|
|
Post by rockysigman on Oct 4, 2005 15:55:37 GMT -5
I intend to buck the trend and include only bands that actually have some claim to "greatest."  You mean like the Zombies? |
|
|
|
Post by bowiglou on Oct 4, 2005 16:54:25 GMT -5
wow, I may be the only one that mentions Devotos' amazing post-buzzcocks band: Magazine...well, here goes!
(1) The Beatles (loved them circa 1964..love them circa 2005!)
(2) The Clash--London Calling...(bought London Calling circa Jan of 1980 and just floored...)
(3) the Jam (Setting Songs and Sound Affects are absolutely seminal mature works)
(4) Elvis Costello and the Attractions..(first five albums, as Ken has stated, are all gems!!)
(5) Rolling Stones
(6) U2
(7) Magazine (Devotos' image was way too wayward for the poppunk of the Buzzcocks.....he found a natural vehicle for his obsessions via Magazine)
(8) Graham Parker and the Rumor (Squeezing out Sparks already cemented his legacy)
(9) the Kinks (if they hadn't been banned from USA who knows how big they could have been, though Ray Davies probably wouldn't give two hoots!!)
(10) Squeeze (pluperfect pop with domestic vignettes that were often ill at ease)
(11) Roxy Music
(12) Aztec Camera (I really though Roddy Frame et al would hit the big time, but never quite got beyond a devoted cadre of fans)
(13) Rod Stewart and the Faces (through all incarnations up to Atlantic Story......just a classic writer and interpreter who unfortunately saw his best days early on)
(14) Oasis----much wasted talent, but damn, their first two albums are what personified britpop
(15) XTC....if Partridge wasn't in the stranglehold of stage fright, their very oblique pop songs should have been beyond the fringe element........amazingly talented group
....and many I left off who I adore (or did adore): Jesus and Mary Chain, Psychedelic Furs, Cream, Echo and the Bunnymen, Wedding Present, Pulp, Supergrass, Buzzcocks, Sex Pistols, Mekons, the Smiths, Big Country, Led Zepplin (though that was more of a early 70s love affair!!), Hermans Hermits (seriously, I adored that band!!!), Black Sabbath (loved their first three albums the pretty much disavowed heavy metal), the Who (I do find many of their songs engaging, but I just never quite was as smitten with them as others...except for Whos Next and Tommy), Jethro Tull (aqualung and living in the past are absolute classics)..............
|
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Oct 4, 2005 23:05:54 GMT -5
Now, there's a pretty nice list. I intend to buck the trend and include only bands that actually have some claim to "greatest." To rehash an old discussion - what exactly makes a band "actually" have a claim to greatness as opposed to just being someone's personal favorite? Is it just that the band has turned up on a million past lists of greatest bands? That they're either already in or probably will soon be in The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame? Cause I think Gang of Four - for example - have a genuine claim to greatness. Shit, if the Sex Pistols can get on such a list solely for one questionably great album, then Entertainment! alone easily justifies Gang of Four's place on any such list - easily one of the greatest albums in the history of rock, imho, and possibly the greatest debut album of all time, though I have to think about that claim a little more before I'm comfortable making it... I actually do like most of the conventional picks - I like Deep Purple, I like Cream, I like the Yardbirds, I like the Beatles... I kinda sorta like some Led Zep, although I'm with Ken that Robert Plant's voice just grates.... but it's not clear to me why some of these band have more genuine or "actual" claims to greatness than the mekons or echo and the bunnymen - it just seems like they've been enshrined in the rock canon in the past, hence they gain some sense of "belonging" to the rock canon. Is there more to it than that? NP: Gang of Four - Entertainment! (song: Natural's Not In It) - phew - this post made me pop this album in again for the first time in a long time and yet again, i'm just FLOORED by how good it is - not one single bad moment.... fucking AMAZING. Cheers, M |
|
|
|
Post by Kensterberg on Oct 5, 2005 11:00:13 GMT -5
Fascinating article/review re:Gang of Four over on Slate.com today ... www.slate.com/id/2127526/I need to revise my list ... again. |
|
|
|
Post by Rit on Oct 5, 2005 11:35:31 GMT -5
from that Slate article:
"It's hard to think of a precedent in rock history for Return—essentially, a band recording its own tribute album. The decision has bemused many Gang of Four fans, who wonder why the band didn't just put out a compilation of the definitive versions."
Will Oldham rerecorded his own songs on a single album release as well. It's not entirely unprecedented. In Oldham's case, he redid a bunch of his songs as pure country songs, whereas the originals had been folky, shambling ragged songs.
|
|
|
|
Post by skvorisdeadsorta on Oct 5, 2005 13:07:26 GMT -5
Yep.......once you hear Solid Gold or Entertainment, you just kind of go, eh.........maybe I should go back to listening to my old stuff and not the new revival stuff. Also, another great band from the era that is horribly overlooked in my opinion would have to be The Pop Group.
|
|
|
|
Post by bowiglou on Oct 5, 2005 13:08:46 GMT -5
Mary et al..I did buy Entertainment way back then, and found their performance in Urgh to be engaing..and then did see Gang of Four live at the US festival circa 1983....they were always a group that I 'somewhat' liked, knew they were influential, and just found their sound only moderately intriuging............never could quite get on the GOF bandwagon!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by melon1 on Oct 5, 2005 14:45:06 GMT -5
First of all, I have a three-way tie for #1, if that's ok. I'll put them in order from 1 to 3 if I must. Lemme know.
