Jump to content

Recommendations for personal shoppers


Recommended Posts

"I can't see why anyone would get into making music without aspirations of commercial success, to do so would smack of the worst sort of pretentiousness. I mean we've all got to eat haven't we."


No, no, no.

I have tried making various music for years with no aspirations for making money, I'd starve immediately anyway, but to stop making music because it cannot generate money would be insane ! The whole point is the kick from doing it, those (for me) infrequent moments of satisfaction, just like painting or poetry or other art forms that I'm equally shit at.


People need to get away from this obsession (not specifically at you EP) with making everything a 'success', especially financially, bollox to that. And bollox to the thought that people can't produce their stuff feeling safe to 'fail' and make mistakes and try again to improve, to their own tastes, if they want. Interests outside work are a pleasure field to wander through, not job prospects - otherwise we're just turning ourselves into something we invest in.

I guess people have different definitions. Some people would describe any commercially succesful music as "commercial".


If we're saying that commercial music is the stuff which is cynically produced to sell units, with little regard for artistic merit or integrity, then I'd be happy with that definition. And in which case, I don't listen to commercial music either!

UDT's definition seems to be that commercial music is stuff that lots of people like and are prepared to pay for.


The fact that it appeals to a lot of people must - in his view - devalue its integrity as it can only have acheived such appeal by compromise and using lowest-common-denominator musical tricks and must have sacrificed its true originality on the altar of widespread acceptability.


Thus, if the Osmonds had released "Crazy Horses" in its original form (with Jay's screaming "Fuck me Mother fuck me!" and hurling his snare drum at his simpering brothers after the first chorus) it may have been a cult hit rather than a TOTP favourite.

I think UDT's definition is basically stuff he looks down on.


Jeremy and KK, I don't think we're at odds here. I completely agree with what you say.

I blame my original wording, very sloppy.

I guess I should really have said 'pursuing music as a career'. At the very least you'd be hoping for critical success with the hope that financial success would go hand in hand.


I've a load of mates who pursued it for years and got nowhere, trying to get noticed by the labels, some even getting signed but coming to nowt, not to mention a pile of CDs by bands I really liked who have sadly had to give it up as they couldn't make ends meet.


It's a tough business, if I was there I guess I'd deem success as being able to pay the mortgage. A mercury would be nice though ;-)

El Pibe Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think UDT's definition is basically stuff he

> looks down on.


It's a definition widely accepted in the cool circle. Unless you're part of it then you wouldn't know any different.

To 'conflates exclusivity with superiority' I need to add 'confuses subjectivity with objectivity'.


UDT, Jeremy was throwing you a bone there. He was, in parlance you may struggle to understand 'being nice to you'.

The traditional response to people being nice isn't usually to spit in their face, but each to their own.

@EP,


You said this I think UDT's definition is basically stuff he looks down on, which was an incorrect assumption and aggressive in the scheme of things. So I gave an accurate to explain the differences from our different circles.


It seems to me that you want to keep prodding for a reaction and then use blame to say that I'm at fault.

For what it's worth and on a tagent on the commercial thang. Many of the commercial disco bands of the late 70s started playing a far harder and funkier sound in the early 70s but didn't get either airplay and/or record sales. Many of these then chose to soften up and harmonise their sound which created, disco which eventually got airplay and whwn taken up by the white Bee Gees conquered the world (for good or bad). Much of the Early Commodores and Kool and the Gang tracks for example are great 'non commwercial' funk records. Listen to Brick House not Three Times a Lady for eg.

Undisputedtruth Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Loz Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Just goes to show how people who think they have

> > great taste in music also think they have great

> > taste in clothes.

> >

> > Every else thinks they are preening tossers that

> > listen to pretentious crap.

>

> Nah, Loz, only the style challenged thinks that.


I'm 'style agnostic'. It might exist, but I don't care.


Style and fashion are both very much like religions. Everyone thinks theirs is the only true way. The rest of us non-believers think they are all equally hatstand.

If the definition of 'commercial music' is 'music that lacks credibility', UDT, then why have you observed that 'commercial music lacks credibility'?


It's tautology.


I don't think you're a complete cretin, desperately close, but not a complete one - therefore you must have known that 'lacking credibility' is not the only definition of commercial music.


That makes you an inconsistent troll.


Your insistence that you belong to some 'cool circle' of cultural Illuminati smacks of a lonely little boy desperate to create an identity who invents a cadre of imaginary friends to boast about at school.


It matches your conviction that you have some sort of ongoing relationship with the people in the John Lewis menswear department.


The evidence of your lack of 'cool' is inherent in your requirement to boast about it - the one thing that is notable about 'cool' people is that they do not need to boast about it.


The only people who would boast about being cool are people who manifestly knew they were not - hence every comment you make distances you further from the 'cool' end of the scale, and ever closer to the dickhead one.

It just goes to show that the exclusivity/superiority thing is an easy trap to fall into.


I've just read this review of the reissue of Ride's Going Blank Again.


The line

"But [Going Blank Again and Sugar's Copper Blue]'re both records that feel welcome 20 years later, because while their more famed peers have influenced hundreds of pale imitators, these more approachable records feel strangely undervalued"

basically equates to they're cool because people don't know about them.

Copper Blue... now there's kick ass record!


UDT cares about what is cool and likes to associate himself with cool people/clothes/music. I don't give a toss about what's cool. But the one thing that we almost certainly have in common is that we are both, quite clearly, hopelessly uncool.

No Hugo, I have to disagree with you once again.


Listening to the type of music and going clubbing with like minded people you pick up on values and attitudes. It was very clear and consistent what commercialist music meant to us. And if you look at Quid's post, he also understand the background.


Now let's get to real real reason why people like you and others don't get it. Style challenged is one of them. Inability to mix in with the right crowd. I bet the bouncer at a club never allowed you through the doors. Sorry Hugo, but no amount of changing the cool rules on your part will change my experience in life and what I've learnt.


Now what we're seeing here is a small core of people, hopelessly out of touch with style and basically inept, then using the EDF as a virtual world to make themselves look good. In the real world they are nobodies, the sort of people who got beaten up because no one wanted to be associated with them. Always last to be selected as part of team when playing football.

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> I don't give a toss about what's cool. But the one

> thing that we almost certainly have in common is

> that we are both, quite clearly, hopelessly

> uncool.


Yeah, but it's cool to be be uncool...

A change of direction.

If my husband finds a pair of trousers he likes (cords or chinos), he immediately goes back online (whence they came) and orders another five pairs.


Now this is a very sensible but, at the same time, totally "wrong"...Isn't it?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...