Will rock music ever make a commercial comeback?

[luciusfunk]

On March 7, 2016 at 4:06 AM, Strange Broue said:

For example Muse is a rock act (if Queen is a rock act :lol:)

They are one of the most successful bands of the last 15 years and sell out stadiums/festivals

 

I for one, doesn't give a shit about commercialism

There is plenty of good acts out there, though

and yeah ,"rock is dead yadda, yadda."... who cares

Surely you're not saying Queen weren't a rock act?

[bran]

plenty of good stuff out there, you just have to go look for it.

[Strange Broue]

1 hour ago, luciusfunk said:

Surely you're not saying Queen weren't a rock act?

Of course  

 

Some people might not agree with me (us), though

[gunsfanoldie]

1 hour ago, bran said:

plenty of good stuff out there, you just have to go look for it.

Its been said earlier in this thread I believe that thats not entirely true. Meaning the stuff you look for also might lead to one album or nothing concrete. You can find a lot these days, but can you find something consistent or decently original? I feel thats a taller order.

Having said that, is there anyone you would recommend out there from the last 5 years that you really enjoy? Not taking the piss, just seriously asking. What I usually find comes up is stuff like Halestorm or Rival Sons and stuff like that, who are all ok but IMO vastly overrated. The last few bands I remember enjoying were The Stypes and Scorpion Child.

[J Dog]

Just now, gunsfanoldie said:

Its been said earlier in this thread I believe that thats not entirely true. Meaning the stuff you look for also might lead to one album or nothing concrete. You can find a lot these days, but can you find something consistent or decently original? I feel thats a taller order.

Having said that, is there anyone you would recommend out there from the last 5 years that you really enjoy? Not taking the piss, just seriously asking. What I usually find comes up is stuff like Halestorm or Rival Sons and stuff like that, who are all ok but IMO vastly overrated. The last few bands I remember enjoying were The Stypes and Scorpion Child.

That's kind of how I am. I can find stuff that's good enough, but rarely great. Very few new acts have jumped up near my personal best list. I'm not totally with the, it's out there you just have to find it stuff. It shouldn't be like a treasure hunt. Especially if we're asking if it can make a comeback. No way it can make a comeback if it's that out of sight. Even the cool good shit back in the day that didn't have mainstream radio backing, they were good enough to be heard. They built up followings and had underground hype. And that was without being able to get any music at the touch of a finger at any time.

[luciusfunk]

7 hours ago, Strange Broue said:

Of course  

 

Some people might not agree with me (us), though

 

 

 

WTF?

[DieselDaisy]

Music is so depressingly corporate and establishment now, it makes me want to see someone like GG Allin. Although, if GG was alive today he would probably be on some greatest hits jaunt, or what can pass for a ''GG Allin greatest hit'', while selling $1000 VIPs with ''exclusively brewed up samples of GG's excrement for each individual fan''.

You get the impression that it is all just about money now. How much money does Mick Jagger conceivably desire - or, choose any millionaire celebrity rocker you care to name? I couldn't be even arsed to chase money that much if I had 'x' in the bank. If I had made, say, £2-3 million, I would say to myself, ''right, that will do, I'll just live off of the proceeds and not bother getting anymore''. You get the feeling that people like Jagger - Axl, Slash, even Lydon - are more stock workers than musicians. What a depressing way for rock n' roll to end up.

Edited March 14, 2016 by DieselDaisy

[Len Cnut]

19 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Music is so depressingly corporate and establishment now, it makes me want to see someone like GG Allin. Although, if GG was alive today he would probably be on some greatest hits jaunt, or what can pass for a ''GG Allin greatest hit'', while selling $1000 VIPs with ''exclusively brewed up samples of GG's excrement for each individual fan''.

