With pretty much all of recorded music available at the tap of a screen, and so much more being produced it's certainly different even to 25 years ago when I would ride to the record shop on pay day clutching my brown envelope and have to decide which album I could afford to buy.That certainly could be true - many of favourite acts were doing new/weird/clever sh .. stuff. Now we rave about anyone using the latest software to mashup/sample stuff written last month with something from 1965; takes them 20minutes to record/publish a 3min song.
BUT: the cheap technology - both to create AND publish - probably means a dilution of the audience. There is now TOO MUCH music to listen to it all!
Perhaps there can NEVER be another story like The Beatles? Maybe Radiohead should have been bigger, or Daft Punk, PJ Harvey, Cheeky Girls ... whoever. Just a theory ...
I'd be very surprised if Macca ever said anything so silly. The Stones may have done some covers - pretty creditably, on the whole - but the vast majority of their stuff, and the stuff they're rightly rated for, is all Jagger-Richards. As for what Roger Daltry thinks about anything, does anyone give a shoot? I mean, he could sing. That's it isn't it? Or am I missing something?Out of interest when did he say that?
I can admire the Stones but I always preferred The Who - always had the idea that there was more passion there.
With pretty much all of recorded music available at the tap of a screen, and so much more being produced it's certainly different even to 25 years ago when I would ride to the record shop on pay day clutching my brown envelope and have to decide which album I could afford to buy.
I think this is where despite streaming and such, radio DJs are still an important part of music culture. They sift through all the shite and pick out the best or most interesting.
I'm with you on PJ Harvey but Daft Punk are massively overrated.
Of course, there are some more recent (if not by much!) bands very high in my list as well, such as Queen, Fleetwood Mac, The Beautiful SouthPersonally, I was never that keen on the Stones, I much preferred the Beatles. Other bands of that time I liked a lot - The Hollies, The Animals, the Kinks and a few more.
It was about a couple of weeks ago in most of the rags but Daltry's comment was reported today.Out of interest when did he say that?
I can admire the Stones but I always preferred The Who - always had the idea that there was more passion there.