Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Irredeemable Artists

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by KGR View Post

    How about Madness? I mean, bloody awful, all of it
    Not all of it - "Embarrassment" and "Grey Day" were good - but most of it, yes.

    The "nutty" version of The Beatles.

    Comment


      You're shaking his confidence daily.

      I understand that you could find Suggs irritating, I understand that you could not like that particular brand of ska/two-tone but that's one of the most out there calls yet on this thread.

      Comment


        John Lennon as a solo artist. Even as a Beatles obsessive young fool, Walls and Bridges could induce illness in me. Whatever Gets You Through The Night stinks of shit booze shit drugs and shit clothes. And he seems such a horrible cunt without the Beatles reigning him in. Mawkish or full of fatuous venom.

        Comment


          Ok - go with me here:

          Yuppie/excess was the antidote to hippie/love, and grunge/slacker was the antidote to that. And Nirvana epitomised the grunge ethos in the most profound way.

          Also, at least in my experience, only dudes like Metallica but everyone can dig Nirvana.

          Does this mean Nirvana wins?

          Comment


            Originally posted by Lang Spoon View Post
            John Lennon as a solo artist. Even as a Beatles obsessive young fool, Walls and Bridges could induce illness in me. Whatever Gets You Through The Night stinks of shit booze shit drugs and shit clothes. And he seems such a horrible cunt without the Beatles reigning him in. Mawkish or full of fatuous venom.
            But Mother? C’mon man. Mawkish or otherwise, he puts it out there on that one.

            Comment


              Yeah, Plastic Ono Band has some good stuff. But Proper Solo 70s Lennon? Fuckin Dogshit.

              Comment


                You're rigging it by defining Proper Solo 70s Lennon in a way that excludes his best album. POB is a 'band' in name only and solo Lennon in all other respects.

                In addition, 'Instant Karma' is better than a lot of late Beatles stuff.

                Comment


                  Agreed on Instant Karma. Ok, 70s Lennon post plastic Ono band is shit so.

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by 3 Colours Red View Post
                    You're shaking his confidence daily.

                    I understand that you could find Suggs irritating, I understand that you could not like that particular brand of ska/two-tone but that's one of the most out there calls yet on this thread.
                    They did the New Years Eve gig on BBC2. I switched it on just to see a couple of minutes and ended up watching the lot. I'm not going to go out and buy tickets to see them, but I wouldn't turn down the opportunity if someone gave me a ticket.

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by Posty Webber View Post
                      Ok - go with me here:

                      Yuppie/excess was the antidote to hippie/love, and grunge/slacker was the antidote to that. And Nirvana epitomised the grunge ethos in the most profound way.

                      Also, at least in my experience, only dudes like Metallica but everyone can dig Nirvana.

                      Does this mean Nirvana wins?
                      You can argue that Nirvana were more important based on how much they encapsulated the zeitgeist, or however you want to put it. That seems like a "more important in their time" argument, while Metallica have the unfair advantage of having been around another 25 years. I would say that metal has been more historically influential, or at least popular, than grunge, which came to epitomize and be firmly dated to the early-mid 90s, much like disco epitomized the late 70s. Metallica are typically regarded as one of the most important metal bands. But if there are more Nirvana fans than Metallica fans today, then fair play to Nirvana. I don't know that that's determinable, so I looked at total record sales.

                      Comment


                        I'd interpret their near equivalent plays on steaming services as testament that lots of people still find Nirvana relevant, almost a quarter century after Kurt's death. Will that be the case with Metallica? Hard to know, really.

                        On another note I'm going to nominate Morrissey. Not just because he's a quasifascist dillweed, but because his music is actually maudlin self regarding shite. All of it.

