The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I hate it when someone is being interviewed, usually some B-list celeb like Emma Bunton, and they get asked about something (as happens in interviews). They respond "Yeah, I'm loving it", then they smile, and say "Lovin' it, lovin' it, lovin it!"
Oh! ha, ha, I see what they've done! They've gone and quoted from a naff song!
Damn I hate that.
And women called Ian.
What the hell is that all about? And how bad are those lyrics?
"Tell me why, we build castles in the sky,
Oh tell me why, all the castles way up high"
Let's see, well, we don't build castles in the sky, way up high. In fact i've never come across a castle in the sky in real life. Once in a game (Phantasy Star, Lassic's castle was on a floating island). But why ask such a daft question? Why bother with crap lyrics?
Finally, Roger Sanchez.
That song of his, reached number 1.
Sounds like the theme from some 80's soap, with all the synth, could have been the theme to a Brookside spin off. And that doof, doof, drum beat (just the two of them) between chorus and verse... That sounds so lame....
So, other current musical pet hates?
Oh! ha, ha, I see what they've done! They've gone and quoted from a naff song!
Damn I hate that.
And women called Ian.
What the hell is that all about? And how bad are those lyrics?
"Tell me why, we build castles in the sky,
Oh tell me why, all the castles way up high"
Let's see, well, we don't build castles in the sky, way up high. In fact i've never come across a castle in the sky in real life. Once in a game (Phantasy Star, Lassic's castle was on a floating island). But why ask such a daft question? Why bother with crap lyrics?
Finally, Roger Sanchez.
That song of his, reached number 1.
Sounds like the theme from some 80's soap, with all the synth, could have been the theme to a Brookside spin off. And that doof, doof, drum beat (just the two of them) between chorus and verse... That sounds so lame....
So, other current musical pet hates?
Page:
Goatboy wrote:
> "Popstars" - guaranteed fame and celeb status simply because they were picked.
> Not because they write good songs or can sing (and most of them couldnt), but
> because this A&R machine promised them they'd be famous.
I agree in part, but on the other hand, you could see from the auditions that the 'final five' could actually sing. Well, I think they have very nice voices, anyway.
While the records may be over-produced, they proved during the auditioning that they could hit the notes and the harmonies etc.
I'm no expert on how these things work, and I mean no offence to you and the members of Parker by this, but I would have thought that the sheer number of auditions they went to, along with the vocal tests/stresses/training they went through, was far more work - and more 'qualifying' - than a band who sing in a pub for fun and might get picked/signed on the basis of one song that a scout heard and liked.
i.e. they picked people who could genuinely sing, rather than some guy or girl who does the occasional Friday-night gig as a bit of fun.
It's a sad fact that there are a lot of good singers/songwriters who deserve a shot, but don't get one.
Changing the subject slightly, there are plenty of great singers appearing in every series of Stars in their Eyes; many have excellent voices, but they get nothing from the show simply because they're copying someone else. Everyone knows they can sing, but no-one offers them the chance to do their own thing
Some of these people sound exactly like the person they're supposed to be, yet the 'real' star got the break, and these people didn't. Why? Because they weren't in the right place at the right time.
> "Popstars" - guaranteed fame and celeb status simply because they were picked.
> Not because they write good songs or can sing (and most of them couldnt), but
> because this A&R machine promised them they'd be famous.
I agree in part, but on the other hand, you could see from the auditions that the 'final five' could actually sing. Well, I think they have very nice voices, anyway.
While the records may be over-produced, they proved during the auditioning that they could hit the notes and the harmonies etc.
I'm no expert on how these things work, and I mean no offence to you and the members of Parker by this, but I would have thought that the sheer number of auditions they went to, along with the vocal tests/stresses/training they went through, was far more work - and more 'qualifying' - than a band who sing in a pub for fun and might get picked/signed on the basis of one song that a scout heard and liked.
i.e. they picked people who could genuinely sing, rather than some guy or girl who does the occasional Friday-night gig as a bit of fun.
It's a sad fact that there are a lot of good singers/songwriters who deserve a shot, but don't get one.
Changing the subject slightly, there are plenty of great singers appearing in every series of Stars in their Eyes; many have excellent voices, but they get nothing from the show simply because they're copying someone else. Everyone knows they can sing, but no-one offers them the chance to do their own thing
Some of these people sound exactly like the person they're supposed to be, yet the 'real' star got the break, and these people didn't. Why? Because they weren't in the right place at the right time.
