smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | "Bill" <billm45s@verizon.net> |
| Subject | Re: 25 overrated thingies - Stewarts List |
| Date | Tue, 27 Nov 2007 21:57:15 -0500 |
[Part 1 text/plain iso-8859-1 (6.5 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
Stewart,
This was of the best, most thoughtful posts on audities in quite awhile and
it came at a good time, when most of the posts were degenerating into "nah
nah, my band can beat up your band". Although I disagree with some of your
observations, it was great to see a truly insightful and analytic post that
additionally made me think and say, yup he nailed something that was kind of
floating around in the back of my mind.
That said a few comments on your observations:
I think you perfectly captured Arcade Fire, the Beach Boys, Nick Drake,
Eagles, Fleetwood Mac, Pixies, Wilco and kind of was on a similar page
regarding Neil Young, though there are albums of his that I am sure I rate
somewhat higher. You may have been too kind to the B-52s (who I enjoy, but
you don't need more than probably half a blank CD's worth of their
material), Nirvana, Sufjan Stevens and U2. A few like Pavement and Depache
Mode I am completely indifferent too. I think you weren't kind enough to
Van Morrison - he made a number of memorable and decent recordings after
Moondance, even though I agree he has coasted and repeated himself over the
years and has been a real grouch. But, that said ....
> 3. The Band: God knows I'm not the only one who thinks their '70s work
> became increasingly flaccid and mediocre, but honestly, I don't even think
> the second album is all that. The Band are the quintessential example of a
> group unable to match a killer debut album.
I agree that it was mostly down hill after the first LP but the downward
slope was gradual and not that dramatic and there are many excellent songs
on the subsequent albums and any album that has Levon Helms singing will
have some redeeming value.
> 5. The Beatles: Yes, they're probably the best rock and roll band in
> history. That doesn't mean they were infallible. And, I repeat, SGT.
> PEPPER is the single most overrated album ever: it's not even the Beatles'
> best album, much less the best album of all time.
I totally agree that Sgt. Pepper is the most overated album of all time and
ranks well near the bottom of the Beatles albums. But as I have grown older
and mostly ignore hype on both sides of these types of arguements, I find
the album, taken on its own, to be a little less annoying, having some truly
excellent songs, some quite medicore songs, and some of the most
unlistenable songs the Beatles ever did. Hard to say though that even given
the pepper problem, that the Beatles are overrated.
> 9. Bob Dylan: Even taking into account the large number of stinkers he's
> delivered over the years, Dylan's mantle as Spokesman Of His Generation is
> so ossified in people's minds that it's now received wisdom. I have
> actually met people whose exposure to Dylan consists of general
> familiarity with, say, most of the '67 greatest hits album, yet who
> nonetheless believe he's one of the all-time greats. When people don't
> even have to know your music to say that you're brilliant, you're
> officially overrated.
Again I think you nailed some of the cultural sociology that surrounds the
Dylan mystique, but damn Dylan is in a very special class - and I think,
once you get past the supposed taken for granted Greatest Hits, he is
actually more underrated than overrated. Dylan has written so many
incredible songs and he has so many memorable lyrics, lines or phrases. His
songs lend themselves to great covers and multiple interpretations. He is
one of the least dependable live acts, but give him credit for taking
chances and re-inventing himself, from the start and never playing to
audience expectations (even if I have been a disappointed member of the
audience on more than one occasion). But in the end, even with the
stinkers, marvel at the quality of his longevity and grant that very few
come close to the number of GREAT songs he has written. Also, along with
people like Ian Hunter and Ray Davies, he smashes the myth that you have to
be less vital as you age.
> 18. The Rolling Stones: I never really believed they were "The World's
> Greatest Rock And Roll Band" -- I think the fact that they didn't release
> ROCK AND ROLL CIRCUS because the Who's set smoked theirs says volumes --
> but I certainly think that the way they still promote themselves as such
> while doing nothing more than proffering lazy nostalgia to well-heeled
> baby boomers is just kind of sad, for band and audience alike.
I first saw the Stones at Madison Square Garden in 1969, they were truly
amazing, one of the 10 best shows I have ever seen. Saw them when they came
back in 1972, still good, but no longer transendental. 1975, strong, but
predictable and you could start to get that sense of going through the
motions (though give Jagger credit for working hard while going through
those motions)...therafter even more down hill, sometimes with an
undercurrent of contempt. However, Charlie was always worth listening to.
I am one well-heeled baby boomer, who wouldn't even consider seeing them the
during the last 20 years. That said, the bile spilled towards the Stones on
this list I find very disconcerting and mostly chalk it up that smaller
portion of the list that really does not like rock n roll. The Stones at
their best created a great body of work, made some top of the line albums,
and rank at the very top as a singles band. No one can dispute that their
output has been spotty (some good spots though) to crappy the last 25 years,
but that does not diminish the value of their prior work.
>
> 21. Bruce Springsteen: Maybe I'm just too middle-class. Maybe growing up
> in rural communities and college towns in Texas and Colorado didn't give
> me the proper Rust Belt archetypes. But hearing Springsteen, with very
> few exceptions, just leads me to think "Yeah, I see what he's doing and
> all, but...it don't move me."
>
Oh well too bad. Hands down Bruce is the best live act I have ever seen and
I saw him a ton of times from the early 70's through the mid 80's. You
never left a Bruce show feeling cheated. Sure there are a few overblown
songs along the way, but the winners overwhelm the clinkers. And there is
so much to really respect such as the refusal to create Born In The USA 2,
but to release such a personal and courageous album as Tunnel of Love as the
studio follow-up. Great taste in covers. A true rock n roll soul with
little personal pretense, even if his songs sometimes over reach. And based
upon some personal experience really a very nice guy.
Again Stewart, one of the best posts of the year.
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.