Winnie :-)

=========== Bugg*r, I really like that record......1,2,3,4 Do we need someone to compile a 'naff' 500 (insert your.....It's already been done jokes here) Winnie:-)

============== Trying to think of something that others would find naff is very difficult for me as I have impeccable taste and am never wrong I still rather like 'The Night'...........bit underplayed though Winnie:-)

============== Think most guys sacrificed their c**k Soz I'll get my goat winnie;)

Have enjoyed the debate, but as was said numerous times no real definitive answer possible So will close the thread to avoid any more repetition. If anybody wants the right of reply, let me know and I'll re-open it. Thanks to everyone for your input. Winnie:-)

=========== Most travelled soulies I know, probably Janine/Dave A, Rach, Karen, Gill/Becky Billy W, Baz, Dave W, they're the ones that seem to get everywhere and who aren't too worried about the distance they travel. Winnie:-)

============== Ged I keep trying to explain I haven't chosen that record because I want to hear it, I've chosen it because it comes within the category of underplayed these days. What seems to be the general consensus from the posts is that it doesn't have the quality to get into an underplayed/reactivated/new release kind of night and that seems kind of snobbish to me, because most people would have danced to it at some time. As you, Steve and Joan have said, pick up a list and there will be things on there you either haven't heard, or can't remember and of course some of them are worth spinning again, but what worries me is who decides. If venue A in the North for instance goes down the road of playing 'apple peaches' which is never played anymore and others of the same ilk, they will be ridiculed as having no taste (in all likelyhood). Venue B in the south, plays reactivated oldies, but plays things that weren't popular first time round and they are heralded as groundbreakers. Both are doing the same thing, but in some eyes the quality of the music differs, but in essence both are doing the same thing, playing things that no longer get spun. Maybe I'm missing something very important within the debate.........taste You're right it is quite a pointless thread, as it doesn't look like anything definitive can be decided, so really for the future of the scene the die is cast. Winnie:-)

================= Pretty sure I didn't say that Gareth, in fact I gave my view of what I consider progressive, something from every genre under one roof, which is paraphrasing Russ's view. The new terms 'upfront' etc seem to promote elitism, and I feel that that will and is a far greater danger to the scene than anything else. The constant theme that comes across on here is that those liking oldies are second class citizens who don't have the ability or knowledge to like anything else, which I just don't think is accurate. It could also be argued that people stay away from newies events because they don't want to be ridiculed, either in the way they dance or the way they dress. I find these sort of attitudes much more divisive in creating splits. For some reason these attitudes are never really addressed, for whatever reason, maybe the 'elitists' don't feel they deserve an answer, or maybe they just feel they're the irrelevant views of an average soulie. Who really knows, I certainly don't. What I do know is that I've done upfront venues for years and enjoyed them alongside oldies events, now I'd like to see an end to the elitism and enjoy them in the same venue, without someone telling me "This is what you should be dancing to". I accept that lifeline etc are not all about 'chinstroking', but can't help thinking most of the people promoting that style of music on here aren't what I'd classify as dancers. Please be aware I've said most and not all. Hearing new/reactivated sounds isn't always what dancers want, and personally I think they've got just as much of a say in musical direction as anybody else?? I don't neccessarily think you're in a minority Gareth, I think there are lots of people who want to hear something different, but not at the expense of being told they're favourites are rubbish and don't stand the test of time. To me that is arrogance personified. Winnie:-)

=========== You say bang on to Baz's statement re: current criteria, and sounds fitting it. Pointing out the obvious, todays scene is predominately an oldies scene, so that would appear to be the current criteria. I take it you're talking about the 'progressive' scene, I'd still like to know who is responsible for setting that criteria, it clearly isn't just about playing underplayed oldies, or apple peaches or breakaway could be included. The criteria it seems to me is more about reactivating records that were rejected first time round, but I don't know because no one has told me yet And before anyone says those records are shit, I am trying to point out that they would fall into the underplayed (these days) category. I'd also like to say if I heard them I'd probably dance to them, cos as Steve said it's about enjoyment. One other point, are those pushing the 'progressive' scene, more listeners than dancers? Winnie:-)

=========== I agree we were a little childish, but not sure about arrogant. The spat we had wasn't about this subject in general, more to do with politics within SS. I won't rehash it, as I'm sure neither will you, from what I can gather it was down to a misunderstanding on both our parts. Arrogance to me is saying something like this or that record is shit, without taking into account that other people may like it. Perhaps that's why some new members don't post so much, their taste in music and their views are often treated with contempt, particularly if they don't fit the current trend. As for highlighting the divisions, I don't think it's a secret is it? I see it all the time on here, people saying choose the sort of venue you want, people promoting the sort of music they'd like to hear, they're the people promoting the divisions. I do agree it's not a good thing, but suppose it's human nature. If there was a multitude of new discoveries coming through, then perhaps I could understand the terms 'upfront' or progressive, but theres not, basically it's just a different set of oldies. Nothing wrong with that, but progressive for me would be to embrace all the different genres in one place. Just my personal opinion and not a difinitive answer by any means, but it could just slow the divisions down? I also understand that yourself and others feel they've had their say, so no longer want to (or don't feel the need to) take part in this debate Winnie;-)

============== I haven't got any speakers at the moment, so can't listen to anything Steve, soz Winnie:-)

============= I agree this subject has been discussed many times, but with SS constantly evolving and attracting new members I don't see it as a problem that it's being discussed again. Although our own views may not be fresh, new members could mean new perspectives, which is all good IMO in debate.

