Jools Holland's Formulaic Tosh

There was a time when "Later..." the live music show presented by Jools Holland was essential viewing. On a BBC that knows so little about music that in every documentary it trots out the usual bollocks about how important punk was1 Jool's show was a breath of fresh air. Not only did it present bands playing live - something Top of the Pops producers would have you believe was technically impossible - it offered a real interesting variety.
But those days are gone. Instead every week you have exactly the same show. Of course the band names change - but the actual show is pretty much identical week after week.
...
Gone are the days when you'd see real variety, where each week would be a surprise. Now there's a set formula and you can guarantee what you'll get. My wife and I have taken to pointing out which band fits each clichéd spot as Jools does his introductory walk around.
First there will be the legend. This will be some old duffer selling a greatest hits or covers album. Here we'll have a genuine star - might be Robert Plant, Tony Bennett or last night Peter Gabriel. They will have to endure an interview at the piano where Jools shows them footage of when they were still any good followed by some of the most painfully stupid interview questions ever asked. The star will then get to play a few songs and although past it will probably be the best thing in the show.
Next there will be a crap indie band. These losers will be from the cliched box of paint by numbers indie rubbish. The lead singer will be and ugly git with a ridiculous mop of hair (thankfully) covering half his face. Another band member who can't decide to play guitar or a tiny pointless keyboard will hover between both playing each badly. Sometimes this member will hover between guitar and a single drum to help out their weedy skinny anaemic drummer who only has a child's drumkit. Telecaster and Jaguar guitars will be favoured running into a variety of vintage expensive amps yet the resulting sound will be a thin weedy mess reminiscent of a toy ukulele. The indie band will play with the demeanour of sixth-form hipsters too cool to be here, looking as miserable as possible while belting out their dreadful imitation of Smiths/Mark E Smith shite.
Then there will be the urban or world music act. I don't know if the show has some kind of ethnic quota or something, but if you've got bloke from Tower Hamlets mumbling over some Bontempi keyboard backing then you're less likely to get four Kenyans playing the sort of jangly guitar pop that made Paul Simon a very wealthy afro-kleptomaniac.
Next up we'll have the quirky female solo artist. You are guaranteed one of these every week. She will be almost pretty, but so weird you wouldn't go within a mile of her. She will almost be able to sing, but not enough that you'd ever want to hear her voice again. Often she'll painfully drag us through her last breakup as she weakly strums an acoustic and warbles disconsolately in a vague imitation of music. Other weeks quirky female solo artist will have a backing band of competent but freaky musicians (including the can't make up his mind keyboard/guitarist) that otherwise would be playing as the shit indie band.
Some weeks there will be a folk act. Well I say folk. But more likely it will be a bunch of public schoolboys playing Worzel Gummidge dress up, adopting silly rural singing voices and a half passable job of getting a busking pitch in the London Underground. Pretending to be a posh tramp and having a mate who can almost play the bodhran does not make you a folk act. You're just the crap indie band - but without the amplifiers.
All of the above will be hugely popular with excited media types watching along and talking about the music on Twitter. There will be gushing from broadsheet music writers (and their kin) about these awful, tuneless set of insignificant mumblers as though they were the saviours of popular music. On any given week at least two of these dreadful formulaic bands will have won a Mercury or Ivor Novello.
Some weeks as some kind of patronising care-in-the-community, let's help the dreadfully unfashionable bands2, a band will be invited on that the broadsheet music or the NME wouldn't touch with a bargepole. Invariably this will be some metal or rock band. This group won't have boutique music gear, will look cheerful and will belt through some rousing song that everyone will find they enjoy after the bleak shite that has been on the rest of the programme so far. And this having been cheerful and noisy and fun they won't be allowed to play another song tonight, unlike the rest of the acts.
Meanwhile it's then back to some mumbly shite that's achingly worthy. One of the unlucky acts (but never the big successful band) will be asked to play a famous cover with Jools on piano. Ooh what style will it be this week? Oh boogie woogie, who would have thought.
