´óÏó´«Ã½

I couldn't agree more - in fact I've been blogging about the very same thing at

Admittedly, mines more of a rant than a balanced argument as yours is, however... same hymn sheet an' all that!

Hello Hux,

I do so love forum usernames, Mr Capacitor.

Firstly, thanks for taking the time to read and reply.

A lot of the time I wish that I'd had my musical dreams and aspirations now rather than 15 years ago. There are more outlets for new music [well, more outlets for music that fits the zeitgeist and its immediate periphery]; recording your music has never been easier / cheaper; the internet has revolutionised bands' ability to promote and distribute themselves... if they're any good, of course, there are thousands scattered across the world willing to do all that distribution for you, without giving you a penny for your troubles, so it's not Utopian, I know.

But I don't envy bands this increasingly compartmentalised approach within all areas of the new music media. There may be more places for your faces, but if it doesn't easily fit into one of the compartments [your face, that is, for the sake of this tortuous analogy], you're scuppered.

My head is now full of visions of wardrobes filled with musicians' faces. I could become the indie Ted Bundy.

I think there has to be some acknowledgement of the effect that budget cuts have had on the ´óÏó´«Ã½ and the independent media, too. There are fewer researchers and production people at all levels of the broadcasting industry [I don't have anyone, for example, other than a producer for 3hrs a week]. So shows may sound the 'same', in that the voices are recognisable, but the responsibility for listening to all that music *properly* and responding in a timely and constructive fashion is spread across fewer and fewer people.

And, because of the relatively easy access to the means of production and distribution mentioned above [I'm not a Marxist, honest!] there is more music.

Much more music to get through.

I don't mean to paint it as a Herculean task. It isn't to me. But for Chris Moyles and his team, it would be. They have different priorities.

And I'm not towing any party line, here, I promise.

There are other clear issues associated with digital technology supposedly democratising music making / distribution.

It doesn't if you're too poor to buy a computer, or get yourself an SM58, or a MIDI controller.

I think that that explains why 'alternative' music has become so much the domain of the middle classes. I'm middle class, by the way. I'm confabulating a hundred different issues and arguments, here. See what you did?

Lots to consider.

I'm lucky I have the time to consider it while I'm listening to all the music that got sent to me today. Some of it was very good indeed.

Eclecticism rocks...or should that be eclecticism rules, to avoid genre specifying it.

You can never stop tribalism forming in music, but I think music becomes a lot more interesting when it's been influenced by a variety of sources. I fear that a whole swathe of 'kids these days' are being influenced by bland, restrictive, marketing-styled genres that are slowly disappearing up their own *rses (the genres, not the kids).

I don't think eclecticism is uncool, I'm all for it. There's definitely nothing wrong in "slapping together songs from a multitude of different disciplines". If it's good, it's good and worth playing... but R Kelly? Hmmm?

Hi Andy!

I'd expect anyone who loves music - truly loves music - to eschew any kind of stance that would limit what they may be exposed to. My concern is that eclecticism has become, somehow, uncool.

As a designer you'll know better than I do that eclecticism wouldn't work with colours - part of your role [I'm not telling you, by the way, just thinking this through aloud - pardon my impertinence] is to pick a scheme / palette, but there are certain rules, I suppose, that govern and define what constitutes a working scheme.

I know it's a faulty analogy because colours aren't sound, but I wonder if people have just socialised themselves into a similar set of rules for sounds as we've had for colours for centuries.

I know, for example, a lot of people whose sensibilities are completely offended if they hear a guitar-based indie track next to something electronic - it upsets their aesthetic [like wearing blue and green without a colour in between]. In my experience, people like that love the aesthetic itself more than they love music.

But [I'm getting there eventually, I think] at this point in time, such aesthetes are running, or at least very influential, on what the rest of us hear / experience because it's easier to, as you said, market / sell to advertisers or a potential audience if people know what to expect.

On a purely musical level, I wonder how much the resurgence in dance music has got to do with that?

I like dance music, but I think that much of it is a triumph of style over substance - I'd go so far as saying that that is entirely the point, in many respects, of all of those micro genres. So that the punter / clubber can readily identify exactly what it is they want to dance to - rather like you might order something specific at a takeaway.

This would have been good over a pint.

I have stored the details on the upcoming Absurd events and I'll make sure I post something constructive and factual [to the best of my ability] in these blogs about them. Great work you're doing. And wonderfully eclectic!