DM's Beatles forums
Other music forums => Various Artists, Lyrics, Discographies => Topic started by: Hombre_de_ningun_lugar on July 02, 2015, 03:51:08 PM
-
Deep Purple: "Hush"
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4QBhC1uCP4#)
Yes: "Sweetness"
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCbHVX9a7dw#)
Pink Floyd: "Lucifer Sam"
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbIMx2MYNXk#)
-
Your not a fan of Deep Purple, Yes & Pink Floyd ???
That's a tough one, 'cause usually if I don't like a Band, it's because I don't like their music. glassesslip
-
I've never cared too much for Ozzy Osbourne, but I love "Crazy Train." And "Iron Man," come to think of it, but I think that's by Black Sabbath (?).
-
Your not a fan of Deep Purple, Yes & Pink Floyd ???
That's a tough one, 'cause usually if I don't like a Band, it's because I don't like their music. glassesslip
But see the songs I selected, they are different from the usual sound those bands developed during the 70's. I'm not a fan of the general work of those groups, but I like some things from their early stuff.
-
I've never cared too much for Ozzy Osbourne, but I love "Crazy Train." And "Iron Man," come to think of it, but I think that's by Black Sabbath (?).
Ozzy and Sabbath have made some interesting music. Interestingly, Ozzy has often stated that they were initially inspired by The Beatles and wanted to emulate their style, but somehow the darker imagery emerged as a path to success for them and they've been attached to it ever since. Good musicians though.
:)
-
"Love" is taking it a bit far, but I've always really liked this song.... despite not caring for the artist (I know it's difficult but please try and disregard the subsequently exposed wickedness of both presenter and performer):
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73ks2TPPyho#)
-
Never understood what anyone ever saw in this very ordinary bloke (The Boss? of what? a small car park somewhere maybe?) but I do rate this one:
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=129kuDCQtHs#)
-
"Let there be songs to fill the air"...great line.
http://youtu.be/671AgW9xSiA (http://youtu.be/671AgW9xSiA)
http://youtu.be/JFA9N4d_RtQ (http://youtu.be/JFA9N4d_RtQ)
http://youtu.be/4bv_ALKkTjQ (http://youtu.be/4bv_ALKkTjQ)
Great thread!
-
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYXpspbTFOk#)
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnnTqWq9ymA#)
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HU5zqidlxMQ#)
-
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBJLoYd8xak#)
-
Sting - The Shape Of My Heart
video doesnt work for some reason
-
Hate CCR, but love this song.
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0X1iQEzVJI#)
Hate Van Halen, but like this song a lot.
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VegvworoMX4#)
Like Mr.M, I will never understand the love for Springsteen, but I like this one song.
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzzOs0Da43Y#)
Finally, I hate the Eagles, but ironically, I love the entire 'Long Run' album, but nothing else. (If you like an entire album, does that constitute in hating a band? Hm)
-
But see the songs I selected, they are different from the usual sound those bands developed during the 70's. I'm not a fan of the general work of those groups, but I like some things from their early stuff.
I actually loved the videos you found, they were quite comical. Don't believe that's the singer for Deep Purple, not sure what happening to this guy!
-
I actually loved the videos you found, they were quite comical. Don't believe that's the singer for Deep Purple, not sure what happening to this guy!
I suppose that's Rod Evans, the first singer of Deep Purple, before being replaced by Ian Gillan. I guess most fans of Deep Purple don't like the style of Evans.
-
I found him quite comical, and I like his voice. Wonder what happened....
-
I believe they're quite popular on this forum, but I never rated The Small Faces, apart from "Itchycoo Park"....
Ditto The Zombies I'm afraid, with "She's Not There" - sorry folks, they'll always be one hit non-wonders to me!!
-
Ditto The Zombies I'm afraid, with "She's Not There" - sorry folks, they'll always be one hit non-wonders to me!!
The Zombies had three hits, at least in US: "She's Not There" (#2), "Tell Her No" (#6) and "Time Of The Season" (#3). This doesn't mean that you should love them, but they were not one-hit wonders.
-
I wouldn't say I love it. But I've always thought Madonna's Borderline was a neat pop song. Didn't really have much interest in the rest of her work.
http://youtu.be/rSaC-YbSDpo (http://youtu.be/rSaC-YbSDpo)
-
I wouldn't say I love it. But I've always thought Madonna's Borderline was a neat pop song. Didn't really have much interest in the rest of her work.
I like that song too Moog but she was pretty much a one-hit wonder for me. There were a lot of songs like that for me in the 80's. I didn't have my records with me at school because I went home every weekend where I listened to the stuff I reallyl liked!
-
Hotel California
Not an eagles fan but love that song especially the guitar solo
-
The Zombies had three hits, at least in US: "She's Not There" (#2), "Tell Her No" (#6) and "Time Of The Season" (#3). This doesn't mean that you should love them, but they were not one-hit wonders.
...plus one of the greatest albums of all-time.
-
Never understood what anyone ever saw in this very ordinary bloke (The Boss? of what? a small car park somewhere maybe?) but I do rate this one:
Yes, because any ordinary bloke can gain that type of critical and commercial success over multiple decades.
-
'Multiple decades' - run a mile!
The most over-rated virtue in the world of popular music is longevity.
-
'Multiple decades' - run a mile!
The most over-rated virtue in the world of popular music is longevity.
That's because it's rare for an artist to remain consistent while also staying true to himself and his vision over multiple decades. So when an artist does so, it's even more impressive.
-
Consistent?
You're kidding yourself if you think that anything other than a really, really low percentage of albums released after the first 10 years of a pop star's career compares with the earlier stuff.
Longevity goes completely against the original idea of quick, short, sharp pop songs that The Beatles grew up with.
Further proof that The Beatles, after about eight years of recording, split at just the right time.
-
Yes, because any ordinary bloke can gain that type of critical and commercial success over multiple decades.
Any ordinary bloke couldn't achieve let alone maintain that success, I agree. What puzzles me is how that ordinary bloke managed it. What do people see in him?
Consistent?
You're kidding yourself if you think that anything other than a really, really low percentage of albums released after the first 10 years of a pop star's career compares with the earlier stuff.
Longevity goes completely against the original idea of quick, short, sharp pop songs that The Beatles grew up with.
Further proof that The Beatles, after about eight years of recording, split at just the right time.
Agree with much of this.... "longevity" is an overrated quality in rock/pop...witness the hoarse, prehistoric cadaver-driven cash-cow monster that is today's Rolling Stones... What the fabs have achieved is so much more impressive... i.e. longevity of appeal for a (relatively) brief career.
The Beatles undoubtedly split at the right moment in my opinion.
-
...plus one of the greatest albums of all-time.
Of course. Didn't forget that one...
http://www.dmbeatles.com/forums/index.php?topic=11961.0 (http://www.dmbeatles.com/forums/index.php?topic=11961.0)
-
Of course. Didn't forget that one...
That is a fantastic album and I'm not sure I would have known that if I didn't belong here. That's one of the best things about this group; discovering new music.
-
...plus one of the greatest albums of all-time.
How are you measuring greatness ?
-
That is a fantastic album and I'm not sure I would have known that if I didn't belong here. That's one of the best things about this group; discovering new music.
Probably you would have known it sooner or later because it's a critically acclaimed album; but I agree that this is a good place to discover new music.
-
How are you measuring greatness ?
Personal opinion?
-
Agree with much of this.... "longevity" is an overrated quality in rock/pop...witness the hoarse, prehistoric cadaver-driven cash-cow monster that is today's Rolling Stones... What the fabs have achieved is so much more impressive... i.e. longevity of appeal for a (relatively) brief career.
The Beatles undoubtedly split at the right moment in my opinion.
