Spiritualized/Daft Punk/Massive Attack/Everybody else is over?

The problem is that people now take so bloody long between albums, it's built up into such an 'event' that people are predisposed to slam whatever comes out. Can you imagine if the Beatles took five years between 'Revolver' and 'Sgt. Pepper', or Bowie likewise between 'Station to Station' and 'Low'?

The reviews of Discovery were gushing, though.

Yeah thats just the problem. Daft Punk took so long that everyone had been ripping them off to fill the void. Radiohead (shudder) the same. Every Primal Scream album gets Screamadelica comparisons it seems. The Stone Roses I suppose would be another good example. You can't help but wonder though would the album be dubbed a rush job if one of these bands just stuck to the every two years format. It's also raises the question of why the bands need this much time? Or whether they'd be better if they were put to a deadline? This could run and run

Nice superfluous shudder.

i think Discovery is superior to Homework.

the fall, stereolab, kraftwerk, wu (inc solo lps), flaming lips, tom waits, autechre, aphex, mercury rev, piano magic all had two or more great albums in a row at some point.

i guess it depends a little whether you identify with the producer/artist or the product/art.

Yeah Tom, it seems its not the critics that do it as much as the fans. And thats where the indie thing comes in, everything being better in the good old days, etc etc etc.

DEADLINES ARE URGENT AND KEY. Who will police them?

Reviewer: Green Gartside, your LP is seven years late, therefore I dock you four stars before I even hear it.

I agree with Mark S re deadlines. If somebody can't work under a deadline then usually it means they don't know what they're doing, or what they're even TRYING to do, or they're distracted, and if they simply 'blew their wad' then they should shift to another endeavour. And sorry Prince, but just 'working to deadlines' is no guarantee, quality control must be maintained too.

Yes I'm inclined to agree. I think those who ignore deadlines tend to be control freaks and they need someone close to them in the industry or whatever to tell them to wrap things up.

Disagree.

The argument is there that bands should spend more time on albums. And, I, personally, do not think that Spiritualized album is shite. Plus the Beatles are overrated. So there! *nyah nyah nyah*

i don't believe the new spiritualized album is shite either. but it is not something i can relate to at all. the more formularized jasonp becomes (as marcello states), well, its just too much now, and it seems like a joke, just trite and empty. (and this coming from me, someone who likes trite and empty. oh well...)

alternatively, it is *so* easy to diss an album!!!!!!!

finding it's strengths is a much harder and clever thing to do. The new Spiritualized is not like Autchre nor Warp Collective. It is a Marian Anderson Negro Spiritual for Space.

whoops, sorry paul!

having said that. if i spend £s on a record, i think i'm pretty entitled to criticise it if i don't like it, whatever it is.

Dave's right about the time between records, not just from the media and public's POV but from the artists as well. The Beatles, Bowie and others were able to produce so much quality music in a compressed time partly because they didn't have to "work" the albums with tours and promotional mumbo jumbo (at least not to the point "necessary" these days). When they were at their creative peaks they were writing and recording, not chatting to the morning guy or girl at KROQ.

And Discovery and is better than Homework. :)

that's coo'..

I meant in the general sense. I totally stand behind the argument of "if I spent money on an album, and I don't like it, I have more of a right to an opinion than a critic who does not spend money on an album".

I really dig the new spiritualized.

My knee-jerk response is to agree, "porch monkey" - but on the other hand a critic (in an ideal world) has a kind of job obligation to listen to even a rubbish record a few times. So what the critic is saving in money s/he is losing in leisure time.

I've not heard the new S'lized yet.

Agree to a certain extent, Tom. . . but the ridiculous often comes in the form of "everything is rubbish". I dunno: I am v. non-cynical with music. The last rubbish cd I've heard was Marshmallow Overcoat. It's fun to poke fun at established bands to an extent but it's v. easy thing to do.

what confuses me Tom, is, if you have an opinion of a record you've paid for, wouldn't you have the same opinion if you were being paid to review it? its still the same record, and you're still the same you.

