...may help.you need bad times to envigourate the youth into action.Plus we have a generation of computer game playing couch potatoes who would rather sit in their rooms then go out to gigs.the middle classes have taken over album buying as the kids steal theirs, so consequently the didos and blunts of the world will top the charts in the future along with bland greatest hits packages released for the umpteenth time in flashier formats.
long live the recession.we may be skint but at least there's hope for the future.who knows a new Clash may arise.....

Leave us accountants out of this.

You are probably right of course. Especially with EMI now in the hands of financiers. I could not believe that the Beatles would ever leave and sue the very British label.

Sign O The Times

I took part in a radio discussion about music on BBC Radio Wales alongside Rhydian's uncle and the main man from Only Men Aloud. I maintained that, although both these acts could sing and were technically adept, they were uninteresting, unimaginative and didn't extend pop music in any way. I ventured the Super Furry Animals as examples of 'interesting' and 'challenging' pop which was also tuneful and entertaining. No one phoned in to support this view. All the callers thought I was bonkers. They simply had no idea where I was coming from and seemed to think I was 'jealous' of Rhydian and that dumb choir. That's what you're up against. The sheer lack of curiosity and disinterest of the majority of the public.
But then again I suppose if everyone loved XTC the world would be a spooky place.

What I would like to know is how many records have great bands like SFA,XTC, Go Betweens The Divine Comedy etc actually sold in the U K.

One other point is are too many records released to keep up with I have just read a review which recommends cds this year by White Denim,The Dirtbombs,MGMT,Hercules And Love Affair,James Blackshaw,Brightblack Morning Light and Los Campesinos.

I have not heard any of these cds and I like to think of myself as being with it music wise.

how much dosh SFA make but I don't reckon it's much. I keep seeing members of the band coming out of the launderette up the road quite regularly with black bin bags of washing. Can't imagine Britney doing that somehow.

I'd much rather listen to them than stuff like Madness which has dated pretty badly. Putting them in the same bracket as Dido and Portishead is a bit daft.
The Jam? Some fantastic stuff but some of it was a bit po-faced. The Enemy sound exactly like them if you want a group like them but not them.

In this way they can be linked to Dido. I have never been a heavy metal fan so I have never understood AC/DCs mass appeal or the dressing up as a schoolboy schtick, but everyone is entitled to their opinion, whatever floats your boat.

The Portishead point was about music journalists and how bloody serious music has become, at least Madness were fun and didn't take themselves too seriously.

It may be great, but it's one of those discs that seems to have slipped out unnnoticed (by me anyway) and there it is as album of the year. Was it rated as album of the month by Uncut, does anyone know?

Forgive me, Mr Face, but is your complaint that the charts no longer contain interesting music in general or that they no longer contain witty, intelligent pop?

For example, would you be pleased if the occasional jazz or folk act made it into the top twenty, or is the music you believe should succeed commercially more specific?

I'm not having a go, if that's what it sounds like, just genuinely curious.

It's all down to the common denominator where selling music is concerned.

If it has a strong, simple 4/4 beat, a memorable and singable chorus, and has a easily identifiable subject matter, then you're halfway there.

The production values of the day and the support of your label, for purely financial reasons, and you're getting closer again.

Most people, that's everyone but us real music lovers, just like something they can dance to, the reason Franz Ferdinand did well here, as they wanted to make girls dance and did a good job of it. If your music is challenging in any way then you're up against it when trying to get charted.

There are other factors of course, but this is pretty much the gist.

that we all have differing tastes, you can't please all the people all the time, and the world evolves and moves on.
There is nothing wrong with roasting James Blunt CDs on an open fire whilst sitting back and listening to Chalkhills and Children, but we can't expect da kidz (TM) to want to get Pentangle back into the top forty.

