Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


1 Follower

About Gimpy

  • Rank
    The artist formally known as Gimp_Basket_Smiles

About Me

  • About Me
    On the first day god created Gimpy. On The Second Day, Gimpy took over.

Recent Profile Visitors

2,953 profile views
  1. Could you say the same about my position though? X-Factor is having it's lowest ever viewing figures and it's popularity has steadily waned through the years. X-Factor haven't had a winner go to number 1 with their debut release since 2014. Those seem like much more tangible bits of evidence that it doesn't hold the same power you think it does than 'my niece listens to xyz' Physical album sales are down 25%, digital are down 16%, people are eschewing buying what record companies are putting out because there are more ways than ever to discover music for yourselves, beyond what hardline marketing and radio play is trying to dictate. Of course it still has power, of course it's still relevant, of course it still had fads, but do you really think you can call a clear loss in the power of marketing and record labels anecdotal? Do you think someone like Chance the Rapper (early 20's no label, self promoted, stayed in the Billboard 200 for 33 weeks) would have been able to sustain that kind of success unless people were out there discovering things for themselves and identifying with music. I just dunno how people are possibly quantifying 'nobody is identifying as xyz anymore' and why that is necessarily even a bad thing
  2. Yeah that's fair actually. Would also be my pick too, I just feel like Nintendo hold a bit of majesty as a nostalgic thing. For some reason I barely see the PS1 as a retro console, even though it came out a year before the N64 - I guess maybe because it was disk based
  3. Would be massively surprised if N64 doesn't win, feels like it's in the perfect wheelhouse for an overlap in most of the age ranges of the user, and feels recent enough to be firmly in people's mental periphery and old enough to claim loads of retro nostalgia points
  4. don't bother with either, save yourself the trouble
  5. I just don't understand how you are quantifying any of this. You just seem to be anecdotally deciding how the majority of people are listening/discovering music and how genuine it is, and it's just so totally baseless. The charts are genuinely less relevant than ever and are often skewed because of streaming anyway. Shows like X-Factor are less relevant than ever, and people don't watch them to discover music, they watch them for entertainment. The winners barely ever have sustained success in spite of incredible marketing and money poured into them. As much as you say "I don't care what kind of music it is as long as people as discovering it in a genuine way', but then you keep instantly dismissing artists you don't deem worth immediately, like Lady Gaga, even though you actually seem to know very little about her pathway to success, her music or the people that listen to her (I am not a fan of Lady Gaga's music really, but I actually think she'd be a pretty solid candidate for this mystical artists you wonder can stand the test of time). There will always be popular fads and manufactured artists in music, there always has been - but you keep placing huge significance on things that are just nowhere as significant as you think, and keep saying 'but back then there was xyz' even though those things still exist in music now, and are probably more prevalent and likely to surface than ever. Every single argument you put across, no matter how many ways you frame it, just come off as you snobbily thinking that people are these mindless drones that aren't true fans or capable of cultivating a genuine taste for music, which you just CANNOT quantify, and has always been the case anyway. Little kids will follow marketing and radio like they always have, but then they will get to an age where they start to discover things for themselves and create their own tastes and identity like they always have. Every era has a bunch of kids listening to some songs that came out before them going 'man this sucks, I was born in the wrong era!!!' - difference is, music is more accessible than ever before, there is more to discover. You are placing enormous significance on elements of the industry that are less relevant than they have ever been since the dawn of popular culture, and we're actually way more powerful in the goold old days you're trying to defend as this bygone era of artists purity and the last bastion of listener honesty. On top of that, some people will just legitimately like those songs - not everything has to be some technically proficient, amazingly constructed and performed track to be enjoyable - music is inextricably linked with memories, experiences, relationships and moods and that will always make certain songs powerful. Your whole argument just seems to be based around how honest people's enjoyment of music is, and I don't understand how you're quantifying that
  6. Also what do you want the record companies to do? You moan about marketing manufacturing, but then put yourself in a bracket of unaware passive listeners who don’t know any better? So is the onus on the lister to ‘dig deep’ like you’re hesitant to do, or labels to spotlight what they think is popular? I genuinely don’t even understand what you’re arguing anymore. You genuinely come across as a bitter snob who was in a failed band or something. Why do you even hold such value in the charts or the power of X factor? It’s such a tiny dent
  7. I think you are making such bizarre arguments. Like once again you've said 'oh I do this, but nobody else does' - how are you measuring how the majority of other people are putting effort into what they listen to? What makes your musical taste more valid than other peoples? and how are you gauging that? Your stand the test of time argument is weird because neither of us can see into the future, so you can easily just go 'nah they won't'. I mean I don't particularly care for Winehouse of Gaga, but they undoubtedly both have (had) phenomenal voices, and if you watch documentaries on either, you'll see that they actually put an incredible amount of that craft and passion into their music and performances - Winehouse particularly was a phenomenal songwriter. They're just bizarre arguments to pick because neither of them have gone the manufactured pop route and very much carved their own path career wise, and there is a lot more artistry than you're giving them credit for. Besides, where do you draw the line? Sinatra and Elvis didn't write a lot of their songs, Otis Redding sang predominantly covers (as is common in soul). Winehouse has been dead for the best part of a decade and she is still revered and talked about as a phenomenal talent - which you can call post-mortem eulogising, but she was equally celebrated for her talents when she was alive. What was her gimmick out of interest? a crippling substance abuse problem that resulted in an early death? Your arguments just come across as you dismissing certain genres or artists as devoid of any artistic merit because you don’t like them or know anything about them, but also feel like having to discover anything yourself is indicative of sub-par talent...but then are also resistant to being told what to listen to by marketing? You can't have it both ways, you can't be all like 'oh a TRUE music fan would know xyz' but then