I think a lot of the cause of what Ronan's talking about is the huge weight of 'rock history' or the band's 'history' - the need for a judgement on a record to relate to the whole of pop culture instead of just to the RIGHT NOW that it's playing in. Asking "is this a classic album?" instead of "what's this album doing for me now?" is a mistake I think. It's doubly a mistake when you can sense the BAND thinking that too - the 'Be Here Now' effect, if you like.

Gareth, it's the word J.A.D.E.D

Reviewers often have an axe to grind and will do it in print.

Same with the new Mercury Rev, the reviews and cynics came down harshly on the album (including my own friends) and I struggled to include the album in my *own* personal headspace. Once I did I found it to be a lovely companion album to Neil Young's Harvest.

Gareth: I think the idea is that you listen to a record more carefully etc. if you've paid for it...I think that's a bit romantic though. It's certainly a difference between a 15 year old with a Saturday job who can only buy two CDs a month and somebody who hears 5-10 new CDs a week....but I'm in the second position and I pay for all of them. There's a temptation to believe that the 15 year old hears music more 'purely' than the 28-year old or the critic.

I agree with Tom's last point. It's a medium. I do alot of reseach on line before buying an album. The weight of "classic" is off, and you get to enjoy the album on it's own merits. That being said the new Ken Stringfellow album is a joy to behold.

i have bought some shit records in my time (bloody cheapo second hand shops). i could quite possibly be jaded from wasting money on shit (of course, i have spent a lot of money on great records too).

i probably have an axe to grind as well (i'm afraid i actually threw a mock turtles 7" all around shipley market square when i was about 13 for a laugh. it was shit tho!).

and what about paid critics that are 18 years old? jaded already? what of their bad reviews?

perhaps all bad reviews of everything ever are negative and shouldn't be done?

Arrggh! Agreed 'cept the mock turtles deserved it! I bought that album as well!!!

I think a bad review of an album that's going to be 'big' can serve a useful purpose (as well as being funny, which is the primary point of most bad reviews, let's face it). The follow-up to a landmark or hot album is going to be scrutinised unfairly, sure, but it's also going to be bought on sight by a lot of people. If you're a critic, and you've heard it and been genuinely disappointed, then I think you have a duty to say so, so that people who might otherwise spend money might at least try to hear a friend's copy first.

But Tom the alternative *always* happens. I love Grandaddy. Bought the last album was very impressed. Giving me something Pavement didnt. Pavement sounded like smarmy collegiate kids telling jokes, but Grandaddy brings out the sonic emotionalism from their music. All the reviews in N.A. told the buyer that the last Grandaddy album (not hte new one) was the one that was better, because, it wasnt on a major label. I got that album last week. They were wrong. It's so hard to offer up criticism of critics. Music is v. personal. I could listen to the Patridge Family/I am the World Trade Center/Stone Roses/Martin Denny. And I could bring up reviews saying that all of these bands are rubbish. V. critical reviews are easy to do and being funny and cynical is v. easy to do. I only have respect for informative reviews that lays out the information for me. Postage stamp size reviews do nothing for me or the potential buyer of that music. Admittedly there is a glut of music on the market and the reviewers job is to take the reader through that glut and point out vibrant bands and scenes. V. often they are wrong. Does anyone remember Blur's The Great Escape? Defined as classic. Time tells other stories.

If I may answer your question, Gareth... I know that I tend to judge the promos I receive (as a radio station music director) differently from the CDs I actually purchase. I always silently ridicule myself for doing this, but I cannot seem to avoid doing it. It sounds cheesy, but I consider my CD collection to represent some part of me (quite possibly the compulsive-shopping snide hipster side, but that's a different thread), and if I buy a CD, I really want to end up liking it, even if it takes a while. I think that since I paid money for it, I'm more willing to "give it time," so to speak. With CDs I don't pay for, I don't feel this obligation to stick with them, and while perhaps I listen to them more "objectively" (though I'm highly suspicious of this term, as I suspect most of you all are), I'm also quicker to dismiss them, less likely to give them a second (or tenth, for that matter) spin. I didn't "welcome" them into my collection; they're outsiders whom I happen to be giving a chance. On the other hand, maybe I just haven't gotten a free CD that's knocked my socks off enough to ruin this little theory. Here's to hoping that happens...