Nobody is saying that longevity in and of itself is worthy of commend. You are going for the worst case scenario, but even the Stones released some of their best stuff in the 70's, according to the majority of their fans. The Beatles split at the right moment because they couldn't function as a band anymore and smartly realized that they could never put together another album with every member's full involvement in it. It was the best decision for them. But that doesn't mean that a band/artist can't release great albums over multiple decades. It also doesn't mean that those bands/artists are not worthy of admiration for doing so. Scott Walker released 'Tilt', the album that is now widely considered his best and most original 28 years later after his (also acclaimed) debut.
-
But with respect ovi, you are going for a best case scenario with the Scott Walker example - one of the rare exceptions that proves the rule. Even then, "Tilt" was just one album, it's not as if he was still pumping out a series of consistently strong works which outshone the music he was making twenty five years earlier. The original point obs was making - which I agree with - is that most multi-decade spanning acts release their best work within the first ten years of that career and on the whole I suspect that's true. Sure there are exceptions and your point about acts being commendable for maintaining critical and commercial success (rather than just sticking together or still touring) over a long period is well made, although quite why Springsteen garnered either, even at the start of his career, will forever elude me personally.
I still feel that this continued commercial (and even sometimes critical) success is maintained over decades through habit/familiarity. This idea that just by "still going" decades after an act first hit the scene, whilst not being trumpeted by you, is nevertheless held in bafflingly high regard by the public in general - and in the context of rock/pop and its original "live fast die young" premise, as obs says, it goes completely against the grain. It's the same mentality that awards "lifetime achievement" awards to TV stars and actors, basically just for staying alive and not retiring. The Stones are the obvious example, stale, old, trapped in a cycle, playing safe and lacking the individual talent and the professional courage to split, grow and develop. But it's The Stones, and since they've been around forever and are no longer a raw, dangerous threat, they are now "National Treasures". Yuck!!
-
Sometimes it's a simple case of fan loyalty, I think. I have a number of artists in mind who have often put out works that I wasn't crazy about, but I'll buy their new releases regardless, because there's usually something of merit on any given album, and I'd just want a complete collection anyway.
Could be part of it for others too.
:)
-
Personal opinion?
fair enough ;)
-
Sometimes it's a simple case of fan loyalty, I think. I have a number of artists in mind who have often put out works that I wasn't crazy about, but I'll buy their new releases regardless, because there's usually something of merit on any given album, and I'd just want a complete collection anyway.
Could be part of it for others too.
:)
Spot on Klang. I'm sure that's true.
-
I'm sure there may be exceptions and, I accept, my 50s/60s bias is going to hold sway for me here, but the number of great LPs released 10 years after a debut is a very small number.
'Tilt's all very well but how often does it get played compared to Scott 4? Many Scott fans don't like it.
I'm in no danger of rushing off to play it, but I can only think of one, solitary example of an absolute gem released beyond that 10 year rule....'Blood on the Tracks'.
-
But with respect ovi, you are going for a best case scenario with the Scott Walker example
Mr M, dont you rate albums like The Wall/Animals - Pink Floyd, Songs From The Wood - Jethro Tull, Songs In The Key Of Life - Stevie Wonder, Beautiful Noise - Neil Diamond, Rust Never Sleeps - Neil Young, Wired - Jeff Beck
these artists had been around for 10 years I think
-
How are you measuring greatness ?
Quality of product.
-
Sometimes it's a simple case of fan loyalty, I think. I have a number of artists in mind who have often put out works that I wasn't crazy about, but I'll buy their new releases regardless, because there's usually something of merit on any given album, and I'd just want a complete collection anyway.
Yep
(Paul McCartney)
-
Mr M, dont you rate albums like The Wall/Animals - Pink Floyd, Songs From The Wood - Jethro Tull, Songs In The Key Of Life - Stevie Wonder, Beautiful Noise - Neil Diamond, Rust Never Sleeps - Neil Young, Wired - Jeff Beck
these artists had been around for 10 years I think
It's funny you should mention "Songs From The Wood" Kev - one of my favourite albums ever - released nine years (OK, I know I'm hairsplitting!) after Tull's debut. It kick started a consecutive three album run of superb quality (i.e. followed up by "Heavy Horses" then "Stormwatch") which did finally cross that ten year boundary line, and I was tempted to cite it as another exception to the rule. But as obs has reiterated; overall there are relatively few instances. I'd go along with your Stevie Wonder and Neil Young examples but I'm struggling a bit beyond those. Never grasped the whole Floyd thing (to my son's perpetual exasperation) so can't really comment on that I'm afraid, but by and large I still say obs's rule of thumb tends to hold up. Even if an act does hit a purple patch a decade or more down the line, it seems to usually be a flash rather than shifting up to a consistently sustained better level.
-
Never understood what anyone ever saw in this very ordinary bloke (The Boss? of what? a small car park somewhere maybe?) but I do rate this one:
[url]http://youtu.be/129kuDCQtHs[/url] ([url]http://youtu.be/129kuDCQtHs[/url])
Any ordinary bloke couldn't achieve let alone maintain that success, I agree. What puzzles me is how that ordinary bloke managed it. What do people see in him?
It's a New Jersey thing...
http://youtu.be/sfk0uMLhXqY (http://youtu.be/sfk0uMLhXqY)
:)
-
where has the boss got his hand on that video Baz?
-
I'm not a fan of Radiohead, but I like this song (and love the video clip):
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_qMagfZtv8#)
-
where has the boss got his hand on that video Baz?
You can't start a fire without a spark.
-
Porn in the USA?
-
Bruce Bedspring!
-
I've never been a huge fan of Cream, especially 'Disraeli Gears' which appears to be the least psychedelic album of 1967 despite being housed in the most psychedelic sleeve! Clapton is way ahead of his time in predicting how rock will sound in 1975.....dull, worthy and plodding.
My favourite song of theirs by a country mile is their least representative, their smallest hIt and regularly gets left off compilations - 'Anyone For Tennis'.
It's so good it doesn't sound like Cream at all but The Kinks!
-
I've never been a huge fan of Cream, especially 'Disraeli Gears' which appears to be the least psychedelic album of 1967 despite being housed in the most psychedelic sleeve! Clapton is way ahead of his time in predicting how rock will sound in 1975.....dull, worthy and plodding.
Ya, although I have a fairly big Clapton Greatest Hits & Cream Hits collection on my iTunes, I rarely give them a listen :-\
-
I've never been a huge fan of Cream, especially 'Disraeli Gears' which appears to be the least psychedelic album of 1967 despite being housed in the most psychedelic sleeve! Clapton is way ahead of his time in predicting how rock will sound in 1975.....dull, worthy and plodding.
My favourite song of theirs by a country mile is their least representative, their smallest hIt and regularly gets left off compilations - 'Anyone For Tennis'.
It's so good it doesn't sound like Cream at all but The Kinks!
The least psychedelic album of 1967 by a big name was John Wesley Harding... ;)
I think Cream should be considered as an acid rock band, that is, raw psychedelia with a live spirit rather than elaboration of weird sounds in studio. Jefferson Airplane (in their beginings) and Jimi Hendrix belonged to that category too.
-
I got new respect for Cream recently when I gave a close listen to their catalog with the headphones on. Picked up a lot of subtleties I'd missed before. Anyway, everybody I knew loved them backk in the day.
:)
-
The cover of 'John Wesley Harding' didn't scream out 'THIS IS PSYCHEDELIC' though!
I don't think I've ever felt as let down by an LP (at least not one from the 60s) than 'Disraeli Gears'.
The much criticised 'Satanic Majesties', released the month after, beats it hands down.
-
I got new respect for Cream recently when I gave a close listen to their catalog with the headphones on. Picked up a lot of subtleties I'd missed before.
Funny, I can say the same about the Beatles since I recently picked up some beats headphones that blew away my apple headphones for my iPhone. More Bass was the first obvious distinction, but with less background noise, I too picked up some subtleties I'd missed before. icon_good
-
It's amazing what one can pick up from certain music that's been familiar for years, and yet with the cans on all sorts of new little things can be heard.
