Emily vs. The Gammons

[MetaKate]

31 minutes ago, hfuhruhurr said:

Highlighting the gender balance thing is fab and doing something about it has to be welcomed.

On the assumption that music is a business and that we have a few factors, like "marketability" or some such, then where do we fit in, the punters? There's the chicken and egg issue - music industry puts forward a male bias because the punters have more of a preference for male bands, or is that we prefer male bands because that's all we're fed? Methinks the industry is old enough now and channels and measurement good enough that I'm thinking the root cause is us - we prefer male bands, so we're getting more of what we like.

Be interested to hear from anyone in the industry to learn more.

Having no industry intelligence i'm going to disagree. It's only extremely recent that female led bands have started to get the promotion and recognition that Male bands have received. If you think about rock/indie bands that are female led there hasn't been many before 2010ish (i'm just approximating).

The sexism in the music industry caused by labels thinking women are only marketable as pop artists/sex symbols is starting to disappear and I would think that's because of the shift in power caused by YouTube and then streaming services. 

Wolf Alice, St. Vincent, Chvches, Christine & the queens, Alabama Shakes, The XX... all strong acts that I could see repeatedly and COULD be in contention to headline in the near future.... but I dont think theres every been this many options... and honestly when you compare to male bands they're still massively outnumbered. 

[eFestivals]

9 minutes ago, MetaKate said:

The sexism in the music industry caused by labels thinking women are only marketable as pop artists/sex symbols is starting to disappear

while that might be true to some extent, I'd also say that there's a lot of pretence going on about it too, where women like to pretend that their glamorous look is not a big part of what's selling.

And even the biggest acts who think they sing better when wearing skimpy clothes are some of these acts thinking they're part of something new and different for women.

</ dammit, I've just broken the taboo, that's never meant to be said.  >

[MetaKate]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

while that might be true to some extent, I'd also say that there's a lot of pretence going on about it too, where women like to pretend that their glamorous look is not a big part of what's selling.

And even the biggest acts who think they sing better when wearing skimpy clothes are some of these acts thinking they're part of something new and different for women.

</ dammit, I've just broken the taboo, that's never meant to be said.  >

It's all about having the choices, and the opportunity to choose.  Sex sells.... but theres opportunity outside of that now. 

Sorry to tell you,  but the men onstage invented looking glamorous and the skimpy outfits. 

[jyoung]

Prefer to listen to what people have to say than worry about what they're wearing. 

[Quark]

34 minutes ago, MetaKate said:

If you think about rock/indie bands that are female led there hasn't been many before 2010ish (i'm just approximating).

Going to have to disagree a bit there.  For all the love (!) that the 90s seems to get on here I'd call out Elastica, Echobelly, Sleeper, Skunk Anansie, Hole, L7, Lush as female led or fronted bands, and certainly had a decent presence in terms of the music community.  I know that's only a few but it's early and off the top of my head

[HalfAnIdiot]

2 minutes ago, Quark said:

Going to have to disagree a bit there.  For all the love (!) that the 90s seems to get on here I'd call out Elastica, Echobelly, Sleeper, Skunk Anansie, Hole, L7, Lush as female led or fronted bands, and certainly had a decent presence in terms of the music community.  I know that's only a few but it's early and off the top of my head

Garbage (that's not a criticism BTW ?)

[Quark]

2 minutes ago, HalfAnIdiot said:

Garbage (that's not a criticism BTW ?)

Told you it was early!

[eFestivals]

31 minutes ago, MetaKate said:

It's all about having the choices, and the opportunity to choose.  Sex sells.... but theres opportunity outside of that now. 

yep, sex sells. 

I was pointing out that lots of people are pretending it doesn't.

 

31 minutes ago, MetaKate said:

Sorry to tell you,  but the men onstage invented looking glamorous and the skimpy outfits. 

it's far-less of a standard, and it doesn't seem to be lessening as a standard for women.

[CaledonianGonzo]

Acceptable onstage outfit for a woman:

Only worry is that a bit of ankle might slip out now and again.

[eFestivals]

16 minutes ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

Acceptable onstage outfit for a woman:

I can't say I've ever seen a man wearing underwear on stage.  

[priest17]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I can't say I've ever seen a man wearing underwear on stage.  

I definitely can. May well tonight (IDLES).

[found home in 2009]

1 hour ago, MetaKate said:

Having no industry intelligence i'm going to disagree. It's only extremely recent that female led bands have started to get the promotion and recognition that Male bands have received. If you think about rock/indie bands that are female led there hasn't been many before 2010ish (i'm just approximating).

The sexism in the music industry caused by labels thinking women are only marketable as pop artists/sex symbols is starting to disappear and I would think that's because of the shift in power caused by YouTube and then streaming services. 

Wolf Alice, St. Vincent, Chvches, Christine & the queens, Alabama Shakes, The XX... all strong acts that I could see repeatedly and COULD be in contention to headline in the near future.... but I dont think theres every been this many options... and honestly when you compare to male bands they're still massively outnumbered. 