'discovery' is the best album of the past half decade. there. said it.

Mercury Rev have made five great records and Spiritualized have made no great records -- just a couple good ones. So heh.

I think the danger is when opinion is set out as fact.

And Ladies and Gentlemen stands the test of time. It is Glen Campbell singing ballads for the moon landing.

I never go back and listen to the first three Mercury Rev albums. I have enough Butthole Surfers from the eighties to do that sound for me.

Yeah but the Great Escape example is kind of the point I was making. It has its good points, and its defenders, but the response of a lot of buyers was that this was an album where the plot was being rapidly lost, and listening to it now it's just amazing to think that nobody pointed out how plain *awful* some of it is - "Top Man", "Mr Robinson's Quango", that unspeakable one with Ken Livingstone on - and that it is if anything even MORE in hock to other older records than Oasis were.*

But if critics had said all that at the time then people would have gone, oh it's easy to knock, critics just want to give big new records a bad review, etc. etc. You can't have it both ways, in other words.

*The thing with TGE's badness is that it was a golden opportunity to drag a whole era of British pop back to the limelight and redefine the early 80s as something other than just oh, ha ha, Duran Duran and men wearing curtains. But Blur botched it.

And with Oasis, Definitely Maybe is a great album. Cool little album that sounds like the Sonics in '66. What's the Story...so so. The rest? Blah. Oasis loses the plot. I always judge albums against a body of work that artist has done. The danger is when hype smothers an artist or cynicism kills a first record off. I think that is why we really don't have a long established british act from the '90s. (I don't count Radiohead because they are the sound of Richard Hawkins vomitting).

Well for better or worse Blur are now long-established, too. And so - not that I'd ever have bet on this in 1990 - are the Charlatans.

The Charlatans did it against the odds. Admittedly, I only have the singles compilation and Us and Us Only (and yes...I have heard the new one and it's fabulous). But they *really* weathered the odds, didnt they? Baggy. Baggy backlash. Mediocre career killing second album. Third album? A couple of great singles and pre-brit pop, keyboard player spends time in jail for robbery. Self titled album - plays like Rolling Stones Aftermath. Next album? Great two singles....the rest, pub rock, loss of direction, loss of keyboard player, loss of money, recoups and records a cracking lovin' spoonful meets bob dylan album agaisnt the tide of what is trendy.

Kudos to the Charlatans.

Blur?

Press invented and carried.

Alright, I'll talk about the Spz content because I know little about Daft Punk except I've loathed every song of theirs I've heard.

Why all the trumpeting about LAGWEFIS being *THE* Spz album? Perhaps this is "old fan" fanaticism, but it was probably my least favourite album, at least until LICD did the rounds. I can't speak for other bands, but with SPZ, it seemed like The Prophet Jason Pierce spent a long time searching for "his sound" during his years in Spacemen3.

Lazer Guided Melodies was the first album where it sounded like he was allowed to reach out and produce the sound in *his* dreams, rather than the sound in Pete Kember's dreams. It's not really properly a "debut" album, because he had been searching and refining for so long, but it was the first where he was able to do his own, perfectly realised thing.

Albums that followed were a "refinement" perhaps, but to my ears, a reduction of a sound to a formula. And by LAGWEFIS, there was a very definite formula, the one which Marcello so keenly parodied. Jason has spoken of LICD as an attempt to step away from a formula, that he knew he had reached a pinacle (and a pinacle can be just as effectively a dead end as a blind alley) and wanted to go somewhere else.

Unfortnately, the things that *I* loved were the things that he abandonned in his search to work outside his formula.

If bands fail to "put out more than one good album" (if that is even the case, as I've tried to explain above) I think it is because they have reached their pinacle, they have taken their artform to its logical conclusion, and there are only two options- either to reduce to formula and repeat formula (ulimately unsatisfying) or else to abandon the successful formula and attempt something else.