This happens for me frequently, when I get opportunities for serious listening time — not often enough.
:)
-
The cover of 'John Wesley Harding' didn't scream out 'THIS IS PSYCHEDELIC' though!
I don't think I've ever felt as let down by an LP (at least not one from the 60s) than 'Disraeli Gears'.
The much criticised 'Satanic Majesties', released the month after, beats it hands down.
Disraeli Gears is an all time classic album for me :)
-
It's amazing what one can pick up from certain music that's been familiar for years, and yet with the cans on all sorts of new little things can be heard.
This happens for me frequently, when I get opportunities for serious listening time — not often enough.
:)
I think this is why I enjoyed the Microscopes so much. You listen to the same Beatle songs for decades and then when you throw the headphones on and do some serious listening, your like,,,,What was that? Really enjoyed it.
-
I can only listen to the remastered albums now.....with headphones
anything else sounds muffled
-
The least psychedelic album of 1967 by a big name was John Wesley Harding... ;)
Yeah, then came The Band the next year and changed everything. But John Wesley Harding was inspired by the Basement Tapes sessions from earlier on with the same Band.
-
I don't think I've ever felt as let down by an LP (at least not one from the 60s) than 'Disraeli Gears'.
The much criticised 'Satanic Majesties', released the month after, beats it hands down.
I think Disraeli Gears lacks of consistency, as it includes several fillers, in my opinion. But "Strange Brew", "Sunshine Of Your Love", "Tales Of Brave Ulysses" and "Swlabr" are all time classics. Actually Cream is one of those bands that I enjoy better from a greatest hits compilation.
And I like Their Satanic Majesties Request, but I wouldn't put it at the level of the best psychedelic albums of 1967, like Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Heats Club Band, Strange Days, After Bathing At Baxter's, Forever Changes or The Who Sell Out.
-
Yeah, then came The Band the next year and changed everything. But John Wesley Harding was inspired by the Basement Tapes sessions from earlier on with the same Band.
I love John Wesley Harding and I think noone would have expected a psychedelic Bob Dylan. The album was very out of the sound of the time, even more than The Village Green Preservation Society which at least included an hallucinogenic song ("Phenomenal Cat").
Then it is true that the Band marked a return to the roots in 1968, but the debut of Buffalo Springfield in late 1966 should also be mentioned.
-
I love John Wesley Harding and I think noone would have expected a psychedelic Bob Dylan.
(http://i60.tinypic.com/zsltw5.jpg)
:)
-
([url]http://i60.tinypic.com/zsltw5.jpg[/url])
:)
Nice!
-
But Bob Dylan was pretty psychedelic with the imagery in his lyrics.
I don't know why I bought his Greatest Hits album when it was released. I already had all his LPs. But I was certainly surprised when I unfolded that poster packed in the LP.
It was back to basics with John Wesley Harding though. In those days we were staring at LP covers looking for hidden things. We were told that the faces of The Beatles were hidden in the tree on the cover...
(http://www.feelnumb.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/bob_dylan_john_wesley_harding_the_beatles_faces.jpg)
I couldn't see them no matter how I held the LP cover. :)
-
But I did see The Beatles on the 3-D cover of Their Satanic Majesties Request: http://www.dmbeatles.com/forums/index.php?topic=2544.msg263951#msg263951 (http://www.dmbeatles.com/forums/index.php?topic=2544.msg263951#msg263951)
-
I think Disraeli Gears lacks of consistency, as it includes several fillers, in my opinion. But "Strange Brew", "Sunshine Of Your Love", "Tales Of Brave Ulysses" and "Swlabr" are all time classics. Actually Cream is one of those bands that I enjoy better from a greatest hits compilation.
And I like Their Satanic Majesties Request, but I wouldn't put it at the level of the best psychedelic albums of 1967, like Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Heats Club Band, Strange Days, After Bathing At Baxter's, Forever Changes or The Who Sell Out.
Every track on Disraeli Gears was superb imo, I wore the damn thing out, along with Hendrix's Are You Experienced, 2 power trio's, I couldnt decide what was best.........theyre still both enormously influential albums. none of us had heard bands like these two.
Satanic Majesty was a let down to us but we did wear out Piper At The Gates Of Dawn & Days Of Future Past
Every band at that time introduced a style of their own, which was very cool
-
Every track on Disraeli Gears was superb imo, I wore the damn thing out, along with Hendrix's Are You Experienced, 2 power trio's, I couldnt decide what was best.........theyre still both enormously influential albums. none of us had heard bands like these two.
I agree about Are You Experienced, an excellent and essential album. With regard to Disraeli Gears, I acknowledge its importance because of the pack of classic songs, but in my opinion the blues songs on that album are not very good. I do like other blues songs recorded by Cream (e.g. "Spoonful"), but I think they were at their best when they did acid rock.
-
But Bob Dylan was pretty psychedelic with the imagery in his lyrics.
True. I always say that Bob Dylan said with his words what Jimi Hendrix played with his guitar.
-
I agree about Are You Experienced, an excellent and essential album. With regard to Disraeli Gears, I acknowledge its importance because of the pack of classic songs, but in my opinion the blues songs on that album are not very good. I do like other blues songs recorded by Cream (e.g. "Spoonful"), but I think they were at their best when they did acid rock.
just for you Hombre :)
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4vf7WBF97o#)
-
http://youtu.be/sSjQ8aUWCrc (http://youtu.be/sSjQ8aUWCrc)
http://youtu.be/mFGcnZlTEKw (http://youtu.be/mFGcnZlTEKw)
-
just for you Hombre :)
Good song, great beats.
My answer:
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23PU9BWAlHk#)
:)
-
My answer:
! No longer available ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23PU9BWAlHk#[/url])
:)
Jorma Kaukonen and Jack Casady were fully able to express their love of the blues when they spun-off Hot Tuna...
http://youtu.be/IiniZha6PQM (http://youtu.be/IiniZha6PQM)
Sounding a bit like Cream there, huh?
-
Jorma Kaukonen and Jack Casady were fully able to express their love of the blues when they spun-off Hot Tuna...
[url]http://youtu.be/IiniZha6PQM[/url] ([url]http://youtu.be/IiniZha6PQM[/url])
Sounding a bit like Cream there, huh?
I love both Jefferson Airplane and Cream and have a similar view about them: decent blues rockers and superb acid rockers. When it's about blues rock, I prefer the Rolling Stones, the Yardbirds or Jimi Hendrix.
About Hot Tuna, I was never very interested in them, but I usually liked what I've heard.
-
Every track on Disraeli Gears was superb imo, I wore the damn thing out
I about wore mine out too Kev. My sister gave it to me the summer before my last year of high school. That was 1980 and it pretty much sealed the deal for me and 60's music. We had just moved back to my hometown after four years away and I was thrilled to discover that a lot of the kids I knew in elementary school had also gravitated towards it. My first clue was the message someone had spray painted on a building that was going to be torn down: "Jim Morrison Lives". LOL
As I've gotten older this song has become a favorite. The lyrics really resonate with me and the overall sound is so wonderfully trippy.
http://youtu.be/lteb--nvuyo (http://youtu.be/lteb--nvuyo)
-
"Jump" by Van Halen.
