Patistuta New Member Posts:16  
| 12/14/2005 12:11 PM |
|
|
Cheers Karl. Any more podcasts in the pipeline?
|
|
|
|
karlvinNew Member Posts:97
| 12/14/2005 6:10 PM |
|
|
Yeah , will be back on track after xmas , so will be in touch , will revamp the whole website too.
|
|
|
|
Late ManNew Member Posts:14
| 12/14/2005 7:58 PM |
|
|
Ah in fainess the programme should mever be on tv in the first place. Wouldnt it be better if they showed a programme that wasn't just a karaoke competition?? or maybe everyone is happy to watch a couple of red head children embarrass the whole country??
|
|
|
|
Binokular Veteran Member Posts:1665
| 12/15/2005 12:17 AM |
|
quote:
Originally posted by Unicron
Whatever happened to Dave's Radio?
I nicked it, Dave wants it back.. 
Is it just me or does anyone else get the feeling it's only matter of time before Your a Star is recognised as an official GAA sport? |
|
|
|
UnicronVeteran Member Posts:1696
| 12/15/2005 1:13 PM |
|
|
Nope, the contestants of you're a star at least know what I microphone is for and for that reason will never scream A CHÁIRDE into it when adressing the audience.
|
|
|
|
PatistutaNew Member Posts:16
| 12/18/2005 11:45 AM |
|
|
Tonight - vote!
|
|
|
|
GarVeteran Member Posts:1676
| 12/18/2005 9:00 PM |
|
|
Despite my sceptisim of watching the programme in the first place (think it was aided by the misery of the Arsenal match) and listening to two crap judges, I thought The Shakes were actually alright. They were far better than the other two bands up for a spot to go through. I doubt a band will last long in a competition like this, as it is a popularity/what sells contest. Nonetheless, The Shakes are worth a listen.
Taking nothing away from the ambition of The Shakes, as I know they want the recording contract from it, but I think I prefer if a band makes it (in terms of getting the cash, time & backing to make the album they are capable of) by struggling through on their own first. I know the band in question have played Dorans loads of times but I don't particulary like the whole competition aspect of a band gaining popularity. I suppose this could revert back to other competitions such as Mercury, in that musicians suddenly get a whole new lease of life due to their win or nomination (Anthony & The Johnsons). What I'm trying to say is that, I much prefer a musician making their way into our collections, ipods, music players etc through hard work and talent rather than under the flash image of 'Mercury nominated artist ............... new album is explosive' says NME. It almost elevates the judges opinion higher than that of the music critics/journalists. Does that make sense?
|
|
|
|
Pilchard Advanced Member Posts:699
| 12/18/2005 9:39 PM |
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gar
Despite my sceptisim of watching the programme in the first place (think it was aided by the misery of the Arsenal match) and listening to two crap judges, I thought The Shakes were actually alright. They were far better than the other two bands up for a spot to go through. I doubt a band will last long in a competition like this, as it is a popularity/what sells contest. Nonetheless, The Shakes are worth a listen.
Taking nothing away from the ambition of The Shakes, as I know they want the recording contract from it, but I think I prefer if a band makes it (in terms of getting the cash, time & backing to make the album they are capable of) by struggling through on their own first. I know the band in question have played Dorans loads of times but I don't particulary like the whole competition aspect of a band gaining popularity. I suppose this could revert back to other competitions such as Mercury, in that musicians suddenly get a whole new lease of life due to their win or nomination (Anthony & The Johnsons). What I'm trying to say is that, I much prefer a musician making their way into our collections, ipods, music players etc through hard work and talent rather than under the flash image of 'Mercury nominated artist ............... new album is explosive' says NME. It almost elevates the judges opinion higher than that of the music critics/journalists. Does that make sense?
yes and no, i would never take any act who emerged from You're A Star seriously. Its a TV entertainment show, where the people behind the format want big audiences to ensure loads of text votes and thus large amounts of cash. the most popular act wins which, if you're a music fan, means westlife rather than arcade fire (witness westlife winning record of the year thanks to their ability to get their fans to text in votes rather than on any musical merit)
however i wouldnt lump the Mercury in with You're A star/X Factor because firstly there are different criteria (albums rather than brand new acts) and secondly, it often throws up weird choices. this year, the amount of people i've met who have talked about antony & the johnsons as a result of him and them winning the Prize is staggering. it proves that, once in a while, an act can really benefit from the publicity and discussion surrounding such a prize.
gar, you might think there's little difference btwYou're A Star and the Mercury but try to imagine Antony progressing behind been laughed at brendan oconnor or that turnip linda martin on You're A Star (and conversely, some of the karaoke kings and queens who have triumphed on You're A Star turning up on the Mercury list) and you'll see you are comparing chalk and cheese. |
|
|
|
GarVeteran Member Posts:1676
| 12/18/2005 10:10 PM |
|
|
I didn't mean to compare 'You're A Star' with 'Mercury Prize', I was trying to highlight the fact that the majority of these competitions have a tacky stench from them. You mentioned that many people have talked to you about Anthony & The Johnsons since they won the Mercury Prize, so doesn't that mean that that particular act weren't judged to be as credible or good until a panel of judges said so? It just seems that so many people wait for the approval of a higher power (judges, radio dj's etc) to make up their mind about how good or bad a musician actually is.