Goatboy wrote:
> I dont say it shouldn't be allowed, I just say that it doesn't
> matter at all.
Teenie acts shouldnt be classed as musicians though,
> they are not.
They are entertainers.
Same as tv presenters, just
> have mics in their hands and someone else's music behind them.
By
> all means listen to it, but please don't call them musicians.
That gets me too, when people call themselves 'bands'. Excuse me, look up the definition of the word 'band' on the internet and I'm pretty sure you have to play instruments, otherwise you're just a 'group', or a bunch of 'hosers'.
> I dont say it shouldn't be allowed, I just say that it doesn't
> matter at all.
Teenie acts shouldnt be classed as musicians though,
> they are not.
They are entertainers.
Same as tv presenters, just
> have mics in their hands and someone else's music behind them.
By
> all means listen to it, but please don't call them musicians.
That gets me too, when people call themselves 'bands'. Excuse me, look up the definition of the word 'band' on the internet and I'm pretty sure you have to play instruments, otherwise you're just a 'group', or a bunch of 'hosers'.
Personally, I can handle cheesy pop and terrible dance music, because if I don't like it, I turn it off. It's not like they come round my house, draw on my face and steal my stuff or anything, they just make music I don't like, but thousands of other people do. I can understand why someone would want to listen to Steps or HearSay or something, though I wouldn't myself.
Wòókiee Møn§†€R wrote:
Maybe, but to who? Who decides who matters? A classic
> song is never a classic song in its own time - only as time passes.
True. But come on, who the hell is going to remember or even care 1year from now, let alone 30 about 95% of the "bands" today?
Aqua anyone? Or how about A1? Atomic Kitten?
I just want their 15 mins to hurry up and see what the next one's like.
To see
> Phil sing and play drums live for In The Air Tonight is one of the
> greatest things I've ever seen as far as music is concerned, and I
> never, ever get tired of it.
See, now whilst I cannot abide Phil Collins, I do admit that he has musical ability. It's not my thing but I cannot deny the man can write memorable songs that have been remembered after years.
But why does that have to stop me
> enjoying - for example - Steps or Hear'Say?
I'm not saying don't enjoy it.
I'm saying, purely in musical relevance that they don't matter.
There is nothing to seperate Steps from Hearsay or Atomic Kitten or A1 or Backstreet Boys or..it's just the faces that are different, same Kareoke jukebox music.
I'm not saying nobody should listen to it, I'm saying that as a musical entity, it doesn't matter.
You hear The Doors or Muse or Radiohead or Iron Maiden, you know who it is. I can't tell these pop monkeys apart anymore.
But who is
> responsible for that? It's not these kids, it's the music industry
> itself that is the problem
Absolutely. And also mainstream radio, which is no longer about playing music, it's about product plugging and A&R.
The only music that sells is stuff people hear, on radio, and the only stuff that gets played is what people buy.
Based on what is on the radio.
A self-perpetuating cycle. Dance/pop sells because it is on the radio, and it is on the radio because it sells.
For Radio 1, you have to wait for Steve Lamacq or after 11pm to hear anything that isn't pop.
If they can pass off some teen beauty, or some
> long-haired, unwashed thirty-something who likes shouting expletives
> and spitting over the mike, as the 'next big thing', just to make
> money, then they will.
Ah, Liam. Yes, he's a baboon. However, to qoute him "I sing me c0ck off every night". I like some Oasis, not all. But you see them doing acoustic numbers, you can hear them live, never ever on backing tapes because of "energetic dance routines"
The thing is, you can't blame the groups
> themselves for it, as very few people would turn down the
> opportunity for 'easy' money and fame - no matter how short-lived it
> may or may not be.
Agreed, but this is why we have people that go into tv presenting or other celeb areas, because once the musical novelty has worn off, there's nothing left.
I watched the Popstars series,
> and these 'kids' have practically no say whatsoever over what they
> do, where they do it, or how often.
Yep. The whole ethos of this programme summed up what I find abhorrent about the state of mainstream music.
"Popstars" - guaranteed fame and celeb status simply because they were picked. Not because they write good songs or can sing (and most of them couldnt), but because this A&R machine promised them they'd be famous.
And they were, but their time is running out.
"Pure and Simple"?
All Saints verse, Oasis Chorus.
And it sold by the millions. P!ss awful song, derogative and over produced. How many layering effects on those vocals guys?
