MiltyG565 Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 Well, here's what i think, and feel free to disagree, but his songs sound like regurgitated Dylan and Beatles tunes. Nothing wrong with that i suppose. But why has this kid got so much of the attention? going by music and music alone, like we should, Jake Bugg hasn't done anything new, or fresh, but rather even gone to the length of having a vintage sounding recording, so very much trying to keep that early days Beatles and Dylan sound, again, nothing wrong there, but there people have been doing this since the heyday of Dylan and the Beatles, so again, why is the spotlight pointed on him when there are plenty of people doing this kind of thing? I have nothing against him, and i wish him the best. It's not my cup of tea really, i'm just trying to get my head around the fact that people are pouring towards him when his sound has been around for 50 years. I mean, you can go into any school in the country (please do ask permission first, don't want another Jimmy Saville affair) and ask any class do they like the Beatles or Bob Dylan, and while you will get kids who say yes, and it's their favourite artist(s), i think almost every class are going to give a majority answer of anything from "Not really" to "Who are they?". So WHY is everyone flocking to this NOW? I really don't understand people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcgraham Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 I gave up trying to understand people in this regard the day I worked out that the music industry is just like any other, it's about selling a product that people want to buy. Just cos I don't want to listen to it (and I don't want to listen to Jake Bugg - doesn't grab me in the slightest) doesn't mean that there aren't others in the world that want to buy it, and to buy enough copies of it to make it worth selling and marketing hard, like any good product. I'm just pleased there's choice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xilddx Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 [sup][url="http://basschat.co.uk/topic/191387-jake-bugg/page__hl__bugg"]http://basschat.co.uk/topic/191387-jake-bugg/page__hl__bugg[/url][/sup] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MiltyG565 Posted December 14, 2012 Author Share Posted December 14, 2012 [quote name='mcgraham' timestamp='1355481151' post='1898870'] I gave up trying to understand people in this regard the day I worked out that the music industry is just like any other, it's about selling a product that people want to buy. Just cos I don't want to listen to it (and I don't want to listen to Jake Bugg - doesn't grab me in the slightest) doesn't mean that there aren't others in the world that want to buy it, and to buy enough copies of it to make it worth selling and marketing hard, like any good product. I'm just pleased there's choice [/quote] Yeah, of course. I think this is more to do with the fact that he is a decent looking 18 year old lad. The music is nearly an after-thought. I could nearly go to the same label with his material, and they would look at me and say "Not a chance". I'm not saying he isn't talented, but i really can't see that he has done anything with his own thing to it, more just written songs that sound like they could be other peoples songs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcgraham Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 There was a thread elsewhere about vinyl vs CD. Ultimately even if they sound the same, or even if the vinyl sounds worse, if you enjoy the entire [i]experience[/i] of vinyl MORE, you can't divorce the enjoyment factor of the other non-musical aspects of the whole experience. In the same way, if someone looks better and performs better (visually, onstage antics, etc) than other performers/musicians, even if the music of the weaker performer is better, you can't divorce those factors from each other... it's the whole package that matters, and its very much a marketed product. Again, no accounting for taste. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahpook Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 [quote name='MiltyG565' timestamp='1355481571' post='1898883'] I think this is more to do with the fact that he is a decent looking 18 year old lad. [/quote] you wouldn't even know his name if he wasn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MiltyG565 Posted December 14, 2012 Author Share Posted December 14, 2012 [quote name='mcgraham' timestamp='1355481857' post='1898887'] There was a thread elsewhere about vinyl vs CD. Ultimately even if they sound the same, or even if the vinyl sounds worse, if you enjoy the entire [i]experience[/i] of vinyl MORE, you can't divorce the enjoyment factor of the other non-musical aspects of the whole experience. In the same way, if someone looks better and performs better (visually, onstage antics, etc) than other performers/musicians, even if the music of the weaker performer is better, you can't divorce those factors from each other... it's the whole package that matters, and its very much a marketed product. Again, no accounting for taste. [/quote] No accounting for taste indeed. And you make a good point, being a worse musician than somebody performing the same kind of music isn't a bad thing, just different. Look at dave grohl for instance... He isn't all that people make him out to be. I have seen him cover Tiny Dance by Elton John, and it was a less than moving viewing experience, on the other hand, John Frusiciante covering the same song is something to behold, but he clearly focuses more on actually playing and singing, where as Dave was focusing more on theatrics. Each to their own and all that. But i think if anybody is going to start talking crap about how Jake Bugg is the next big thing, and totally original (sorry, silddx, I don't want the lecture on originality) maybe they should go and listen to Bob Dylan, then say how original he is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MiltyG565 Posted December 14, 2012 Author Share Posted December 14, 2012 [quote name='ahpook' timestamp='1355482187' post='1898896'] you wouldn't even know his name if he wasn't. [/quote] That's true, but at the same time, i don't care. I don't like his music, and if i wanted to hear something like his music, i would listen to Bob Dylan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master blaster Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 The pop industry is only there to sell records not to introduce new exciting music. A majority of the music buying public don't have musical ears and are really influenced into buying music. And they knw it. There's a guy I work with that plays music on his phone and its just like listening to a Now that's what I call music album. So why should the record company's risk investments when they can reproduce something that been tried and tested before knowing they'll make shed loads of money. It does suck but there aren't many top 20 acts over the 20 years that haven't shown strong influence from previous acts. It all revolves around fashion, and it just so happens that with bands like Mumford and Sons around it kinda makes folk music the 'in' thing, so it's a great time for the record industry to introduce a Bob Dylan-alike. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MiltyG565 Posted December 14, 2012 Author Share Posted December 14, 2012 [quote name='Master blaster' timestamp='1355484197' post='1898938'] The pop industry is only there to sell records not to introduce new exciting music. A majority of the music buying public don't have musical ears and are really influenced into buying music. And they knw it. There's a guy I work with that plays music on his phone and its just like listening to a Now that's what I call music album. So why should the record company's risk investments when they can reproduce something that been tried and tested before knowing they'll make shed loads of money. It does suck but there aren't many top 20 acts over the 20 years that haven't shown strong influence from previous acts. It all revolves around fashion, and it just so happens that with bands like Mumford and Sons around it kinda makes folk music the 'in' thing, so it's a great time for the record industry to introduce a Bob Dylan-alike. [/quote] I always liked folk music, and having a decent band like Mumford & Sons having albums well produced means a lot to me. Maybe you're right (you're probably right) but i still don't like it. Why not just push Dylan's albums more? It has the same effect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
