Other music forums > Various Artists, Lyrics, Discographies

the 2nd greatest band ever was.....

<< < (6/6)

Hombre_de_ningun_lugar:

--- Quote from: nimrod on November 05, 2013, 01:22:23 AM ---not really, I always loved their singles, Waterloo Sunset, Lola, Sunny Afternoon, You Really Got Me, Autumn Almanac, Victoria, Tired Of waiting, all great singles but I was always let down by their albums Im afraid. Although I love the track Shangri-La
--- End quote ---

And "Shangri-La" was released as a single from Arthur as well, but it didn't chart I think. I love that song too and I think that it's a serious candidate for the best Kinks' song.


--- Quote from: nimrod on November 05, 2013, 01:22:23 AM ---which is best album Hombre ?

--- End quote ---

That's hard to tell because I think that all their albums from 1966 to 1971 are really good, but I wouldn't call any of them as the ultimate masterpiece. But to answer your cuestion I'll say The Village Green Preservation Society, I think Ray's best songwriting can be found there. Arthur perhaps is better performed.

Hombre_de_ningun_lugar:

--- Quote from: Sir John Johns on November 05, 2013, 03:58:11 AM ---If you're looking for Kinks albums you can't go wrong with Face To Face, Something Else & The Kinks Are The Village Green Preservation Society, I'm also partial to The Muswell Hillbillies too.  :)

--- End quote ---

I would add Arthur and Lola to that list.

Ovi:
To my ears, Village Green Preservation Society, Arthur and Muswell Hillbillies are their 3 masterpieces. Absolutely stunning, timeless records. Could talk for hours about any of them.

At the moment, I think my favourite Kinks song is 'Celluloid Heroes' from the underrated Everybody's In Show-Biz.

stevie:
While I love Zep, I sorta realised the other day that their one real glaring weakness is?

Their lyrics. If you go through the bulk of their songs, a lot of the lyrics are quite average! They sound good because the music is so good.

Plant wrote most of the lyrics and they seem very shallow when you really listen to them or read the actual words.

Not dissing them at all, just an observation I suddenly realised after listening to and loving them for about 35 years, lol.

Moogmodule:
A while ago I was thinking of just this question. It's nice to find a thread to give me an excuse to put my thoughts in writing.

 I was particularly pondering whether U2 could lay reasonable claim ahead of the Stones. My thinking was that U2 have remained a watched for recording act for 30 years. Their albums still are a bit of an event when released. While I thought most except die hard fans stopped watching for Stones albums after maybe Tattoo You. So that their influence as a recording/writing band could be restricted to around twenty years, with the last thirty basically running off the fumes of that period.

Having pondered that though I still in the end would give the Stones second place. Primarily on the strength of having such a large range of classic rock tracks. It's hard to beat a back catalogue of Satisfaction, Jumping Jack Flash, Gimme Shelter,Paint it Black  etc etc. they can fill a whole concert with songs that most people, even those not fans, would know. And being one of the two biggest acts of the 60s would put them higher on the influential rankings than a later era band.

And in a way the fact that they've been able to stay a huge touring act on the strength of the songs from that original 15 to 20 year period is a testimony to how substantial their catalogue and contribution is.

While U2 has some great songs and some that will be considered rock standards, I'm not sure it's enough to get them that second spot. As well, only releasing 12 albums in thirty-odd years also loses them a few points in my book. I know for large acts a three or four year gap is now the norm but its hardly the way to be seen as a prolific contributor to rocks repertoire.

U2 can fight it out for minor placings with the Who, Zep, Pink Floyd and the Kinks.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page