If you're going to blame someone, then blame the
> record industry for being so cynical. You could also blame, to a
> lesser extent, the public for being so gullible.
I do, but I also blame these money hungry, fame grabbing wannabes that think "I'll be a popstar!" because they couldnt get onto Big Brother that week.
There are those of us doing it because we have to, because music is our driving force.
And those that do it because they want to be famous and have footballer partners.
Maybe, but to who? Who decides who matters? A classic
> song is never a classic song in its own time - only as time passes.
True. But come on, who the hell is going to remember or even care 1year from now, let alone 30 about 95% of the "bands" today?
Aqua anyone? Or how about A1? Atomic Kitten?
I just want their 15 mins to hurry up and see what the next one's like.
To see
> Phil sing and play drums live for In The Air Tonight is one of the
> greatest things I've ever seen as far as music is concerned, and I
> never, ever get tired of it.
See, now whilst I cannot abide Phil Collins, I do admit that he has musical ability. It's not my thing but I cannot deny the man can write memorable songs that have been remembered after years.
But why does that have to stop me
> enjoying - for example - Steps or Hear'Say?
I'm not saying don't enjoy it.
I'm saying, purely in musical relevance that they don't matter.
There is nothing to seperate Steps from Hearsay or Atomic Kitten or A1 or Backstreet Boys or..it's just the faces that are different, same Kareoke jukebox music.
I'm not saying nobody should listen to it, I'm saying that as a musical entity, it doesn't matter.
You hear The Doors or Muse or Radiohead or Iron Maiden, you know who it is. I can't tell these pop monkeys apart anymore.
But who is
> responsible for that? It's not these kids, it's the music industry
> itself that is the problem
Absolutely. And also mainstream radio, which is no longer about playing music, it's about product plugging and A&R.
The only music that sells is stuff people hear, on radio, and the only stuff that gets played is what people buy.
Based on what is on the radio.
A self-perpetuating cycle. Dance/pop sells because it is on the radio, and it is on the radio because it sells.
For Radio 1, you have to wait for Steve Lamacq or after 11pm to hear anything that isn't pop.
If they can pass off some teen beauty, or some
> long-haired, unwashed thirty-something who likes shouting expletives
> and spitting over the mike, as the 'next big thing', just to make
> money, then they will.
Ah, Liam. Yes, he's a baboon. However, to qoute him "I sing me c0ck off every night". I like some Oasis, not all. But you see them doing acoustic numbers, you can hear them live, never ever on backing tapes because of "energetic dance routines"
The thing is, you can't blame the groups
> themselves for it, as very few people would turn down the
> opportunity for 'easy' money and fame - no matter how short-lived it
> may or may not be.
Agreed, but this is why we have people that go into tv presenting or other celeb areas, because once the musical novelty has worn off, there's nothing left.
I watched the Popstars series,
> and these 'kids' have practically no say whatsoever over what they
> do, where they do it, or how often.
Yep. The whole ethos of this programme summed up what I find abhorrent about the state of mainstream music.
"Popstars" - guaranteed fame and celeb status simply because they were picked. Not because they write good songs or can sing (and most of them couldnt), but because this A&R machine promised them they'd be famous.
And they were, but their time is running out.
"Pure and Simple"?
All Saints verse, Oasis Chorus.
And it sold by the millions. P!ss awful song, derogative and over produced. How many layering effects on those vocals guys?
If you're going to blame someone, then blame the
> record industry for being so cynical. You could also blame, to a
> lesser extent, the public for being so gullible.
I do, but I also blame these money hungry, fame grabbing wannabes that think "I'll be a popstar!" because they couldnt get onto Big Brother that week.
There are those of us doing it because we have to, because music is our driving force.
And those that do it because they want to be famous and have footballer partners.
Its true, I feel very strongly about types of music I listen too, classic Miles Davis, or Ortis Reading, or some Sinatra to put on after work on a Saturday Night. you feel emotional about it, because it it in some people's opinion 'proper music'.
Even though I am in a band, and write and perform my own songs, and enjoy *Rock*/*Alternative* music, what's to say that I don't like S Club 7? Because I do. I love Radiohead for the itense emotion and power in the music, the effort gone into producing the record. I'll listen to Steps and the like, because it sounds nice. It's ear candy, nothing more, nothing less, just something to hum along to in the car, something to put on at a party and sing along to with all your mates, because you all enjoy it.
