FM Best Artists in the History of Rock and Roll (Tournament Page 1976-1985)

Well its been 23 hours, and I don't expect a 10 vote swing in the next hour, so I am calling this fight. Talking Heads win. The Smiths vs. The Sex Pistols up shortly.

Keyser Soze wrote:Smiths no questoin about it. As stated earlier, the Pistols were just a concoction of McLaren basically to help sell clothes in his shop. It was more a circus act than a musical one, and while that first album was a killer, it turns out that that's all they had in them.

exactly.. the sex pistols were the Monkees of punk (which isn't as terrible as it sounds.. i kinda like the monkees)

All of those response (although probably accurate) make me want to take a Pistol like attitude. F*** it. I'm voting Sex Pistols.

....but I hope The Smiths win.

I voted for the Pistols, because I had never heard anything the Smiths did prior to this poll opening. I don't particularly love either of them, but from what i listened to of the Smiths, it doesn't compare to the better Pistols songs.

I think of The Smiths as a sort of 'you had to be there at the time' band OR take a good couple of weeks to listen to all their stuff and acquire the taste. You won't 'get it' from a couple of minutes of a couple of songs or a single listen to one song. But put the effort in and once you do embrace them you will love them for life and appreciate Morrissey's subtle, intelligent humour and Johnny Marr's one of a kind music construction. They are one of the only bands that I could probably sing every lyric to every song on every album. In my opinion, and probably many others, they did not have a single dud song or wasted album track. Even Strangeways Here We Come (probably their 'not as good as the others' album) is brilliant.

Or maybe I am just biased.

leestu wrote:I think of The Smiths as a sort of 'you had to be there at the time' band OR take a good couple of weeks to listen to all their stuff and acquire the taste. You won't 'get it' from a couple of minutes of a couple of songs or a single listen to one song. But put the effort in and once you do embrace them you will love them for life and appreciate Morrissey's subtle, intelligent humour and Johnny Marr's one of a kind music construction. They are one of the only bands that I could probably sing every lyric to every song on every album. In my opinion, and probably many others, they did not have a single dud song or wasted album track. Even Strangeways Here We Come (probably their 'not as good as the others' album) is brilliant.

Or maybe I am just biased.

Stu,

I don't think you're biased at all, and you're 100% correct. The Smiths were one of those "You had to be there" bands. I remember it was my Senior year in college when our local record store was able to get an import copy of "The Smiths" and it just blew us away especially compared to the putrid crap that was mostly being played on the airwaves at the time (Can you say Thriller). We were in the middle of Reaganomics while England was having their own Thatcherian issues, and along came Marr and Morissey to speak to the disaffected youth of that time exactly the same way that Cobain was speaking to the Gen X generation of the late 80's/early 90's. We were looking at a pretty dreary future at that point with an escalating Cold War, rampant unemployment and no prospects for jobs coming out of college. Kind of difficult to explain to folks who grew up in the mid 90's especially those who came of age during the Dot Com boom. I beleive The Smiths are to that era what The Ramones/New York Dolls/Stooges were to their era. Yes, The Clash were the better band musically and were the true champions of the punk crowd, but that wasn't the same crowd that The Smiths were speaking to.

To me, the Triumverate of this era is 1. Clash 2. REM 3. The Smiths as all 3 of these bands were bigger than the music they made.

I guess they were just before my time then

geezer9687 wrote:I guess they were just before my time then

Geez,

I can totally understand where you're coming from. As I deal with quite a few kids in my vocation, I can't tell you how many have either never heard of Nirvana or think of them like we do of The Beatles or The Doors. It was music that came before their time, and as the band is no longer currently making music, they have no frame of reference. Hell, to these kids, Foo Fighters or Good Charlotte are more seminal bands than Nirvana will ever be.

Good Charlotte are more seminal bands than Nirvana will ever be.

Another little part of me just died. Actually, make that a big part.