1, 2, &3: U2, Pink Floyd & Led Zeppelin
4. Radiohead
5.The Beatles
6.. The Rolling Stones
7. The Police
8. Black Sabbath
9.Fleetwood Mac
10. The Who
11. Coldplay
12. Muse
13. The Clash
14. Cream
15. The Waterboys
|
|
|
|
Post by riley on Oct 5, 2005 14:48:07 GMT -5
nice call on Muse
|
|
|
|
Post by Kensterberg on Oct 5, 2005 14:55:19 GMT -5
I'm gonna make an executive decision here and exercise my moderator powers ...
The Jimi Hendrix Experience were not a "British" band.
You can vote for Jimi on the "Greatest (North) American Rockers" board (copyright 2005, Kenneth Holzman, Esq., coming soon to a message board near you), but not here.
I'm gonna leave the call on Fleetwood Mac up to the ballot box, as I can see them being classified either way. But there is simply no way that a rational observor could come to the conclusion that the JHE was "British" in any meaningful sense of the term.
Carry on ...
|
|
|
|
Post by Weeping_Guitar on Oct 5, 2005 15:23:03 GMT -5
I'm gonna make an executive decision here and exercise my moderator powers ... The Jimi Hendrix Experience were not a "British" band. huh? They certainly are not an American band. Two of the three members were British and Hendrix was a nobody on the scene until he went to the UK and was put with Mitchell and Redding. |
|
|
|
Post by Kensterberg on Oct 5, 2005 16:47:43 GMT -5
The JHE were an Anglo-American band ... in other words, they don't neatly fit either category. So if you want to start up an Anglo-American board ...
But I'm using executive fiat here to state that a band whose lead singer, song writer, and guitar player (and who was the sole reason that the band garnered attention) was born and raised in Seattle and served in the US armed forces, is considered an American band for the purposes of this discussion.
But you'll be more than welcome to vote for Jimi in later polls, where he will clearly be eligible. I promise.
|
|
|
|
Post by Weeping_Guitar on Oct 5, 2005 19:24:59 GMT -5
boooooooooooooooooo
but i'll live with it
|
|
|
|
Post by strat-0 on Oct 5, 2005 20:22:09 GMT -5
Now, there's a pretty nice list. I intend to buck the trend and include only bands that actually have some claim to "greatest." To rehash an old discussion - what exactly makes a band "actually" have a claim to greatness as opposed to just being someone's personal favorite? Is it just that the band has turned up on a million past lists of greatest bands? That they're either already in or probably will soon be in The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame? Cause I think Gang of Four - for example - have a genuine claim to greatness. Shit, if the Sex Pistols can get on such a list solely for one questionably great album, then Entertainment! alone easily justifies Gang of Four's place on any such list - easily one of the greatest albums in the history of rock, imho, and possibly the greatest debut album of all time, though I have to think about that claim a little more before I'm comfortable making it... I actually do like most of the conventional picks - I like Deep Purple, I like Cream, I like the Yardbirds, I like the Beatles... I kinda sorta like some Led Zep, although I'm with Ken that Robert Plant's voice just grates.... but it's not clear to me why some of these band have more genuine or "actual" claims to greatness than the mekons or echo and the bunnymen - it just seems like they've been enshrined in the rock canon in the past, hence they gain some sense of "belonging" to the rock canon. Is there more to it than that? NP: Gang of Four - Entertainment! (song: Natural's Not In It) - phew - this post made me pop this album in again for the first time in a long time and yet again, i'm just FLOORED by how good it is - not one single bad moment.... fucking AMAZING. Cheers, MWell, great ness is not the same as great est. For the poll, I consider things like: influence, body of work, musical prowess, longevity, critical acclaim, success - how 'big' they are, records and/or tickets sold - live act, and, um... how much I like 'em. 'Greatest.' But they obviously can't all be 'greatest.' But everybody has their own criteria! That's what makes the lists so fun! |
|
achn2b
Struggling Artist
Posts: 234
|
Post by achn2b on Oct 5, 2005 20:30:53 GMT -5
just tired of them, ken. tired of the praise, tired of the overexposure, tired of the marketing, just burned out on the beatles. tired of the cult of the beatles.
now, i've been listening to a lot of classic rock on the radio lately, as i'm tired of most of the new crap out there as well. tired of the repetition, tired of the narrow playlists, etc. and my job has me driving a lot, so i'm listening to the radio a lot.
at first, it was ok, like coming home to an old friend. but now it's just tiring as well, i can't listen to a station for more than two or three songs before i'm hitting the preset buttons. goddamn, why is radio such a vast wasteland?
so for now, i'm gonna be going through a bunch of my old cassette tapes.
|
|
