VT’s Music Chat

[bickster]

12 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

The Chords, So Far Away.

Fancy a copy? You’re in luck, they have one in Oxfam, Penarth. It’s £120 which makes it £60 cheaper than the only similar one currently on discogs.

I mean, the copy they have you have to ask to see it. In the rack they have a photocopy of the cover and an explanation of the price, it’s still shrink wrapped, never been opened in 44 years. Now I love this record, 1980 was a rather grand year for music and power pop in particular and this record was just about the best of the best. But that’s a bit rich for me, and it’s sealed so what you going to do? You can keep it sealed and unplayed which is weird, or you can split the plastic and wipe another £90 off the value.

Hell of an album though. Those other two aren’t too scruffy either.

Has it got the free 7” given away with initial copies?

[chrisp65]

1 minute ago, bickster said:

Has it got the free 7” given away with initial copies?

Oxfam one does yes. 

 

[bickster]

8 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Oxfam one does yes. 

 

Then it’s a fair Ian price for what it is. The Discogs prices are distorted by the fact most of the copies sold either don’t have the 7” or people are selling just the 7” (for say £15 on its own) that drags the median price way down. A good copy, played but in good condition with the 7” should be north of £60, the one for 35 on Discogs has me highly suspicious as to its double VG+ condition.

The 7” is a bit crap anyway  

[chrisp65]

I’d been racking my tiny brain to try and remember if mine had the single, but in reality I know it never did.

It’s one of ‘those’ albums, 44 years old, played pretty regular and absolutely faultless.

We used to play it over the fairground PA on bank holidays, just over and over and over again. Kurupt FM before it was a thing. Happy happy days.

[bickster]

I know mine should have it but I'll be in deep shit if I try looking now, C is behind the telly  

[bickster]

In fact, here it is.  7” single still there 

[chrisp65]

A thing of beauty, can’t beat 80’s music!

[mjmooney]

10 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

A thing of beauty, can’t beat 80’s music!

It says it all, that among all the other horrors, the only halfway decent 80s music was mostly poor copies of 60s music. 

[chrisp65]

37 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

It says it all, that among all the other horrors, the only halfway decent 80s music was mostly poor copies of 60s music. 

I wrote an absolute dissertation of a response, it included a section on the fuzzy electric guitar blues of Sister Rosetta in the 1930’s.

Then I thought, meh, people have their time and they tend to stick to it. Music is music. Buy more new stuff.

 

 

 

[mjmooney]

36 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

I wrote an absolute dissertation of a response, it included a section on the fuzzy electric guitar blues of Sister Rosetta in the 1930’s.

Then I thought, meh, people have their time and they tend to stick to it. Music is music. Buy more new stuff.

Oh, I know, I was just being mischievous and playing up to my image for effect. But there is a grain of my real feelings in there. What 'new' stuff I was buying (or at least enjoying) in the 80s, tended to be what we broadly refer to as 'power pop', or the more melodic end of punk, both British and American. Guitars, bass and drums. Three minute melodic singles in 4/4. As a lover of 60s sounds, I could relate to that, far more than the edgy, funky, angular, synthy stuff that was coming in (interestingly, XTC went in the reverse direction - I hated their early stuff, very much liked the later, esp. The Dukes, obvs). 

But has it stood the test of time? Not for me. While I might (very occasionally, it must be said) dust off a bit of Kinks, Small Faces, Who, Byrds, etc., do I feel the same nostalgia for The Jam,  The Records, The Motors, Long Ryders, Rain Parade, etc.? Not at all. It's still OK, but it just sounds ersatz. 

Had I been ten years younger, I have no doubt I would have felt differently. But as you say, people have their time. 

My time just happened to be the best.  

 

[bickster]

2 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

But as you say, people have their time. 

Not convinced by this argument tbh, as time goes on I discover more and more music from the past I like. I'd say a ggod 40% of what I bought last year was originally released in the 60s or 70s, probably about 10% from the 80s, 40% brand new and the other 10% from the rest

Bought very little from the 50s if truth be known

[chrisp65]

6 minutes ago, bickster said:

Not convinced by this argument tbh, as time goes on I discover more and more music from the past I like. I'd say a ggod 40% of what I bought last year was originally released in the 60s or 70s, probably about 10% from the 80s, 40% brand new and the other 10% from the rest

Bought very little from the 50s if truth be known

You’re different.

 

I do mean that, I think you’re in quite a small demographic that doesn’t fall in to the trap of just reminiscing about Oasis or The Tremeloes. I think most people have the music of their couple of youth years and that’s their track. They then spend their time listening to the adverts on MadForIt FM to catch a bit of The Happy Mondays and proclaim they don’t write music like that anymore. 

