(no subject)

[cheekbones3]

After observing the generally dismal performance in quiz music rounds of younger participants, I'm wondering if they are just struggling due to a lack of general musical knowledge (as I did on occasion at that age, although nowhere near that much), or whether the explosion in sources of musical broadcasts, and the one-dimensional nature of many of these sources is meaning that a lot of people are now illiterate to most music outside their own sphere of interest. Conversely, this may always have been the case, but I point to such programmes as "Pick of the Pops" which used to expose me to a lot of older music when I listened to Radio 1 constantly during the eighties, which now has fallen victim to an almost exclusively contemporary playlist, and resides on Radio 2.

(Please bear in mind, this is my usual back-of-envelope thinking, and coherence may only come after I see some results coming in, or at least how uninformative my options are)

And so, a poll!:


[Poll #598249]

Comments

[skx.livejournal.com]

Strangely enough this was a recent topic of conversation amongst some friends.

One idea which was suggested is that there were "fewer" musical artists around in the "olden days" so many tracks had were played more often (over weeks), and were from established bands.

I'm not sure this holds since there were certainly enough one-hit-wonders around in the 80s 90s. But nowadays it is rare that I hear the same song more than once or twice. If it is new it is promoted repeatedly then fades away.

Most of the current radio stations seem to only play the "hit of the day". Next week they're onto something new - so you never really learn to recognise or remember them.

(Of course it doesn't help that so many bands these days are formuliac and identically skinny/inoffensive... Makes one group sound much like another.)

I'm not sure I agree fully, but it was one perspective I remember being raised. I think there is certainly a big difference in listening to tunes on radios now, the DJs seem to give you less trivia - it is either adverts, news, or the next track - no discussion about what they've just played, or about to play. That kind of thing has got to cut down on general music-trivia that people take up.

[cheekbones3.livejournal.com]

Aye that's definitely something I've noticed - the lack of knowledge of the DJs - they usually just babble on about shite, the after-effect of the Simon Mayo/Chris Evans induced fashion of talking to anyone in the studio about crap I suppose, although this can be dragged back further to Steve Wright to a point I suppose. Personailty counts, so this becomes the focus of everything, to the detriment of the DJs, the music they play, and the breadth of knowledge of the listener. Maybe!

[yodd.livejournal.com]

Although in fairness - I listen mostly to Real Radio and they mix the music up pretty well and sometimes even talk about it, possibly due to them having older DJs. I've even learned a thing or two from listening to them talk about what they've just played or are about to play.

[cheekbones3.livejournal.com]

Aye that station's not too bad I suppose, although I would criticise it for not having enough imagination in the playlists.

[yodd.livejournal.com]

True, but sometimes familiarity over imagination pulls in the extra listeners!

[cheekbones3.livejournal.com]

No doubt :)

[deililly.livejournal.com]

I think there is certainly a big difference in listening to tunes on radios now, the DJs seem to give you less trivia - it is either adverts, news, or the next track - no discussion about what they've just played, or about to play. That kind of thing has got to cut down on general music-trivia that people take up.

Yes I think you are right. If I have an interest in something I heard I have to hit the internet rather than be able to find out on the radio or tv or whatever. Which probably does lead to more specialisation rather than a general knowledge of music these days.

[cheekbones3.livejournal.com]

Also, you mentioned local clubs as a childhood influence - did you ahve extremely liberal parents/bouncers?! :P

[skx.livejournal.com]

I took childhood to last longer ... 8-18ish.

Before age 8 I think I just listened to whatever was on the radio with no real care, and maybe the odd record my mom would play.

After that I started taking an interest myself.

[cheekbones3.livejournal.com]

Ah fair enough!

[xquiq.livejournal.com]

It's definitely true that music used to linger in the charts for longer: singles would appear, move up the chart and then slowly make their way back down the chart in the 1980s. Nowadays one would generally expect a single to peak at whatever number it enters the chart at.

I also believe that there was less repitition on the radio, as DJs had more freedom with their playlists than they have nowadays.

[cheekbones3.livejournal.com]

From what I can tell, singles in the last few years have had a much shorter time at the top of the charts, but they linger in the lower numbers, so while they peak immediately usually, (James Blunt a notable exception this year), the overall chart record often remains similar for the biggest hits. Basically, most songs get four weeks of airplay before they are released, whereas this would be their chart-climbing period in the past, so that month of sales is condensed into the first week of sales, so there are a lot of spectacularly high entries with virtually no follow-up sales.

The introduction of the download charts into sales totals has partially restored the charts in some ways - the biggest hits and most popular songs are lingering for a long time in the charts now, more like they used to do (Bodyrockers have now clocked up something like twenty weeks at least for example), and there are a few songs climbing again. Lets hope this trend continues. I think it may well do while the current fashion for singer/songwriters continues, attracting a maturer set of single-buyers.