Sleater-Kinney & the Smiths

I don't think any of these complaints apply to S-K, and if they do they're completely beside the point. I'm tired of the rockist slant on S-K, they've written tons of funFunFUN pop songs too, and yeah they're pretty much straight up punk with a little *angular* SY-type guitar sound thrown in, but who cares if they don't incorporate hip-hop, dance, etc - that's not an automatic prerequisite for making quality, forward-thinking music.

Plus I don't see how S-K's lyrics are "sad-sack" at all - call them too polemic if you will, but they're not often self-pitying or anything.

as did the Smiths. Look, to me - and I was that anglophile, that nerd, that kid having trouble accepting non-guitar music - the smiths weren't so much sad-sack as trying to hit certain limits of expression, and often that was through songs of loss & disenchantment. And S-K's best songs in their best years [albums two through four] seem sorta similar in that respect.

this is the most interesting part of your theory/analysis - i think comparing The Smiths and S-K (riot grrl movement as a whole) based on how they subverted gender roles/expectations would be quite fascinating actually, and I like your comparison of Marr and Browenstein (sp?)

i can see a comparison between SK and wire, television, even gang of four - but the smiths? visually, they pretty much revolved around morrissey, which isn't at all true of corin in SK, and they have nothing in common as vocalists (btw how is morrissey's singing "unmusical"? and what does that even mean?). i don't think tucker/brownstein and marr have anything much in common as guitarists, either. morrissey certainly wrote better lyrics but SK have a better rhythm section.

both are guitar-based rock bands
both have names starting with the letter 's'
neither bands are death metal

I'd say they are very analogous indeed!

I'm not sure what to say about the original post, because so many of the characterizations of both bands, while generally sensible-sounding, seemed not to coincide with my perception of the universe in the least.

lemme try again - i'm doing this because it makes sense to me, anyway

smiths & s-k - bands where the lyricist/singer is throwing a lifeline out to adolescents in need of advice & comfort, relationships are f*cked up it's okay stuff. lack of in your face gay / feminist rah! rah! propaganda - because we've moved on from the direct political confrontation of the heady punk/riot grrl days - yet a very strong gay / feminist identity in every song. the singing style takes some getting used to - and seems linked to that identity, as well.

the guitarists, meanwhile, are doing what might appear a very retro thing, based on snappy, tight, sharp figures, full of fluid arpeggios; but it isn't merely rehashing the 60s, there's a clear desire to be modern. the impressive, workmanlike, detached guitarist is the cool mirror to the risable wailer sharing the stage - but it isn't like brains to their brawn[heart]; it's more like scientist helping the poet or politician.

the best of their songs are dark heavy slow numbers that cut deep or chipper little prancing pop nuggets purveying a sort of weary wryness.

i'm not saying "these bands are exactly alike". i'm not saying that their stuff sounds very much alike, either - but in the context of their times, i think they are reaching for a similar ideal of breezy guitar-led clever and tough and danceable rock as a hook to reel you in for the ballads, their disquisitions on sexuality.

i'm just throwing this up and seeing if it's a useful comparison for anybody.

It's an INTERESTING comparison, but an odd one: basically, you could put either of these two bands with another band and draw a better comparison, so this one seems like a stretch and I have to wonder why and how it occured to you.

There's some similarities, though. I can see that.

But stuff like this is pretty off the mark:

"the best of their songs are dark heavy slow numbers that cut deep or chipper little prancing pop nuggets purveying a sort of weary wryness.".

(Applies to Smiths, but not really S-K)

"bands where the lyricist/singer is throwing a lifeline out to adolescents in need of advice & comfort, relationships are f*cked up it's okay stuff. lack of in your face gay / feminist rah! rah! propaganda"

Maybe that's the effect of what the singer is doing. But only if you put the audience in the equation. And early S-K (today they are more--perhaps TOO--self-aware) was more about catharsis in a lot of ways, it just happened to be captured on vinyl. Morrissey, I think, considers what people will think of his songs--but it's more like What They Will Think Of MORRISSEY singing his MORRISSEY SONGS. It's not in character exactly, but he's what he does is too calculated to be pure catharsis, and too cynical to pass as lifeline-throwing.

"because we've moved on from the direct political confrontation of the heady punk/riot grrl days - yet a very strong gay / feminist identity in every song."

S-K is more overt in it's politics in later albums. The earlier ones, the politics are more mixed with the personal--still powerful, but only direct if you're willing to take as a whole first. Meaning, rather, they're more apt to write something slogan-ish these days, where I'm guessing "Taking Me Home" came out differently...

'Calling The Doctor' was, to me, more like the 'Zen Arcade' of it's decade, not the '[insert fave Smiths LP here]...

No.

Oh yeah, I think you're actually going to have to explain the 'aggressiveness' of Marr's guitar style and the 'unmusicality' of Morrissey's voice because neither of those seems very obvious to me (especially in the context of postpunk/indie).

I actually think mig was on to something interesting here! I don't think it's a watertight comparison by any means, but there's enough points of entry for it to just be an interesting meditation. As someone who loves both bands (but got into the Smiths a few years earlier), I find a lot of this rings true. I have nothing to actually ADD, mind you, but I thought this deserved a revive...