-
I'm going to expose my ignorance here and admit that I've never heard of Dan Hill -- he's not an artist I dislike, just one with whom I am not familiar -- but this song makes my throat tighten with tears every time I hear it. (Then again, I'm a weeper.)
http://youtu.be/IATz8ZVTALo (http://youtu.be/IATz8ZVTALo)
-
Now I'm thinking that most of the board members are rolling their eyes or snickering. :-[ (Kelley, you're on my side, right? ;))
-
Now I'm thinking that most of the board members are rolling their eyes or snickering. :-[ (Kelley, you're on my side, right? ;))
Umm. Might be a girl thing ;D
-
Umm. Might be a girl thing ;D
Probably! ha2ha
-
Now I'm thinking that most of the board members are rolling their eyes or snickering. :-[ (Kelley, you're on my side, right? ;))
Of course I'm on your side Kathy. I'll always be on your side, no matter what. ;)
-
Paint It Black by you know who. I've tried and tried to be a Stones fan all my life but this is the only song by them that I love.
Lucky Man & From the Beginning by ELP. Their nice hits. Never could get into the rest.
-
Paint It Black by you know who. I've tried and tried to be a Stones fan all my life but this is the only song by them that I love.
It's taken me a long time to really like the Stones. I always liked the early stuff but it's just recently that I've gotten into their later material. Not all of it but more than before.
-
Of course I'm on your side Kathy. I'll always be on your side, no matter what. ;)
Aww, thanks! :)
-
For me, the earlier stuff is best, with the exception of the mid-late 90's "reawakening" - i.e., 'Voodoo Lounge' and 'Bridges To Babylon' albums, which were as good as any of their best, imo.
:)
-
I love the song they wrote: I Wanna Be Your Man! ;D
-
I think the Stones are up there with the Beatles and the Who, but only considering their material released until 1972. Then they became a parody of themselves.
-
My Stones playlist stretches as far as 1974 with Its Only Rock and Roll, Ain't to Proud to Beg and Time Waits for No one. After that I think only Beast of Burden gets a guernsey occasionally.
-
It's taken me a long time to really like the Stones. I always liked the early stuff but it's just recently that I've gotten into their later material. Not all of it but more than before.
Ive never really been a fan of their music, I like the odd track
-
As time go by, and the marketing of the Stones gets ever more tacky and about the selling of T-shirts, it gets harder to love them.
Next year in London there is a Charles Saatchi (oh, yes, what a connoisseur of tasteful things) sponsored exhibition, which is sure to up the bad taste and complete tat a notch or two.
But the blues stuff with Brian (the first 3 LPs) I would put on a par with the Beatles' early records, and indeed any pop music ever made.
-
Ive never really been a fan of their music, I like the odd track
That sums up my own opinion about the Stones. I've always felt vaguely guilty about it.
I've never been a big Grateful Dead fan, either, but I do love "Uncle John's Band."
-
I've never understood the fuss over The Stones. Initially far too bluesy for me (hero worshipping Elvis, Little Richard, Buddy Holly & co I can fully understand. Adoring people like John Lee Hooker, Muddy Waters and Howlin' Wolf I'm afraid I just don't "get").
I have a 20 track playlist of the Rolling Stones on my ipod, but I could quite easily whittle it down to 10* songs which I rather like (maybe 3 or 4 of which I really enjoy) the other 10 are bordering on padding the more I think about it. Only two of the songs come after the Sixties ("Brown Sugar" and "Start Me Up") - as others have said, the Frankensteinian money-spinning behemoth they have become is deeply off-putting. I sort of want to really like them, but strangely just can't... I suppose the biggest stumbling block is that I'm first and foremost a "vocals" man, and I just do not like Mick's voice! But Jagger & Richards are underrated songwriters IMO.
*10 is better than The Who though, for whom I can only get vaguely worked up over about 3 songs! again, personally rather mystified by their giant status (although I appreciate their live performances are a major contributor to that).
-
I've never been a big Grateful Dead fan, either, but I do love "Uncle John's Band."
One of my top fave GD tracks too. Perhaps second only to 'Attics Of My Life' (for some personal, sentimental reasons).
That said, this group could qualify well for me as far as this thread is concerned. A few gems stand out, but much of the official studio recording canon is rather ho-hum in my book. Still, I think it can be said that they tried to push limits and experiment with true artistic integrity. Though they defied precise categorization into just one niche, I often think of them as grandfathers of what came to be termed prog rock.
I saw them live only once, back in their heyday - Sept. 9, 1972 (yes, I have a recording of that show) - and it was great. It's interesting, in comparison to The Beatles, let's say, they became more relevant as a live act whereas the Fabs ultimately eschewed live performance and ended up becoming strictly studio artists towards the end.
Anyway, with all the hooplah of their recent official retirement I've done a little retrospective thinking about them. There's a part of me that will miss them just being there. There are imitators, but there will never be anything quite like them again. Just like you-know-who.
:)
-
I have a 20 track playlist of the Rolling Stones on my ipod, but I could quite easily whittle it down to 10* songs which I rather like (maybe 3 or 4 of which I really enjoy) the other 10 are bordering on padding the more I think about it. Only two of the songs come after the Sixties ("Brown Sugar" and "Start Me Up") - as others have said, the Frankensteinian money-spinning behemoth they have become is deeply off-putting. I sort of want to really like them, but strangely just can't... I suppose the biggest stumbling block is that I'm first and foremost a "vocals" man, and I just do not like Mick's voice! But Jagger & Richards are underrated songwriters IMO.
I felt the same way for years, until I finally sit down and listened to their 60's and early 70's albums with an open mind. Before that, I thought that the only Stones songs that were worth listening were "Satisfaction", "Paint It Black", "Ruby Tuesday", "She's A Rainbow", "Gimme Shelter" and few more. Then I understood that most Beatles fans at least should appreciate full albums like Aftermath and Between The Buttons; any lover of psychedelia should take note of Their Satanic Majesties Request, even if it's not the best in the field; and every blues rock lover should love all their albums from 1968 to 1972.
Now if you like "Brown Sugar", I don't see why you shouldn't like other early 70's songs like "B*tch" or "All Down The Line", for instance, done in the same vein and even being more catchy in my opinion. I can understand people who just don't want to explore further, I have the same feeling with, say, Led Zeppelin. But a Beatles fan should give a chance to the Stones, as they were a contemporaneous force.
-
I always thought Jagger a lousy whiney singer and Keef even worse, I dont like the style of blues they play and I dont like how Mick sings in a faux southern delta accent.
I liked their album Sticky Fingers a little bit, they became more interesting to me when Mick Taylor was in the band, I had been a fan of his playing in John Mayalls band, he was heads above the rest in terms of musicianship but when his replacement joined I didnt like them again.
Ive never understood the mega status of them (or Pink Floyd for that matter), The Doors or The Pretty Things always better than the Stones imo (even at R & B) Frontmen Phil & Jim were both better singers than Mick.
The Who Ive never got at all, I like Happy Jack & My Generation but thats about it, I never thought the singer could really sing and I thought Townsend was a big headed guy. Anyway I could never watch or like any band smash up valuable equipment when other musicians were struggling to get a decent guitar or drumkit.
Sorry Stones & Who fans ;)
-
I really liked a lot of the mid 60s stones stuff. Heart of Stone, Ruby Tuesday, Time is on My Side... Great songs. And seeing early footage did show Mick had incredible stage presence as a frontman. Still, looking at their discography it's a few songs of each of their first few albums I like. There was a lot of filler on their early LPs. I don.t think they really became an album band til Beggars Banquet, although I can understand some plumping for Satanic Majesty or even Between the Buttons.
I think Mick became an increasing self parody of himself as a "singer" as time went on. His voice was ok early on. I don't really rate Keef as a singer at all. Below Ringo as far as I'm concerned.
They needed to break up after Exile I think. Then they'd be legendary on a level similar to the Beatles.
-
Sorry Stones & Who fans ;)
Don't need to sorry, it's your personal taste. You know I don't dig prog rock, since I find it excessively pretentious, but it certainly works for you. Probably I don't care too much about technical points as I do care about the colorful and simple spirit of the 60's.