As a fan of Garbage, Lush and Skunk Anansie I'd disagree that there weren't any female led rock acts before 2010 that got promotion.

Bit before my time but did Siouxsie and the Banshees get much promotion in the 70s? 

[stuartbert two hats]

10 hours ago, Keithy said:

Care to give examples?

The manufactured bit always makes my back tighten. I always find the implication is 'they don't write their own songs', which I never quite understand why it's deemed manufactured.

On the "writing own songs" aspect, I do find it satisfying when an artist has a discernible creative through line - an underlying consistency in their output, even if the music is varied.

The Beatles, who played virtually all their own instruments and wrote all their own songs obviously had it, as did ABBA who played some of the instruments on their records and wrote all their own songs. It was there with The Beach Boys, who on their most critically acclaimed album collaborated with an outside songwriter and almost exclusively used session musicians. 

It was also there with The Spice Girls on their first few albums - but then disappeared when they changed the songwriting/production team. Similarly for Robbie Williams + when he worked with Guy Chambers there was a very strong authorial voice, which dissipated when they parted ways.

Then you get artists like Madonna and Kylie, who might not get strongly involved in songwriting, but they choose their collaborators and you can hear their personal taste in their music. Even without many writing credits, you can still hear their "voice".

On the other hand, you get an act like Jake Bugg, who is nominally a "singer/songwriter", but has made musical left turns that don't feel like they're the result of a restless eclectic creative spirit, but rather a decision by his commercial team to pursue a different market.

EDIT: I suppose that doesn't really answer your question, but the above is more some thoughts I've been having for a while on "authenticity" vs "manufactured" and what aspects I find satisfying and why.

Edited April 3, 2019 by stuartbert two hats

[Doug85]

10 minutes ago, found home in 2009 said:

As a fan of Garbage, Lush and Skunk Anansie I'd disagree that there weren't any female led rock acts before 2010 that got promotion.

Bit before my time but did Siouxsie and the Banshees get much promotion in the 70s? 

Don't forget the alternatives of The Cranberries and The Cardigans

[CaledonianGonzo]

36 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I can't say I've ever seen a man wearing underwear on stage.  

I've seen Angus Young get his bum out.

Only time will tell whether this summer I'll be able to say the same about Lizzo.

[musky]

39 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I can't say I've ever seen a man wearing underwear on stage.  

Iggy Pop, Lux Interior... You may have a point.

[found home in 2009]

16 hours ago, Badlands said:

What's your idea of rubbish pop?

I've been trying to listen to all the band on the poster and Miley Cyrus seems a good example, just sounds completely bland to me.

I think pop music's maybe moved past that stage, but the low effort repetative lyrics of "Umbrella ella ella" by Rhiana or that "baby baby" song by Justin Bieber are probably examples of pop at it's worse for me (I'd say Justin Bieber's upped his act since then).

I don't limit my dislike of pop acts at Glastonbury to woman, was disappointed when the Script played a few years back too.

And I do make exceptions, love Christine and the Queens. 

The thing that annoys me most about pop music is someone will hit on a formula for a hit, then all the pop acts will use that writer, and every song on the most commercial radio stations will then sound the exact same for the next 6 months till the new trend comes along.

I also believe to attract mass market then you have to offend the least people possible, but doing that results in something that's just bland. 

 

[musky]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

while that might be true to some extent, I'd also say that there's a lot of pretence going on about it too, where women like to pretend that their glamorous look is not a big part of what's selling.

And even the biggest acts who think they sing better when wearing skimpy clothes are some of these acts thinking they're part of something new and different for women.

</ dammit, I've just broken the taboo, that's never meant to be said.  >

This is a wider problem than just the music industry, and goes to the heart of sexism and how women are raised in society. And indeed men’s expectations of women. 

[musky]

1 minute ago, found home in 2009 said:

The thing that annoys me most about pop music is someone will hit on a formula for a hit, then all the pop acts will use that writer, and every song on the most commercial radio stations will then sound the exact same for the next 6 months till the new trend comes along.

 

By and large that’s true of all genres, and the entire music industry from top to bottom. 

[Keithy]

20 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

 

EDIT: I suppose that doesn't really answer your question, but the above is more some thoughts I've been having for a while on "authenticity" vs "manufactured" and what aspects I find satisfying and why.

That was a good answer... i think authenticity is a good point. Manufactured has become shorthand for a slight if they don't write their own songs. Typically aimed at 'throwaway' pop artists but as you say 'not writing their own songs' includes Madonna and Kylie. And of course using songwriters now includes a certain Gallagher brother.

I've no issue with artists using songwriters though acknowledge that it's traditionally pop stars that use them. I think though that it's a huge disservice to the pop star when people say manufactured with the implication being that the pop star is just a front and anyone could have made the song a success. 

When you look at Rihanna and 'Umbrella', that song was offered around quite a bit to singers before it landed on her desk. IIRC, it was originally written for Britney. However Rihanna has made that song her own.