And next week we'll do it all again.
1Punk really wasn't important at all as a musical force or commercially. But the BBC has lots of footage. Whereas Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd - who were selling millions of albums - wouldn't give BBC television the time of day. So every BBC show about music in the seventies seems to think glam rock then punk were the most popular forms of music. You really would think that Showaddywaddy sold more records than Dark Side of the Moon.
2Those bands that can (a) play their instruments, (b) sing, (c) not look like one of those dandy twats just asking to be beaten up on the tube, (d) actually smile and look like they're enjoying themself.
| Print article | This entry was posted by Harry on 12/10/11 at 10:58 . Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. |



13/10/11 @ 10:06
Oh H you make me laugh and I'm probably one of the ones thinking those 'shite indie' bands are the bee's knees
There's an interesting point about punk though, it was definitely not popular - biggest selling albums in UK during mid 70s were the likes of Simon & Garfunkel and ABBA - ooh feel the revolution. Plus the BBC did the excellent programme on Easy Listening and how popular on sales alone the likes of Richard Clayderman are.
I used to love 'Later...' not for the bands I'd heard of, but for the ones I hadn't discovered, which is the same for the BBC's Glastonbury coverage, yet you're right both seem to miss the mark or is that just festivals who seem to fight over having the 'biggest' act to draw in the crowds, without any semblance of balance or interest.
13/10/11 @ 10:21
Finding good stats is hard - many of the best selling lists for the 70s includes figures from the 70s to today, rather than just in that decade.
The list of best selling albums year by year in the UK at least is as you say stuff like Abba. But looking at global sales, and sales over the decade rather than year by year it looks like the usual suspects rule the roost.
Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, Fleetwood Mac, The Eagles - essentially any band that bought cocaine in bulk.
But either way you look at it, punk was of no real consequence other than it made a lot of noise that mainstream media took note of, not realising what most people were listening to.
Danny Baker, who was at the NME during the punk era, is often pointing out how unimportant punk really was. As he says, despite what BBC docs will have you believe about punk destroying the "rock dinosaurs" who bought all those copies of The Wall then?
Interestingly one musical movement that did damage another was the effect of grunge on mainstream rock/metal. However these recovered and grunge died a long time ago. Thank goodness.
23/10/11 @ 20:04
Calm down Harry. Mr Holland may have lost his mojo recently and yes the show is getting a little formulaic but some good stuff does come up from time to time. And anyway, name me a tv music show that can get away with putting Buddy Greco on immdeiately after Mastodon!
. Radio is being killed by the moron that is Chris Moyles. And the once joyous MusicChoice - streamed music without deejays - is now missing from Sky's channel mix. Sad days indeed.
Music on tv is in something of a downward rut. MTV doesn't actually show any music vids anymore; you have to tune into one of it's dedicated music genre channels for that (well as long as you like six flavours of R'n'
As for your rather simplistic conclusion that 70's rock bands like the Eagles et al were obviously so much better than anything else cos the sold records by the lorryload, well you're not really comparing like with like. In the early to mid 70's a number one single had to sell a minimum 500k copies to get there. Come Christmas that was a million plus. By the 90's 100k would be seen as astounding sales figures. 'Hard copy' music sales, save for a slight blip with the arrival of the CD, have done nothing but decline since the 70's. Yes, Dark Side of the Moon sold millions worldwide, but at a time when recording buying was at its peak. In the 80's The Wall and Thriller sold by the cart load worldwide cos they had all the tunes you heard on the radio. But what were we buying in the UK? 'Now' compilations.
The way we buy and, as the press like to say, 'consume' music has changed so dramatically in the last 30 years. The one area that hasn't kept up? Television. It looked as though it was going to change everything when MTV arrived but in truth it has delivered little. So don't be so harsh on Jools Holland. It's one of the few remaining places on terrestrial tv where there's a genuine mix of old, new and stuff you've probably never heard before. It should be celebrated not castigated. The real question we should all be asking is "where is the rest of the music on tv"? And if anyone answers XFactor, kill them!!