If we can't accept that, then we begin to sound like a 1960s dad:
"You can't even hear the words!"
"Is that a boy or a girl?"
"Turn it down!"

of looking back on the singles charts of old with rose tinted glasses. As a teenager in the 80's I remember feeling genuinely thrilled when acts I considered to be subversive managed to hit the top twenty. It was even more of a thrill to see the likes of Bauhaus, The Bunnymen, Smiths, Cure, Julian Cope etc appear on Top Of The Pops. The reason it was such a thrill was because everything else in the charts was so awful by comparison. The eighties was a decade of real extremes and polarised opinions (and not just as far as music was concerned.) You only have to look at those Youtube clips of the TOTP performances of the above listed acts, and others and look at the expressions on the faces of the audience members as the bands mime. They really have very little idea of exactly what it is they are watching.

Let's not also forget that you had to sell a hell of a lot more records to get a top twenty hit back then, too. My understanding is that today, a few thousand downloads will get you a hit. I was surprised to read that The Kings Of Leon recently scored a number one album and single. Don't get me wrong, I really like them. But I wonder just how many copies they sold.

The Rose Tinted Spectacles one,because it is my belief that even the crap pop in the 80s for example was better than what we get in the charts today.

Just check out compilations of pop hits of each decade,in my opinion and I know this is a massive generalisation,the 60s were good almost great, the 70s were the best,the 80s were good,the 90s not so good and the 00s the worst yet.

There still is great pop music of course I mean I love The Feeling,The Shins and The Coral for example it's just that the quirky pop hits from yesteryear seem to have disappeared from the charts for example even the likes of The Thompson Twins, Howard Jones and Nick Kershaw had their cultural value and sold well.

Where are todays pop mavericks and why have they disappeared from the charts ?

In terms of just one example though 69 Love Songs by The Magnetic Fields was an amazing pop album and yet I cannot recall any of it's tracks making the top ten in Britain.

Nik Kershaw...Howard Jones...culural value...?

Now let me take a random eighties track ah yes Annie I'm not your Daddy by Kid Creole And The Coconuts maybe it's the glow of nostalgia but it sounds damn fine to me.

Character that's it, it has character, vacuous character maybe but character lacking in much music today.

I recently bought the Cherry Red reissue of "The Circle And The Square" by Red Box. An album that was first released in 1984. The single "Lean On Me" taken from the album was one of my favourites back then. It was also the most played single on the radio of that year and was a huge chart hit. The album still sounds amazing and there is nothing today that sounds comparible to it.

I would also reiterate my point about sales figures. Into The Gap by The Thompson Twins sold half a million copies in this country in 1984. How many copies has the Kings Of Leon album sold? I'm not sure if sales figures equate to cultural relevance, but the sales figures of the 1980s make today's sales look like a joke.

I could list virtually hundreds of great singles from the 60s,70s,80s and even the 90s, when did the single stop meaning anything.

Alan Freeman stopped doing Pick Of The Pops on Sunday afternoon.

I remember hating most of the stuff that was successful in the early to mid-seventies (Mud, Showaddywaddy, the Rubettes, Glitter Band, Sweet, Abba, Slade etc) but now would love to hear songs from most of those bands (except perhaps Showaddywaddy and the Rubettes or the Glitter band for different reasons) as they are just a bit of fun. I'm assuming that people buying today's singles also see those as a bit of fun too.

Miles Davis seemed to think that musicians can be either artists or entertainers, and I find myself in agreement with him.

If they choose the former, there will doubtless be more intrinsic benefits in the sense of artistic fulfillment, and getting to basically say whatever you want with your music. But it's a long hard slog with little material reward.

If the latter, there are obvious financial rewards and the chance to have your music heard by millions, but you'll probably never be taken seriously as a musician and also have to make big comprimises.

There are, however, a small group of musicians who manage to straddle the worlds of both art and entertainment. Examples that come to mind are The Beatles and Springsteen. But it does seem to be a VERY small group.