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by Bruno View Post

                          I would say that metal has been more historically influential, or at least popular, than grunge, which came to epitomize and be firmly dated to the early-mid 90s, much like disco epitomized the late 70s.
                          You’ll love this:
                          https://youtu.be/qR7U1HIhxfA

                          Comment


                            I don't quite get this continued 'metal vs grunge'-scenario. It's like comparing a continent to a city. Grunge (if we must categorise it thus) was a small-ish and relatively short-lived subsidiary of post-punk music which, in some cases, overlapped with metal. Metal itself is an entire genre with a hundred off-shoots of its own.

                            I'd still however argue the case for Nirvana's broader initial impact on those retrograde metal acts of the late eighties over that of Metallica, mainly because they (and one or two others) actually filled that same commercial space - albeit briefly. As we've already ascertained, despite selling truckloads, Metallica simply didn't want that. That isn't so much a comment on their ability, craft or whatever as it is an observation based around overall public perception. I 'personally' favoured the grunge bands, but that's just my take: previously I'd been into The Pixies, Hüsker Dü, Sonic Youth, The Gun Club - and can definitely see how Nirvana in particular might fit that lineage.

                            Metallica have done stuff I've quite liked, but in terms of that (early) era's thrash metal, I preferred Slayer. (Probably because Peel played them quite a bit.)

                            Comment


                              This thread had me listening to Ride the Lightning today. What a great album. Doom!

                              Comment


                                Originally posted by Jah Womble View Post
                                I don't quite get this continued 'metal vs grunge'-scenario. It's like comparing a continent to a city. Grunge (if we must categorise it thus) was a small-ish and relatively short-lived subsidiary of post-punk music which, in some cases, overlapped with metal. Metal itself is an entire genre with a hundred off-shoots of its own.
                                The conversation drifted into metal-vs-grunge but my initial suggestion was only that Metallica were/are a bigger band than Nirvana. I think the overlap between metal and grunge is greater than you seem to suggest.

                                I'd still however argue the case for Nirvana's broader initial impact on those retrograde metal acts of the late eighties over that of Metallica, mainly because they (and one or two others) actually filled that same commercial space - albeit briefly. As we've already ascertained, despite selling truckloads, Metallica simply didn't want that.
                                Metallica didn't want what? Not sure what you mean. My argument for their initial importance hinged on their being against hair metal and corporate rock well before Nirvana appeared. They were an alternative before "alternative," with a quite similar point of view, and the argument that they were less important depends (imo) on cordoning off metal as somehow irrelevant or ancillary to the "commercial space" you're referring to. That commercial space was largely a concoction of the corporate music industry, whose business model was "what's going to be popular this month, it's time to throw away last month." Hair metal was the answer to "how to make metal mainstream," but metal has never needed to be mainstream, it has always had enough fans to sustain it who don't care about or who actively reject the mainstream, and that in itself is important -- especially when viewed in the light of today's fragmented musical landscape, when a single commercial space no longer dominates the entire business.

                                Comment


                                  Originally posted by Bruno View Post
                                  The conversation drifted into metal-vs-grunge but my initial suggestion was only that Metallica were/are a bigger band than Nirvana. I think the overlap between metal and grunge is greater than you seem to suggest.
                                  Well, that's open to conjecture: I think the bands that were originally* dubbed as such - Nirvana, Green River/Mudhoney, Dinosaur Jr, Melvins, Screaming Trees, etc - were all far more influenced by punk/post-punk, with several of those lumped into the category like Soundgarden, Alice In Chains and Stone Temple Pilots probably owing more to metal. One thing all had in common was an apparent detestation of the expression 'grunge' - which suggests that they themselves didn't really see it as much more than a media catch-all. (The majority of the bands that then cashed in on the genre could arguably be classed as 'grunge-metal'.)

                                  (*The term was being used by the UK press in the mid/late-eighties: I can even recall the Jesus & Mary Chain being labelled thus when their Automatic was issued in 1989.)

                                  Viz this 'who is the bigger band?'-continuum (which personally I don't think matters a jot), it would be pretty hard to argue against Metallica. They've sold more records overall and have lasted something like thirty years longer than Nirvana did.

