Topic: Chart Music Podcast

[sweeper]

I want to know why there are two pentagrams, a moon and a sun on the cover of that Bruno Brookes book.

[boki]

You wanna be careful asking questions like that, we don't know what he's capable of.

[DrGreggles]

You wanna be careful asking questions like that, we don't know what he's capable of.

Yes we do...
https://youtu.be/kQ4xi-QYZO8

[phantom_power]

I love Pricey, but I think he's still got a very teenage streak of contrarianism in him. I'm not saying he doesn't hold the opinions he espouses, but he definitely loves having hot takes that go against the grain. But this can be refreshing and entertaining.

That is pretty much true of all music journalists

[Brundle-Fly]

I suppose you have to nail your colours to the mast?  If that is his opinion on his favourite artists, then fair enough,  People who slag off stuff but never ever reveal their own faves for fear of criticism can quite frankly do one.

[Ballad of Ballard Berkley]

That is pretty much true of all music journalists

No it isn't.

I suppose you have to nail your colours to the mast?  If that is his opinion on his favourite artists, then fair enough,  People who slag off stuff but never ever reveal their own faves for fear of criticism can quite frankly do one.

Exactly.

[DrGreggles]

FAO: High Flying Cats:

New episode!

[Camp Tramp]

FAO: High Flying Cats:

New episode!

Splendid.

[Satchmo Distel]

Cracking first hour on a key year in my life.

[Ballad of Ballard Berkley]

Al has led a colourful life, hasn't he?

[phantom_power]

No it isn't.

Yes it is. They constantly have to have "interesting" opinions on things and that inevitably leads to hastily cobbled together hot takes that go against the grain. Certainly all the Chart Music contributors, and most NME and Melody Maker journalists, will do this to some extent

[Gerald Fjord]

What year's the new ep?

[Schnapple]

Where's the episode? I can't see it, and I'm on the Patreon and all.

[boki]

Where's the episode? I can't see it, and I'm on the Patreon and all.

You need to be on the £5 tier to GET IT NOW.  I've only been chuckinem 1-ers, but I've got a couple of me other podcasts to see me through anyhow.

[Ballad of Ballard Berkley]

Yes it is. They constantly have to have "interesting" opinions on things and that inevitably leads to hastily cobbled together hot takes that go against the grain. Certainly all the Chart Music contributors, and most NME and Melody Maker journalists, will do this to some extent

To some extent, yes, but one of the things I like about Chart Music is that the contributors will often go against the grain of perceived ROCK CRITIC wisdom, not for the sake of being contrary, but because they agree with the point you're making: the history of pop doesn't follow a simple narrative. It's too unwieldy to categorise a la "and then punk happened because of this" etc.

Taylor is really the only contributor who's inclined to theorise via pre-written mini-essays, but even he admits that he may be talking bollocks sometimes. Or rather, he's willing to admit that whenever anyone - that'll be Sarah - confronts him. The other 'lads', I think, are slightly in awe of him. On the rare occasions that they do argue with him, he pretty much always says "Yeah, you're probably right."

Taylor seems like a good lad, he's very smart and funny, but he's not always right. None of them are. All part of the fun, no? I disagree with them vehemently sometimes, but I enjoy listening to what they have to say. 

A huge part of the appeal of this podcast is hearing journalists, who often came across as didactic and rather wanky in print, talking like actual human beings.

[Ballad of Ballard Berkley]

When I was a teenage MM reader in the mid-1990s, Neil came across as an absolutely terrifying figure. A brilliant writer, full of fire and fury. Formidable.

Turns out he's a nice man who really likes crisps.

[worldsgreatestsinner]

To some extent, yes, but one of the things I like about Chart Music is that the contributors will often go against the grain of perceived ROCK CRITIC wisdom, not for the sake of being contrary, but because they agree with the point you're making: the history of pop doesn't follow a simple narrative. It's too unwieldy to categorise a la "and then punk happened because of this" etc.

Taylor is really the only contributor who's inclined to theorise via pre-written mini-essays, but even he admits that he may be talking bollocks sometimes. Or rather, he's willing to admit that whenever anyone - that'll be Sarah - confronts him. The other 'lads', I think, are slightly in awe of him. On the rare occasions that they do argue with him, he pretty much always says "Yeah, you're probably right."

Taylor seems like a good lad, he's very smart and funny, but he's not always right. None of them are. All part of the fun, no? I disagree with them vehemently sometimes, but I enjoy listening to what they have to say. 

A huge part of the appeal of this podcast is hearing journalists, who often came across as didactic and rather wanky in print, talking like actual human beings.

Basically all of this. In print it gives a cold edge to opinions that makes them seem set in stone rather than as part of a discussion or rant. The one part I disagree with you on is the idea that the others are in awe of Taylor. It's been mentioned a few times on the thread and I've never really agreed with it. I don't think David's in awe of anybody. In the Q & A Neil placed himself and Taylor on the same level, twins looking on a bit awestruck at big brother Simon. Simon has certainly challenged Taylor more than once. I think Sarah and Taylor come across as having a very affectionate kind of bickering relationship. I don't think they're in awe of Taylor, what I do think is that they all find him incredibly entertaining when he's allowed the space to talk so they just like sitting back and listening to him and they're confident enough in their own opinions to not need to challenge him unless it's about someone who matters to them.