Stop looking at the charts.
If you can't find LOADS of fantastic new music then you really aren't trying hard enough.
Bon Iver
Fleet Foxes
Okkervil River
Elbow
Aimee mann
Jesca Hoop
Emiliana Torrinni
TV on the Radio
Laura Marling
Danny & The Champions of the World
Attic Lights
Brooke Waggoner
Duke Special
Goldfrapp
Iron & Wine
Joan as Police Woman
Josh Ritter
Mercury Rev
Josh Rouse
MGMT
My Morning Jacket
Shearwater
Radiohead
Ray Lamontagne
Felice Brothers
Windmill
Sigur Ros
Spoon
The Week That Was
School of Language
Cat Power
Nick Cave
The National
& on & on & on & on etc

There's stuff here that's as good as anything that's ever been recorded

I have just looked at the singles chart and expected to say it was full of rubbish, like my dad used to do when I were a nipper. BUT I know most of the acts, recognise a few of the tracks even.

Hang on a pickin' minute. Number 13? Same Difference? They were the irritating brother and sister that got kicked off the X Factor last year. We R One is an enjoyable POP song, in the vein of High School Musical. But still a good pop song. View with an open mind...

http://www.samedifferenceworld.com/grownups/

and if you are in Portsmouth on Saturday they are doing an in-store signing at Asda.

Cultural snob possibly too but I don't think so, as for Same Difference they were terrible on X factor last year and yes I can appreachiate good teen pop even though I myself am not a teenager anymore.

I saw Mylie Cyrus on X factor last week and thought she was quite good for a teen pop star although obviously I would never buy anything by her but I could see her appeal.

But good pop is always a subjective thing and who am I to dictate to people, but it would be nice to see the charts full of the sort of stuff chasandmorph listed.

Why do people watch "I'm A Celery Get Me Out of Here" by the million but not "The West Wing"? Why did they buy Engelbert over The Beatles? Why does Wayne Rooney get a 5 book deal while John Steinbeck falls off the radar? Because it's popular. There's no rhyme nor reason to it, it's just the way it is. Why do some people agree with this post while some (if they're honest) would admit to a preference for "Celery" to "West Wing" or Rooney to Steinbeck? It's just the way it is. Move on.

I'll forget about it the state of our culture is not important.

I guess the collective culture of the nation and the charts is a reflection of the popularity of certain cultural products, it is my argument that in the past quality music sold in large numbers but this has now changed.

There is I believe a schism between those who appreachiate quality music and those who do not, now of course every individual has their own taste but I would like to compare the sales figures of The Words top ten albums,for example, with the sales figures of albums by Take That, Beyonce and Britney.

Why do millions of people not like good music ? I think personally many artists are sold more on image than musical worth and video really did kill the radio star,it is the ultimate in the victory of style over content.

Of course no one can dictate what people listen to, but it would be nice to live in a world where the best sold the most.

Are we still doing the "all this transient pop rubbish is keeping good music out of the charts" thing? It's all very well asserting that, once upon a time, the best was also the most popular (although, with the odd exception, I'd disagree), but such an assertion is always going to be subjective. For example, how do you think jazzers would have viewed the Beatles or Led Zeppelin? I'll tell you - Oscar Peterson thought the songs of Lennon & McCartney were "unsophisticated" and that, because their melodies didn't lend themselves to improvisation the way the songs of the 40s and 50s did, they were by definition inferior. Buddy Rich famously detested rock music, particularly Led Zeppelin, a band he considered gimmicky and amateurish. So, to presume that there was some kind of widely-held consensus as to what constituted good music back when pop as we've come to understand it was still comparatively novel...well, it's all a bit "rose-coloured glasses" if you ask me.

The charts have always been full of fluff and formula. Sometimes it's good, other times it's pretty wretched, and 'twas ever thus. Anyone yearning for an age when a song like "A Whiter Shade of Pale" would top the charts for weeks on end perhaps ought to consider how many records the likes of Ken Dodd, Vince Hill and the Bachelors were selling around the same time, and maybe take their foot off the pedal marked "selective amnesia".