risingson Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 [quote name='MiltyG565' timestamp='1355480802' post='1898861'] So WHY is everyone flocking to this NOW? I really don't understand people. [/quote] It's really simple, he's got money behind him, and it's bought him marketing power which has in return brought him to the attention of both you and me. I know a million and one people who are interchangeable for this guy, that's not to detract from his talent but like you say, it's nothing new. Someone behind a desk somewhere has decided that he's worth investing in. It speaks volumes that I knew who this guy was before I'd even heard his music does it not? I predict that he'll go thale way of Miles Kane and flop eventually once he doesn't sell enough albums to pay off the label. Not me being negative intentionally, just my prediction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jus Lukin Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 (edited) - Edited February 16, 2022 by Jus Lukin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan_da_man Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 I'll say what I say when someone asks me about any new artist and my opinion of them etc. SHUT UP AND LISTEN TO FUGAZI. Thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wil Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 I'm just happy that the mainstream is turning back towards guitar centric music to some degree, even if he is a sanitised package based on numerous other artists that went before. Makes it more likely that young people will give other guitar bands a go, and that's a good thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigRedX Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 Just because a band uses a guitar doesn't automatically make them any better or worse than any band that doesn't. It's all down to whether or not you like the music. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thisnameistaken Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 He's a pretty polished performer for an 18 year old. Sure his songs all sound the same but at least he's not crap. Give him a few years and he might have a sound worth paying attention to. I know I wasn't doing anything particularly worthy when I was 18. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigRedX Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 (edited) Out of interst MiltyG565 what new music do you like? Edited December 14, 2012 by BigRedX Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wil Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 [quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1355485739' post='1898970'] Just because a band uses a guitar doesn't automatically make them any better or worse than any band that doesn't. It's all down to whether or not you like the music. [/quote] This is of course very true, but considering a lot of us peddle in largely guitar based stuff, and popular music has been more and more synth/sample driven, it makes me feel a little less like a dinosaur to see young people listening to people playing old fashioned planks of wood with strings on Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcgraham Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 I don't think the public are stupid. The public knows what they want. Sure, it might have been brought to their attention by advertising, it might have been slickly marketed, it may well have a lot of money behind it, but people (by and large) fundamentally will not buy something they don't want. Those like us in this thread are a prime example of that. We've seen the ads, we went and listened, we then made a decision based on our opinion, either we then either bought or we didn't. Simple as. A lot of the public are less picky than us, but a lot of them are more picky than us. At the end of the day people make up their own minds, no-one is coercing anyone else to buy his album. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahpook Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 [quote name='Stan_da_man' timestamp='1355485481' post='1898962'] I'll say what I say when someone asks me about any new artist and my opinion of them etc. SHUT UP AND LISTEN TO FUGAZI. Thank you. [/quote] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcgraham Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 [quote name='MiltyG565' timestamp='1355484380' post='1898942'] I always liked folk music, and having a decent band like Mumford & Sons having albums well produced means a lot to me. Maybe you're right (you're probably right) but i still don't like it. Why not just push Dylan's albums more? It has the same effect. [/quote] Other than just marketing reasons and the fact he'll sell better on image alone, there are bound to be Dylan listeners out there who want more of 'Dylan' and his music but reinvigorated by younger performers. That alone means that Jake Bugg is meeting an existing artistic demand. You can say you don't want that, but it doesn't change the fact someone else wants it, and if they are willing to listen to it and/or pay for it, it will take care of itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MiltyG565 Posted December 14, 2012 Author Share Posted December 14, 2012 [quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1355486071' post='1898976'] Out of interst MiltyG565 what new music do you like? [/quote] I like mumford and sons, John Frusciante, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Rage against the machine and lots of other artists that don't gig or record anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jus Lukin Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 (edited) - Edited February 16, 2022 by Jus Lukin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigRedX Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 [quote name='MiltyG565' timestamp='1355487705' post='1899015'] I like mumford and sons, John Frusciante, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Rage against the machine and lots of other artists that don't gig or record anymore. [/quote] IMO Mumford and Sons are hardly any more new or original than Jake Bugg, and the others have all been around for at least 20 or so years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toasted Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 [quote name='MiltyG565' timestamp='1355480802' post='1898861']Jake Bugg hasn't done anything new, or fresh[/quote] Who has? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.