What I'm trying to address is the power that is given to the judges of these competitions. If Linda Martin declares that a metal band is the best she has ever heard, does that mean that that band are just amazingly good? Thousands seem to think so and will vote because of that judge's so-called 'professional' recommendation (this isn't a cheap swipe at Linda Martin by the way). The judges of music competitions have this power to inform the greater public of what is and isn't good music. But who are these judges to which the public entrust their tastebuds? Does Sharon Osborn qualify as someone who knows more about spotting talent than a regular A&R man? Does the Mercury Prize panel tell us that Anthony & The Johnsons are the best of the year because they are slightly off-kilter or haven't received as much exposure as the other contenders? Why is there a dependency on these judges to tell us what we should buy and listen to? Has the public's buying habits whittled down to selecting only nominated music?
|
|
|
|
UnaVeteran Member Posts:1721
| 12/18/2005 10:53 PM |
|
|
let's face it, a 'rock' outfit going on a TV talent show is one of the most uncool things they could do.
"Has the public's buying habits whittled down to selecting only nominated music?" - only those who are dumb enough not to be able to define their own taste.
|
|
|
|
PilchardAdvanced Member Posts:699
| 12/19/2005 12:15 AM |
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gar
I didn't mean to compare 'You're A Star' with 'Mercury Prize', I was trying to highlight the fact that the majority of these competitions have a tacky stench from them. You mentioned that many people have talked to you about Anthony & The Johnsons since they won the Mercury Prize, so doesn't that mean that that particular act weren't judged to be as credible or good until a panel of judges said so? It just seems that so many people wait for the approval of a higher power (judges, radio dj's etc) to make up their mind about how good or bad a musician actually is.
no, no, gar, thats not what i meant at all. Many people i know - some big-ish music fans, some 5-albums-a-year - heard FIRST OF ALL about A&TJs after he/they won the Mercury Prize. It was the Prize which put them on the map - thus proving the whole point of a Prize like the Mercurys that it helps to highlight albums which would not otherwise be highlighted.
its not about credibility or anything like that - its about PROFILE. u mentione arlier about acts getting onto your IPod/ITunes without big hype etc (i'm paraphrasing here). But in order to do so, there needs to be a recommendation system. Look at any P2P system and a similar selective process is in use. The Mercurys are a bigger, more profile version of this recommendation system - though anyone who bought Roni Size's album on the back of the Mercury Prize win may be still looking for a refund
quote:
Originally posted by Gar
What I'm trying to address is the pwer that is given to the judges of these competitions. If Linda Martin declares that a metal band is the best she has ever heard, does that mean that that band are just amazingly good? Thousands seem to think so and will vote because of that judge's so-called 'professional' recommendation (this isn't a cheap swipe at Linda Martin by the way). The judges of music competitions have this power to inform the greater public of what is and isn't good music. But who are these judges to which the public entrust their tastebuds? Does Sharon Osborn qualify as someone who knows more about spotting talent than a regular A&R man? Does the Mercury Prize panel tell us that Anthony & The Johnsons are the best of the year because they are slightly off-kilter or haven't received as much exposure as the other contenders? Why is there a dependency on these judges to tell us what we should buy and listen to? Has the public's buying habits whittled down to selecting only nominated music?
as i said before and at the risk of repeating myself, shows like You're A Star and X Factor are in the business of ENTERTAINMENT first and foremost. they're put together by TV executives with the aim of having huge audiences which then provide loads of money via text polls etc. They have NOTHING to do with music and talent-spotting bar as a suitable vehicle (ie we need something here, hey what about would-be singers...).
The Mercury Prize is about the MUSIC first and foremost. All the acts have already made albums; played gigs; attained a certain level of awareness; have a certain profile (sometimes high, sometimes niche, but always there). The Mercury nomination and win lifts them up because people hear about them, like the songs and go buy the album/go to the gigs.
OK, you might think, no real discernable difference - both types exist to find new music and sell it on. But go back to the root of each show and you'll find the difference - You're A Star/X Factor would be about finding the next big thing in sausage making or acting or car-racing but the Mercurys need the music and the albums. One is formatted to the nth degree; the other comes up with winners which are unpredictable and far from commercial.
