perhaps if he had realised how much John Lennon loved Genesis, he would have thought different 🤣🤣
Yes he really needed to have a word with Hackett
Posts by Backdrifter
-
-
But think about poor little X Æ A-Xii, Techno Mechanicus and Baby 12 and how upset they'll be
-
(Pssst - by the way, you do realise we're very likely re-lighting the fuse here...)
-
agreed , think NG got his chart timing wrong...but then he also quoted as saying below , which he also failed to manage...
Noel has been going after Collins since he started out in music, saying near the beginning of his Oasis days: “We’re gonna get rid of Phil Collins and Sting – junk food music, McDonald’s music – we’ve got to get in the charts and stamp them out. I want the severed head of Phil Collins in my fridge by the end of this decade. And if I haven’t, I’ll be a failure.”
Hahahaha! Standard young man's bluster. He can be amusing at times, I'll give him that.
I remember him saying something along the lines of You Can't Hurry Love ruining his teen years.
-
Inhabitants of Springfield: LOCK UP YOUR PETS. Your dogs, cats, gerbils, hamsters, terrapins, stick insects, pythons, rabbits, neon tetras - the salivating immigrants are coming for them.
-
His later derision of PC, he says came about because Phil kept the Jam off number one spot ..which may have been a valid point! 😄
Although I don't think it is, I'm sure the Jam didn't have a single in the top 10 when YCHL was no.1.
Interesting about the Lamb remark.
-
Meanwhile, a factoid about WTSMG. Apologies for the mention of a vile offender, but it's relevant - Gary Glitter earns more from sales of that album than Liam G does.
-
Oh dear.
You've got to laugh - 'psycho sexual crush on Phil Collins' from someone who'll endlessly gush about him in response to pretty much anything!
(EDIT - and who appears to have his own rage crush...)
-
There was a huge backlash against them which began with Be Here Now, and continued.
Correct. The claim of "continuous sycophancy for 3 decades" is hysterical nonsense. For anyone with any objectivity who's been paying attention it's clear that following the 94-98 feeding frenzy the media arc settled into much less overheated coverage and a more considered appraisal of their subsequent work which wasn't immune to criticism, far from it. Obviously there was a spike in attention with the breakup, then a levelling off with fairly standard coverage of the two sets of solo work as you'd expect with high-profile acts. I suppose if you've decided you detest them to the extent you claim they speak "gibberish" - (ahem) - you might well characterise that media track record as "three decades of continuous sycophancy".
(Cue multiple back-to-back posts - can the earlier run of 8 be beaten?!)
-
Well observed. The irony of virtue signalling. If acting with virtue, you act from the heart, motivated to do good. If you have to signal it, you're running on ego.
"Social conscience" virtue signalling bullsh1t should be dropped into Room 101.
I don't mind them doing what they do. There's some value in announcing how you're helping to rehabilitate offenders. But my flight of fancy was sparked by a hilarious twitter thread earlier in which dozens of people were gushing about how wonderful they are, the staff are so kind, they do such good work, then there started to be mentions of how they'd done work for free, been sympathetic to people's circumstances, and so on and it had me chuckling to myself at the absurd wonderfulness of it all. I was waiting for someone to say "THEY SAVED MY LIFE" and set off tales of heroic rescues and self-sacrifices.
Look, if all those people had great service that's all fine and who am I to mock it. It was amusing though that among the starry-eyed breathless praise there were a few disgruntled voices saying stuff like "They glue new soles on which come flapping off a week later" and "Their key-cutting is so bad the key snapped off in the lock".
A few complained that long-established local shops which provided these services closed after the local megastore opened a Timpsons outlet on site. That's an interesting one; they maybe shouldn't blame Timpsons but rather the superstore chain for enabling it and, ultimately, all those locals who chose to switch their business away from the old family-run place.
-
Our local Timpsons - who do shoe repairs and that sort of thing - runs an animal sanctuary, while getting a key cut I saw staff nursing an injured deer, tending to orphaned ducklings and feeding a stranded dolphin. They've also sent a peacekeeping force to Gaza, housed thousands of displaced Syrian war victims, eradicated most forms of cancer, developed a perpetual motion machine, deciphered the 4000 year old Oxus inscriptions and invented cheap clean energy. They're an amazing company.