                                  Originally posted by Bruno View Post
                                  Metallica didn't want what? Not sure what you mean. My argument for their initial importance hinged on their being against hair metal and corporate rock well before Nirvana appeared. They were an alternative before "alternative," with a quite similar point of view, and the argument that they were less important depends (imo) on cordoning off metal as somehow irrelevant or ancillary to the "commercial space" you're referring to. That commercial space was largely a concoction of the corporate music industry, whose business model was "what's going to be popular this month, it's time to throw away last month." Hair metal was the answer to "how to make metal mainstream," but metal has never needed to be mainstream, it has always had enough fans to sustain it who don't care about or who actively reject the mainstream, and that in itself is important -- especially when viewed in the light of today's fragmented musical landscape, when a single commercial space no longer dominates the entire business.
                                  Metallica 'didn't want to play the game' - as we've already established. Despite everything that Kurt may have said, it was apparent that Nirvana were fairly at home in the spotlight - or at least their media profile suggested this. As Nevermind moved them into the mainstream, their commercial/image value obviously increased exponentially. And they somehow managed this while remaining an 'important' band.

                                  Metallica were clearly shifting units in eye-watering amounts, but they didn't at any point impact the public consciousness to the same extent that Nirvana did between 1991 and 1994: yer Moms and Dads knew who Cobain was, especially when their offspring were pinning photos of that very photogenic guy on their walls (and refusing to wash their clothes). It wasn't necessarily what Nirvana were 'about', but it happened - and having seen them open for Tad and Mudhoney in 1989, I was mightily surprised to witness that.

                                  But, to get this straight, I agree with you regarding Metallica's standpoint - which did indeed pre-date Nirvana et al by some good while - however, I'm not sure about the phrase 'alternative before alternative', given that non-conformist bands existed way before they did. But anyways...

                                  Comment


                                    Originally posted by KGR View Post
                                    How about Madness? I mean, bloody awful, all of it. I realise I'll get pelters for that, but really, we're all grown-ups round here. Nobody ever needs to listen to that drivel ever again. I couldn't get on with it when I was a teenager and still do.
                                    Christ...what next? The Clash? Madness were and sometimes still are marvelous. The Liberty of Norton Folgate was a wholly unexpected late-career high point. Forget all the latter-day covers and shit; they had a double-album's worth of great tunes over the years. A lot of fluff, but plenty of brilliance.

                                    Glad I talked you out of that....

                                    Comment


                                      As soon as this thread started I assumed that every well-known band or artist, other than perhaps the Beatles, the Fall, Joy Division and Bowie, would get a mention at some point.
                                      Last edited by Nocturnal Submission; 16-05-2019, 15:05.

                                      Comment


                                        Originally posted by Jah Womble View Post
                                        Viz this 'who is the bigger band?'-continuum (which personally I don't think matters a jot), it would be pretty hard to argue against Metallica. They've sold more records overall and have lasted something like thirty years longer than Nirvana did.
                                        Yeah I meant that comment as an aside and didn't expect it to turn into a debate.

                                        Metallica 'didn't want to play the game' - as we've already established. Despite everything that Kurt may have said, it was apparent that Nirvana were fairly at home in the spotlight - or at least their media profile suggested this. As Nevermind moved them into the mainstream, their commercial/image value obviously increased exponentially. And they somehow managed this while remaining an 'important' band.

                                        Metallica were clearly shifting units in eye-watering amounts, but they didn't at any point impact the public consciousness to the same extent that Nirvana did between 1991 and 1994: yer Moms and Dads knew who Cobain was, especially when their offspring were pinning photos of that very photogenic guy on their walls (and refusing to wash their clothes). It wasn't necessarily what Nirvana were 'about', but it happened - and having seen them open for Tad and Mudhoney in 1989, I was mightily surprised to witness that.

