advertisement


Later with Jools

Nothing there for me, but I do take issue with the dad-rock etc.
The show has always been an eclectic mix. This last show was all new(ish), samey(ish) stuff, which would put an awful lot of people off.

I also doubt that many bands/acts have done the show more than a very few times in it's 50-odd series.
 
Aethelist said:
Nothing to do with snobbery at all. I'm open minded enough. Used to love the Beeb.

But the one thing I can't be doing with is being right on. Just for the sake of it.

And the BBC have taken that to the nth degree in its current guise. Stupid Twats.

If you can relate to that. Good for you.

I can't.
Click to expand...

Do you find only Nepalese nose flute/ommpah band/gabba crossover that no one but you and the nose flute players mam have heard of authentic enough? Do you have a beard grooming budget?
 
Vinny said:
Nothing there for me, but I do take issue with the dad-rock etc.
The show has always been an eclectic mix. This last show was all new(ish), samey(ish) stuff, which would put an awful lot of people off.
Click to expand...

I’d just far prefer it was closer to John Peel’s radio show or C4’s The Tube in the ‘80s, both of which really were a window on what was actually happening at that time. There is just something very ‘safe’ about Later. As live music coverage is in such short supply on TV I really wish there was something that actually reflected the current music scenes (there are many) rather better. Anyone even remotely interested in a new Paul Weller album or whatever will know it is out whereas there are hundreds of great bands out there many of us still have to discover. That is what BBC music programming should be doing IMHO. It should be showing us all the new stuff no one has seen before.
 
Peel Show soundalike would be great, the Tube I essentially never saw, during the 80s I was at work, in bed or out, or a combination of those ;).

Peelie did have more of a chance than Jools though, just by virtue of the fact that it was near back to back records, and longer than Later - he could cram more in, even when he was down to one? two? shows a week that was a huge chunk of time playing music.
I wish that I could remember the actual quote, but as well as having views similar to mine on U2 and "The Boss", and other icons, Peelie was a great fan of people that you'd never believe, not least Kylie. He said something like they don't need him to give them air time, so he didn't, but far more suitably witty and adroit.

I'd also be surprised if the average licence fee payer was interested in very much at all beyond well-know "popular" music. People here really are not anything like a representative sample.
 
I never really liked John Peel or his show. Sorry. I only watch the shorter live Later, Samoa was pretty good but I recall thinking that was down to the band rather than her. I actually agree with Jez on something;)
 
Woodface said:
I never really liked John Peel or his show. Sorry. I only watch the shorter live Later, Samoa was pretty good but I recall thinking that was down to the band rather than her. I actually agree with Jez on something;)
Click to expand...

When it's everything you will have reached enlightenment grasshopper:D
 
Tony L said:
I’d just far prefer it was closer to John Peel’s radio show or C4’s The Tube in the ‘80s, both of which really were a window on what was actually happening at that time. There is just something very ‘safe’ about Later.
Click to expand...

At the risk of sounding like my dad, they have to be able to play well live as bands very exposed on the programme. That possibly limits it a little.
 
Stunsworth said:
At the risk of sounding like my dad, they have to be able to play well live as bands very exposed on the programme. That possibly limits it a little.
Click to expand...

Most bands can play their own material perfectly well. The standard of musicianship these days is exceptionally high IMO, arguably too high for the real innovation and chance genius that occurred in the late-70s and early ‘80s to occur again. No one knocks great bands of the past like Velvet Underground, Joy Division, Young Marble Giants, Half Man Half Biscuit, Orbital, NWA or whoever because they can’t play piano as well as Jools Holland! Not everyone needs to be Frank Zappa!

The secret of great lasting music IMHO is to do something genuinely new and interesting. That doesn’t need to be technical in the slightest. I just want to sit there thinking “well, I’ve never heard that before....”. I found last week’s show a little flat for my taste, but it was certainly a big step in the right direction, i.e. didn’t feature any tired old late-career stadium-rock/landfill indie (Stereophonics etc) promoting their 14th album or whatever. The idea of a guest curator might prove quite interesting if they can get the right people. I thought Mark Ronson did a good job.
 
My view is that they need to keep the "Later" brand but change presenter. Jools was great when he presented The Tube partly because he was in his 20s. He's 61 now and needs too pass on the baton. Its a bit like the presenters they had on pop shows back in the 60s or if the great Humphrey Littleton had presented Whistle Test in the 70s.

The other thing with Later is, I'd guess, that it's target demographic is closer to the Today programme than Top of the Pops. In that way it a bit like a trad jazz show would have been in 1966. Good stuff but not in any way engaged with the modern world.

Maybe, as Tony says, someone like Mark Ronson, or, even better, someone under 35 (Ronson is 45!). Jool's muso obsession is great but, again as Tony said, there is a rather loose correlation between great musicianship and great music outside jazz and classical music.

As I've said in another thread, Tiny Desk has become my go to place see interesting new music: it may be that music on tv is now past its sell by date. Nothing I've seen on later has come close to best Tiny Desk sessions which really allow the character of performers, rather than presenters, to shine through.

Kevin
 
kjb said:
My view is that they need to keep the "Later" brand but change presenter. Jools was great when he presented The Tube partly because he was in his 20s. He's 61 now and needs too pass on the baton. Its a bit like the presenters they had on pop shows back in the 60s or if the great Humphrey Littleton had presented Whistle Test in the 70s.
Click to expand...