You get the impression that it is all just about money now. How much money does Mick Jagger conceivably desire - or, choose any millionaire celebrity rocker you care to name? I couldn't be even arsed to chase money that much if I had 'x' in the bank. If I had made, say, £2-3 million, I would say to myself, ''right, that will do, I'll just live off of the proceeds and not bother getting anymore''. You get the feeling that people like Jagger - Axl, Slash, even Lydon - are more stock workers than musicians. What a depressing way for rock n' roll to end up.

Did you ever really expect any different?  I mean for as long as you've been alive have you known the enterprise of pop music to be any other way?  What about Top of the Pops or whatever made you REALLY seriously think that the bottom line wasn't always about money?  I mean they are people given an opportunity to exploit this thing so's they can live a comfortable life...especially the people you've mentioned, who have never had any qualms about their 'more the merrier' approach to money.

2-3 million isn't enough to live the rest of your life on in 2016.  Not unless you want to just live in a 3 bed semi somewhere for the rest of your life.  A million quid these days don't buy you a mansion or anything, just a 4 bedroom gaff in the better part of a middle class town.  I mean Mick Jagger living next door to the Joneses in Chipping Ongar or something, for very obvious reasons its not gonna work

Edited March 14, 2016 by Len B'stard

[DieselDaisy]

9 hours ago, Len B'stard said:

Did you ever really expect any different?  I mean for as long as you've been alive have you known the enterprise of pop music to be any other way?  What about Top of the Pops or whatever made you REALLY seriously think that the bottom line wasn't always about money?  I mean they are people given an opportunity to exploit this thing so's they can live a comfortable life...especially the people you've mentioned, who have never had any qualms about their 'more the merrier' approach to money.

We've came along way from artists wanting to be recompensed for the (original) music they make and perform live, to £80 tickets, £1000 VIP corporate hospitality jobs and 'greatest hits' mania in regards to setlist selection, which is the current situation. Besides, I'm not even sure if I agree with your statement, that it was ''always about money''. Here is a counter example. In 1971 Neil Young possessed an unprecedented #1 in 'Heart of Hold' and adjacent album, Harvest; Neil recorded the album largely in Nashville, with country musicians, and it emphasised a 'country rock' bucolic style, featuring gorgeous ballads. People felt they had not heard that style from Neal before (they had) and fans of Crazy Horse screamed ''sell out'' (they were wrong - his decision to record in Nashville was entirely spontaneous and dictated by the muse) but that is how it stands: #1, massive ballbusting album, a massive windfall of cash for Neil - even Dylan was jealous.

What would be the obvious thing for Neil to do at this stage in his career? I suggest it would be to take the formula of Harvest and repeat. Repeat, repeat, repeat. Yet this is precisely what Neil didn't do. He spend the next part of the 1970s putting out a series of dark drunken/stoned, unfathomable (to the mainstream) masterpieces. People like David Crosby and Joni Mitchell kept saying, ''Neil, why do you put these piece-of-shit garage albums out; why do you not make more albums like Harvest or reunited with Crosby, Stills and Nash?'' Neil called it his 'ditch trilogy', since, ascending the heights of Harvest, the only way to go was, ''to the ditch'', i.e. downwards.

The albums sold poorly in comparison to Harvest, and the tours alienated audiences being packed with unreleased material, Neil refusing to ''play the hits''.

And you know what the interesting thing was here? The label were fine with it. Mo Ostin at Reprise cared about the music, and saw it as a duty to shoulder the burden of noncommercial albums by an artist as Neil is. Now record companies have been swallowed up by three-four massive global conglomerates. To be signed to a record company now is to be ran by a company that also owns Pepsi and Gillette!

9 hours ago, Len B'stard said:

2-3 million isn't enough to live the rest of your life on in 2016.  Not unless you want to just live in a 3 bed semi somewhere for the rest of your life.  A million quid these days don't buy you a mansion or anything, just a 4 bedroom gaff in the better part of a middle class town.  I mean Mick Jagger living next door to the Joneses in Chipping Ongar or something, for very obvious reasons its not gonna work

You Thatcherite you!