Its so sad. The great thing about music is that it's all recorded! And its not difficult to access with the internet. I'd say about 80% of all the bands I listen no longer make new music. They are either dead or long since broken up. Even Nirvana was slightly before my time (I was 7 when Kurt Cobain died.) Yet they are and have always been my favorite band ever since I was introduced to them. Most of what I listen to is what would be considered Classic Rock. Because well, 95% of all music today is pure shit. Something needs to come along soon that is good, or at least I'm hoping, but until then, I have my few bands that I like of today, and the rest pretty much died out in the 90's or before. I'm lucky to have a father who is very much into music and who has raised me on the music that he listened to, rather than letting MTV shape my musical taste. I rate the Beatles as number 2 on my all time bands list. Seargent Peppers could be the greatest album ever recorded, in my opinion. Its either that or Nevermind. I would put The Who third on my list. I guess its all a combination of how you were raised, and your mindset regarding music. I can't stand when I ask someone what music they like and they say "Oh I listen to everything." It makes me want to go "Then you are just a brainless sheep that has no opinion on what you like whatsoever you dumb shit!" and the thing is, they believe they listen to everything, because everything to them means everything that is recorded and played on the radio right now. They could never grasp the endless possibilities that are "everything." I am very specific in what I love, what sounds good to me, and I will defend it to no end. As far as the Smiths are concerned, I was never exposed to it, so how can I like it? I tried listening to some of it and I didn't like it. Leestu may be right when he says you need to take the time to listen to all of it, but I'm not so sure. I can usually tell whether I will like a band or not upon the first listening of about 3 songs. If they don't sell me by then, I feel like I'm wasting my time. No band goes through any drastic transformation so much that if I don't like them upon that initial listening, I would like them with much further tries. If they did, they wouldn't be true to themselves, and they would alienate their fanbase. I also couldn't have the emotional connection you feel to them, so it all boils down to the musical sound to me, and well, its just not good, in my opinion. I'd much rather listen to Teenage Labotomy or Sheena is a Punk Rocker. That's just my musical taste.

I wish that more people today wouldn't just accept that all good music is the top 40, corporate radio, MTV, Good Charlotte bullshit that is released today to make money and nothing more. There still are good bands, but you have to dig a little deeper to find them. Kids don't seem to care and don't have the attention spans to look. They also have a fear of being alienated, which is just human nature, and feel like if they don't listen to Lil' Wayne, they won't fit in with the rest of the crowd. It's sad, but true. I am hoping that some movement will step up and crush this pro-record company, pro-formulaic shit that we have been subjected to for so long. It is a historical pattern that always happens. It happened with Rockabilly, it Happened with the British Invasion, it happened with Punk, and it happened with Alternative. What's next? Well no one really knows. But if history has shown us anything, something has to break through.

In conclusion, people need to learn to think for themselves when it comes to music. Even I was a sheep when I was in middle school. I feel victim to what was popular, but luckily, by the time I got to high school I stopped caring what people thought and started going back to the music my dad had presented to me when I was younger. I'm so glad that period only lasted a couple of years. I wish more people had the open mind to actually go back and listen to some of the music that was recorded before their time, rather than just consider it "their parents' music" or old people music and consider it "uncool." They would find that a lot of it is not only really good, but that back then they were singing about the same things that matter today. Society is a cruel beast, but hey, at least I can take comfort that not everyone is a zombie who lets their taste be determined by top 40 radio. Hopefully, more people will see the light eventually. Who Knows?

Geez,

Now that was a passionate post. Too much work to cut and paste all the parts I'd like to comment on so I'm just going to wing it.

1. What you have to understand about kids today is that they do NOT listen to the radio. They all listen to their I-pods. How exactly would a 14 or 15 year old kid of today be exposed to Nirvana? He's not going to hear them on the radio. They are certainly not on his I-pod. His/her friends don't listen to Nirvana. Their videos are rarely ever played on any music tv channels (I couldn't say MTV because they don't play videos any more). So how would they find out about them? I'm not even sure how they get exposed to any of the musci they listen to today. I mean if all you are listening to is stuff that's on your I-pod, how will you ever discover something that isn't?

2. In the world, there are "Rob Gordon's" and "not Rob Gordon's". To a lot of people that I have known, music just isn't as important to them as it is to us. My first wife for example. She liked music and had styles of music she liked and styles she didn't, but she wasn't passionate about it. I'm not even sure she knew why she liked what she did. On the other hand, I think my current wife is more passionate about her music than any of us. She loves stuff that I can't stand (Front 242, NIN, Meatbeat Manifesto, Nitzer Ebb, The Revolting Cocks and I could go on and on), but what I love is the fact that she has opinions

3. Bands don't go through a drastic transformation? I think you may have contradicted yourself here by stating that The Beatles rank as your number 2 band. If any band went through more of a drastic transformation than them, I'd like to know who. Their sound in 1969 was nothing at all like their sound in 1963. REM is another band I could say the same thing about. I know people who only like their pre-CBS stuff, and people who only like them once they went more mainstream.


4. Your point about kids not wanting to be alienated and trying to fit in could not be more dead on.

Exceelent post sir.

Ok about number 3, I agree with you... some bands do. The Beatles are one of them. That is because the Beatles were pumping out so much actual content when they started that they had no choice but to change. They also got more musical freedom as they progressed. They were also exquisite musicians. And finally, they didn't care about alienating fans because, they were the fucking Beatles. However, that said, they are the exception, not the rule. Most bands stay kinda formulaic to their sound throughout their careers. It is how you identify them, they carve out their niche. The Beatles could just do no wrong.