Very few people in this world are artists enough to have *one* amazing and earthshattering thing to share- even one pinacle to reach, one aesthetic goal to strive for, one ideal or vision refine and perfect. Of the few that even reach that goal... how few even more have the ability and the foresight and the vision to conceive of another? Infinitessimally few.

It's not that people "get sick" of bands- but they do get sick of the same statement made over and over again. To hear an original idea once is earth-shattering, but to hear it repeated as a formula is disappointing, and somehow cheapens the original achievement.

The Charlatans - spare us! Utter fools who've limped through the nineties peddling a third-rate version of whatever is currently in vogue ('baggy', 'britpop'). For *A cracking lovin' spoonful meets bob dylan album* - read "Same as ever but Tim whines a bit more".

I can't bring myself to totally dislike TGE because of the fantastic "Yuko and Hiro", but Tom's points are well made.

Let It Come Down could be another sound, as K. states, of Jason following another direction for Spiritualized, apt, considering the original Spiritualized line up has gone. Different directions are also criticized heavily but then lack of originality is criticized as well.

I personally love the new Spiritualized. It's what I wanted it to be. A step away from Ladies and Gentlemen we are floating in space...which is the only Spiritualize album that I listen to on a regular basis.

As for the "whinging" comment, nah, no way, it's the first proper Charlatans albums, that runs and flows like an album, not two great singles and fillers (which is what the albums in early sixties sounded like).

i.e. It took Charlatans 11 years for them to find their groove. Argument for bands to exsist and record for long periods of time.

yes kate, i think you have encapsulated what i'm thinking about spz (i just love this crazy new abbrev). to me, it lacks, i don't know, heart.

perhaps, on another level, i'm just not that much of an album person. i chop and change tracks around (cd program bwoy)

This is a good point I think. The direction the Charlatans have found and built on over their last few albums is totally not my cup of tea, but kudos to their record company for giving them the space to explore and do it.

I think though that the Charlies have got just as much press support and boosting as Blur - a lot of this was sympathy after one of them died, but the press were totally behind them and in a way kept their career going.

Hrmmm, I think "Spz" as abbreviation is a Chris Barrus-ism. At least, the only place I ever saw it was the no-fi newsgroups, which, unfortunately, my new server dastardly fails to recognise. Boo hoo hoo, I'd love to read what they make of all this.

Give a guess. ;-)

Plus "spz" should = Spizz / Spizzoil / Spizzenergi.

An interesting thing I've noticed with mates (who aren't greatly into music) is when they've got the lend of something they liked of mine for example "All is Dream" or "Discovery" and then I tell them "well its not their best album really" or whatever they get very excited. Then I give them the lend of the older album, the "classic" and yes you've guessed it they're disappointed. I don't want to turn it into a debate about Spiritualized, but its worth mentioning as a point on the diversity of opinions here that what you said Kate about LAGWAFIS is the opposite to what I think. I feel he only found his formula on Pure Phase and LAGWAFIS as much as I like LGM. And even after praising all the previous Spz albums I feel Let It Come Down is still more ambitious, more original and more entertaining than lots of other good albums I've bought this year. I'd hate to think I'm the sort of obsessive that would praise them whatever they did, I guess I can't tell really.

::shrugs:: Well, I've experienced the same problem, Ronan. And even moreso when people like inferior copies of great bands, yet refuse to or unable to see the brilliance of the band being copied.

The closer something sounds to "classic" or "mainstream" the less I'm likely to like it... because the more something sounds like it was striving to sound "classic" the less Classic it actually is. Things which sound Classic to us now only sound so because they sounded so alien and beamed-from-outer-space at the time. Strive to make something "classic" and you will fail. Make something that sounds like no other music has ever sounded before, and you can bet that in a few years, it will be one of those Classics. This is a paradox that I rather lack the words to explain.

For the record, I *like* All Is Dream. A Mercury Rev album which is so clearly and simply about love (and not bizarre lovesongs to rivers or the sound of the universe exploding) is such an odd thing that it bears closer examination.