Switch my figure to whatever would sustain you for the rest of life in 2016 and the point still stands.

What is Mick Jagger going to do with £100 million more than he has already? Is there not a point where he just goes, ''think I've got enough cash now'' and puts his feet up?

Edited March 14, 2016 by DieselDaisy

[Len Cnut]

Quote

We've came along way from artists wanting to be recompensed for the (original) music they make and perform live, to £80 tickets, £1000 VIP corporate hospitality jobs and 'greatest hits' mania in regards to setlist selection, which is the current situation. Besides, I'm not even sure if I agree with your statement, that it was ''always about money''. Here is a counter example. In 1971 Neil Young possessed an unprecedented #1 in 'Heart of Hold' and adjacent album, Harvest; Neil recorded the album largely in Nashville, with country musicians, and it emphasised a 'country rock' bucolic style, featuring gorgeous ballads. People felt they had not heard that style from Neal before (they had) and fans of Crazy Horse screamed ''sell out'' (they were wrong - his decision to record in Nashville was entirely spontaneous and dictated by the muse) but that is how it stands: #1, massive ballbusting album, a massive windfall of cash for Neil - even Dylan was jealous.

What would be the obvious thing for Neil to do at this stage in his career? I suggest it would be to take the formula of Harvest and repeat. Repeat, repeat, repeat. Yet this is precisely what Neil didn't do. He spend the next part of the 1970s putting out a series of dark drunken/stoned, unfathomable (for the mainstream) masterpieces. People like David Crosby and Joni Mitchell kept saying, ''Neil, why do you put these piece-of-shit garage albums out; why do you not make more albums like Harvest?'' Neil called it his 'ditch trilogy', since, ascending the heights of Harvest, the only way to go was, ''to the ditch'', i.e. downwards.

The albums sold poorly in comparison to Harvest, and the tours alienated audiences being packed with unreleased material, Neil refusing to ''play the hits''.

And you know what the interesting thing was here? The label were fine with it. Mo Ostin at Reprise cared about the music, and saw it as a duty to shoulder the burden of noncommercial albums by an artist as Neil is. Now record companies have been swallowed up by three-four massive global conglomerates. To be signed to a record company now is to be ran by a company that also owns Pepsi and Gillette!

If what you're saying is true then Neil Young is the exception to the rule.  As is John Lydon really, if Mick woke up tommorow with Lydon money he'd jump off a cliff and slit his throat on the way down.  And he's been musically no less inventive either.  But again it's catering to the audience and what they expect of Neil Young.  Fair dues i can't be harsh about this because he does seem a singular sort of artist in the vein of people that i quite enjoy but presumably his audience is people like you who expect him to be this evolving forward moving artist, if he suddenly went pop he might do well in the short term but it wouldn't be as sustainable as what he's doing now, same with people like Morrissey and Lydon, their commitment to a particular kind of way of life and music has led to them being quite well off.  I'll tell you one thing though, Neil Young has tens of millions in the bank and I'm pretty sure Moz does too.  Johnny doesn't.  And he's touring regularly, putting out an album every 18 months or so.  Self sustaining. 

But generally speaking, this thing we're into, pop music, these things are the exception to the rule, these people rather.  99.9%, if they have an option from which they can make millions upon millions upon millions they will take that option. 

Quote

You Thatcherite you!

I'm not saying i agree with it, it's just the way the world is

Quote

What is Mick Jagger going to do with £100 million more than he has already? Is there not a point where he just goes, ''think I've got enough cash now'' and puts his feet up?

