Jump to content

BBC Sound of 2011


Rory
 Share

Recommended Posts

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-12112638

  1. Jessie J - watch session & interview
  2. James Blake - watch session & interview
  3. The Vaccines - watch session & interview
  4. Jamie Woon - watch session & interview
  5. Clare Maguire - watch session & interview

Opinions on this rather ignorable annual list?

 

The only inclusion worth tuning in to is James Blake, otherwise I don't expect the other four acts to dazzle this year. I recall seeing Jessie J on Jools Holland a few months back and, while she wasn't bad, I can't remember a thing about her performance.

 

My pick for this year is Kid Zoo, if anyone's interested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yuck are fantastic, saw them at Reading last year and they were very good indeed. When the summer comes around and they have a few more songs available they will be bigger than Jessie J (who's been around for ages anyway, that 'Do It Like A Dude' song was in clubs in June/July).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And there we have it.

 

To debate the usefulness of this is to debate the point of reviewing music at all.

 

Agreed. Let's go....

 

This is entirely different to most reviews as the BBC is, whether you like it or not, the major source of most people's music exposure. So, this says to me; 'you will be listening to this for the next year regardless of what you think, because enough people will keep listening to our stations even if they think it's ****e'.

 

Most music reviews are quite pointless as far as I'm concerned. Unless somebody has the same taste as you what are you going to get from it? - I get better, more widespread ideas listening to people on here and other forums. I don't listen nessesary to what they think but I'll listen to something new and decide if I like it.

 

Another point; I saw gorillaz at glastonbury last year, the crowd were less than over excited, I and everybody that I was with and spoke to (we're talking about upwards of 30 people) about the show said it was poor to medium at best not really covered up by the queue of guests sidestage to come on. I then return to see headlines like "Glastonbury witness Gorillaz form into higher beings". My arse.

 

I don't like the media, it's full of ****.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we're dealing with two things that should be distinct but are often conflated. Music reviewing at its best can help you to discover things you haven't heard and, for those who care about that sort of thing, can provoke thought and debate about tunes and artists in a wider context. I'm thinking about a publication like the Wire magazine, where the music reviewed is the stuff they find genuinely exciting or interesting and which they take a stab at describing in terms of feelings, social and musical context, lineage, success of vision. Good music reviewing takes music seriously and writes honestly and seriously about it. Admittedly not everyone wants to read that sort of thing but some of us do because it takes us in new directions or prompts us to think in different ways about music we already know, which is half the fun again.

 

The above, I'd contend, is not music reviewing at all. It is purely and simply a facet of the record industry hype machine. Certain record companies have decided to push these artists this year. Therefore you will see them on the telly, you will hear them on the radio, and they will (at worst) be moderately successful because that amount of exposure pretty much guarantees it.

 

Unfortunately a lot that purports to be music review is very thinly veiled recycling of this type of hype. Two reviews in different places will contain strikingly similar quotes and facts gleaned from the same press releases, and any genuine thought or opinion is reduced to a *****y pay-off line and a mark out of ten. That is worthless music reviewing, but it's unfortunately the majority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we're dealing with two things that should be distinct but are often conflated. Music reviewing at its best can help you to discover things you haven't heard and, for those who care about that sort of thing, can provoke thought and debate about tunes and artists in a wider context. I'm thinking about a publication like the Wire magazine, where the music reviewed is the stuff they find genuinely exciting or interesting and which they take a stab at describing in terms of feelings, social and musical context, lineage, success of vision. Good music reviewing takes music seriously and writes honestly and seriously about it. Admittedly not everyone wants to read that sort of thing but some of us do because it takes us in new directions or prompts us to think in different ways about music we already know, which is half the fun again.

 

The above, I'd contend, is not music reviewing at all. It is purely and simply a facet of the record industry hype machine. Certain record companies have decided to push these artists this year. Therefore you will see them on the telly, you will hear them on the radio, and they will (at worst) be moderately successful because that amount of exposure pretty much guarantees it.

 

Unfortunately a lot that purports to be music review is very thinly veiled recycling of this type of hype. Two reviews in different places will contain strikingly similar quotes and facts gleaned from the same press releases, and any genuine thought or opinion is reduced to a *****y pay-off line and a mark out of ten. That is worthless music reviewing, but it's unfortunately the majority.

 

Hmm, the similarity to our bit of fun is evident in there. Are you bitter that you're averaging 5? ;)

 

Essentially, we agree. Granted there are exceptions, but the mainstream media are so desperate to appear modern that they'll bend over to any record company or reviewer attached that says 'this will be big'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, the similarity to our bit of fun is evident in there. Are you bitter that you're averaging 5? ;)

 

Essentially, we agree. Granted there are exceptions, but the mainstream media are so desperate to appear modern that they'll bend over to any record company or reviewer attached that says 'this will be big'.

 

I've humbly taken on board the criticism I've received. My next mix will be all comedy punk and quotes from Caddyshack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed. Let's go....

 

This is entirely different to most reviews as the BBC is, whether you like it or not, the major source of most people's music exposure. So, this says to me; 'you will be listening to this for the next year regardless of what you think, because enough people will keep listening to our stations even if they think it's ****e'.

 

Most music reviews are quite pointless as far as I'm concerned. Unless somebody has the same taste as you what are you going to get from it? - I get better, more widespread ideas listening to people on here and other forums. I don't listen nessesary to what they think but I'll listen to something new and decide if I like it.

 

Another point; I saw gorillaz at glastonbury last year, the crowd were less than over excited, I and everybody that I was with and spoke to (we're talking about upwards of 30 people) about the show said it was poor to medium at best not really covered up by the queue of guests sidestage to come on. I then return to see headlines like "Glastonbury witness Gorillaz form into higher beings". My arse.

 

I don't like the media, it's full of ****.

 

I too was there for that Gorillaz set and didn't stay till the end, dreadful set. I could easily have reviwed that with one word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...