About the ipod issue, well yes, they do, but like you said, they have to get that music from somewhere. They do get it from one of three places: the radio, myspace or television music channels. Ipods don't come with the music on them. They have to put it there, obviously. So they have to be exposed to it somewhere. It does limit them even further in what they like, but its not where their musical choices come from.

And you are right, some people just aren't passionate about it, but I don't really have the capability of understanding that thought process. I'm passionate about everything I do. Otherwise I feel like it's a waste of time.

Great post Geez. I take back all those mean things I thought about you yesterday.

But just so you know, that part about how you think people need to think for themselves about music. I feel that way about EVERYTHING. Music, politics, religion. movies, sex, etc. Everything. This entire society is raised to listen and obey the authority and that is dangerous. That is why movies like The Constant Gardener or Life is Beautiful and music like The Clash, The Smiths, Nirvana and Rage Against the Machine are so important. They tell people that the world is not okay and something needs to be done. If the current generation had existed during the 60's, there would be no woodstock or peace rallies. No one cares anymore. They are too busy watching American Idol.

And that is why I get worked up when people only like movies, books and music that require no thought. It propagates that apathy and enables another generation to get destroyed by being sheep.

geezer9687 wrote: I am very specific in what I love, what sounds good to me, and I will defend it to no end. As far as the Smiths are concerned, I was never exposed to it, so how can I like it? I tried listening to some of it and I didn't like it. Leestu may be right when he says you need to take the time to listen to all of it, but I'm not so sure. I can usually tell whether I will like a band or not upon the first listening of about 3 songs. If they don't sell me by then, I feel like I'm wasting my time. No band goes through any drastic transformation so much that if I don't like them upon that initial listening, I would like them with much further tries. If they did, they wouldn't be true to themselves, and they would alienate their fanbase. I also couldn't have the emotional connection you feel to them, so it all boils down to the musical sound to me, and well, its just not good, in my opinion. I'd much rather listen to Teenage Labotomy or Sheena is a Punk Rocker. That's just my musical taste.

All I can say is be patient, young sir. Music can affect you in different ways. Immediate reaction is only one of them. Some of my favourite bands were not immediately brilliant to me. I felt that about Joy Division. I felt that about Gang of Four. Sometimes your mind expects something or is used to something and that closes you off to a potentially great experience. But given time, it can click, and it can become great. The great thing about this is that sometimes the realisation of a song's greatness only comes over time- it took me a while to realise every song of Joy Division's two albums were brilliant. And that's a very rare thing for me.

So give artists a chance beyond one listen of 3 or so songs. Maybe you'll discover something great.

I think I should clarify. I do usually give bands more of a chance than that. I'm just referring to my immediate response to seeing some of the bands that made these polls. However, if its a total style that I don't like, much like Joy Division's is, then I'm really not going to like it no matter how many songs I listen to.

The Smiths win. No surprise. Prince vs. The Violent Femmes up now.

Come on The Femmes, one of the best bands of the 80s. I've been listening to them all afternoon and not a bad song in them. If you don't know their stuff, or only know Blister In The Sun, check more of their work out before voting, they are seriously one of THE most underrated bands of all time.

Well, so far Surfer, looks like me and you are the only VF people on here...

I love the Femmes but I have been a Prince fan since I was way too young to understand his lyrics. I had to give it to him. One of the few artists that have held my attention for multiple decades.

Prince wins in a landslide. Thus concludes our first round. 13 Hours in an editing room sure takes a lot out of a guy, but I am going to at least put up new polls.

The Second round brackets:

1 The Clash
vs.
9 U2

4 Metallica
vs.
5 AC/DC



2 The Ramones
vs.
7 Talking Heads

3 The Smiths
vs.
6 Prince

Who Hoo!!!!! My 100th post

Hate to see U2 go out so early, but they drew the unlucky seed of having to go up again The F'n Clash. Sorry boys, I love your stuff, but even Bono would vote for The Clash in this contest.

No Surprises, The Clash takes down U2.

Metallica vs AC/DC in the 4-5 match

Metallica were good but now they just want money. ACDC wont ever stop rockin....until they die....

I agree that Metallica are only after money now, but ACDC is as well...their last cd was available only at Best Buy. My local music stores here (which are already hurting) weren't even able to carry it. That makes ACDC worse than money hungry. They are actually helping conglomerates ruin neighborhood stores, just to put more funds in their already rich pockets. Fuck those guys.

Master of Puppets is a fuckin masterpiece--but I went with AC/DC.. their overall body of work wipes the floor with Metallica

The gf has demanded I vote Metallica as she absolutely hates Brian Johnson's voice. I do actually prefer Metallica anyway, so they have my vote.