Well look, he's in The Stones right?  The Stones are like a cultural phenomenon, people DEMAND to see them, there is a massive call for their music, hence the packed out stadiums and such they perform in to this day.  They really beyond just a band at this point.  Now if millions of people want to see you the way to perform to them is stadium rock.  I mean I'd love for them to just play blues clubs or whatever but it's just not gonna happen is it?  Now what i do agree with you with is that, y'know, the whole VIP set up, makes it so ordinary folk can't afford to see em and at any rate it sounds a pretty naff experience but you gotta remember The Stones audience is not defined by a bunch of snotty little herberts anymore, these are seriously minted fuckin' people and they don't wanna stand in a shit-pit getting head-butted by a bunch of wrong uns like it's The Pistols in 76, I mean people like Bill Clinton are fans, Johnathan Ross, these are the sort of ponces that go to these gigs now.  It's like going down the football, honestly, i look around and i think like, 90% of these people wouldn't last 5 mins on the fuckin' terraces...so what it all boils down to i suppose for the patrons is how much does The Arsenal (or The Stones) matter to you?  Are you willing to put that money down to go see em despite all those things?

People like Paul McCartney, Mick Jagger, it ain't really putting them out much to do what they do, it's what they've been doing solidly for the last half a century, it's pretty much just on the table for them, really it's the audience that are cunts i reckon.  It's a big ask to just go to someone like 'alright, well you've done alright financially, just go home and put your feet up'...for a man approaching his 70s it's like saying well piss off and die now, it's what they do, performing etc. 

And like, also, perhaps we're looking in the wrong place for that kind of integrity?  Like i said before, when was the vast majority of mainstream big time rock n roll ever anything but a commercial enterprise, even with the most wonderful of artists like The Beatles?  Stadium rock has been around since as long as I've been alive, I've never seen it as having much integrity. 

Fundamentally though, in terms of Uncle Mick, he's like one of the power brokers of our time.  The money makes him somebody, makes him matter in a way that isnt just resigned to history books.  Here, today and now Mick has the sort of money than can get things done.  It's funny though that he's the one we're singling out, he don't have nearly as much money as someone like Paul McCartney.

But yeah, the VIP thing is just grating but, again, i suppose it becomes a straight choice between killing the beast and feeding it...and there's a lot more thats rewarding about feeding it, from Uncle Micks point of view, than killing it.  I've never seen The Stones....and i never will see The Stones because i don't wanna stand about with a bunch of rich poofters and grannys watching Mick wiggle his bum on a massive screen.

But like, also, in terms of expecting like, your working classes, your grit-chewers at these gigs, without wanting to insult anyone right...have a gander round this forum.  This could potentially be quite insulting but lets go there.  If i may use this place as an example of like, your average rock fanbase, take a good look at em, this is me included by the way, I'm a 32 yr old Estate Agent for fuckssake, although i feel i can have it with the best of em, broadly speaking, the VAAAST majority of people on here...they ain't the sorts of people you are likely to see watching a Fear gig in 1980, are you?  Not being funny but there's fuckin' Mums n Dads and 30 to 40 yr olds that live pretty soft lives...and the younger ones, well they ain't like young kids in the way young kids were young kids around here when i was a young kid, they're all sort of really nice boys that are into like...drinking coffee and eating posh food and fuckin' goin' on 3 holidays a year. 

The sort of lads that attended that sort of rough and ready type thing in the 60s this lot would probably look down upon as chavs nowadays.

[DieselDaisy]

40 minutes ago, Len B'stard said:

If what you're saying is true then Neil Young is the exception to the rule.  As is John Lydon really, if Mick woke up tommorow with Lydon money he'd jump off a cliff and slit his throat on the way down.  And he's been musically no less inventive either.  But again it's catering to the audience and what they expect of Neil Young.  Fair dues i can't be harsh about this because he does seem a singular sort of artist in the vein of people that i quite enjoy but presumably his audience is people like you who expect him to be this evolving forward moving artist, if he suddenly went pop he might do well in the short term but it wouldn't be as sustainable as what he's doing now, same with people like Morrissey and Lydon, their commitment to a particular kind of way of life and music has led to them being quite well off.  I'll tell you one thing though, Neil Young has tens of millions in the bank and I'm pretty sure Moz does too.  Johnny doesn't.  And he's touring regularly, putting out an album every 18 months or so.  Self sustaining. 