: ) this could run and run. I mean yeah if you're talking classic with the inverted commas then it gets confusing. I mean obviously everyone strives to make a classic album but I believe what you're saying is an album is shit if the er classicness they're striving for is not their own, is not real, is not the way they want the album to be. However like I say we could argue this all night because where you think LAGWAFIS is classic with the inverted commas, I think the opposite, etc etc etc. Still we can definitely agree that Spiritualized are pretty great, and Spacemen 3 too : )

'War', 'Unforgettable Fire', 'Under a Blood Red Sky', 'Joshua Tree', one massive fuckup with 'Rattle & Hum', return to form on 'Achtung Baby', surpassing it with 'Zooropa'. Beat that one!

'War', 'Unforgettable Fire', 'Under a Blood Red Sky', 'Joshua Tree', one massive fuckup with 'Rattle & Hum', return to form on 'Achtung Baby', surpassing it with 'Zooropa.'

Am I the only person in the world who considers that sequence more "okay," "mediocre," "nice," "hideous crap," "even more hideous crap," "nice," "nice?" I.e., is The Joshua Tree now considered a cut-and-dried classic by all involved, whether or not I think it was absolutely horrific?

The best run I can think of that I was actually around for (it's already been noted what a huge difference this makes) is mid- period Stereolab, mainly Transient..., Mars..., and Emperor... The key here seems to be that while all three sounded very much like Stereolab, no track from any one of them could have plausibly appeared on any of the others. Stereolab started to smell funny about the time that that distinction ceased to be true.

We've been through this, Chems is Great/good/Great. Surrender is absolutely class. As for Fatboy I'd say Great/Good/overproduced, overdrawn out, overthought.

Stephen Merrit seems to be conspicuously absent in general these days. I take this for a sign of trouble...

Roxy Music - four epochal masterworks in a row, next two so-so, after that...(gurgle gurgle)

REM - one 'great' but still rather good, one actually better but not as 'great', crap, two that are supposedly 'great' but not as good as the good ones, two that would've been good if they weren't 'great', lost interest after that

Radiohead: appalling first LP, never interested me until the fourth one ...

Radiohead: boring/great/godlike/godlike/godlike.

Radiohead: boring/great/godlike/godlike/godlike.

yay

> Radiohead: boring/great/godlike/godlike/godlike.

I agree. And now we've had three consecutive answers with the same opinion, we can close the thread :)

Massive Attack: Great/good/Great. Great as in album of the early/late nineties, good as in pretty okay but doomed by comparison.

Will no-one speak up for From The Gutter To The Stars? Good, 'cause it's rubbish.

Any analysis that ranks Surrender above Dig Your Own Hole is deeply flawed. Granter, Surrender did inspire a better live show (nd that's saying something), but the actual CD/LP is sorely lacking.

Hmm. Perhaps I am Dan Perry.

Oh, Pinefox, I just *know* that 'Amnesiac' is better than 'Pablo Honey' (admittedly having not heard it in its entirety) the same way I just *know* that I won't be playing Limp Bizkit at my wedding. Unless we're undergoing an irony revival at the time.

My Radiohead equation, just for the record:

probably boring/probably boring but better at it/has its moments and they are very good/has less of its moments but theoretically I like them better/godlike

Radiohead: forgettable/better than you remember/quite wonderful bordering on godlike/first half = godlike; second half = good/godlike

Chemical Brothers: Overrated and oddly dated/Overrated and oddly dated except PPR/Overrated

This is one of those threads where I theoretically should say something but somehow nothing comes to mind. I think I'm just too busy enjoying this (quite fine) Bright album I have. Mogwai are glorious, I'll say that much!

The first Van Halen album is a bit tentative, the five that came after that were excellent.

