128 replies to this topic

[rexclark]

Vieuphoria, on 30 September 2010 - 11:08 AM, said:

I don't.

I'm just not a snob

No one is being a snob, just people have different views of what is popular music.

[Vieuphoria]

it's not a case of popularity though.... Suggesting someone is an NME/Radio1 hype band is different to a band being popular, no?

[eFestivals]

Vieuphoria, on 30 September 2010 - 08:37 PM, said:

it's not a case of popularity though.... Suggesting someone is an NME/Radio1 hype band is different to a band being popular, no?

it's simply a fact that the vast majority of bands get popular by being hyped and not due to any outstanding talent above other similar bands. But until that sentence I'd not used the word 'hype'.

To keep to the point, the bands at Reading are proportionally far more mainstream and 'pop' than Glastonbury.

[Vieuphoria]

i think you're wrong.

that said i wasn't replying to you

[eFestivals]

Vieuphoria, on 01 October 2010 - 11:06 AM, said:

i think you're wrong.

wrong about what?

I'm certainly not wrong when I say that a far greater proportion of the Reading/Leeds line-up is mainstream and 'pop' than the Glastonbury line-up.

[stylishkids]

eFestivals, on 30 September 2010 - 07:04 PM, said:

Yet that's just this week's playlist, and it's very dependent on whether a band has a record out, and how 'good' (in radio 1's terms) that record is.

Have most of those acts made the playlist at one time, with a large chuck of them making the top list at some point? Yup. But anyway....

To get back to the point, does anything like the same proportion of Glastonbury acts to Reading acts get even a sniff of those playlists? Nope. A much lower proportion of Glastonbury acts get on those lists, thus making Reading far more mainstream and 'pop' than Glastonbury.

Well I'm pretty sure that they haven't made the playlist and the top list. For a start Rock/Indie music sales have been in the decline for the past 9 months and by a healthy margin where as pop and rnb have both have increased by a smilar margin (30%). Surely if they were experiencing radio play that they were a few years than they'd still be able to sell a healthy amount. The fact is the casual listener isn't getting the same exposure that it was in the past. A difference of single sales of around 65% between acts classed as Indie/Rock and pop and rnb in the last 9 months wouldn't be as high as that if airplay of rock/indies was still as high as it has been in the past. But we'll have to agree to disagree on it.

As for what is classed as pop, I think the days of past when pop was derived from the term of popular music are gone. Even when characterising the singles chart they don't just class the genre as pop, pop, pop, pop, pop etc for every single track. Maybe a long time ago when you could say something was jazz, classical or pop but the music market has shifted considerably since then and bands are categorized under many genres. If they were just pop than you'd have a scenario of when a band starts out, say the Arctic monkeys playing in pubs in Sheffield. Playing in them small rooms you wouldn't class them as pop. However when they get a record deal and radio play, how can suddenly be classed as pop? Their sound hasn't changed at all but yet they're classed under a different genre? Doesn't seem to make sense to me. Or take soemthing such as the Levellers. I'm sure 15 years ago they would have been on the radio quite a bit, but there not now. Are they not classed as pop anymore? There sound hasn't changed at all so how can be classed as something else? I don't think you can class someone as pop for getting airplay or into the charts. Maybe around the charts introduction but sounds and the market have changed. Just because it was derived from the term 'popular music' doesn't mean that it stays like that for eternity.

[LondonTom]

stylishkids, on 01 October 2010 - 03:14 PM, said:

Well I'm pretty sure that they haven't made the playlist and the top list. For a start Rock/Indie music sales have been in the decline for the past 9 months and by a healthy margin where as pop and rnb have both have increased by a smilar margin (30%). Surely if they were experiencing radio play that they were a few years than they'd still be able to sell a healthy amount. The fact is the casual listener isn't getting the same exposure that it was in the past. A difference of single sales of around 65% between acts classed as Indie/Rock and pop and rnb in the last 9 months wouldn't be as high as that if airplay of rock/indies was still as high as it has been in the past. But we'll have to agree to disagree on it.

As for what is classed as pop, I think the days of past when pop was derived from the term of popular music are gone. Even when characterising the singles chart they don't just class the genre as pop, pop, pop, pop, pop etc for every single track. Maybe a long time ago when you could say something was jazz, classical or pop but the music market has shifted considerably since then and bands are categorized under many genres. If they were just pop than you'd have a scenario of when a band starts out, say the Arctic monkeys playing in pubs in Sheffield. Playing in them small rooms you wouldn't class them as pop. However when they get a record deal and radio play, how can suddenly be classed as pop? Their sound hasn't changed at all but yet they're classed under a different genre? Doesn't seem to make sense to me. Or take soemthing such as the Levellers. I'm sure 15 years ago they would have been on the radio quite a bit, but there not now. Are they not classed as pop anymore? There sound hasn't changed at all so how can be classed as something else? I don't think you can class someone as pop for getting airplay or into the charts. Maybe around the charts introduction but sounds and the market have changed. Just because it was derived from the term 'popular music' doesn't mean that it stays like that for eternity.

You do get the orginal idea behind pop right? as in music that popular or sold en mass to people? I think you guys arguing with Neil are being to specific about pop, your talking about people who do music simply to sell records and is mostly shite While Neil, is talking about pop as basically most famous acts I believe, its not a hard concept.

[rexclark]

LondonTom, on 02 October 2010 - 08:03 PM, said:

You do get the orginal idea behind pop right? as in music that popular or sold en mass to people? I think you guys arguing with Neil are being to specific about pop, your talking about people who do music simply to sell records and is mostly shite While Neil, is talking about pop as basically most famous acts I believe, its not a hard concept.

Totally agree, I believe peoples definaitions of pop are different and that's why these arguements keep coming up.

[lme]

From 14 September 2010 - 05:57 PM:

The Libs played Reading and Leeds, was there ever going to another winner in NME?

Exactly. TBH, I LOVE Glastonbury (it is so much more than a music festival) but this year R&L (Friday & Leeds followed by Sat @ Reading) was my favourite. We had good weather at Glastonbury but the queues at the gate (far worse than usual) and the resulting trudge across site to the famly camping that still had space by the time we were onsite was awful. R&L is just a music festival but (for us) the Libs made it special.