Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mr Mustard]

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

[tkitna]

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.

[Moogmodule]

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.

[Moogmodule]

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

[KelMar]

Van and Zep aren't at the top of my list either.

[nimrod]

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

[Moogmodule]

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.

[Mr Mustard]

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??

[oldbrownshoe]

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!

[Klang]

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.

 

[oldbrownshoe]

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.

[KelMar]

I did enjoy him working with Zappa.

Now Zappa is a Z that I like!

[Mr Mustard]

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.

[tkitna]

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.

[Moogmodule]

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.

[oldbrownshoe]

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?

[Mr Mustard]

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.

[ibanez_ax]

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.

[ibanez_ax]

Todd, check out Sloan.  Similar sounding to The Grip Weeds.

[stevie]

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