But generally speaking, this thing we're into, pop music, these things are the exception to the rule, these people rather.  99.9%, if they have an option from which they can make millions upon millions upon millions they will take that option. 

There is a sequel to this. During the 1980s Geffen - Neil had stupidly signed with David Geffen's new company in the early '80s - sued Neil Young for making records ''uncharacteristic'' of Neil Young records! He was genre jumping (electronica, to, country, to, 1950s revivalist, to bluesman). The fans hated it. The record company hated it. His former bandmembers, Crazy Horse, hated it (and felt neglected as he was working with these different musicians). Neil continued jumping. Commercially, Neil probably couldn't sell these albums to members of his own family! Trust me, there is nothing more, most people would have wanted than for Neil to produce another Rust Never Sleeps or Harvest.

Bob Dylan has also made some strange moves. Where was Dylan during the 'summer of love'? The hippies expected a 1967 sequel to Blonde on Blonde, continuing that amazing run of LPs he'd began in 1962. They wanted to see their hero in San Fransisco - Monterrey even? Where was he? Missing-in-Action, held up in a basement in Woodstock, recording with The Band, with no particular purpose in mind on releasing! And there was nothing less that his fans wanted to hear than that he was suddenly a 'born again' christian in the late '70s, and that they were going to have to endure a trilogy of christian rock songs. Again, not exactly decisions made from commercial motives. He turned down Woodstock (the festival); Woodstock may have been free and expressed a communal utopia but it was in reality a highly profitable exercise. The film, you see?

About The Stones, I thought Keith's album was infinitely more interesting and superior to anything the Stones have done in ages. Keith was touring it in theatres - what a great gig that would have been? I would have far preferred seeing that than seeing Mick Jagger wiggle his 70-year-old arse to 'Start Me Up' in a stadium for the millionth time.

Edited March 14, 2016 by DieselDaisy

[wasted]

Inflation, taxes, viagra. 

 

[Len Cnut]

28 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

There is a sequel to this. During the 1980s Geffen - Neil had stupidly signed with David Geffen's new company in the early '80s - sued Neil Young for making records ''uncharacteristic'' of Neil Young records! He was genre jumping (electronica, to, country, to, 1950s revivalist, to bluesman). The fans hated it. The record company hated it. His former bandmembers, Crazy Horse, hated it (and felt neglected as he was working with these different musicians). Neil continued jumping. Commercially, Neil probably couldn't sell these albums to members of his own family! Trust me, there is nothing more, most people would have wanted than for Neil to produce another Rust Never Sleeps or Harvest.

Bob Dylan has also made some strange moves. Where was Dylan during the 'summer of love'? The hippies expected a 1967 sequel to Blonde on Blonde, continuing that amazing run of LPs he'd began in 1962. They wanted to see their hero in San Fransisco - Monterrey even? Where was he? Missing-in-Action, held up in a basement in Woodstock, recording with The Band, with no particular purpose in mind on releasing! And there was nothing less that his fans wanted to hear than that he was suddenly a 'born again' christian in the late '70s, and that they were going to have to endure a trilogy of christian rock songs. Again, not exactly decisions made from commercial motives. He turned down Woodstock (the festival); Woodstock may have been free and expressed a communal utopia but it was in reality a highly profitable exercise. The film, you see?

About The Stones, I thought Keith's album was infinitely more interesting and superior to anything the Stones have done in ages. Keith was touring it in theatres - what a great gig that would have been? I would have far preferred seeing that than seeing Mick Jagger wiggle his 70-year-old arse to 'Start Me Up' in a stadium for the millionth time.

Or The Smiths remaining signed to Rough Trade records when they could've gone with one of the big boys right after their debut and been massive.  Or bands like The Clash who forewent royalities with a view to providing the audience with a triple album for the price of a single record, this basically meant that for as long as there was The Clash they were in debt to the record company, they basically made no money their entire career, which they ended (last 3 gigs anyway) playing stadiums.  But these are the exceptions to the rule.