The "power" given to judges like Linda Martin etc? Its only "power" in a TV sense. Same with the Mercurys cast of music writers etc - you can take it or leave it. Sure, some people will take it and discover either startling music or music which startles them.
Sharon Osbourne - before she turned into a reality TV star, shazza spend decades working as a manager with all manner of bands and knows as much (if not more) than many indie A&R people about how the industry works and how stars are created
"why is there a dependency on these judges to tell us what we should buy and listen to?" - there is only a dependancy when we allow it to be so. i'll always be interested in the Mercury winners and nominations because they have proven over 10-15 years that they have a keen ear and can produce some oddball, unexpected winners (as well as the best candidates like franz ferdinand or badly drawn boy). In the case of You're A Star, their sorry cast of winners tells its tale about dependancy, consistency and reliability
"Has the public's buying habits whittled down to selecting only nominated music?" - no, it hasnt. Look at the way the public has quickly turned against such Irish pop-TV "winners" as mickey harte, simon casey, those eejits from athlone, six etc. the public gets what the public wants and theres enough diversity for that to mean westlife or arcade fire or celtic woman or jape.
|
|
|
|
PatistutaNew Member Posts:16
| 12/19/2005 12:21 AM |
|
|
Thanks to anyone who voted. To be honest I thought we sounded awful on the show and it wasn't a good representation of what we sound like. Good luck to the rest of them. Shakes still rule!
|
|
|
|
aidanAdvanced Member Posts:638
| 12/19/2005 12:48 PM |
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pilchard
as i said before and at the risk of repeating myself, shows like You're A Star and X Factor are in the business of ENTERTAINMENT first and foremost. they're put together by TV executives with the aim of having huge audiences which then provide loads of money via text polls etc. They have NOTHING to do with music and talent-spotting bar as a suitable vehicle (ie we need something here, hey what about would-be singers...).
The Mercury Prize is about the MUSIC first and foremost. All the acts have already made albums; played gigs; attained a certain level of awareness; have a certain profile (sometimes high, sometimes niche, but always there). The Mercury nomination and win lifts them up because people hear about them, like the songs and go buy the album/go to the gigs.
OK, you might think, no real discernable difference - both types exist to find new music and sell it on. But go back to the root of each show and you'll find the difference - You're A Star/X Factor would be about finding the next big thing in sausage making or acting or car-racing but the Mercurys need the music and the albums. One is formatted to the nth degree; the other comes up with winners which are unpredictable and far from commercial.
separating 'music' from 'entertainment' (and 'entertainment' from 'music') is how we've ended up at the sorry stage of:
1. glorified buskers from your friend's bedsit party being stars (all 'music' and no 'entertainment')
2. glorified karaoke singers from your cousin's wedding reception being stars (all 'entertainment' and no 'music')
thankfully, there are plenty of acts out there who believe that (to quote an example) 'you can't have one without the other'.
why believe that music-making (be it arcade fire or sugababes) is any different or more noble than sausage-making (to take that random example)? - in both cases we should just concentrate on enjoying the product and not think about how the product is made 
|
|
|
|
| 12/19/2005 2:41 PM |
|
|
"why believe that music-making (be it arcade fire or sugababes) is any different or more noble than sausage-making"
I love sausage makers. Changed my life man
|
|
|
|
PilchardAdvanced Member Posts:699
| 12/19/2005 3:50 PM |
|
quote:
Originally posted by seanc
"why believe that music-making (be it arcade fire or sugababes) is any different or more noble than sausage-making"
I love sausage makers. Changed my life man
i love superquinn sausages but will make do with gold medal ones if i'm stuck. |
|
|
|
UnicronVeteran Member Posts:1696
| 12/19/2005 6:57 PM |
|
|
Ah superquinn sausages, a rare commodity round our way now that Aldi opened up near us and I can't justify going in there just for sausages.
But a sausage never set my heart alight and lifted my mood completely in the course of 3 mintues. Then again, I've never been a starving Ethiopian.
|
|
|
|
UnicronVeteran Member Posts:1696
| 12/19/2005 6:58 PM |
|
quote:
Originally posted by Una
let's face it, a 'rock' outfit going on a TV talent show is one of the most uncool things they could do.
f**k cool or uncool, if the Shakes can square being in You're a Star with themselves it shouldn't matter what anyone else thinks. If you start compromising what you want to do becasue you think other's will think less of you then you're never going to do anything good becasue you won't really believe in it. |
|
|
|
| 1/20/2006 1:09 PM |
|
quote:
Originally posted by Unicron
Whatever happened to Dave's Radio?
Dave's Radio are alive and well. They are signed with Polydor UK, and have recorded 2 singles with Steve Osborne in Bath. They play tonight in Radio City (Isaac Butts), and Whelans on 27-Jan & 7-Feb.
Official releases are iminent. |
|
|
|