I don't like the idea of manufactured groups, completely formed by businessmen, out for commercialising the sound. I don't like it, but hey, if they are making money, and if so many people are enjoying what they produce, then who is to say that is wrong? I disagree with groups like Blink 182, and Offspring, who go against the system, so they say, but might aswell be called the Spice Girls, because you see their faces all happy and smily on the cover of TOTP magazine and MTV.
Tut tut, Punk this aint.
I used to be all, Pop is rubbish, it's not REAL music, but I have realised it's just a wasted effort, I'll sit back and like what I want to like, listen to what I want to listen to, and so be it.
Even though I am in a band, and write and perform my own songs, and enjoy *Rock*/*Alternative* music, what's to say that I don't like S Club 7? Because I do. I love Radiohead for the itense emotion and power in the music, the effort gone into producing the record. I'll listen to Steps and the like, because it sounds nice. It's ear candy, nothing more, nothing less, just something to hum along to in the car, something to put on at a party and sing along to with all your mates, because you all enjoy it.
I don't like the idea of manufactured groups, completely formed by businessmen, out for commercialising the sound. I don't like it, but hey, if they are making money, and if so many people are enjoying what they produce, then who is to say that is wrong? I disagree with groups like Blink 182, and Offspring, who go against the system, so they say, but might aswell be called the Spice Girls, because you see their faces all happy and smily on the cover of TOTP magazine and MTV.
Tut tut, Punk this aint.
I used to be all, Pop is rubbish, it's not REAL music, but I have realised it's just a wasted effort, I'll sit back and like what I want to like, listen to what I want to listen to, and so be it.
Goatboy wrote:
> Because the great singers of the past mattered.
Maybe, but to who? Who decides who matters? A classic song is never a classic song in its own time - only as time passes. Bohemian Raphsody was just a very good song when it was released - only the passage of time has elevated it to 'classic' status. The same could - thoeretically, at least - happen to any one of the songs in the charts today.
> Jim Morrison - just sang. But he gave it 100%
> passion and energy, you could tell he was doing it because something
> inside him needed to get out.
I agree that it makes you much more emotional if someone is really giving it their all in the performance. I'm a huge Phil Collins (and Genesis) fan, and have seen them many times in concert. To see Phil sing and play drums live for In The Air Tonight is one of the greatest things I've ever seen as far as music is concerned, and I never, ever get tired of it.
But why does that have to stop me enjoying - for example - Steps or Hear'Say? It may not have the same passion and energy about it, and I may never bother to see them in concert, but it doesn't stop me enjoying the *music* any less. Sure, Clare's very attractive and the dance routines are clever, but that's all superfluous to the music - I buy the CD to listen to, not to watch the video.
> But it's not about emotion and singing
> because you have to, it's about "he/she looks pretty, let's get
> them to sing".
Yes, I don't disagree that there's a lot of that going on at the moment. But who is responsible for that? It's not these kids, it's the music industry itself that is the problem. It's become just that - an industry. They're not interested in whether their latest signing can actually sing or not, they're interested in how well it will sell in order to make them money.
If they can pass off some teen beauty, or some long-haired, unwashed thirty-something who likes shouting expletives and spitting over the mike, as the 'next big thing', just to make money, then they will.
The thing is, you can't blame the groups themselves for it, as very few people would turn down the opportunity for 'easy' money and fame - no matter how short-lived it may or may not be. You've said yourself you play because you enjoy it. If those on these forums, who'd heard you play, all said that they didn't like it, would you turn down a record deal? I know I wouldn't in your position.
> Not teenagers thrown together for profit and merchandising.
> A1? Atomic Kitten? Westlife?
> They dont even make music, they make videos to watch.
That may be the case, but who are the people behind all this? The music industry bosses.
I watched the Popstars series, and these 'kids' have practically no say whatsoever over what they do, where they do it, or how often. Everything is organised for them by agents and the industry in order to make money. The industry is taking the power away from the artists.
They like the youngsters because they can manipulate and control them, whereas bands such as yours wouldn't stand for such crap - at least not to the same extent. How many of these young starts are collapsing on tour and requiring hospital treatment? All because the record industry is pushing, pushing, pushing them to get as much money out of them as they can before they burn out completely, or the public switch to the 'next big thing'.