I find the whole concept of what people seem authentic/manufactured fascinating and what people seem acceptable.

For instance, Liam G. You could argue he's been singing songs written by a songwriter his entire life. It's a team now but before it was Noel. Now you could argue that in Oasis, there was an authenticity to singing someone else's lyrics through shared experiences but that's only so far. A lot of songs, particularly the later albums are written from Noel's life experiences rather than a shared one with Liam.

Is Liam singing 'Stand By Me', written by Noel and his inability to cook food properly, more or less authentic than Britney singing 'Toxic' (a pop masterpiece) written by Cathy Dennis (and originally offered to Kylie)

If manufactured pop stars is so easy then why was Kylie a success and Dannii not? There has to be more to it than just fronting someone else's songs?

Authenticity is an interesting point and probably what most people mean when  they use the term manufactured. But even then that can take you down a rabbit hole. Lana Del Rey....authentic? Lizzy Grant might disagree. Ed Sheeran? His whole authentic back story about living on mates sofas has been hugely exaggerated to give him authenticity....even he's admitted that the sofa thing was him missing the last bus home and having to skip on a mates sofa.

[eFestivals]

14 minutes ago, musky said:

This is a wider problem than just the music industry, and goes to the heart of sexism and how women are raised in society. And indeed men’s expectations of women. 

As well as women's expectations of women.

My comments weren't a condemnation but an observation - that things haven't moved on as far as many on that side of things are pretending to themselves.

A demonstration of that having changed will be when my comment isn't jumped on, and when it's women who are heard loudly telling women to stop doing it.

[MEGATRONICMEATWAGON]

On 3/31/2019 at 5:28 PM, Gnomicide said:

It's not though is it?

Yeah it is. Apologists don't think it is obv, but like I said, you wouldn't complain about angry Chinese people as Spring Rolls.

[stuartbert two hats]

3 minutes ago, Keithy said:

That was a good answer... i think authenticity is a good point. Manufactured has become shorthand for a slight if they don't write their own songs. Typically aimed at 'throwaway' pop artists but as you say 'not writing their own songs' includes Madonna and Kylie. And of course using songwriters now includes a certain Gallagher brother.

I've no issue with artists using songwriters though acknowledge that it's traditionally pop stars that use them. I think though that it's a huge disservice to the pop star when people say manufactured with the implication being that the pop star is just a front and anyone could have made the song a success. 

When you look at Rihanna and 'Umbrella', that song was offered around quite a bit to singers before it landed on her desk. IIRC, it was originally written for Britney. However Rihanna has made that song her own.

I find the whole concept of what people seem authentic/manufactured fascinating and what people seem acceptable.

For instance, Liam G. You could argue he's been singing songs written by a songwriter his entire life. It's a team now but before it was Noel. Now you could argue that in Oasis, there was an authenticity to singing someone else's lyrics through shared experiences but that's only so far. A lot of songs, particularly the later albums are written from Noel's life experiences rather than a shared one with Liam.

Is Liam singing 'Stand By Me', written by Noel and his inability to cook food properly, more or less authentic than Britney singing 'Toxic' (a pop masterpiece) written by Cathy Dennis (and originally offered to Kylie)

If manufactured pop stars is so easy then why was Kylie a success and Dannii not? There has to be more to it than just fronting someone else's songs?

Authenticity is an interesting point and probably what most people mean when  they use the term manufactured. But even then that can take you down a rabbit hole. Lana Del Rey....authentic? Lizzy Grant might disagree. Ed Sheeran? His whole authentic back story about living on mates sofas has been hugely exaggerated to give him authenticity....even he's admitted that the sofa thing was him missing the last bus home and having to skip on a mates sofa.

It's a really tricky word and can lead you down a right old path to gammon.  And as such, has quite a bad reputation around here - taken to extremes you end up valuing writing your own songs and playing your own instruments above all, irrespective of the artistic merit of the dreary rocks songs this can produce.  But it clearly means something, otherwise there would have been just as much excitement about the Bootleg Beatles compared to Paul McCartney, given that you can make strong argument for his performances being less faithful than theirs.

[MEGATRONICMEATWAGON]

On 3/31/2019 at 5:46 PM, GETOFFAMYLAWN said:

Always good to see that the same people who remain silent to the rampant normalised Islamophobia, sexism, homo/bi/queerphobia, transphobia and all the other innumerable forms of casual discrimination which exist unashamedly in our society's mainstream discourse can find the time to pipe up and tell us about how calling people Gammons is just the same as racism, actually.

Who said I stay silent on all of that? Weird and pointless comment.

[MEGATRONICMEATWAGON]

On 3/31/2019 at 6:33 PM, CaledonianGonzo said:

I apologise to any gammons who read this and got even redder in the face.

I apologise to any Spring Rolls and Tortillas who read this and get redder in the face, when I spout my racism.

Just because it's anti-white, doesn't make it less racist. It's a shame to see racism on these boards.

Edited April 3, 2019 by MEGATRONICMEATWAGON
Said racism, but meant racist.