That's a cohesive and totally depressing argument. Basically what you seem to be saying is that 4Music, in its single-minded quest for money, has reverted to lowest-common denominator broadcasting and "silly writing". Well, I'd have to agree with that.

However, elsewhere on Channel 4 we see things like Channel 4 News, which takes up an hour of prime-time TV on weekday nights. If you watch it, you'll see that the advert breaks are obviously simply a time for viewers to fetch a coke from the fridge, presenters to scratch itches and pick their noses, and C4 to show a couple of trailers. There are rarely more than one or two proper adverts - it's emphatically not a commercial proposition for the channel. So if Channel 4 makes a loss in one department in order to produce what remains the highest-quality, most crucial news programme on British (perhaps world) television, why can't it extend that same courtesy to its music/arts coverage?

You'd have thought with endless re-runs of 'Friends', 'The Simpsons', 'Desperate Housewives' and all the other no-brain American shows which seem to have swamped the channel, there'd be enough income to take a few bold steps like these.

You can't complain about the BBC music coverage either - Jools Holland's guestlist on his regular show has grown much more mainstream but the acts are still far more leftfield than anything shown on 4Music. Added to this there are intelligent, insightful documentaries all the time on musical subjects (recently: Joe Meek, Brian Epstein, Hawkwind, Folk Britannica, Soul Britannica, Once Upon A Time In New York, etc.) Channel 4 simply doesn't measure up, and if there are music documentaries, they're likely to be presented by Jimmy Carr and called things like "The 50 Most Sexy Women In Pop" and have Keith Harris & Orville interviewed about the Cheeky Girls.

I look forward to the upcoming season of programmes celebrating 25 years of Channel 4 and hope there's a show about the channel's music coverage so people can have a look and see how much better it used to be and to what depths it has fallen.

quote:

Originally posted by Esmé:
That's a cohesive and totally depressing argument. Basically what you seem to be saying is that 4Music, in its single-minded quest for money, has reverted to lowest-common denominator broadcasting and "silly writing". Well, I'd have to agree with that.

But what you don't seem to be getting is it's lowest-common denominator to you. Not me. I like it. I like silly pop writing. Loved Smash Hits. Think that's a good thing there's a website doing that. Do you see what I'm saying? You're arguing that it should be leftfield. I'm not. I'm fine with it. If it was leftfield and serious I wouldn't look at it. It wouldn't interest me.

What I meant by the BBC comment is that as a public service broadcaster, answerable to the license payer, there should be a show catering for my (and the majority of the music buying public's) tastes - what's in the charts. And there isn't anymore. So they're failing in their remit. Jools has some good stuff on it, I wouldn't knock that show. But just as you complain C4 doesn't cater to your leftfield tastes, I could complain that the BBC don't cater to my mainstream tastes (not that I would, it was just an example, I don't expect TV channels to provide for me anymore - those days are gone.)

It's a little naive of you to say "single-minded quest for money". What else should a commercial company's quest be for? Should they lose money so that a few people on a forum stop moaning? Doesn't sound like good business sense to me. But market forces dictate everything. If people don't click on interviews with top ten bands talking about vomitting (or whatever) then they'll quickly replace it with something else. At the moment they don't seem to be, so it must be working. So maybe your argument shouldn't be with the channel or 4Music but with the majority of the viewers and website users - because if more people watched or clicked on the leftfield stuff you can guarantee it'd be "Leftfield Month" every month at Channel4!

Everyone always brings up John Peel in such discussions but he was completely unique and, also, didn't need to make any money or attract advertisers to his show. And he liked a lot of really horrible music that the majority of the music buying public would hate!

4Music clearly caters for people who enjoy popular music written about in a silly way. If you don't then I guess it isn't for you. And to complain about that would be like me hanging around Playlouder's forums demanding they feature more Girls Aloud.

quote:

Originally posted by Esmé:

You can't complain about the BBC music coverage either - Jools Holland's guestlist on his regular show has grown much more mainstream but the acts are still far more leftfield than anything shown on 4Music. Added to this there are intelligent, insightful documentaries all the time on musical subjects (recently: Joe Meek, Brian Epstein, Hawkwind, Folk Britannica, Soul Britannica, Once Upon A Time In New York, etc.) Channel 4 simply doesn't measure up, and if there are music documentaries, they're likely to be presented by Jimmy Carr and called things like "The 50 Most Sexy Women In Pop" and have Keith Harris & Orville interviewed about the Cheeky Girls.