Getting back to Tom's point on The Great Escape; When the ablbum came out there ws an initial 2 week hype about it being some sort of mid 90s Revolver or something but then both the style and music press picked up that the zeitgeist was heading inexorably towards Loaded Culture, dumbed downness and Oasis anthems. Hence the Blur backlash began in earnest and lasted all through 1996. TGE was certainly one of the whitest records of the era but still contained it’s fair share of brilliant moments. With regard to modern band’s lack of output, it seems that the 2 or 3 year cycle of record, press, tour, layoff has become the predictable norm. You hardly ever get the big bands releasing spur of the moment non album singles or EPs like they did in the sixties. Stereolab were a rare example of a 90’s band infused with the sixties studio work ethic. You could say Blur had it with the trio from Modern Life on but the now almost universal 30 month gap between releases leaves it difficult for the fan to maintain loyalty and difficult for bands to keep the momentum flowing.

Sorry to be me and mention my favourite artists :) But Ryan Adams has that ethic too. He's made two albums in the last year or so and has a third this week. Both the albums are class, admittedly his solo one Heartbreaker is the better of the two, and if Uncut mag and the songs I've heard are anything to go by his new solo album is absolute gold too. It's called gold actually.

If someone provides a chronological discography for The Smiths and tells me which albums I should include and which ones I should skip, I'd be happy to weigh in on them, as well.

Talking Heads-- classic/ same as the first one with Eno producing/ a slight dip with very high highlights/ Best Album of All Time/ last album only catchier/ classic/ ermph/ I liked it... And the live albums are exemplary.

Heartbreaker and Stranger's Almanac are great albums; Pneumonia is too pleasant for me to pass judgement on. I saw Ryan last weekend. Has he totally disowned Heartbreaker? He played four songs from it out of a 2 hour set. He's also--bless him-- a Total Prick offstage, from what I gather. I mean that lovingly.

He's a wild hellraiser who doesn't play by the rules. Pneumonia has a few dud songs on it alright but its worth buying still. I'm buying gold this afternoon

He pretty much plays by the rules of wild hellraising, though?

The only rule of wild hell raising is "there are no rules!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" that and "tom is banned from wild hell raising for taking the piss out of it"

Smiths: every record is fabulous, though not all equally fabulous.

Ronan re. U2: I can absolutely understand this. It always amazes me whenever any Irish person likes the band.

Great Escape: interesting topic, this. Still hoping for more from Tom E.

Radiohead: Pablo Honey has not proved esp. forgettable for me. It's generic and easy, but I like it a lot for old times's sake: the snow down the avenues and all that. In general, this band = a bit of a bore.

'Anyone could write whiney Merritt songs': this is a big mistake. Few people could have written any of those songs. The idea that 69LS is full of filler is off-beam too, I think. But this is anothet topic which I shall pursue properly some day soon.

Two more words.

Lloyd Cole.

Pinefox: I intend to say more on Great Escape but it might not be for a while.

Cole too has been consistent.

Pinefox is obviously right about Mag. Fields.

The Smiths? S/T - very good. Hatful Of Hollow - fantastic. Murder - flawed, but good. Queen Is Dead - 2 great tracks, 2 good singles, lots of self-parody. Strangeways - obvious weaknesses, but nearly ace. Louder Than Bombs - fantastic.

Pretty much agree with you on the Smiths, Dr C but I find the first lp thin and flat sounding now.

As for Moz I'd say Viva Hate- excellent, Kill Uncle-pish poor, Beethoven-poor, Your Arsenal-good, Vauxhall and I-career best (!),Maladjusted-good.

Following Dr. C's ordering of the Smiths albums (and skipping _The World Won't Listen_):

ruined by the sound engineer/godlike/good, what I remember of it/godlike/verging on unbearable shite/godlike. My opinion on _Strangeways..._ might change if I could pretend that "Girlfriend In A Coma" and "Unhappy Birthday" were never written. It's also painful knowing that I'll never own a copy of "A Rush And A Push And The Land Is Ours", but I refuse to buy albums that I know only have one good song.

I'm usually ready to carp long n' loud about bad production (I mean INAPPROPRAITE production here - i.e too thin or too rough or too slick or not rough enough etc etc), BUT I can't really see what's wrong with the sound on The Smiths debut. That said, I agree that the versions of the same songs on Hatful sound better. I've said it before on some producers thread (or other..) those BBC guys are/were bloody great.