-
Been thinking more about it, and I guess I do like a good deal the The Stones' 70s work, even post-'Exile' - like 'Goats Head Soup' and 'It's Only Rock And Roll' - and I gave 'Black And Blue' a good listen with headphones on a little while back and loved it. I think nostalgia has something to do with it for me. Each album and particular songs take me back to certain times. But I think there's some good music there too.
The 80s was a big dry spell for them I think. Nothing there worth noting. And now, no good original songs since 'Bridges...'
:-\
-
Don't need to sorry, it's your personal taste. You know I don't dig prog rock, since I find it excessively pretentious, but it certainly works for you. Probably I don't care too much about technical points as I do care about the colorful and simple spirit of the 60's.
I dont mind pretentious hombre, a lot of jazz & classical is pretentious also, and a lot of prog isnt pretentious, like in the case of The Canterbury scene or a band like Gentle Giant who explored possibilities in blending musical genres
I think in the end though prog did get overly pretentious and destroyed itself, mainly the fault of its big name protagonists like ELP and Yes
But this will always be beautiful & exquisite
man that moog always kills me at 1:25
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzbDUbu1lMM#)
-
Philly soul.....Michael Jackson.....Lionel Ritchie.....even though people always told me black music was terrific, the evidence in front of me categorically pointed to the fact it was crap.
Until, by following the influences of The Beatles and (especially) The Stones, I found out it had actually been absolutely brilliant.
For that, I will always be thankful to the Brian Jones-era group, and so, it must be said, were the likes of Muddy Waters, Chuck Berry and Howlin' Wolf, whose careers in 1961/62 were dead in the water.
The really sad thing about the crass commercialisation of the last four decades in Stones-world is that, actually, if you'd wanted to be a millionaire in England in 1962, absolutely the WORST way of going about it was to start a blues-appreciation group!
Initially, it really was done for the love and promotion of that music.
Because of that I rarely stray beyond even 1965 in terms of listening to The Stones.
No Brian.....really not worth having in my book.
-
I dont mind pretentious hombre, a lot of jazz & classical is pretentious also, and a lot of prog isnt pretentious, like in the case of The Canterbury scene or a band like Gentle Giant who explored possibilities in blending musical genres
But I'm not criticizing pretentiousness, I'm just saying that it doesn't work for me. My music is 3 minutes rock/pop songs.
-
But I'm not criticizing pretentiousness, I'm just saying that it doesn't work for me. My music is 3 minutes rock/pop songs.
Yes I know pal
Im just carrying on the discussion, some of my mates back in the 60's said the Beatles became pretentious
-
Pretentious is an easy word to throw around. But it is a bit harsh to use it on musicians who just want to do things differently to more standard pop/rock.
If a band consciously makes their work overblown or obscure with the intention of confounding even their own fans and doing so thinking they're creating some superior art to other music then I suppose you could call it pretentious.
But if a group genuinely just wants to explore different forms and stretch some boundaries I don't think they're necessarily being pretentious. Anymore than Mozart or Beethoven were by expanding the scope of operas or symphonies.
To me that means you might not be able to identify pretentiousness on the music alone. It comes down to the intent and attitude of the artist. And that's harder to discern.
-
Pretentious is an easy word to throw around. But it is a bit harsh to use it on musicians who just want to do things differently to more standard pop/rock.
If a band consciously makes their work overblown or obscure with the intention of confounding even their own fans and doing so thinking they're creating some superior art to other music then I suppose you could call it pretentious.
But if a group genuinely just wants to explore different forms and stretch some boundaries I don't think they're necessarily being pretentious. Anymore than Mozart or Beethoven were by expanding the scope of operas or symphonies.
To me that means you might not be able to identify pretentiousness on the music alone. It comes down to the intent and attitude of the artist. And that's harder to discern.
There are certain artists that I 'blame' for the pretentious label
Emerson Lake & Palmer each had their own massive truck cruising the highways of America each with a zillion bits of equipment that they didnt need, Rick Wakeman with his daft golden capes and 30 odd keyboards, he once flew his hairdresser 1st class on concorde to America to get his hair done etc etc etc
I dont blame bands that were playing the college circuit in England like Supertramp, Soft Machine or Caravan, these guys were seriously exploring the possibilities of popular music, without the posturing.
-
Emerson Lake & Palmer each had their own massive truck cruising the highways of America each with a zillion bits of equipment that they didnt need, Rick Wakeman with his daft golden capes and 30 odd keyboards, he once flew his hairdresser 1st class on concorde to America to get his hair done etc etc etc
.
Yeah that's pretty pretentious ;)
-
To avoid, at a conservative estimate, 95 per cent of pretentiousness in pop music, just knock the ol' collection on the head after '69.
It saves SO much time, and allows you more scope to explore the non-pretentious rock 'n' roll and soul of the Beatles' era.
In these days of 20 CD box sets of ELP, Yes and King Crimson et al, it also saves SO much money.
-
I think there's a difference lads between "pretentious" and "extravagant". Rick Wakeman was very extravagant. But so were loads of others - didn't Elvis once fly his whole entourage across the States on a whim just to indulge in some favourite burgers or soda shakes or something? Wakeman, in common with some of the other great eccentrics of the Prog Rock oeuvre (step forward Ian Anderson) has a wry sense of humour and I've always felt a lot of what he did was with tongue very firmly in cheek. I applaud the wearing of those "daft gold capes" because he kept one eye on the fact that they were still entertainers and not just musical virtuosos.... the pretentious ones are those who forget they're in showbiz and look down their noses at what they deem to be such shallow trivia, convincing themselves they are instead "serious artists". Like po-faced Jon Lord and his "Concerto for Group and Orchestra"- pretentious load of old codswallop!
Call me shallow but I still lament the passing of the era of the extravagant/flamboyant, proper rock star... you know what I mean, togged up like an alien, TV sets hurled from hotel windows, driving your Roller into the swimming pool, scattering your jewellery along the M1 etc etc.
By contrast look at somebody like, say, Phil Collins. He might claim to be down to Earth but to me he looks more like a minicab driver than a rock star. When did it all go wrong? (Not straight after 1969 obs!! there were plenty of good examples until well into the seventies!)
-
Nope, the cut off point is '69. Golden Age over.
Any Beatles, Stones, Hendrix, Dylan collection cut off then won't be missing a great deal.
The few exceptions to this rule (various funk stuff, 'What's Going On', Nick Drake, folk/pysch LPs) sure as, eggs is eggs, doesn't come from the land of prog.
-
the pretentious ones are those who forget they're in showbiz and look down their noses at what they deem to be such shallow trivia, convincing themselves they are instead "serious artists". Like po-faced Jon Lord and his "Concerto for Group and Orchestra"- pretentious load of old codswallop!
That's pretty much what I have in mind when I think pretentious Mr M. A belief you're somehow doing something superior to all those other popsters and rockers.
In a different way John and George got a bit pretentious after The Beatles with their "my music can change the world" conceit. That manifested itself more lyrically than musically. Similar impulse though I think. They forget they're entertainers.
-
Funny you should bring that up Moog, I was thinking along similar lines in that I've always felt Paul & Ringo were the "showbiz" Beatles who are very adept at "turning it on" for Joe Public. I know Paul certainly is a hugely talented and credible musician but he's always been a bit of a ham if we're honest (I mean that in an affectionate way!) - he and Ringo are true entertainers who clearly enjoy interacting with an audience and hearing the roar of the crowd.
Very much a double edged sword of course because you get the serious (=pretentious?) rock critics who applaud John's and George's "evolution" from bouncy crowd-pleasing towards music with a more profound message. Having achieved fame and success I've never felt John or George craved or needed that audience approval the way Paul and Ringo still seem to. I really don't think George especially even enjoyed being famous, he seemed to see it as a means to an end which almost became an obstruction at times. I don't think that makes him pretentious, just very serious about where he was heading. John too seemed like a soul on a mission - and I liked him a lot because flawed as he was he recognised his faults and never stopped trying to improve, not just as an artist but as a human being. He was self critical and his music was usually quite personal and often brutally honest, so more - I don't know - "authentic" I suppose (for want of a better word) rather than "pretentious". He genuinely believed communication and positive projection could change the world and many, including Paul, agreed that he achieved this in his own way.