-
I shall now run for cover!
No need for that. You make some fair points. Most here seem to lean more to the 'dislike' side, either full-on or with the caveat of liking a few of their tunes. I especially applaud your point that if fans didn't roll over and accept being ripped off, we might not see such blatant opportunism. That applies regardless of the act or how high the prices. In this case, some fans were in the queue for 5+ hours and finally got through to find their tickets had tripled in price. I'm sure some probably gave up in disgust, but clearly not enough to make a difference.
Yes NG/LG were total gobshites, perhaps less so now with age. They benefited hugely from one of those 'zeitgeist moments' and a shallow media but while I mostly share your uninterest in their music there's no denying their broad appeal. I agree, if they can royally clean up from this tour, why shouldn't they. For top-name acts it's live tours that earn the big bucks and, increasingly, catalogue sell-off. They've got their kids' futures to secure. But yeah, what a shame it involves horrible practices such as dynamic pricing.
The Elliot/Leppard tangent is daft though. He's in one of the most successful bands ever - 100million albums sold, I think it is - I'm no DL fan but that's one hell of an achievement. All the acts he gripes about* are either bigger sellers or otherwise culturally significant in some way, and all are successful on their own terms as well as having many detractors as happens when that high a profile is attained. He seems to have made his own straw man there.
* A qualifier - I realise that published interviews can distort what's been said for the sake of sparking some additional interest so I don't rule that out in this case.
-
Last week I saw, on a website promoting government grants for domestic energy efficiency initiatives, reference to "an inprincable decision". Inprincable.
This is on the same spectrum as bowl in a china shop, all the Belgian whistles, social leopard, a pacific reason, expresso, bit of a damp squid, etc.
-
James Earl Jones, aged 93. My word, what a career. Over 80 films, extensive stage work.
There's the obvious role he's known for but as it's understandably being talked about a lot, I'll mention his first feature film role, that of one of the pilots in Dr Strangelove, a favourite of mine.
-
Will Jennings, 80. Apparently he wrote lyrics for a lot of commercial songs that I wouldn't care about, but what put him on my radar was his being the main lyricist on five consecutive Steve Winwood albums
While not really clicking with many of the hits he co-wrote I have to admire and respect his obvious knack of being able to pen lyrics which had that something that enabled them to dovetail with the music and create hugely popular songs. That's quite some skill. His name is on some massive number 1 hits by a range of artists so that's a hell of a legacy.
-
Display More
My answer to Backdrifter was that if it's a market question why other singers the with the same sales number or even higher are not given the same level of media attention?
The issue is that there are some singers and bands (among them the Gallaghers) who are always over-promoted and continuously mentioned regardless of musical talent or for being the best-selling ones, but because of croynism, as they are well-connected with the tastemakers.
This is the key point of Elliott's statement:
Our album will sell more than Morrissey’s so why don’t we get the same kind of respect? There are more people than Bono and Michael Stipe [...]. Whether it’s Simon Le Bon, Gary Kemp, Bruce Dickinson or me, there are more musicians out there.
What he was asking for was that, since his band sold more, they should at least be treated the same regard, not even better, to the favourites of the Privy Council of Coolness.
It's mildly amusing seeing you espouse this naive oversimplistic sales/hype equation then get all frothed up about it when ultimately it's essentially a simple whiny case of "it's not FAIR!" It also shows a (possibly wilful) lack of understanding of the mechanics of how fame, sales success and media coverage intertwine. These aren't linear one-zero things, never have been, never will be. As for Elliot, if he can't enjoy his massive success - and well done to him and his bandmates on that - without indulging in pointless butt-hurt whinging about perceived lack of "respect", that's his problem.
-
Which was the correct answer?
Er, well... Collins.
-
A question in the sequence round of today's Only Connect: what is the fourth in the sequence Gabriel Collins Wilson. Neither team knew it. One guessed 'Moore', the other guessed 'Gabriel'.
-
The endless tyranny of the blueberry.
-
Not quite sure how Grace passed me by at the time.
Very nice album.
No NYC redaction eh? I wonder if that was an error or it means 'shit' is now ok on BBC radio.
EDIT: Just reminded myself there's no BBC official list of banned words. Their language guide advises that use of potentially offensive words is at the programme maker's discretion.
