|
|
Post by Paul on Mar 3, 2006 12:32:34 GMT -5
Bob Dylan, the Rolling Stones and Jimi Hendrix belong more to the 60's than the 70's ... And pcook forgot The Who on his 60's list ... !! but I did mention I like their material from the 60's more so than the 70's...IMO 'A Quick One' and 'Sell Out' are their best albums. |
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Mar 3, 2006 12:33:47 GMT -5
Jim Morrison was a true poet.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Mar 3, 2006 12:42:03 GMT -5
Jim Morrison was a true poet. I think I just heard Ken puke. |
|
|
|
Post by Kensterberg on Mar 3, 2006 12:44:54 GMT -5
Jim Morrison was a true poet. I think I just heard Ken puke. Yep. Morrison was a drunk ... a pretentious, half-assed egomaniacal drunk ... surpasssed by Iggy Pop and Julian Cope on nights when they weren't even trying. Hell, Michael Hutchins did a better Morrison that Morrison did ... I fucking hate the Doors. |
|
|
|
Post by dolly on Mar 3, 2006 12:46:51 GMT -5
Oh yeah - oops. I think I agree with Phil though on mid 60s though mid 70s. Your poll is flawed, Melon! Maybe it would be suited to the not so nit-pickily inclined. Knooooow your audience. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Mar 3, 2006 12:47:43 GMT -5
It's fun to see Ken get roused up by a little Doors talk ;D
I think they had some solid contributions to the world of rock...
|
|
|
|
Post by dolly on Mar 3, 2006 12:55:32 GMT -5
Bob Dylan, the Rolling Stones and Jimi Hendrix belong more to the 60's than the 70's ... Not by mine and Thorn's masterpiece theory. But it depends on which album you decide is the materpiece, of course. For me - Blood on the Tracks. Exile on Main Street. Though I'd take '69's Let it Bleed over Sticky Fingers. The Kinks are all about the 1960s for me too. Arthur, Face to Face, Somthing Else, Village Green.... I've never liked The Doors. Not bothered about Jim being a drunk - but I agree he was no poet....and that was me you heard retching. |
|
|
|
Post by phil on Mar 3, 2006 12:56:14 GMT -5
It's fun to see Ken get roused up by a little Doors talk ;D I think they had some solid contributions to the world of rock... Indeed ! Ken is just jealous because his parents never bought him the leather pants he so desperately wanted ... ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Kensterberg on Mar 3, 2006 13:01:06 GMT -5
You know, I used to say "I hate the Doors, but I do like Break on Through." But then the other day I actually cued that track up on my iPod, and promptly deleted it. God it was awful ... does make it easier for me to succinctly sum up my position on the Doors, though: I HATE THE F*CKING DOORS!
I tried on leather pants once ... hot and sticky ... definitely better seen than worn.
|
|
|
|
Post by luke on Mar 3, 2006 13:04:04 GMT -5
The 80s, but Holzman's right. Put those ten years together, and NOTHING comes close.
BUT...is this bands who FORMED in the decade or were still around, or are we going by albums? I'm going with the latter, and giving the 80s partial credit for:
The Clash
Talking Heads
Joy Division
Joy Division's masterpiece was in 1980, so there ya go. The Talking Heads released more good albums in the 80s than 70s. And The Clash...well...they peaked in the 70s, but were technically an 80s band in the U.S. and still released some good stuff. The most arguable of the three, though. But who cares, because other than that, the 80s have:
The Smiths
Pixies
Jesus and Mary Chain
Sonic Youth
Red Hot Chili Peppers
Guns 'N Roses
X
New Order
U2
R.E.M.
The Cure
The Stone Roses
My Bloody Valentine
Husker Du
Dead Kennedys
Yo La Tengo
Dinosaur, Jr.
The Replacements
Guided By Voices
Metallica
Public Enemy
N.W.A.
Prince
Anthrax
Beastie Boys
Slayer
Iron Maiden
Skinny Puppy
Depeche Mode
Siouxsie and the Banshees
Echo and the Bunnymen
The Church
XTC
The Melvins
Bad Brains
Black Flag
Minor Threat
Social Distortion
The Pogues
*whew* I'm out of breath and there are STILL some glaring omissions. 60s? 70s? Nice to know you had the Beatles, Stones, Dylan, and some girl groups. Now go fuck yourselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kensterberg on Mar 3, 2006 13:12:49 GMT -5
And a quick note on the "masterpiece theory" ...
I can understand this position, however, I think there is a necessary corollary: the masterpiece to crap ratio. Yes, Dylan released Blood on the Tracks, which is surely among his best works (even if anyone with ears can tell that it's not as good as Blonde on Blonde or Highway 61, and may not be better than John Wesley Harding or Bringing It All Back Home), in the seventies. However, His Bobness also put out Street Legal, Saved, Self-Portrait, Dylan and Planet Waves in the same decade. No matter how highly you rate Blood on the Tracks, you have to admit that it is the only record Bob made in the entire decade that was really good. So the ratio of masterpiece to crap tells us that Bob's prime was in the sixties, not the seventies.
Similarly, the Stones cut some very good sides in both the sixties and seventies, and to my ears, the big distinction between the two decades comes down to which one's bad sides sucked less. I'm inclined to give this nod to the earlier decade as well, but it's much less clear cut than with Dylan.
No with the Who ... the Who didn't cut a "bad" record until Face Dances, which came out in ... 1981! So we can agree that the eighties were a really shitty decade for Townshend's men. But before that, the weakest Who record was A Quick One. And as much as I love The Who Sing My Generation and The Who Sell Out (and Tommy, for that matter), none of these are as good as Who's Next, Live at Leeds (a 1970 issue), or even the oft-overlooked The Who By Numbers. Quadrophenia and Who Are You are both far superior to A Quick One. As great as the Who were in the sixties, they just got better in the next decade. Gotta go with Thorny here ... the Who belong to the seventies.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kensterberg on Mar 3, 2006 13:16:37 GMT -5
Great post Luke!
There was a ton of great music in the eighties ... and while London Calling came out in '79 in the UK, it was on US critics lists for best of 1980. So you've got London Calling, Sandinista!, and Combat Rock, plus the Radio Clash single and some other non-LP cuts, and a bunch of great live shows to back up that claim that the Clash should count towards the eighties.
This is a hard pick, and now I'm really leaning towards going with that often unfairly neglected age of big hair and torn sweats ...
Plus, Killing Joke's "Eighties" is still the coolest song ever written about a decade.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Mar 3, 2006 13:38:26 GMT -5
Some of this same logic can be applied to the Beastie Boys as well....While they hit their commercial peak w/ Lisence To Ill in 1986, they're best work lie ahead...Although Paul's Botquie was released in 1989, it really influenced a lot from the 1990's. During the 90's, the Beasties released 3 albums far more critically acclaimed than 'Lisence' w/ Check Your Head, Ill Communication, and Hello Nasty. When I think of the Beasties, I think of them more as a 90's group than an 80's. I mean where would 1994 be without "Sabatoge"?
|
|
|
|
Post by luke on Mar 3, 2006 13:41:01 GMT -5
Oh yeah, I'd definitely give the Beasties props for the 90s. The Chili Peppers released their "classic" in the 90s, too, but they still had some absolutely incredible stuff in the 80s.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Mar 3, 2006 15:19:44 GMT -5
I think I just heard Ken puke. a drunk ... a pretentious, half-assed egomaniacal drunk ... Yep; that describes most poets to the T... |
|