Neither John nor George lost sight of that power of communication and never scorned the power of entertainment, despite being restless spirits who liked to dabble and explore.
-
Yes Mr M perhaps pretentious doesn't quite fit the George John attitude after the Beatles. It was more a case of seriousness of purpose disconnecting from the entertainment objective of music as you say.
-
Lots of people for instance think Elvis Costello became quite pretentious. From a lyrically clever new waver to noodling around with the Brodsky Quartet. I don't see it that way. But obviously lots do.
-
I think there's a difference lads between "pretentious" and "extravagant". Rick Wakeman was very extravagant.
your probably right there, but Rick styled himself 'the keyboard wizard' which could be taken for pretentiousness
anyway being so extravagant, the young punks took this extravagance for pretentiousness, rightly or wrongly and rebelled against it and every prog, symphonic band suffered, either quit or lost their contract and split, it was a shame
There are many great 3 or 4 minute songs on prog albums that fans of 3 minute pop songs never hear because of their bias against the prog label the band got.
-
Nope, the cut off point is '69. Golden Age over.
Lots of people for instance think Elvis Costello became quite pretentious. From a lyrically clever new waver to noodling around with the Brodsky Quartet. I don't see it that way. But obviously lots do.
Elvis Costello knew the cut-off point...
http://youtu.be/IvusiCUzzbM (http://youtu.be/IvusiCUzzbM)
Heather Graham :)
-
Funnily enough HG I don't pay much atttention to Elvis a lot in that clip. ;D
-
Moog, I wish Burt Bacharach had sung the song himself in that movie they way he did here:
http://youtu.be/d3RlIjj8l-Q (http://youtu.be/d3RlIjj8l-Q)
-
In Britain, much of the pretentiousness that 'rock' music fell into after, and it was in the main 'after', the 60s was simply mimicking the pretentiousness that the music press adopted at the same time.
The kind of review 'Eleanor Rigby' would have got in the NME in '66 was 'serious song sung by Paul with an orchestral backing. Quite sad.'
By about 1971/1972, the critics had assumed control of the process and were preaching to the public what they should and shouldn't like via long, unwieldy articles.
It's interesting that when the perceived 'greats' of pop music are brought up, the ones from the 60s had a whole raft of no. 1s and sold records all over the world i.e they were genuinely the pop stars of the era.
After the 60s, and especially by the time of the Clash, the Smiths and the Stone Roses, the perceived 'greats' rarely even got in the Top 10 i.e. the also-rans of the era.
This is the music press creating its own narrative, NOT the record buying public.
As far as sales go, for example, George Michael is a far bigger star than Morrissey.
I suspect Wham! outsold the Smiths, worldwide, by at least 50 to 1.
-
Obs, you make a valid point about the escalating pomposity of the music press but we can't pin the blame entirely on them. The critics evolved hand-in-glove with the music of the times, it was a fairly symbiotic development I think. The divergence of "twee" pop from "serious" rock took root in your beloved sixties and that chart hits argument can be applied to the sixties just as it can to the decades since. Hit singles are a useful yardstick but by no means the definitive way of identifying the "greats", and statistics, as we all know, can be twisted to tell different tales...
between 1960 and 1969 Herman's Hermits had as many UK top ten hits as Bob Dylan and Jimi Hendrix put together! they also had more UK top ten hits than The Who, and indeed more than The Zombies, Cream and The Yardbirds combined (Dylan/Hendrix/Who/Zombies/Cream/Yardbirds with not a single UK number 1 between them during that entire decade, incidentally - unlike Peter Noone's boys!).
In the seventies, Slade, Abba and The Bay City Rollers (hardly beloved by "serious" rock/pop critics) had 15 UK number one hit singles between them. In that same timeframe Pink Floyd, Genesis, Led Zeppelin and The Rolling Stones had 1. Yet I don't think anyone would call them the "also rans" of the 70s.
Same sort of argument runs for each subsequent decade; I've no doubt Wham! vastly outsold The Smiths as you say, even though we both know who gets the critical plaudits.
'Twas probably ever thus though... way back in the fifties, double chart topper David Whitfield had almost twice as many top ten hits as "also rans" Little Richard, Fats Domino and Chuck Berry put together!!!
-
In the seventies, Slade, Abba and The Bay City Rollers (hardly beloved by "serious" rock/pop critics) had 15 UK number one hit singles between them. In that same timeframe Pink Floyd, Genesis, Led Zeppelin and The Rolling Stones had 1. Yet I don't think anyone would call them the "also rans" of the 70s.
That is soooooooo wrong! ???
-
This John Lennon fella will never go anywhere and "The Voice" agree with me: ha2ha
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxwHA9kXDKw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxwHA9kXDKw)
-
The chart positions achieved by The Clash and The Smiths are laughable, and yet you know that an apologist for that dire decade will routinely mention those acts as the big players, instead of the less 'hip' Duran Duran et al who actually sold records!
Why don't you think, Mr. Mustard, that the difference between Wham! and The Smiths isn't something like 50 to 1? Wham! sold 45s everywhere, including Japan and China, The Smiths couldn't even shift them in their own country. George Michael, I believe, had a whole load of U.S. no 1s. Did The Smiths even have one U.S. hit?
The five acts I'd choose to represent the 60s would be The Beatles, The Stones, Hendrix, Dylan and one other, probably The Floyd, Who or Kinks.
That's a GENUINE set of artists who shifted product and were recognised by the public, not a musical press approved one.
-
I think you may have misread my post obs.
I said that I have no doubt that Wham! vastly outsold The Smiths. I'm agreeing with you. (Don't know about the specific 50 to 1 ratio but I never said I doubted it. You could well be right!)
And yet (again I'm agreeing with you) those music critics will dismiss Wham! out of hand whilst praising Morrissey & co to the hilt.
But my point is that this was going on in the sixties too. During that entire decade Dylan, Hendrix, The Who, Cream AND The Yardbirds put together managed just two dozen UK top ten hits, none of which hit number 1. No critic then or now would regard these acts as peripheral minor players, and no critic then or since would seriously put Herman's Hermits on some elevated artistic pedestal above them, yet they topped the charts, were a significant part of "The British Invasion" and had ten top ten hits in their own right! So you see that dichotomy between record buyers and critics was happening even in those days.
I like your idea of five acts to represent the sixties. You've made a pretty shrewd stab at that - certainly in terms of impact and influence - but I'm sure there were much bigger sellers back then than Hendrix, Dylan, The Who or Floyd. Big sales don't automatically make an act representative though. I love The Kinks but I'd be just as happy to see The Hollies, The Dave Clark 5 or Manfred Mann (all of whom would compare very favourably against The Kinks or The Who in terms of sixties record sales) representing the decade, although I bet most rock journos wouldn't!
-
Talking of critical praise for sixties stars who didn't seem to register so highly with the general record buying public, and returning directly to the title of this thread, here's a nice record from someone I otherwise just do not rate....
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqXSBe-qMGo#)
-
I'm with you on Van Morrison Mr.M. He's hard to stomach for me for some reason or another. I like the song 'Moondance' and not much else.
-
I'm a bit the same with Van. I like a few of his songs. But his critical favour always seemed a little out of proportion with his output.
-
I'm one who could never get into Led Zeppelin like so many clearly do. I appreciate they were good musos but their stuff always seemed to lack true melodic interest for me. That said I like this one quite a bit.
http://youtu.be/5ty_WlmIKvY (http://youtu.be/5ty_WlmIKvY)
-
Van and Zep aren't at the top of my list either.