================= Who knows Jamie, it's been spoken about enough on here, thought I might get a difinitive answer As for my opinion, I don't think it's particularly important within the debate. I think a lot of people might like to have a working definition of 'upfront', it would give them an insight into what to expect at a venue, playing that particular genre. Personally see it as just a bit more shared knowledge that the list may benefit from (not from me I hasten to add, but on the part of those supplying the answers.)

============= Yep got your take on it Baz, but still doesn't explain a lot of things. You mentioned fitting the criteria of todays sounds......who sets that criteria? Is it the majority or the minority, do some people think they know better than others? Not quite sure what you mean by timeless either, I can usually tell if something is 6Ts or 7Ts, so rarely think, that was made yesterday (unless you're talking 4 vandals) You also said let someone DJ who wants to be different, at the expense of what, the floor, the crowd. Would those who proclaim to be different want to DJ to a predominately oldies crowd, or would they want an open minded crowd? I ask these questions because I feel it's a two way street, but some seem to think their way is the right way, and in effect maybe alienating themselves from the mainstream of the scene?? Winnie:-) PS. Sorry about answering you so often Baz, but you are one of the few trying to answer questions, which is why I keep replying Thought there'd be more of the 'usual suspects' (to pinch a Shane phrase) involved

Winnie, what the blazes are you on about, man? Jamie

============ It's the moustache change I've found hardest to master 3 before 8 anyone?

============ Stu, do you really think some DJ's don't play certain records to let other DJ's/collectors know what they've got? Where's the balance though, if you're at a night do you want to hear stuff all night that you don't know. If you're DJ'n would you play stuff all night that the punters don't know. It used to be a DJ liked to look out at the floor and see people dancing, is that still the case. How many actually dance to stuff they're hearing for the first time? I don't want people to think I'm plugging or supporting oldies only venues, I'm not, but I do think they deserve as much respect as anybody else. Upfront/progressive is still playing 6Ts 7Ts music as far as I can make out, is that progression or just another set of oldies? Winnie:-)

============= I'm not Russ, but if it helps you get something off your chest, I'll happily take on the role for you

================ The thing is we're all nobodies in effect, we just go out and enjoy what we enjoy each weekend, then comment on it during the week on here. You have no desire to dance to any of the records mentioned which is your prerogative, but IMO that doesn't make them shite. They're tunes you don't like that's all. The reason I made the analogy to 'upfront' being wannabees was to replicate the style of writing you employed, dismissive. As I said in another post, the tracks mentioned are rarely heard, which is what you want to hear, but you also need, it appears, to hear a certain style of record to be satisfied. So I take your point, but as I've also said later, if different venues are playing stuff not heard very often who is to decide whether its worthy, you me anyone? Surely the answer is the dancefloor, rather than an elite panel of judges. The mark some are placing on the scene isn't for me progressing it, at times it seems like some of those doing it are jealous because they didn't do Wigan or any of the other legendary venues. Maybe I'm wrong, probably I am, but others have said similar things to me, it's just a discussion point really. Winnie:-)

================= Ted, I wasn't making the choices on a 'quality' front, but more on a they're never played any more. I actually like the shakers, but it's irrelevant in the debate as to what is underplayed. Some jock could play it and be right in saying it's underplayed, same goes for lots of other records. At the moment we have people on the scene sifting through records and saying this is underplayed, but it has to meet a criteria (what that is I'm not sure, which is why I'm attempting to find out) I find this difficult to follow. Venues up and down the country are playing something different, but obviously they're not all playing the same tunes. So who's right and who's wrong? Clearly someone is, because if they played one wonderful moment you'd walk out. To me that's a blinkered view, what if they'd previously played 10/20 a 100 records you liked, you'd make your judgement on just that one tune? Surely that's not right? Winnie:-)

============== No disrespect Baz, but who are you to say they're shite. Ok you don't like them, but have you ever danced to them with a 1000 other like minded souls, clapping, singing along? my guess is you haven't. The point I was making and still am making is that underplayed is just that, who sets the criteria for what should be played. I've done 'upfront' at various venues over the years, the truth is, is a lot of wannabees who want to put their mark on the soul scene, and often with sub-standard records. Now you shouldn't take offence at that, or be outraged because technically it's the same attitude you're adopting to oldies by just generally saying they're shite. You/me everybody has to accept that people have different opinions, we also have to accept that we are small cogs, and our judgement is no worse or better than anybody elses. I would like to see the scene progress, but not if it means we're moving towards tea dance status. Winnie;-)

============= I think we've established upfront is in fact underplayed oldies, so why aren't the likes of Pay your dues, Touch the rainchild, one wonderful moment played. Hardly played anywhere in 25 years, can they be classed as upfront? Or are we looking for more mid-tempo stafford kind of records that were/are underplayed? We'll get to the bottom of this unfront conundrum yet

============ Who decides what's underplayed Dan, is it the average soulie without the photographic memory, or the soulie who listens to everything and has perfect recollection. It could become more of a 'led' scene than ever before?? Winnie:-)

============= I never said the younger generation wasn't dancing Baz and I never said they weren't any good I just said that in the place where predominately lesser known tracks were being played, nobody was dancing. So what if it's a bit light, if you like a record dance to it, dancing tells the DJ he's got it right. Otherwise we're only a hop and a skip away from politely applauding, and shouting bravo

============ What were they buying in general though, oldies or underplayed?