[dalsh327]

It's funny that Dylan had said in past interviews he didn't like covers of his songs, but as Axl recounted, Dylan knew people covering his songs brought in a LOT of money. He hated the "voice of a generation" label being placed on him (which made him a target with J Edgar Hoover and a prime candidate for the draft, supposedly Albert Grossman got a lot of people out of the draft), in some ways he kind of did what Jack Kerouac did after "On The Road" became big. But something seemed to happen to Dylan from the time of his divorce to the time he toured with Petty and the Dead where he pulled himself together. 

For Neil, you'd have to go back to his time in Buffalo Springfield as far as disdain for the pop world goes and "Broken Arrow", which seems to be an important enough song for him to name his publishing company after. 

 

[DieselDaisy]

If it was all about the money, they would have all just been pop singers anyway and immediately appealed to the largest denominator. Why were the stones monkeying around with this esoteric blues music which was even more obscure in Britain than Jazz and Jazz itself was this elitist anti-commercial thing confined to British nightclubs. Why didn't they put their Jimmy Reed records away and more directly imitate the Merseybeat sound of The Beatles? They did 'I Wanna Be Your Man', which of sorts was selling-out to that sound, but they were still playing their beloved Chicago blues. The Merseybeat sound: gorgeous tunefull melodies; #1 hit; success in America; it was everything this weird blackman's blues wasn't! The Stones were the only British invasion group to tour America without an US #1. The more obvious thing to do commercially for Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, et. al, was to get the hairspray out, pucker the lips and begin singing about ''dancing girls on Sunset Strip''.

Besides, to say it was 'all about the money' presupposes that all the later ideologies was vacuous: hippy utopian values: hippy antagonism for Vietnam; punk anarchism, etc. You might think it is 'vacuous nonsense', and indeed most of it was, but the question is, 'did they believe in it at the time'?

[Len Cnut]

To be a bit more harsh about this, people don't trip over tens of millions of pounds, Bob Dylan, Neil Young, these are extremely wealthy men and i refuse to believe its an accident.  Did they believe in it at the time?  I'm not sure they did, i think they were just dilletantes and they were crazy times and like everybody else they dipped their toes in certain waters but when it was all over they just went back to making money out of music. 

Everytime John Lennon stepped up politically and it looked like things would become really heated, he backed off.  He was as quick to disavow links to Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman as he was to exacerbate them.  Dylan was just always non-commital about things in general, and respect to him, he was just being straight up about it.

As for The Stones, listen, they were as much about Chuck Berry as they were about Jimmy Reed and rock n roll was well commercial at the time and the same thing must be noted about The Beatles, they werent all jingle jangle mersey beat pop, most of their albums had a solid base of rock n roll.  As for Nirvana, look, Kurt Cobain got into music being all punk this and punk that, done a length round Europe in a shitty van and decided 'fuck this!' and went back and made as commercial and pop a rock record that you could imagine.  And as well as their chicago blues stuff they were also writing stuff like As Tears Go By.

As far as punk anarchism, there never was any and i don't recall anyone except a lot of people after the fact saying that there should be.  But by and large i don't think the people in question believed in shit, they just tried shit and chucked it in when it looked like they might have to do something that'd cut into their boozing coke snorting bird shagging and music playing time.

Isn't it funny how all these ideological dreamy eyed types always happened to be selling you something at the same time? 

Edited March 14, 2016 by Len B'stard

[DieselDaisy]

Lennon. Lennon is a great example of somebody doing something anti-commercial, appearing on an album cover with his dick out - come on!

[Len Cnut]

13 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Lennon. Lennon is a great example of somebody doing something anti-commercial, appearing on an album cover with his dick out - come on!