[Ballad of Ballard Berkley]

Yes, you're quite right. 'Awe' is the wrong word, it does a tremendous disservice to the other brilliant contributors. As you say, they just enjoy listening to him, as we do. What I meant really is that they're all very smart, perceptive, funny and interesting, but Taylor has a sort of set role as Mr Monologue, so they all sit back and listen to him.

Not in awe, I regret using that word, but because he's an entertaining monologist. And also because he's a very self-deprecating, low status figure, he never comes across as pompous. Well, a bit, but endearingly so.

But I love it whenever any of them hold forth on something they feel passionate about.



 

[worldsgreatestsinner]

Absolutely agree with you.

I do wonder what happened to Taylor to make him into the low status one of the bunch. He's talked about his mental health a bit in the past and I wonder if maybe that's why he's not as involved in music writing currently as Neil or Simon and he hasn't moved on to books like Sarah and David.

[phantom_power]

To some extent, yes, but one of the things I like about Chart Music is that the contributors will often go against the grain of perceived ROCK CRITIC wisdom, not for the sake of being contrary, but because they agree with the point you're making: the history of pop doesn't follow a simple narrative. It's too unwieldy to categorise a la "and then punk happened because of this" etc.

Taylor is really the only contributor who's inclined to theorise via pre-written mini-essays, but even he admits that he may be talking bollocks sometimes. Or rather, he's willing to admit that whenever anyone - that'll be Sarah - confronts him. The other 'lads', I think, are slightly in awe of him. On the rare occasions that they do argue with him, he pretty much always says "Yeah, you're probably right."

Taylor seems like a good lad, he's very smart and funny, but he's not always right. None of them are. All part of the fun, no? I disagree with them vehemently sometimes, but I enjoy listening to what they have to say. 

A huge part of the appeal of this podcast is hearing journalists, who often came across as didactic and rather wanky in print, talking like actual human beings.

I agree with all of that. They all seem much more likeable in real life rather than in print, though some of that could be down to the wisdom of age and being brought low by circumstance from their lofty heights of tastemakers and trendsetters

[DrGreggles]

Great episode. Goes without saying really.

[kidsick5000]

They all seem much more likeable in real life rather than in print, though some of that could be down to the wisdom of age and being brought low by circumstance from their lofty heights of tastemakers and trendsetters

I think that comes with age too. The fire and the vehement assertion that an artist deserves some form of torture for unleashing crap on the world wanes.
At least, you choose your battles more carefully.
The difficult thing will always be that writing a positive review is much harder than writing a negative one. That's also half the reason I think once critics taste blood, it's hard to take it down. But when you get to see a experience a bad creation, well it's like Neo asking for guns in the Matrix. You have almost too many weapons to choose with which to destroy it.

[shiftwork2]

Mentioned!!  I do declare this has made my day.

[Ballad of Ballard Berkley]

There's a very funny bit in the latest episode where yer man Taylor cracks a pre-scripted zinger, then audibly sighs and makes a pained "God, what's the point, that was awful" noise.

It's how I feel whenever I try to be amusing on CaB, in my writing or, on rare occasions, in real life, summed up in a sort of Bovril death rattle.

[DrGreggles]

Mentioned!!  I do declare this has made my day.

Oddly exciting isn't it!
To think that I was non-plussed as a kid when my 6th birthday was announced on Granada.

[non capisco]

Taylor's Eeyore-ish monotone audibly cracking into amused delight has become one of my very favourite noises over the past few years.

I'll wait til the non-High Flying Cats have had a chance to hear it before discussing my favourite bits but, yes, another belter. Bloody love this podcast. And can't wait for the episode Simon chooses under the temporary new format as like him I'm beguiled and fascinated by 1979-81 Top Of The Pops.

[HAVANAGILA]

As a Patreon-subscribed Pop-Crazed Youngster but *not* a High-Flying Cat, I'm enjoying the new setup more than I expected. If Chart Music Day = Christmas Day (and it's only a C and a U away, after all), then us non-HFCs have been blessed with our own Christmas Eve, and all the excitement and anticipation that entails. Admittedly it's a strange Christmas Eve - one where we can press our noses up against the blurry glass and watch the more generous kids getting their presents early, without being able to make out what's inside the wrapping - but it's also helpful as an early warning to free up hours of listening time for the next day.

Obviously there's a part of me that's bursting to know what's getting coated down this month, and it doesn't stop me reading the posts on here to glean whatever info I can, but right now all I know is : there's a new episode out today in a few hours (or less), Taylor's on it, and the High-Flying Cats think it's a corker. That'll do me!

[Cursus]

Now on general release. Four hours!

[DrGreggles]

Just watched 'The unforgettable debut of The Shockmaster' on the video playlist.
More than lives up to what Al and Taylor said about it!

[Epic Bisto]

Only halfway through but it's a cracking episode.  When it got to Noel Cuntface cracking the 'Top Tin' joke I let out a massive "YAAAAYY!" because I knew what was coming (a COLOSSAL BANGER! not Dennis Waterman).

"SHAKIN' ICKE!"