                                        But, to get this straight, I agree with you regarding Metallica's standpoint - which did indeed pre-date Nirvana et al by some good while - however, I'm not sure about the phrase 'alternative before alternative', given that non-conformist bands existed way before they did. But anyways...
                                        A more mundane way of phrasing your first point about "impacting the public consciousness" would be that Nirvana got more media attention than Metallica, which is definitely true. That's in part because the mainstream media tends to just ignore metal, literally as though to pretend it isn't happening. There was always a big disconnect between the amount of mainstream attention and the size (and loyalty) of the following.

                                        There were non-conformist bands before Metallica, but my point was that 90s alternative and Metallica et al were arrayed against the same enemy, at a time when the corporateness of the music industry, of how hits and hit artists were made (in tandem with the MTV craze) was really crystallizing. Those forces were all evident already in the 70s, but had progressed to the point of absurdity, or a breaking point, in the 80s.

                                        Comment


                                          Originally posted by Nocturnal Submission View Post
                                          As soon as this thread started I assumed that every well-known band or artist, other than perhaps the Beatles, the Fall and Joy Division and Bowie, would get a mention at some point.
                                          You'll have to take The Fall out of that list now...

                                          Comment


                                            Hah! Is it worth me swapping Kraftwerk in, I wonder.

                                            Comment


                                              Originally posted by johnr View Post

                                              You'll have to take The Fall out of that list now...
                                              Hmm...Fall-friendly songs for hitherto non-lovers: Edinburgh Man, Entitled, Taurig, Shoulder Pads, Bill Is Dead, And This Day?

                                              Comment


                                                Originally posted by Bruno View Post
                                                Yeah I meant that comment as an aside and didn't expect it to turn into a debate.
                                                Okay, was just taking it as I read it.

                                                Originally posted by Bruno View Post
                                                A more mundane way of phrasing your first point about "impacting the public consciousness" would be that Nirvana got more media attention than Metallica, which is definitely true. That's in part because the mainstream media tends to just ignore metal, literally as though to pretend it isn't happening. There was always a big disconnect between the amount of mainstream attention and the size (and loyalty) of the following.
                                                Well, as we've established, that rather tended to depend upon what 'type' of metal: from NWOBHM onwards, hard-rock acts seemed (to me. at least) to get a lot more attention than they had previously from the mainstream. Obviously, a lot of this was at the 'pretty-boy'-end (Bon Jovi, glam/hair metal, etc) - which was where the hits were. Metallica, Slayer, Sepultura, etc, weren't daytime-friendly and therefore weren't going to cross over at any time, so, no, the media largely shunned them - as it did most post-punk/hardcore. (Metallica must've made a few promos, though, since I can recall seeing one or two on The Chart Show, MTV, etc.)

                                                Originally posted by Bruno View Post
                                                There were non-conformist bands before Metallica, but my point was that 90s alternative and Metallica et al were arrayed against the same enemy, at a time when the corporateness of the music industry, of how hits and hit artists were made (in tandem with the MTV craze) was really crystallizing. Those forces were all evident already in the 70s, but had progressed to the point of absurdity, or a breaking point, in the 80s.
                                                Yep, true enough. It doesn't compare with how the land lies today, however: I mean, at least back then, pop/R&B/soul fans would've been 'aware' of a Metallica.

                                                Originally posted by Sporting View Post
                                                Hmm...Fall-friendly songs for hitherto non-lovers: Edinburgh Man, Entitled, Taurig, Shoulder Pads, Bill Is Dead, And This Day?
                                                LA, Creep..?

                                                Comment


                                                  Originally posted by Jah Womble View Post
                                                  LA, Creep..?
                                                  Blindness, Hey! Student...

                                                  As for Morrissey being on the list, I loved (and still do) The Smiths, but he can fuck off now.

                                                  Comment


                                                    Originally posted by Nocturnal Submission View Post
                                                    Hah! Is it worth me swapping Kraftwerk in, I wonder.
                                                    I would have had Kraftwerk on this thread and on "Overstaffed bands". But I'm too tired to deflect the flak.

                                                    Comment

                                                    Working...
                                                    X