Like i said, dilletante, kinda poked around with it and then just went back to where the money was at...he wasnt really serious about being an artist artist artist, yeah you could point to him having the missus on his albums as quite uncommercial in a sense but he was always gonna have a certain amount of an audience just by being John.

[DieselDaisy]

He released a trilogy of albums consisting of avant-garde sound effects and demented screaming. He sent acorns to all the world leaders.
What is up with you John?

 

[Len Cnut]

It aint no hardship to stick a tape recorder on in your kitchen and record 40 mins of racket and release it to a few score thousand sales whilst you got other projects on release too.  And you're a multi millionaire living in the stockbroker belt.  Its not like he was Daniel Johnston.

Edited March 14, 2016 by Len B'stard

[DieselDaisy]

1 hour ago, Len B'stard said:

It aint no hardship to stick a tape recorder on in your kitchen and record 40 mins of racket and release it to a few score thousand sales whilst you got other projects on release too.  And you're a multi millionaire living in the stockbroker belt.  Its not like he was Daniel Johnston.

It is the damage that proliferated. A 'Beatle', with his dick out, on an album cover!! Left wing politics! Avant-garde art.

It certainly hindered his reputation as a 'pop performer' which is probably exactly what he wanted. The US wanted to boot him out of their country for crying out loud.

[Len Cnut]

34 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

It is the damage that proliferated. A 'Beatle', with his dick out, on an album cover!! Left wing politics! Avant-garde art.

It certainly hindered his reputation as a 'pop performer' which is probably exactly what he wanted. The US wanted to boot him out of their country for crying out loud.

I'm as big a John Lennon fan as anybody as you know and I've been on this forum before now arguing the merits of Two Virgins before now...yeah the US wanted to boot him out so what was his reaction to that?  Be basically backed right the fuck off.  If the cause had been so paramount to him over and above his ability to be a rich celebrity then he would've followed it through instead of basically backing out of all that stuff, which is what he did.  Look at all his interviews after things got heavy and there was all that talk of him playing the whatshisface convention, he backed right out,  bottled it basically...because as i said these people were musicians and to whatever degree they were involved in other stuff it was just dilletantish.  'it was cool and i got psychedelic like the whole generation but really i just like rock n roll', now i understand in that instance he was talking more about musical experimentation and going more and more out there after Sgt Peppers and the big India thing but i think it applies to a lot else he did too.  Their forays into politics and spiritualism is basically what Russell Brand is doing right now, it's just people were less cynical then.  But he's done the same thing, Revolution, Revolution, Revolution...and then what?  He's backed right off and he's over in Surrey somewhere playing his Xbox and wandering about slightly confused, it's the same old thing, it's one thing gobbing off like you're Che Gueverra but people like Che didn't write frilly songs or tell jokes or play tiddlywinks with their day.

Don't get me wrong i admire them and i value the fact that at least they went some way towards something substantial...but end of the day you are judged upon your actions, not just your mouthing off, for all this political mileage people think John had he didn't really follow through on it much did he, when it was his own bollocks on the chopping block he soon wound his neck in, he weren't about to be no martyr for American politics, these are kids that grew up watching birds scream at Elvis Presley on a cinema screen and read newspapers about him living in big houses and driving Pink Cadillacs, that was their motivation mate, not 'the music'.  It just so happened that they were really fuckin' good at making music.

I'm sure in their head they convinced themselves they believed a lot of this guff but none of them ever really followed through on any of it, all these big gestures and grandiose notions that none of em wanted to follow through on.  Like Apple, briliant communal hippie idea that they sunk all this money in but the truth was it was only really McCartney doing anything productive with it, and to a point Georgie, Ring' and John just sort of sauntered in and out, they were just people with more money than sense whoose talent basically was exclusive to making music, well crafted tightly written pop songs that made peoples toes tap.  And since this made them money they stuck to it.