A large part of my problem is that I heard _Hatful of Hollow_ first. Going from that to _The Smiths_ is like sticking cotton balls in your ears and sticking your head in a full bathtub before pressing the play button. It's just too muddy and dense for the music, IMO.

Dr C is obviously right about MFs. Will return to this when less busy.

Mark S is obviously right about Lloyd Cole. Or have I missed something? Idea that LC is bad = Dud. I just sifted through 7 LPs and only one doesn't cut the mustard too well (= Bad Vibes).

Look forward to Ewing re. TGE some day.

Smiths debates = great, but I maintain that even Strangeways looks down on most people from a great height. So Smiths LP debate = war in heaven, as Grant Morrison might have said.

Shit -that's my favourite way of listening to music, Dan!

That's three times I've been sampled on this thread - (Pinefox x 2 and Mr. Ewing.) Did you clear this with my lawyers first?

Another point to be made about The Great Escape is that it came out after the over-hyped Blur versus Oasis head-to-head, where they released Country House and Roll With It as the new singles for forthcoming albums on the same day.

Country House won, as is only right and proper, and for a while it seemed like the future was Smart (Oasis were a lot of things to a lot of people back then, but they were never Smart, particularly when compared to Blur).

And then it turns out that Roll With It was one of the worst songs on Morning Glory, and Country House one of the better ones on The Great Escape (though by no accounts the best). And the future was declared to belong to Oasis.

Recent events have changed the view on that, but they really haven't shifted the view that TGE was rich kids pissing about, and by inference pissing on earnest working class aspirations.

This thing partially inspired by two reviews on www.allmusic.com by the indefagitable Stephen Thomas Erlewine.

Oasis were just better. They wanted it more and they got it. Blur just totally lost it for some of the songs on TGE, they didnt know why they were writing what they were writing, it was shocking. It still sounds awful, and it's a credit to them that they managed to make some kind of comeback.

Oasis were just better

Insanity. Oasis were never better than ANYBODY.

I take it you disagree then

I agree with Ronan. TGE is awful. It could have brought about a renasissnance (*phew* spelt that word wrong!) of Duran Duran music, but alas, no, TGE is bloody awful and that is that. Blur, for me, did not come into their own until the Self Titled Effort, in which with Beetlebum, they outdid Oasis on the one track. Then Oasis released Be Here Now and the arguing seemed pointless, because Be Here Now was bloody awful.

Yes Be Here Now was shite for the same reasons TGE was. Knowing the world is watching and making an album based on that as opposed to just making an album. And even though Blurs stuff is probably good again, I bought Blur-Blur, after a while you just start thinking are you guys still here? This is a waste of everyones time.

Beetlebum is a fantastic song: incorporating obvious white album beatles into a new found pavement schtick. Song 2, Good Morning America, etc..etc....does sound very good. But then again, when the world was watching again, they make dreary Gong-sound-alike album of 13....which is yet again unlistenable. They are now in side project hell. Does anyone believe Graham's camden Bob Dylan act? I don't.

Oasis have lost the plot. They are only in it for the quid. Standing on the shoulder of giants, was an opportunity to radically redefine sounds, they have the money, now, why not?

They did not. They are sounding more and more like anthemic U2. Which is my album hell. However, last one had comedy song of Little James, which is worth playing over and over again.

Working class v. upper class = does it matter? Oasis are millionaires. North America is not as hung up on class system as U.K. is (see: I love Everything's "Who is the most posh" for easiest example, why not "Who is the most poor", be much more interesting).

Who are the new Oasis? Dunno. Don't care. The aftermath of the Oasis/Blur wars were Stereophonics, Cast, Travis, Coldplay. The best music is now coming from outside of the U.K.

Interesting side note:

When under pressue for new sounds, Blur and Oasis look at contemporary acts.

Oasis = Beta Band, King Biscuit

Blur = Super Furry Animals, Beta Band, Pavement.