23/10/11 @ 20:55
No I won't bloody calm down, it's my website and I can say what I like.
I hope you'll forgive me as I mustn't have made my argument very clear as you've missed my point.
My point being that while Later pretends to be diverse and a showcase for stuff you won't find anywhere else - in practice it's the same show every week. The band names may change but the actual music doesn't. It's the audio/visual version of the Guardian music section. All achingly worthy and fashionable, without really being much of a variety at all. Most weeks you can imagine many viewers owning music from all the acts, rather than it being a show that brings fans from many different areas together. It used to do that. You wouldn't be shocked by a metal band being on, because Later was the place to catch lots very different music. Now it's all badly played indie shite and Waitrose folks bands.
Look at the back pages of music mags at all the bands on tour, imagine many of those fitting in an appearance on Later into their few days on the London leg of the tour. Then we'd see some variety.
Mastadon's appearance was a blip, it's one of those all too rare things that happens on the show. Hence everyone being so excited about it. As it stands if the show really was diverse we'd regularly have hard rock/metal bands, jazz and other genres that tend to be ignored.
And I never said the Eagles were better than anything else. My point - seemingly badly made - was that the BBC histories of the period are not representative of what was truly popular. Instead its history was based on what footage it could get hold of. I certainly wouldn't ever suggest commercial success equals quality otherwise that would imply Coldplay were anything other than fucking shite music for idiots who don't really like music.
08/11/11 @ 20:14
You're dead right about Later. But I've got to disagree about punk.
I suspect that the reason a lot of BBC programmes go on about punk is less to do with the availability of footage and more because the producers are men in their 50s who grew up during the punk years and have a nostalgia for the music of their youth. But to be fair, BBC4 did run a whole night of Pink Floyd recently.
Was punk important as a musical force or commercially? Musically, Well, there were some bloody good records. Commercially? Actually who cares? Since when did selling a lot of records automatically equate with being good?
You've missed out the other question: Was punk important socially? I'd say it was. Here's why: http://olderthanelvis.blogspot.com/2011/05/punks-not-dead-discuss.html
11/02/12 @ 15:01
Got to say that I broadly agree with the comments re "Later" particularly the shite questions in the interview . . why do they let him? Does he not know? But hey most TV program have a formula of some sort and it would appear that you have stumbled upon the “Later . . “ formula. The comment that particularly got me was the one about the crap indie bands playing teles and jaguars. Being an avid gear watcher (well the music might be crap but I can check out the rig) I have for a very long time noticed the preponderance of a certain genre of band to play mostly Fender Telecasters (particularly the deluxe models from the 70s) Jaguars or sometimes a Gibson 335 – but only in cherry red. Where does this come from? I guess you play the guitar that your heroes play but I have to wonder where the fascination with black deluxe teles come from. Perhaps these guys follow some axe hero that I’m not aware of . . .
I recall watching the Glastonbury festival on telly in about 2004, and during the Friday and Saturday various bands would come on and stare at their shoes past an assortment of the aforementioned teles, jags and 335s played through a backline of Fender amps and Vox AC30s. I was getting pretty bored with this. Things got a little better on the Sunday when James Browns guitarist sported a PRS in Gold. However, the metal guitar quotient really became favourable when Morrissy of all people came on. The guitarist in his band choose between a Gibson Flying V and a Peavey Wolfgang, from the Peavey custom shop through a 5150. This kind of surprised me – not that anybody would play a Wolfgang, they are excellent all round instruments – but it just didn’t fit in with image. Given Morrissy has lots of opinions about stuff, did he realise that his guitar sound was being delivered by gear designed by a bloke who is credited with reinventing/redefining the sound of metal? Perhaps he did, but the tones were just too killer for the associations to get in the way. I’m guessing Morrissey himself doesn’t own a copy of a Van Halen album . . . but his (then) guitarist might.