John Lennon could've put out an album of him trying to fart his way through God Save the Queen and it wouldn't've substantially damaged his reputation as a pop performer cuz all he had to do is send out a batch of nice little ditties the next time around and it'd be 'AH, a return to form!'.

You think Two Virgins had any bearing on the sales for Abbey Road or The White Album which it was pretty much released simultaeneously?  Did it fuck, it was just a pet project that no one really took seriously except for the controversy aspect.  I'm probably the only person whoose ever heard that bastard thing from one end to the other

Edited March 14, 2016 by Len B'stard

[DieselDaisy]

1 hour ago, Len B'stard said:

I'm as big a John Lennon fan as anybody as you know and I've been on this forum before now arguing the merits of Two Virgins before now...yeah the US wanted to boot him out so what was his reaction to that?  Be basically backed right the fuck off.  If the cause had been so paramount to him over and above his ability to be a rich celebrity then he would've followed it through instead of basically backing out of all that stuff, which is what he did.  Look at all his interviews after things got heavy and there was all that talk of him playing the whatshisface convention, he backed right out,  bottled it basically...because as i said these people were musicians and to whatever degree they were involved in other stuff it was just dilletantish.  'it was cool and i got psychedelic like the whole generation but really i just like rock n roll', now i understand in that instance he was talking more about musical experimentation and going more and more out there after Sgt Peppers and the big India thing but i think it applies to a lot else he did too.  Their forays into politics and spiritualism is basically what Russell Brand is doing right now, it's just people were less cynical then.  But he's done the same thing, Revolution, Revolution, Revolution...and then what?  He's backed right off and he's over in Surrey somewhere playing his Xbox and wandering about slightly confused, it's the same old thing, it's one thing gobbing off like you're Che Gueverra but people like Che didn't write frilly songs or tell jokes or play tiddlywinks with their day.

Don't get me wrong i admire them and i value the fact that at least they went some way towards something substantial...but end of the day you are judged upon your actions, not just your mouthing off, for all this political mileage people think John had he didn't really follow through on it much did he, when it was his own bollocks on the chopping block he soon wound his neck in, he weren't about to be no martyr for American politics, these are kids that grew up watching birds scream at Elvis Presley on a cinema screen and read newspapers about him living in big houses and driving Pink Cadillacs, that was their motivation mate, not 'the music'.  It just so happened that they were really fuckin' good at making music.

I'm sure in their head they convinced themselves they believed a lot of this guff but none of them ever really followed through on any of it, all these big gestures and grandiose notions that none of em wanted to follow through on.  Like Apple, briliant communal hippie idea that they sunk all this money in but the truth was it was only really McCartney doing anything productive with it, and to a point Georgie, Ring' and John just sort of sauntered in and out, they were just people with more money than sense whoose talent basically was exclusive to making music, well crafted tightly written pop songs that made peoples toes tap.  And since this made them money they stuck to it.

John Lennon could've put out an album of him trying to fart his way through God Save the Queen and it wouldn't've substantially damaged his reputation as a pop performer cuz all he had to do is send out a batch of nice little ditties the next time around and it'd be 'AH, a return to form!'.

You think Two Virgins had any bearing on the sales for Abbey Road or The White Album which it was pretty much released simultaeneously?  Did it fuck, it was just a pet project that no one really took seriously except for the controversy aspect.  I'm probably the only person whoose ever heard that bastard thing from one end to the other

Listen, my mam was an original hippy (she was at Isle of Wight) and she went off John when he started putting out albums of fart sounds and getting his wanger out on album sleeves. ''I'm a George Harrison fan I have you know''. So there you are. I think many people suddenly became a George fan during that period (Paul can obviously be dismissed).

Edited March 14, 2016 by DieselDaisy

[Len Cnut]

Oh well that settles it then

[DieselDaisy]

It basically does. Everyone became George fans.

Another thing. Ringo cards. They used to collect Beatles cards and you couldn't get rid of Ringo cards. You would have to trade twenty Ringo cards for one of John.