-
I never really got into Zep
But they were brilliant live, I wouldve love to have seen them
pound for pound the best live band ever imo, this snippet of them at Albert hall 1970, they were quite simply brilliant
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5CKXI12vyw#)
-
Yes definitely very good musicians. As a budding muso in the 70s I had to pretend to be into them. But my heart wasn't in it. I can listen to quite a bit of their stuff no problem. It just never got under my skin.
-
I would trace that "very good musicians" who fail to ignite back to proto-Zep band The Yardbirds. A launch pad for some tremendous musicians but just didn't seem to cut the mustard somehow, beyond a couple of tracks.
Back to my personal "ipod test" with Zeppelin and I was quite surprised that only twelve of their tracks make it onto that device. When they're good they're blisteringly, unstoppably awesome, but so much of the time they miss the target in my opinion. A sort of musical Monty Python. As nimrod rightly says, their mighty stage presence and live prowess is what elevates them - pity they dropped a bollock with "Live Aid".
Van Morrison and "Them", as with Colin Blunstone/Rod Argent and "The Zombies" seem to command disproportionate respect from critics and hardcore fans (including some on here)... to me they were always "League Division Three or Four" Sixties groups, never really big hitters at all (and yes, I've listened to "Odessey And Oracle" - still don't get what the fuss is about).
Not deliberately stirring it (honest) but other irritatingly over-worshipped albums from that late 60s/early 70s period also deserve the pretentious tag in my opinion: like "Forever Changes", "Twelve Dreams Of Dr Sardonicus", "Tago Mago" and even "A Passion Play" from my beloved Jethro Tull. I admit I have owned them all at one time or another.
But I reserve a special place for the truly horrible "Trout Mask Replica". If there was ever a bigger bulsh*tter than Captain Beefheart conning us with an "Emperor's Clothes" type scam over how great they were, then I've yet to hear of them. I can't put him on this thread because he is one of the few artists from whom I've never heard anything even remotely appealing. Yet held up by some as a genius on a par with Zappa. How? Why??
-
Mr. Mustard, what you expect of poor Jimi?
True, no number one 45, but 4 Top 10 hits from first five singles! Erm, that's not doubling up as successful critically AND commercially? Really?
Ditto The Yardbirds.
All the acts you mentioned had huge hits, even Dylan!
Check out the chart placings of the likes of the Smiths, it's all 18, 25, 24 and many Clash singles didn't even chart, and all this without the biggest acts of all time in competition!
-
I'm with you on Beefheart. I think it's just the old "I'm so out there it's incredibly hip" syndrome. Talk about pretentious.
I did enjoy him working with Zappa. I had the privilege of seeing them performing sort of a dry run for the show that would become the 'Bongo Fury' album, which was one of Zappa's best. Outside of that, meh.
:-*
-
Oh, yeah, sorry, getting back to the thread.
Led Zeppelin - can't stand them, paved the way for the ugly (really ugly) stadium rock of the following decade, coupled with its crass commercialisation. An era, in 2015, we live in more than ever.
Them - incredible group and arguably the best of the R 'n' B groups of the mid-60s. Even their non-Van records in the late 60s are terrific. As for Van, got all the Them stuff, got Blowin' In Your Mind, got Astral Weeks, job done.
Zombies - love the singles, but O & O is curiously over-rated. I prefer pretty much every other Brit psych LP from the period, except Disraeli Gears.
Beefheart - Love the first two LPs, not so keen on Trout. Don't hate it, just far more likely to want to listen to pre-war blues and Chicago blues from the 50s instead of it.
-
I did enjoy him working with Zappa.
Now Zappa is a Z that I like!
-
Mr. Mustard, what you expect of poor Jimi?
True, no number one 45, but 4 Top 10 hits from first five singles! Erm, that's not doubling up as successful critically AND commercially? Really?
Ditto The Yardbirds.
Fair point about Jimi but if you re-read my post I was drawing attention to the irony that some sixties big names like Hendrix and Dylan who both receive an avalanche of critical acclaim had less chart success than supposed lightweights like Herman's Hermits.
in other words - I'll say it again - this division between record buying public and highbrow critics was alive and well even back in the sixties.
All the acts you mentioned had huge hits
What huge hits did The Zombies have? I'm talking UK charts remember. Their best effort was "She's Not There" (number 12) - The Smiths had two number 12s. Plus a number 11, two number 10s and a number 8. Not bad for an act the critics like to trumpet as being too cool for such things. But certainly less impressive than the likes of Wham! or Duran Duran - nobody's arguing with that.
Check out the chart placings of the likes of the Smiths, it's all 18, 25, 24 and many Clash singles didn't even chart, and all this without the biggest acts of all time in competition!
The Smiths only had 6 top twelve hits in the UK. But that's equal to The Zombies and The Yardbirds combined (and three times as many as Van Morrison's "Them").
Never did rate or understand the supposed kudos of The Clash by the way.
-
Ahhh, the ever present opinions of music. I love that people like different stuff. Seriously, it makes it interesting. Led Zeppelin is a favorite for me. 'Presence' is the only iffy offering they gave us in my opinion. I could put on the rest of their entire catalog and get through it without hitting the skip button. Saying that, I rarely listen to them unless my ipods on shuffle or they hit the radio. 'Physical Graffiti' is a top 10 album of all time for me and its a double record even. So yes, I do enjoy LZ. The Yardbirds don't knock me out though. I love about 4 or 5 of their tunes and consider the rest filler to decent type tunes that I can tolerate. I bought 'Roger The Engineer' on peoples recommendations and it never hit me like it did some. I like it, but its nothing great.
Now the Zombies that Mr. M struggles with, I love. 'Odessey and Oracle' is top 5 album for me ('Forever Changes' by Love also) and I just bought tickets to see them play it in a couple of months in Kent Ohio. 4 of the original members will be on hand and they have only played some of the songs twice before together before. My son and I are going and I cant wait. The Zombies don't have 1 song I dislike. That's crazy, but its true. Some aren't great for sure, but I cant say that I actually hate any. Love the band.
The Clash and The Smiths,,,,,cant tolerate. I only know 1 song from the Smiths and that's because it was the theme song for the TV show 'Charmed'. Oh well.
I have a weird taste in music though. I never listen to the Beatle, Stones, Who, Zep, etc,,,anymore. I'm always looking for something new to grab me and its tough. I strikeout more then I get on base. Right now, I'm in love with a band called The Grip Weeds. I have 3 of their records and will buy the remainder of their catalog in the next couple of days. Absolutely love them. Once I'm done with them, the search continues.
-
I have a weird taste in music though. I never listen to the Beatle, Stones, Who, Zep, etc,,,anymore. I'm always looking for something new to grab me and its tough. I strikeout more then I get on base. Right now, I'm in love with a band called The Grip Weeds. I have 3 of their records and will buy the remainder of their catalog in the next couple of days. Absolutely love them. Once I'm done with them, the search continues.
I really like trawling for new stuff too. I'll sit on the iTunes Store for a couple of hours using they're "customers who bought this" recommendations. I've found some good artists like that. It also helps when you have a daughter into music who can help introduce you to newer stuff. I'm always seemingly around five years behind though. I find a band I like and it seems their heyday was several years ago.
-
Let's clarify this, Mr. Mustard........
The five acts I would use to sum up the 60s all had fantastic commercial as well as critical success at the time. Not only retrospectively, but at the time.
They are the Beatles, the Stones, Dylan, Hendrix and (not moving the goal-posts here, but how could I have possibly have forgotten!!!!) the Beach Boys.
No one doubts that, say, the DC5 or Herman or The Monkees also shifted records, but they are the five I'd put forward.
Post-60s eras tend to ignore the acts who shifted product in favour for an NME/inky press approved list of bands.....and the fact that you scrambled around with stuff about two no. 12s and one no. 11 when mentioning the Smiths proves it!!!!