[mjmooney]

29 minutes ago, bickster said:

Not convinced by this argument tbh, as time goes on I discover more and more music from the past I like. I'd say a ggod 40% of what I bought last year was originally released in the 60s or 70s, probably about 10% from the 80s, 40% brand new and the other 10% from the rest

Bought very little from the 50s if truth be known

Oh, I found I could easily work back from 'my time' (for most people that's their teenage years), but forward was a bit more problematic. 

But the backwards thing is not true for everybody. I know plenty of people of my age who scoff at the thought of listening to the likes of Sinatra, Duke Ellington, Ella Fitzgerald, Hoagy Carmichael, etc. Whereas I love a great deal of that stuff. 

[chrisp65]

18 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

Oh, I know, I was just being mischievous and playing up to my image for effect. But there is a grain of my real feelings in there. What 'new' stuff I was buying (or at least enjoying) in the 80s, tended to be what we broadly refer to as 'power pop', or the more melodic end of punk, both British and American. Guitars, bass and drums. Three minute melodic singles in 4/4. As a lover of 60s sounds, I could relate to that, far more than the edgy, funky, angular, synthy stuff that was coming in (interestingly, XTC went in the reverse direction - I hated their early stuff, very much liked the later, esp. The Dukes, obvs). 

But has it stood the test of time? Not for me. While I might (very occasionally, it must be said) dust off a bit of Kinks, Small Faces, Who, Byrds, etc., do I feel the same nostalgia for The Jam,  The Records, The Motors, Long Ryders, Rain Parade, etc.? Not at all. It's still OK, but it just sounds ersatz. 

Had I been ten years younger, I have no doubt I would have felt differently. But as you say, people have their time. 

My time just happened to be the best.  

 

People listen in different ways and want different things out of the experience.

My partner puts music on because she doesn’t like doing the washing up in silence, it doesn’t need to be ‘old’ music, but it is what I would humbly suggest is just generic music, Coldplay and Adele, once it would have been Enya, before that it was Fleetwood Mac and The Eagles. Stuff you don’t really have to listen to if you don’t want to. Stuff that doesn’t suffer from a little competition from the tumble dryer.

I listen to The Jam still. Less so than before, but still in the easily accessible racks. It is clearly and obviously better than the vast majority of 60’s stuff because the vast majority of 60’s stuff was generic bands jumping on a bandwagon and they’d have been just as happy playing skiffle or light music if that was popular wiv da yoof. Very few bands meant it in any artistic way. The vast majority of music produced in the 60’s was dross. Competent, yes. Innovative? Saying something others weren’t saying? Not to my ear, from my point in time. Same point goes for every decade. I don’t know some of those bands you’ve quoted, they passed me by, but The Jam were different sauce. That they drew influence from 60’s bands that had drawn influence from earlier music that had also drawn influence from even earlier music, not bothered. It just proves you should keep listening to new stuff and enjoying the old stuff.

There is no point in trying to work out if Eddie Cochran was more or less important than Howlin Wolf or David Bowie or Ian Brown. 

 

[mjmooney]

6 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

the vast majority of 60’s stuff was generic bands jumping on a bandwagon and they’d have been just as happy playing skiffle or light music if that was popular wiv da yoof. Very few bands meant it in any artistic way. The vast majority of music produced in the 60’s was dross. Competent, yes. Innovative? Saying something others weren’t saying? Not to my ear, from my point in time.

Other than the truism that the vast majority of music produced in any era is dross, I could not disagree more. But it would take too long a post than I can be arsed with at the moment. 

[chrisp65]

Excellent! By random chance, this was in the post when I got home, now I can blag like a pro far more knowledge than I genuinely have.

Print copy fanzine with stickers and badges, bloody hell, it’s 1982, but less pritt-stick n scissors.

 

[villa4europe]

8 hours ago, bickster said:

Not convinced by this argument tbh, as time goes on I discover more and more music from the past I like. I'd say a ggod 40% of what I bought last year was originally released in the 60s or 70s, probably about 10% from the 80s, 40% brand new and the other 10% from the rest

Bought very little from the 50s if truth be known

Personally going back to find "new" music is way more fun than trying to find actual new music, it's more of an adventure trying to find say a Bowie or a kinks album track or b side I've never heard before rather than the next big new hyped band 

Don't really touch the 50s though, that's too far for me 

[Xann]

Is this the 50s album with the most takers here?

[bickster]

2 minutes ago, Xann said:

Is this the 50s album with the most takers here?

For me right now it would be Brilliant Corners but KoB would be on the list too and I though Giant Steps might have crept in but that was early 60

[mjmooney]

44 minutes ago, Xann said:

Is this the 50s album with the most takers here?

It IS the classic gateway drug to jazz.