Just wanted to clarify, I'm just talking about the website. I don't watch much C4 TV because I agree, it's mostly rubbish. But that's how I vote - by not watching. I'll get what I want somewhere else. But if the majority of people are happy with what C4 are offering then I can't expect them to change, just as I wouldn't expect Heinz to change their Baked Beans just because I think they're too salty!

^But Heinz have listened to their minority customers and now offer a reduced salt version!

quote:

Originally posted by Esmé:
^But Heinz have listened to their minority customers and now offer a reduced salt version!

True. I don't like that either!

quote:

Originally posted by smokefairie:
Everyone always brings up John Peel in such discussions but he was completely unique and, also, didn't need to make any money or attract advertisers to his show. And he liked a lot of really horrible music that the majority of the music buying public would hate!

That's true, but he also had the largest proportion of under-15s listening to his show than any other show on Radio One, and therefore, in the country. Think about that... it appears to be 4Music's current demographic after all - I think they're underestimating their audience and should educate as well as entertain.

I don't differentiate between the TV and internet department of Channel 4; with leaps in technology the two media are going to become increasingly like each other anyway, until they become the same thing. And yes, Channel 4 is a commercial entity - but it also has a remit of public service obligations which must be fulfilled, and these were defined by Ofcom in 2003 as "the provision of a broad range of high quality and diverse programming which, in particular 1) demonstrates innovation, experiment and creativity in the form and content of programmes; 2) appeals to the tastes and interests of a culturally diverse society; and 3) exhibits a distinctive character."

That's not happening!

quote:

Originally posted by Esmé:


I think they're underestimating their audience and should educate as well as entertain.

John Peel's audience died with John Peel. People listened to that show because of him. I know I did. Couldn't stand 99% of the racket he played.

I'm assuming, since it's the internet, they can tell exactly how many people view a page, how long they stay on it, how many people come back. So I guess they're not underestimating them - they're giving them what's popular, which is a different thing.

quote:

Channel 4 is a commercial entity - but it also has a remit of public service obligations which must be fulfilled.

That's not happening!

Yeah, but what are you gonna do? As I said before, the BBC doesn't fulfill its obligations either and we pay for that!
Such agreements are just lip service to an idea that's dead. Sad or not, it's true.
But us clever internet kids needn't worry about it because we can get all we need elsewhere (and download the few good shows still on).
People here talk of The Tube with nostalgia, but I remember Paula trying to shag stadium rocker Michael Hutchence on it. Sounds no different to T4. Music TV has never been able to get it right because there'll always be someone moaning that they're not covering enough Hungarian Nose Flute players. And when they do they get a barrage of complaints asking why Will Young wasn't on.

I don't got to 4Music to be educated, I go to have a laugh at James Blunt being forced to answer questions he clearly hates and to read Mutya floundering as she trys to answer questions about life, the universe and everything. I'm satisfied. I go elsewhere if I want to know what's going on in the world of weird unpopular music. Because that's the wonderful democracy of the internet.

quote:

Originally posted by smokefairie:
John Peel's audience died with John Peel. People listened to that show because of him. I know I did. Couldn't stand 99% of the racket he played.

That's ridiculous. I met Peel on two occasions, one of which I had the chance to go out for a meal with him and we talked at some length (mainly about Shirley Collins) - yeah, he was a lovely, lovely guy, and that was some of the reason he was popular, maybe 5% of it, but it was his choices of music and the fun he brought to what was basically a full-on musical education (which no-one else was offering) that were the reasons people kept listening. To say you listened to Peel despite the music is horrific and goes with the whole notion of vacuous celebrity which is writ large all over the 4Music website. It's the ultimate statement of fakedom - it's buying into the whole Dave Lee Travis DJ-as-aspirational-figure thing which Peel despised so much.

And yeah, Paula tried it on with Hutchence on our screens (I thought that was on the Big Breakfast, but it may well have been The Tube also). The Tube didn't shy away from the disposable pop, as well it shouldn't have, but also it wasn't scared of covering the more challenging stuff. I remember watching Frankie Goes To Hollywood swiftly followed by a frankly insane (and rather wonderful) appearance from a demented, gargling witch-hag with her head sticking out of a hole halfway up the studio wall (I later learned it was Diamanda Galas, who I've grown to love. At the time I thought it was bonkers - and it was).

