My top ten picks for the JJJ hottest 100

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Riptide is definitely a poorer song than Big Jet Plane. The latter was just uninteresting, whilst Riptide walks into the offensive zone.
 
And he signed a five fucking album deal with Atlantic on the back of it.

This just baffles me. I'm trying to think of anyone else getting such a massive deal on the back of a single song. The rest of his EP is a total bore too; "Riptide" is the standout, if you're willing to believe that.
 
I'll tell you what's actively offensive is that new Grouplove song. I'd vote for it as a joke, but then again, not really.
 
I don't think I've heard that one, or I probably have and was unable to pin the song to the name.
 
This just baffles me. I'm trying to think of anyone else getting such a massive deal on the back of a single song. The rest of his EP is a total bore too; "Riptide" is the standout, if you're willing to believe that.

Unfortunately, his is a very, very popular sound. It's in a fucking million ads too.
 
I rolled with

Bonobo - Cirrus
Kanye - Bound 2
James Blake - Voyeur
Sigur Ros - Isjaki
Bowie - Where Are We Now
ASAP Rocky - Fuckin Problems
Child of Lov - Fly
QOTSA - If I Had a Tail
Disclosure - When a Fire Starts to Burn
National - Graceless
 
I wouldn't go as melodramatically far as to say that Riptide is "offensive" - it's just a pop song. Harmless enough.

Better than Big Jet Plane I'd say.
 
All the National songs they had on the list were awesome. I love just about every track on the album equally so it was a difficult choice. Nearly went with Demons just cos it's probably their track with the best chance.
 
Most annoying Australian (at least I guess it is) song of the year; Lurch & Chief (or whatever fucking spelling), 'We Are the Same'. The guy half of the duo makes Matt Bloody Corby seem like Maria Callas (whoever she is).
 
They're always wanting to know what we're doing, 'text us!'

One of these days (I'd have get hold of a mobile phone first), I'm going to text them that I'm chopping up some bodies in my basement and the tunes are really keeping me pumping, go the jays.
 
Don't worry, you'll be fine as long as you're not meeting other men for ice cream.
 
http://www.tonedeaf.com.au/features...-being-successful-start-being-accountable.htm

JJJ are copping quite a bit of flak after a recent report suggested that some artists were changing their sound so that they'd have more chance of getting airplay on the station.

Artists like Whitely, Kingswood and The Basics have been quite scathing in their criticism, as has Melbourne rock venue Cherry Bar.

But I side more with JJJ than I do with Cherry Bar here, which just seems to be a collective of rockists (or more specifically Oz Pub rockists) lamenting the fact that their genre of music is not getting much JJJ airplay.

And why should it, there is not much diversity to oz pub rock, and JJJ are admirably not narrowly limited to playing or preferring songs of any particular genre (as the commerical stations are and some music venues).
 
That article by the Cherry Bar guy is appalling. The stuff he wants played on Triple J is almost offensively bad in how out-of-date and derivative it is. No wonder it doesn't get any play; it's just guys with guitars and penile inferiority complexes who are trying to recreate their dad's vinyl collection. As soon as you mention Airbourne without being derisive, you've lost an argument.

Triple J's obviously not perfect and there's a reason why I don't exactly tune into it, but a whole lot of this debate is blown out of proportion. It's no use saying "wah wah this popular hit from the nineties wouldn't get any play now" because tastes have evolved. You could do the reverse and say "wow this popular hit from 2013 would never have got airplay in the nineties". Practically every artist actively seeking a larger audience will - consciously or not - modify their sound to some degree to appeal to people anyway. Hell, they'll be influenced by the same sounds that are shaping their audience and it'll generally be a natural evolution. I don't know why this is such a big deal.
 
Airbourne fucking suck, yeah. There is literally nothing remotely new or interesting about their sound.

I think this sums it up well.

09dcb_1300598.jpg


Having said that though, I think there's a lot of bands out there that will try to seek a sound that gets them more airplay. But it's not limited to Triple J. Take Birds of Tokyo... weren't they a heavier band a few years ago? Now their piece of shit song Lanterns was the most played thing on Aussie radio all year.

When did it go from "selling out" or being smart from a music business sense to being a fundamental Australian music flaw?
 
That article by the Cherry Bar guy is appalling. The stuff he wants played on Triple J is almost offensively bad in how out-of-date and derivative it is. No wonder it doesn't get any play; it's just guys with guitars and penile inferiority complexes who are trying to recreate their dad's vinyl collection. As soon as you mention Airbourne without being derisive, you've lost an argument.

Triple J's obviously not perfect and there's a reason why I don't exactly tune into it, but a whole lot of this debate is blown out of proportion. It's no use saying "wah wah this popular hit from the nineties wouldn't get any play now" because tastes have evolved. You could do the reverse and say "wow this popular hit from 2013 would never have got airplay in the nineties". Practically every artist actively seeking a larger audience will - consciously or not - modify their sound to some degree to appeal to people anyway. Hell, they'll be influenced by the same sounds that are shaping their audience and it'll generally be a natural evolution. I don't know why this is such a big deal.


Spot on.

And I highly doubt that the pub-rock advocates of Airborne and Kingswood would listen to RRR and PBS.

Probably just get spoonfed about what "real" music is by MMM, learn a few power chords, and claim to be artists when they rip off Back in Black.
 
Seriously. They might as well call themselves an AC/DC cover band.

Still, I think the Cherry Bar gets a pass mark for life by not letting Gaga play there.
 
Back
Top Bottom