Or did every U.K. band go through a beta band phase in 1997 - 1998 for an experimantal sound?

I don't think Blur lost it on TGE, if anything it was the opposite in that here were a feted, popular band who thought they were untouchable and could have a go at anything. About a third of it is underwhelming to say the least (Mr Robinsons Quango/It could be you/Stereotypes) but the rest of it was quite magnificent. I don't think many people wrote a more bleak, suffocating or cynical (about life in the 90's) album which also managed to work it's way into the casual buyers conscience.

And Tom's right the early 80's are all over it. Top Man or fade away could fit right onto the fun boy 3's first album for instance.

Billy is (as usual) quite right. Despite its faults, I come back to TGE more than any other Blur album. It somehow reveals 'more of what Blur were about' than any of their other albums.

No no NO. Radiohead: ok but largely inept/pretty good but dated/whiny bollocks/patchy/patchy. And I think Young Team is classic and possibly the only Mogwai album (much as I love 'em) to count as classic. Oh, yes, and unsurprisingly I'd agree that Pavement managed three classic albums and one classic early singles compilation before sinking into tedium, but since the last of said classic albums was 6 years ago and they've split up now they don't exactly meet Ronan's criteria.

Mouse on Mars, anyone? I don't have Iaora Tahiti but it's supposed to be good, Vulvaland = really nice, Autoditacker and Idology = pure rock, Instrumentals = pretty cool. The only things disrupting this theory are that I don't have all the stuff on Sonig etc and that I'm personally not a great fan of Niun Niggung, although it's all right and I know lots of people love it.

I'm expecting someone to come along and prop Autechre, but it won't be me. Not that I'd label any of their stuff as *bad*, but I do find it a lot more boring than seems to be standard idm partyline.

I'm sure I should have enough albums to be able to think of more answers than this. (I agree on Stereolab, fwiw, although I'm not sure that the explanation of why their recent stuff isn't classic holds. When Dots and Loops came out you couldn't really mistake anything on it for ETK-era groop, and certainly nothing earlier, but it was still bad, at least compared to earlier stuff.)

I appear to have been listening to a lockgroove for at least ten minutes. I think that's a good enough sign to stop rambling at you.

Re TGE: if I wanted 'bleak, suffocating, and cynical', I'd probably enjoy my day job more.

Melissa: I only like Wowee Zowwee & Terror Twilight as well.

I can't find any James Brown albums at all, anywhere I go. (exception: public library) Is this normal?

This is a very very interesting thread.

Talk Talk = reductive crap/ more tuneful but still not great/ suddenly really very good and branching / astounding/ astounding.

i think the last massive attack record was considered shit on its own merits.

I CAN'T WAIT TIL GEIR POSTS

I'm trying to think of a band/artist that emerged only in the last 6-7 years who have made more than one overly good album in that time.

what's ronan's take on 'amazing grace', i wonder.

(xpost) Xtina? Kanye?

Ronan was a right rocker back in the day...

this thread is totally time capsule material.

re 00s debut artists and subsequent albums consistency Girls Aloud were first to spring to mind but I'll have to listen to WWTNS again to decide f'sure tho (remember finding it quite patchy tho). But Kelis is a decent call. As for a band who play...I do/did actually like the first two Strokes albums tho don't really listen to them now (and found the latest one v dull). Have gone very cold on the second Streets album. Ladytron have done okay but I didn't really get into their third one and I know they're not really up there for many people. On day I'll actually get round to listening to all of Kanye's albums (but don't think I'll like them as much as others do/have done).

yeah, this is a fantastic thread. to all those who agreed on radiohead's yuk-good-great-great-great(-great-great) sequence, however, i'd elevate pablo honey to good and demote the bends to ok. the bends does not have 'blow out' on it.

aw, but it has planet telex. ok, make it 'good' for 'em both. blast you radiohead, you defy all rational contrarianism.

let it come down has withstood the test of time very well in my opinion. and as for "dreary Gong-sound-alike album of 13....which is yet again unlistenable.", WAHT