It depends on the presenter, Peel was 65 when he died.
 
Mark Ronson 'co-presented' this last week. He admitted that it was not as easy as it looks and I am not sure that it worked for him. Thing his he tried (was instructed?) to do the presentation in the same way that Jools does it - but surely a presenter has to be allowed to make their own style.

Seems we are to get a different 'co-presenter' every week - so maybe they are all going to live tryout/screentests for a possible future?
 
Tony L said:
Most bands can play their own material perfectly well. The standard of musicianship these days is exceptionally high IMO, arguably too high for the real innovation and chance genius that occurred in the late-70s and early ‘80s to occur again. No one knocks great bands of the past like Velvet Underground, Joy Division, Young Marble Giants, Half Man Half Biscuit, Orbital, NWA or whoever because they can’t play piano as well as Jools Holland! Not everyone needs to be Frank Zappa!

The secret of great lasting music IMHO is to do something genuinely new and interesting. That doesn’t need to be technical in the slightest. I just want to sit there thinking “well, I’ve never heard that before....”. I found last week’s show a little flat for my taste, but it was certainly a big step in the right direction, i.e. didn’t feature any tired old late-career stadium-rock/landfill indie (Stereophonics etc) promoting their 14th album or whatever. The idea of a guest curator might prove quite interesting if they can get the right people. I thought Mark Ronson did a good job.
Click to expand...

Each to their own but my view is pretty much the exact opposite to that!! I'd certainly knock Joy Division, NWA, etc big time! Crap! and The Fall are even worse! (i'll sometimes listen to Joy Division and get some pleasure from it but have to be in the mood...)

I want superb musicianship over innovation every time. Personally I think "new for the sake of it" has been one of the worst principles in modern music and has led to a lot of the crap which is the charts today! And THAT particular "new" has become the stale same old same old of all the shite which passes for R&B these days.

The idea of "NO! we can't have that! 4 blokes who are really good musicians playing guitars, bass and drums? Do you think this is still 1973 pal" is the worst reason for not giving them a recording contract or putting them on Jools show I can think of.
 
Arkless Electronics said:
Each to their own but my view is pretty much the exact opposite to that!! I'd certainly knock Joy Division, NWA, etc big time! Crap! and The Fall are even worse! (i'll sometimes listen to Joy Division and get some pleasure from it but have to be in the mood...)

I want superb musicianship over innovation every time. Personally I think "new for the sake of it" has been one of the worst principles in modern music and has led to a lot of the crap which is the charts today! And THAT particular "new" has become the stale same old same old of all the shite which passes for R&B these days.

The idea of "NO! we can't have that! 4 blokes who are really good musicians playing guitars, bass and drums? Do you think this is still 1973 pal" is the worst reason for not giving them a recording contract or putting them on Jools show I can think of.
Click to expand...
I am back to not agreeing with you. I can think of loads of great, innovative bands who were not virtuoso & we are not short of boring musos either.
 
Worth pointing out that the 'older' audience is far more valuable for new artists to target as they actually still buy physical product. Ken Bruce probably breaks far more acts than Peel ever did, the radio 2 playlist is a goldmine for new & upcoming artists. A slot on Later really boosts a bands career.
 
Woodface said:
I am back to not agreeing with you. I can think of loads of great, innovative bands who were not virtuoso & we are not short of boring musos either.
Click to expand...

Yeah so can I! But I'll never get sick of the general concept of 4-5 blokes playing real instruments to a good standard, often 2 guitars, bass and drums plus vocalist or vocalist/keyboard player. The kinda thing that gave us The Beatles, The Stones, Led Zepp, Talking Heads, The Smiths, Little Feat etc etc etc.....

Some things are just intrinsically right and can't really be improved on! "If it ain't broke don't try to fix it"

Cars generally have 4 wheels, one at each corner, 'cos it works and is obviously right...no one takes one wheel off leaving a badly driving death trap with one corner dragging along the tarmac because "4 wheels, one at each corner, is just so 70's... it's dad transport"....
 
As ever, the truth lies somewhere between the extremes.

For as much as I love new music and buy loads of it, just because something is new doesn't automatically make it good. There's loads of new pap all the time. I believe if you're a fan of Jazz then now is a really good time as there's tons of new good Jazz artists around, not my thing as I can't even listen to the best old Jazz stuff never mind this, but that isn't the point.

Likewise world class musicians don't make great music by default, there are loads of mind bogglingly talented musicians whose creative output is, frankly, garbage. You couldn't pay me to sit and listen to a band made up of world class musicians if the output is a load of trash. That isn't to say I can't respect and appreciate the talent or dedication they've applied to reach the level they have.

We get the once in a generation talents who mix both of the creative and technical genius but we can't expect that from every new band/artist, you can't sit and moan listening to new bands on 6 Music or whatever saying rubbish like "yeah they're OK I suppose, not Led Zep though are they".

Do we say modern singer/songwriter types are no longer worth listening to because we've already had people like Cohen, Dylan, Young, Joni etc? For me there's still enough innovation left in traditional forms of band/artist genres to keep new music interesting the difference between now and previous decades is you have to look for it harder because we don't have this singular, all encompassing record industry dictating what gets promoted, are we living in a time akin to the 60s where every other album was virtually a classic? No of course not, it can't happen. That doesn't mean all new music is crap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top