So, keep interviewing the James Blunts and Paul Pottseses of the world, by all means, but leave the back door ajar for Bonnie Prince Billy and Von Sudenfed while you're at it.

Weird unpopular music forever!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Esmé:
Weird unpopular music forever!!!

Absolutely!

Couldn't agree more. What a wonderful pair you two are.

quote:

Originally posted by CousinTeresa:

quote:

Originally posted by Esmé:
Weird unpopular music forever!!!

Absolutely!

Just as I thought. You like weird music because it's unpopular - makes you cool, huh?

^Not half as cool as you, dear.

At least Freshly Squeezed is back on, even if it is hidden away at 7 in the morning.

I don't get this at all. There are loads of undiscovered gems covered on 4Music along with all the usual popular ones. You're not always going to like every musician who's covered on the website, but I doubt if you opened any music magazine or watched any music TV show, you'd love all the artists.

It's a shame about posts disappearing though. But I guess that's somthing that happens with every website. Especially one that's linked to a major corporation.

^Hi jasmann (not the same Jas Mann who was going to save music in the early 90s...?)

I think the major beef with 4Music, and it's something the 4Music Editor has admitted, is that they cover a relatively narrow cross-section of music, and they do it in a very shallow way. As he said himself, it's mainstream pop in a Smash Hits style.

Also, posts disappearing certianly isn't something that happens on every website. People are understandably narked when their words go missing or get re-arranged. It seems the moderators think we have very fragile constitutions, and there's some hypocrisy at work: to use these boards you have to be over 15; however, you're not allowed to swear, or even use asterisks, which I think is totally stup*d.

The only times posts should be removed is if there's gross sexist/racist/homophobic language or if it breaks UK law (for instance, libellous posts).

The 'Unsigned' section of 4Music is one of its few good points, but even this is very conservative and safe, and tends to dwell much too heavily on 'white boys with guitars'.

Good to have you here, anyway. Bring some of your friends along (but only if they're into Aphex Twin).

quote:

Originally posted by CousinTeresa:

quote:

Originally posted by Esmé:
Weird unpopular music forever!!!

Absolutely!

CousinTeresa, I don't know what you think of Gary Numan but if you like 'weird music' then try listening to some of his records. I don't mean 'Cars' or 'Are Friends Electric', I mean some of his lesser known songs which are just as great but NEVER get heard these days. Some of my favourite tracks he's done are Down In The Park, This Wreckage, M.E. (which Basement Jaxx sampled on Where's your head at), Remind Me To Smile, We Are Glass, I Die You Die.
Also listen to Night Boat by Duran Duran. It sounds absolutely nothing like most of their other records, very eerie sounding.

^We do like a bit of Numan, actually. There was a couple of weeks last year when we played nothing but the LP of "Replicas" we found at a Help The Aged bric-a-brac emporium.

And we've always had a soft spot for early Duran Duran too - their first three albums sit in the 80s corner of the flat along with various masterworks by A-ha, Eurythmics and Bronski Beat. Guilty pleasures indeed.

I feel I must contribute to this thread, but I feel a bit lazy today, so I'll make do with-

moan, moan, complain, whinge, rant, whinge.

there, that'll do.

Good to meet you Cousin Teresa,

(I wish I was the same Jas Mann. I heard a vicious rumor that The Zoo - i must stop calling them that - were reforming. It turned out to be just that; a vicious rumour. Oh well.)

This forum seems like fun. I don't usually go on them as I'm a bad typist and it all comes out like this 90737hfjkashrui76we!!klfjui7rui3yhhje!!jkhduiydf7yfjkhil.

But I shall persist.

Has anyone got Led Zep tickets?

You written a spherical song yet, jasmann?

I actually bought The Boy With X-Ray Eyes and needless to say. It was utter dross. Animal Army was underrated though.

Animal Army was wonderful. I just love the fact that they've basically bankrolled a lifetime of doing nothing from one song and a bit of narcissim. Good on them!

quote:

Originally posted by jasmann:
Animal Army was wonderful. I just love the fact that they've basically bankrolled a lifetime of doing nothing from one song and a bit of narcissim. Good on them!

But Chris Morris made Jas Mann look like an utter, utter up-himself halfwit on 'Brasseye'...

Technical problems with 4Music website

Whenever I click on links the message "Stack overflow at line: 0" comes up at least a couple of times before allowing me to go to the link.

Also when voting '1 out of 5' for the track by So4Real (half-decent production but dismal lyrics), since the result wasn't showing up immediately, I pressed it a