when you espouse random views which you admit are coming from a point of ignorance, you can't just be like 'ah well if I have to dig that deep, it's hardly worth bothering with. It's just odd, I don't even know what you're arguing for - You're talking about X Factor and Capital FM as if it represents ALL music and ALL music fans when it doesn't whatsoever. Those talent show contests rarely produce anybody who is truly successful (although there are obvious exceptions), they're really not the man conduit for which people are discovering new artists or artists are getting their music out there. Radio is less relevant than ever really because there are so many new avenues for fans and artists alike. You can't just dismiss the overwhelming majority of people that aren't you are mindless drones easily manipulated by marketing who change their tastes on a whim, whilst distancing yourself from it. You don't need to 'dig in' to find the good stuff, you need to listen to it at all. You're just getting caught up on one specific element of entertainment as though that represents all music, fans and artists that you don't like or care to listen to
  8. I appreciate you answering the points I made, but almost every one is essentially 'well I don't know about this, but it seems like...' which just completely undercuts anything you say afterwards. Your examples of rap are laughable, your ignorance to the genre isn't a reflection of what's becoming successful, it's a reflection of how much attention you've paid. Even within pop, there are tonnes of bands and groups and artists that aren't manufactured or carefully manicured from day one to be a viral success. Of course those things exist too, but they did then. You don't have to like it all, I don't like it all, but you're being way too general about something that you'd find isn't remotely the case if you dug skin deep in these genres. You could just as easily argue that people are able to find new bands and musicans more easily than ever before, and a much wider array of acts have way more exposure than they ever could have hoped for in past generations - stuff like Spotify, Tidal, Soundcloud, datpiff, etc - I don't think they're perfect platforms or all devoid of being corporate, but they at least have an unbeliveably vast library of musicians, and have given loads of rise to musicans being able to get themselves out there without having to go down the traditional route and have their music discovered and heard beyond just what is played on the radio and dictated by chart music. Rap music is actually probably one of the better genres for that, because artists have been savvy with social media and self-advertising to create their own exposure. Chance the Rapper is one of the biggest, most successful rap artists in the world at the moment and he isn't even signed to a record label and has given away all of his music for free
  9. I said turn it around as much as they did, not that they completely turned it around. I think it's still been a relative flop overall, but the view of them was SO SO overwhelmingly negative at the start/launch that it looked like it was genuinely going to be a Wii U level flop right out the gates. I don't think they've made it a roaring success, but I do think they did an okay job of mitigating some of the early negativity surrounding it. It's easy to forget just how acerbic the reaction was to the always online stuff, it was basically going to make it a DOA console
  10. It's mental how much MS flubbed the start of this gen considering how high the 360's credit was. From the always online stuff, to revealing the console and marketing it as a media system rather than a gaming machine, it's just unbelievable how tone deaf it was to what they'd been doing - it's actually impressive they managed to turn it around as much as they did in the nascent days of the generation. That said, I think they're straying back to missing the mark now. As people have said, mileage may vary for what you want to play personally, but I think overall MS's stable of games are so ridiculously uninspiring. Forza, Halo, Gears of War... it's just so predictable and unexciting
  11. what was the left hand doing??
  12. tbf I don't think it's the same thing at all, they're genuinely different systems with vastly different capabilities. Arcades is pretty broad, much more broad than wanting to count every PES as the same game or whatever (which I also didn't agree with tbf). 'Arcades' is basically picking every Arcade platform for every arcade game in the last 40 odd years, it's literally like picking 5 console generations as one pick Still, at least our beloved CPC got a mention
  13. Arcades is a bit of a copout considering there are so many different variants with JAMMA, CPS/1, CPS/2, etc, AES, NAMOI, V-UNIT, etc, that all had different graphical capabilities, sound systems, supported control systems and uses, etc It's genuinely like saying your favourite video game console is 'games console' That said, I didn't vote, so I 100% support the vote at the exact same time
  14. Colecovision was my first ever console. It came out the year I was born, so it was already pretty old when I eventually got it at about 4-5 years old, but I absolutely loved it. Introduced me to gaming and I just loved having so many games for it, even though you had to play them on the worst controllers ever. Was something quite magical about sliding on the controller overlays for each game even though it was terrible looking back They did admirably strong arcade ports in an era where 'arcade-perfect' was the ultimate accolade a game could get as well. Amstrad CPC 464 was my first ever computer, absolutely loved it. Everyone else seemed to have commodores and spectrums (which I did eventually get when I was a little bit older, but CPC was always my first love <3 Looked so exciting with the weird coloured keyboard too
  15. I don't agree with most of that at all really. You can't just say 'music quality has objectively decreased'. you can't just remove the subjective element of something that is overwhelmingly subjective. Technical prowess/effort/passion/craft/etc in music aren't the same thing as the music being good. On top of that, it's a bit revisionist to act like every band and musician back in the day was some sort of passion fuelled artisanal master of their craft in whatever music they were making. Since there has been any semblance of popular culture, there have been fads, gimmicks, novelty bands, bands getting by more on image and attitude than talent, and so on. It's daft to talk like any remotely popular musician now is basically some Youtube marketed viral sensation that is just getting by on a wave of social media and fads, rather than some raw artistic purity of yesteryear. To act like old music somehow transcended marketing, or pop-culture, or that musicians now don't do that is daft. Then at the end you're just completely reductive about entire broad genres of music - if you really think that hip-hop is just a plethora of copy cat rappers, then you really don't listen to much hip-hop, and I'd say the same for others too. Preferring music from the past to music now is cool, but to act like back then was all some pure talent and passion driven creme de la creme and was immune to fads, movements and marketing is just daft. Pick a genre and a decade and you can pretty much pick out a bucket of songs that completely epitomise that era for that music