You can brand all of them as crap, but the fact is, people buy it (even if it's mostly kids) and it sells well. I mean, Bob the Builder beating Eminem's Stan to the Xmas number one spot? Stan may not be Xmas material, but it's extremely well-written and very clever; it's just a shame that people focus on the language and 'abuse' issues and ignore the story it tells.
These bands are not to blame for their status, and I say good luck to them. If their career only lasts a few years but makes them a stack of money, then good for them. I wish I could have that luck.
If you're going to blame someone, then blame the record industry for being so cynical. You could also blame, to a lesser extent, the public for being so gullible. You may be able to give any Britney song to Billie and get pretty much the same end product, but if it's catchy enough, it'll sell anyway.
> Because the great singers of the past mattered.
Maybe, but to who? Who decides who matters? A classic song is never a classic song in its own time - only as time passes. Bohemian Raphsody was just a very good song when it was released - only the passage of time has elevated it to 'classic' status. The same could - thoeretically, at least - happen to any one of the songs in the charts today.
> Jim Morrison - just sang. But he gave it 100%
> passion and energy, you could tell he was doing it because something
> inside him needed to get out.
I agree that it makes you much more emotional if someone is really giving it their all in the performance. I'm a huge Phil Collins (and Genesis) fan, and have seen them many times in concert. To see Phil sing and play drums live for In The Air Tonight is one of the greatest things I've ever seen as far as music is concerned, and I never, ever get tired of it.
But why does that have to stop me enjoying - for example - Steps or Hear'Say? It may not have the same passion and energy about it, and I may never bother to see them in concert, but it doesn't stop me enjoying the *music* any less. Sure, Clare's very attractive and the dance routines are clever, but that's all superfluous to the music - I buy the CD to listen to, not to watch the video.
> But it's not about emotion and singing
> because you have to, it's about "he/she looks pretty, let's get
> them to sing".
Yes, I don't disagree that there's a lot of that going on at the moment. But who is responsible for that? It's not these kids, it's the music industry itself that is the problem. It's become just that - an industry. They're not interested in whether their latest signing can actually sing or not, they're interested in how well it will sell in order to make them money.
If they can pass off some teen beauty, or some long-haired, unwashed thirty-something who likes shouting expletives and spitting over the mike, as the 'next big thing', just to make money, then they will.
The thing is, you can't blame the groups themselves for it, as very few people would turn down the opportunity for 'easy' money and fame - no matter how short-lived it may or may not be. You've said yourself you play because you enjoy it. If those on these forums, who'd heard you play, all said that they didn't like it, would you turn down a record deal? I know I wouldn't in your position.
> Not teenagers thrown together for profit and merchandising.
> A1? Atomic Kitten? Westlife?
> They dont even make music, they make videos to watch.
That may be the case, but who are the people behind all this? The music industry bosses.
I watched the Popstars series, and these 'kids' have practically no say whatsoever over what they do, where they do it, or how often. Everything is organised for them by agents and the industry in order to make money. The industry is taking the power away from the artists.
They like the youngsters because they can manipulate and control them, whereas bands such as yours wouldn't stand for such crap - at least not to the same extent. How many of these young starts are collapsing on tour and requiring hospital treatment? All because the record industry is pushing, pushing, pushing them to get as much money out of them as they can before they burn out completely, or the public switch to the 'next big thing'.
You can brand all of them as crap, but the fact is, people buy it (even if it's mostly kids) and it sells well. I mean, Bob the Builder beating Eminem's Stan to the Xmas number one spot? Stan may not be Xmas material, but it's extremely well-written and very clever; it's just a shame that people focus on the language and 'abuse' issues and ignore the story it tells.
These bands are not to blame for their status, and I say good luck to them. If their career only lasts a few years but makes them a stack of money, then good for them. I wish I could have that luck.
If you're going to blame someone, then blame the record industry for being so cynical. You could also blame, to a lesser extent, the public for being so gullible. You may be able to give any Britney song to Billie and get pretty much the same end product, but if it's catchy enough, it'll sell anyway.
I dont say it shouldn't be allowed, I just say that it doesn't matter at all.
Teenie acts shouldnt be classed as musicians though, they are not.
They are entertainers.
Same as tv presenters, just have mics in their hands and someone else's music behind them.
By all means listen to it, but please don't call them musicians.
Teenie acts shouldnt be classed as musicians though, they are not.
They are entertainers.
Same as tv presenters, just have mics in their hands and someone else's music behind them.
By all means listen to it, but please don't call them musicians.
Page: