-era Alice Cooper are not exactly a millions miles away from each other musically

Much as I love a bit of glam-a-pajama-rama-bahama-mama, it needs to be broken down into at least three sub-genres, viz.

* art-school (eg Velvets, Bowie, Roxy)

* rockers (eg Slade, Mott)

* manufacured Elvis Wannabees (eg Mud, Alvin) or 'brickies-in-mascara' (eg Sweet, Glitter)

[Beatle Simon]

No diversity anymore

Duncan Gardner wrote: 'brickies-in-mascara' (eg Glitter)

So thats why there was those public information films in the 70s telling kids to stay away from building sites.

[Lucia Lanigan]

No diversity anymore

Any time one finds oneself bemoaning today's music/culture at rambling length, one may want to consider first if one's point can be reduced to one of the following:

There's no good music anymore

It all sounds the same

It used to mean something in my day

It just means you're old and out of touch with something that's not for you. Me too, you know, but that's all it is. Chances are, you've also been scanning the memorised highlights of all music ever, and forgotten how dire the charts could be in real time.

[Jah Womble]

No diversity anymore

I agree with (what I think is) Rogin's central point, but I don't think he illustrates it correctly. There 'is' of course huge diversity in current music, but this - despite other comments - is not reflected by the charts, which, as has been said, are by-and-large redundant now. (And few guitar bands feature in the Top 40 to be honest - the Kaiser Chiefs haven't had a proper sniff of the charts in six years.)

The charts during the 1979s-80s weren't solely a barometer of singles sales as such, they served also to inform (generally via TOTP) as to what else was out there. Therefore, being limited to simply what the BBC (and ITV to a lesser extent) promoted meant that while certain bands and singers often saw favour, a 'rogue' act could also receive publicity and - subsequently - a hit record as a result. (Thanks to this, a variety of non-commercial acts on associated labels like Can, Rupie Edwards and Laurie Anderson found unlikely berths in the Top 40.) This can't really happen now because there's no central hub (like TOTP) in which to showcase this stuff. (Later... offers up the eclecticism required, but doesn't sit in the kind of 'prime' slot afforded to retrograde shows like X Factor or BGT...)

The internet and digital radio of course offer up countless outlets for a wide variety of music, but people aren't going to seek out stuff of which they're entirely unaware - and in most cases seem utterly un-inclined to diversify anyway. This mentality/state of affairs appears to be what, if anything, the charts reflect nowadays.

[Jah Womble]

No diversity anymore

It just means you're old and out of touch with something that's not for you. Me too, you know, but that's all it is. Chances are, you've also been scanning the memorised highlights of all music ever, and forgotten how dire the charts could be in real time.

See, I don't buy that at all. It's too easy just to say 'lighten up, grandad' and wash one's hands of it like that. Until now, each 'generation' of pop music has thrown up classic tunes and at least one genuinely revolutionary grass-roots movement. Sorry, but that simply isn't happening now. (How much of this down to the dominance of backward-looking 'talent' shows, I've no idea - but I know that it's had a hugely corrosive effect.)

Whether music is 'for me' or otherwise is utterly irrelevant: kids deserve better than this.

[Fussbudget]

No diversity anymore

Jah Womble wrote: I agree with (what I think is) Rogin's central point, but I don't he illustrates it correctly. There 'is' of course huge diversity in current music, but this - despite other comments - is not reflected by the charts, which, as has been said, are by-and-large redundant now. (And few guitar bands feature in the Top 40 to be honest - the Kaiser Chiefs haven't had a proper sniff of the charts in six years.)

I think I both agree and disagree with this. My take would be that :

1/ the charts clearly don't reflect the diversity of music that is out there these days, and are for the most part redundant, however...

2/ that doesn't mean that what's in the charts all sounds the same. It doesn't, and I suspect that many people on this board don't have a very firm grasp of the range of chart music these days, what with not being the target audience.

[Lucia Lanigan]

No diversity anymore

Well I've spent the last 25 years obsessing and writing about music, JW, and I've been through the wringer with the aging theory people who write epic tomes that - using Occam's razor, if you want to fancy up what you're calling "being dismissive" - boil down to "it all sounds the same these days and it was better when I was young" once you pick apart their arguments. Believe me, that was anything but "easy" - I've earned the right!

Your parents didn't think any of your music was classic. The old punks in my town didn't get dance music, hip hop, shoegaze, whatever - it was all either not proper music or a weak rehash of the music they grew up on. I don't get whatever the hell is selling the most downloads today, and I sure as hell don't get those shitty bands in baggy jeans and tight brogues playing their fucking banjos about nothing.

You don't understand how young people experience music, because you can't - your template for what makes a classic tune was set in your teens in the 20th century. People don't consume or experience music in that way anymore. That might look like a "yes it is/no it's not" response but if you put it to the test in good faith instead of scanning your mental list of favourites from the last X decades you'll find I'm right.

[Fussbudget]

No diversity anymore

Jah Womble wrote: See, I don't buy that at all. It's too easy just to say 'lighten up, grandad' and wash one's hands of it like that. Until now, each 'generation' of pop music has thrown up classic tunes and at least one genuinely revolutionary grass-roots movement. Sorry, but that simply isn't happening now. (How much of this down to the dominance of backward-looking 'talent' shows, I've no idea - but I know that it's had a hugely corrosive effect.)

Leaving aside "grass-root movements", how do you define a classic tune? Because saying that this pop generation hasn't released any seems a pretty bold claim.

[Lucia Lanigan]

No diversity anymore

people aren't going to seek out stuff of which they're entirely unaware - and in most cases seem utterly un-inclined to diversify anyway.

Quickly going back to this: I can't agree. What music fans listen to is mindbendingly diverse these days, because everything is instantly available and a squillion people online will recommend and share it. It's very difficult to avoid being recommended music you've not heard before, these days.

What the majority of people, who aren't that bothered about music, listen to is about the same as it ever was - anything'll do, and it'll include music every bit as superficially challenging as whatever sneaked onto TOTP in the late 70s.

This idea that because there's no TOTP there's no shared culture or focal point anymore is hokey too. Check out the video views and downloads for whatever's doing the business today - they're enormous. The music industry didn't die. YouTube replaced MTV. Things have just changed a bit (including my follicles, unfortunately).

[Janik]

No diversity anymore

Jah Womble wrote: Whether music is 'for me' or otherwise is utterly irrelevant: kids deserve better than this.

If popular music is only for kids, that in itself is a massive lack of diversity.

[Lucia Lanigan]

No diversity anymore

How do you figure that? In what's often held to be its heyday - 1965-1982, let's say - it was just for youth.

[Janik]

No diversity anymore

For it to only cater to one segment of society is necessarily restrictive. As can be seen by the idea 'its not for you'.

[Jah Womble]

No diversity anymore

Well I've spent the last 25 years obsessing and writing about music, JW, and I've been through the wringer with the aging theory people who write epic tomes that - using Occam's razor, if you want to fancy up what you're calling "being dismissive" - boil down to "it all sounds the same these days and it was better when I was young" once you pick apart their arguments. Believe me, that was anything but "easy" - I've earned the right!

Your parents didn't think any of your music was classic. The old punks in my town didn't get dance music, hip hop, shoegaze, whatever - it was all either not proper music or a weak rehash of the music they grew up on. I don't get whatever the hell is selling the most downloads today, and I sure as hell don't get those shitty bands in baggy jeans and tight brogues playing their fucking banjos about nothing.

You don't understand how young people experience music, because you can't - your template for what makes a classic tune was set in your teens in the 20th century. People don't consume or experience music in that way anymore. That might look like a "yes it is/no it's not" response but if you put it to the test in good faith instead of scanning your mental list of favourites from the last X decades you'll find I'm right.

I can assure you that you aren't the only one who's been obsessing and writing about music over the past quarter-century. I get what you say about 'parents not getting their children's music tastes' but I, personally, find that too sweeping a judgement when talking about pop music today. You're right, I 'don't' much care for today's pop music - and you're right again, of course it's not aimed at me (just as what I was listening to wasn't aimed at my parents). But that, to my mind, isn't the point here.

With the current generation, there's a bigger problem - and that's one of cultural stagnation. Maybe I'm completely missing something, but I don't see anything shaking up the industry in the way that rock 'n' roll, disco, punk or hip hop, etc, have done over the previous generations (in a very short space of time). Not only do I not see it, more worryingly still I see not even a shred of evidence for it on the horizon.

Whether I 'like' (or even 'understand') certain music isn't in any way relevant here - any revolution within the industry would be welcome, wouldn't it?

Quickly going back to this: I can't agree. What music fans listen to is mindbendingly diverse these days, because everything is instantly available and a squillion people online will recommend and share it. It's very difficult to avoid being recommended music you've not heard before, these days.

What the majority of people, who aren't that bothered about music, listen to is about the same as it ever was - anything'll do, and it'll include music every bit as superficially challenging as whatever sneaked onto TOTP in the late 70s.

This idea that because there's no TOTP there's no shared culture or focal point anymore is hokey too. Check out the video views and downloads for whatever's doing the business today - they're enormous. The music industry didn't die. YouTube replaced MTV. Things have just changed a bit (including my follicles, unfortunately).

It isn't 'hokey' - and nobody said the industry has 'died' at all. I'm not sure where you get this notion that because a wide range of music is 'available' (which is unarguable) people are spending their waking hours checking out styles of music of which they're completely unaware. How is that possible? My only point about TOTP was that while it wasn't always good, there was always a chance that occasionally it'd put something unexpected into the viewer/listener's lap. (One recent repeat episode I saw ran, for example, The Damned, Amii Stewart and Steel Pulse in a row.) Someone who listens to Usher (or whatever) isn't likely to be thinking: 'ooh, I wonder what new electronica releases there are this week?' (Perhaps he/she is, but I'd like to see evidence of it.) As I said earlier, a programme like Later... does place these diverse artists into the same studio, but it isn't a prime-time show, so...

If popular music is only for kids, that in itself is a massive lack of diversity.

If you're translating what I said as meaning that, then you're missing the point. As LL says, pop music 'is' by and large for the youth. There's popular music for everyone, but what I was referring to specifically was that targeted at teenagers.

[Lucia Lanigan]

No diversity anymore

Well actually, I'm wrong in that previous post, aren't I. If you look at the charts in those years, as now, various family-friendly light entertainers are there alongside the crazy young tartrazine music old ears can't stand, and the occasional challenging oddball.

I take JW in particular to be concerned with the vitality of music culture for the youth. Roughly the lineage: 60spsychedelia-punk-rave-ohnoitdoesn'thappenlikethatanymore. I've been hearing this for 25 years, and no - it doesn't happen like that anymore. But why should it happen in a way that suits older people's sensibilities? It never did when they were young.

[Jah Womble]

No diversity anymore

I don't want it to suit me - I just want it to happen.

[Lucia Lanigan]

No diversity anymore

You want something that you recognise as being desirable to happen. Something that suits your sensibility in that way.

[Bored Of Education]

No diversity anymore

Reed John wrote:

There is huge amounts of diversity but no TOTP or, indeed, charts that mean anything. There just isn't the same central reflection of the current music scene on TV nor radio. Possibly on the internet but it isn't all collected together.

I always say that the issue for me was when Tower REcords came over to Britain with its American style ordering by genre that mirrored the atomised radio stations over there. Before they turned up, we went into a record shop and everything was in alphabetical order and there was no genre segregation so you would have ABBA next to ABC next to AC/DC and so on.

I wouldn't call that "American style."

At the record stores I went to as a kid - not Tower - the only categories were "rock/pop," country," "jazz," and "classical."

We didn't even have that.

[Max Payne]

No diversity anymore

Jah Womble wrote:

It just means you're old and out of touch with something that's not for you. Me too, you know, but that's all it is. Chances are, you've also been scanning the memorised highlights of all music ever, and forgotten how dire the charts could be in real time.

See, I don't buy that at all. It's too easy just to say 'lighten up, grandad' and wash one's hands of it like that. Until now, each 'generation' of pop music has thrown up classic tunes and at least one genuinely revolutionary grass-roots movement. Sorry, but that simply isn't happening now. (How much of this down to the dominance of backward-looking 'talent' shows, I've no idea - but I know that it's had a hugely corrosive effect.)

Whether music is 'for me' or otherwise is utterly irrelevant: kids deserve better than this.

This. Music seems to have stood still for years, in the mainstream at least. There's good music out there but you really have to go digging for it. It seems to me there's still a space, a niche, for something that unites in the manner of TOTP. I find a lot of my new music by scanning the new releases on Metacritic and listening to pieces on iTunes every now and again and then following the 'People who bought this...' click trail on bands that I like. It's a far cry from the days of reading Melody Maker and taking a punt on a piece of Vinyl or listening to John Peel with the finger hovering over the record button hoping to hit gold.