How is having a no. 11 hit in 1985 or 1987 indicative of huge commercial success?
The Beatles chart placings in the U.K. went 17, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1 etc.
The Stones, 21, 12, 3, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1 etc.
Yeah?
-
Let's clarify this, Mr. Mustard........
The five acts I would use to sum up the 60s all had fantastic commercial as well as critical success at the time. Not only retrospectively, but at the time.
They are the Beatles, the Stones, Dylan, Hendrix and (not moving the goal-posts here, but how could I have possibly have forgotten!!!!) the Beach Boys.
No one doubts that, say, the DC5 or Herman or The Monkees also shifted records, but they are the five I'd put forward.
I've already agreed that you picked a good, representative top five sixties acts. That's not in dispute nor is it the point I keep making. The point is that people like Herman's Hermits or, for that matter, Engelbert Humperdinck, Ken Dodd, Des O'Connor, Frank Ifield, The Seekers or Rolf Harris were all topping the charts back in the sixties and in some cases selling shed loads of records - often WAY more than also rans like "Them" or The Zombies or The Who yet the critics were brushing that under the carpet and praising Yardbirds, Dylan, Hendrix, Cream etc despite them not having a single number one hit between them at that time. Critics telling the public what they should be liking (but often being ignored) was happening in the sixties. Do I have to keep labouring the point?
Post-60s eras tend to ignore the acts who shifted product in favour for an NME/inky press approved list of bands
Who was it in this post sixties wasteland who were "ignoring the acts who shifted product"? You mean the critics of the time, right? As I've just said: nothing new there! Not a purely seventies or eighties phenomenon!
You seem to be implying that the eighties public voted with their wallets when it came to choosing between The Smiths and Wham! (you brought them up as examples, not me). Who's arguing? The sixties public were snapping up copies of "The Sound Of Music" or The Black & White Minstrels soundtrack in much heftier quantities than "Blonde On Blonde". Are you seriously saying the "informed" critics were pretentiously out of touch and the public were wrong? Or, if the public were right in the eighties, weren't they right in the sixties?
.....and the fact that you scrambled around with stuff about two no. 12s and one no. 11 when mentioning the Smiths proves it!!!!
How is having a no. 11 hit in 1985 or 1987 indicative of huge commercial success?
It isn't! I scrambled around using your (not my) eighties example (The Smiths) to demonstrate that, if having a smattering of number 12, 8, 11 or whatever ranking chart hits doesn't constitute huge commercial success (and as I've said previously, you're right, it doesn't) then how can the less impressive combined achievements of say The Zombies AND The Yardbirds qualify them as having "huge hits" (your words)? Don't forget The Smiths had triple (yes TRIPLE) the number of top 12 singles that "Them" had. So how can Them be huge? How? by what yardstick?
The Beatles chart placings in the U.K. went 17, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1 etc.
The Stones, 21, 12, 3, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1 etc.
Yeah?
Ouch! that one's below the belt obs, no one is or ever has been trying here to equate ANY post sixties acts with The Beatles or The Stones. A bit sneaky of you to drop them into the debate at the end!!!
Sorry if I'm labouring the issue at the risk of disgruntling other thread readers who must be getting bored with this rather circular (but good natured, I hope) argument now, but I do think your self-admitted bias towards the sixties (which I - like you - much prefer to the eighties) is rather blinkering you here!
I honestly think the schism between sixties record buyers and sixties critics was wider than you admit.
-
Ahhh, the ever present opinions of music. I love that people like different stuff. Seriously, it makes it interesting. Led Zeppelin is a favorite for me. 'Presence' is the only iffy offering they gave us in my opinion. I could put on the rest of their entire catalog and get through it without hitting the skip button. Saying that, I rarely listen to them unless my ipods on shuffle or they hit the radio. 'Physical Graffiti' is a top 10 album of all time for me and its a double record even. So yes, I do enjoy LZ. The Yardbirds don't knock me out though. I love about 4 or 5 of their tunes and consider the rest filler to decent type tunes that I can tolerate. I bought 'Roger The Engineer' on peoples recommendations and it never hit me like it did some. I like it, but its nothing great.
Now the Zombies that Mr. M struggles with, I love. 'Odessey and Oracle' is top 5 album for me ('Forever Changes' by Love also) and I just bought tickets to see them play it in a couple of months in Kent Ohio. 4 of the original members will be on hand and they have only played some of the songs twice before together before. My son and I are going and I cant wait. The Zombies don't have 1 song I dislike. That's crazy, but its true. Some aren't great for sure, but I cant say that I actually hate any. Love the band.
The Clash and The Smiths,,,,,cant tolerate. I only know 1 song from the Smiths and that's because it was the theme song for the TV show 'Charmed'. Oh well.
I have a weird taste in music though. I never listen to the Beatle, Stones, Who, Zep, etc,,,anymore. I'm always looking for something new to grab me and its tough. I strikeout more then I get on base. Right now, I'm in love with a band called The Grip Weeds. I have 3 of their records and will buy the remainder of their catalog in the next couple of days. Absolutely love them. Once I'm done with them, the search continues.
Thanks for the recommendation Todd. I'm listening to "Infinite Soul: The Best of The Grip Weeds" on Beats Music. Sounds good.
If you like psychedelic and atmospheric, check out Rose Windows.
-
Todd, check out Sloan. Similar sounding to The Grip Weeds.
-
The best ten songs of the Beatles, The Stones, The Who and Zep would be the greatest album of all time IMO.
Have never heard any songs by the Smiths, wouldn't have a clue what they sang. I only know about them from mention in Oasis bios.
And on the subject of Oasis who I love, their best 10 songs would be up there equal with most of the great bands in the second and third level of how I rate all bands
-
Thanks for the recommendations for Sloan and Rose Windows George. I'll definitely be checking them out today. A guy on another forum offered up a few other bands to check out.
Maple Mars
The Len Price 3
Rain Parade
Green Pajamas
So there's a few more to check out. ha2ha
-
The Yardbirds don't knock me out though. I love about 4 or 5 of their tunes and consider the rest filler to decent type tunes that I can tolerate. I bought 'Roger The Engineer' on peoples recommendations and it never hit me like it did some. I like it, but its nothing great.
The biggest problem of the Yardbirds is that they never developed as good songwriters. During their first years (1964-65), they recorded songs by other artists or written by outside songwriters like Graham Gouldman, with few exceptions like "Still I'm Sad". The material was not great but good enough, and the amazing instrumental talent of the band plus their experimental vocation converted them into one of the most influential bands of the mid-60's. Their biggest hits ("For Your Love"; "Heart Full Of Soul"; "Shapes Of Things") stand as truly high points of the decade.
After that time of glory, they started to write their own material from their first proper album, Roger The Engineer (1966). That album is acknowledged as one of the first strong steps of psychedelia, but the songwriting was very weak and the great performances couldn't save it, in my opinion. A similar problem occurred in their next and last album, Little Games (1967).
I love the Yardbirds and still consider them an essential band of the 60's. But I think that a compilation focussed on their mid-60's work is enough to taste their magic.
-
I recall in the mid Noughties when I was reacquainting myself with modern pop music hearing this one on Pandora and thinking these guys were good.
http://youtu.be/nIjVuRTm-dc (http://youtu.be/nIjVuRTm-dc)
Unfortunately nothing else I heard from them matched up to this and they're now consigned very much into the Artists to Avoid box in my cranium.
-
I recall in the mid Noughties when I was reacquainting myself with modern pop music hearing this one on Pandora and thinking these guys were good.
[url]http://youtu.be/nIjVuRTm-dc[/url] ([url]http://youtu.be/nIjVuRTm-dc[/url])
Unfortunately nothing else I heard from them matched up to this and they're now consigned very much into the Artists to Avoid box in my cranium.
Yeah, that and This Love are their only good songs.