Belle & Sebastian vs The Smiths

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Both are peculiarly British in the archness of their lyrics; both appeal to 'oddballs' across the pond; both as indie as indie can be. Just wondered what people thought - me, I'm with the Smiths, mainly cause the music's a tad more original and robust. Whadya think?

― doctorboab, Friday, 3 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

B&S eight days a week.

― Marc, Friday, 3 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

obviously B+S are heavily influenced by the smiths, as stuart murdoch has said, they were the last british band to knock him off his feet. i think that while the smiths may be original it would be an insult to murdoch's talents as a songwriter to say that B+S are any less original, and as for the smiths being robust, IMHO they are just morose. B+S every

― casimir funk, Friday, 3 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

The Smiths are not only more robust, they are more melodic, have more character and write much, MUCH wittier lyrics. The Queen is Dead is among THE great albums and Morissey is THE greatest lyricist. No contest, Mozzer beats Stuart every time.

― weasel diesel (K1l14n), Friday, 3 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I wish Morrissey would beat Stuart. I might be convinced to give him a lot of money to knock Stewie into next week. (Celebrity Boxing #3!)

Seeing as The Smiths are one of my favorite bands (and this time I agree with you, Kilian; _The Queen Is Dead_ is one of the greatest albums ever recorded) and I would be very happy if someone could erase all recollection of BS (SEE WHAT I DID THERE?) from my mind, this another ultra-easy decision for me. Heh.

― Dan Perry, Friday, 3 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

B and S are ok - I was once privileged enough to see Stuart Murdoch smash a guitar onstage (no, seriously). I don't really listen to their albums through much but they have a cluster of really good songs scattered over various albums and ep's. Not a patch on The Smiths, mind.

― weasel diesel (K1l14n), Friday, 3 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

B & S are better because they sound much less like The Smiths.

― fritz, Friday, 3 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I love both bands, but I'd have to give it to B&S on points. B&S have never felt the need to do "comedy" lyrics, and B&S aren't a big influence on Placebo, so Murdoch's troupe take it.

― Judd Nelson, Friday, 3 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

B&S have never felt the need to do "comedy" lyrics

You've never heard 'Family Tree' then?

― N., Friday, 3 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

They both make me gag. Ok, B+S had some pretty tunes, Smiths had some jangly guitar riffs, and that's it. Blech. And they both have lousy album covers.

― Sean, Friday, 3 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

You've never heard 'Family Tree' then?

Yes I have. Thanks for asking.

― Judd Nelson, Friday, 3 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

The thing about the Smiths is they were not "indie as indie can be". Live, they were incredibly loud & rocked like a mthrfckr. I saw some supposedly much heavier bands at the time (mid 80s) - JAMC, Primal Scream etc, but the Smiths blew them off stage

― bham, Friday, 3 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

two bands that sound nothing like each other yet which keep getting lumped together because of ideological similarity of fans.

― DV, Friday, 3 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

More to it than that, DV. Fans don't attach themselves to bands entirely arbitrarily.

― N., Friday, 3 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Dire Straits kill them both.

― Mark, Friday, 3 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond pond

― mark s, Friday, 3 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

(In a parallel universe where 'kill them both' actually means 'suck so hard they bend light.')

Smiths all the way. Is there even a question? Doh. Looking at the top, I suppose there is...

― Mark, Friday, 3 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Why Pond, though?

Dan's answer I find Meet and Right.

― Ned Raggett, Friday, 3 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Imagine Stuart and Mozzer FITING though - it'd be crap, all gurly slaps and hair-pulling crying out for mummy.

― Nick Southall, Friday, 3 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

From the thread title I was hoping for a link to a songclash, possibly with an Isobel vocal over Marr's vicious guitar from "London". Rats.

― Aaron Mandel, Friday, 3 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

The point is that Stuart Murdoch used to do amateur boxing. He gave up though after getting fed up of getting beat.

― N., Friday, 3 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

When I said 'as indie as indie can be' I guess I was talking label(s) (Rough Trade). As for the 'original' bit, B+S lift melodies wholesale (from the greats, admittedly - Arthur Lee, Dylan, Hazelwood, Duran Duran); surely even their staunchest fan can't deny that. Their still great, though.

― doctorboab, Friday, 3 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I'll just copy Dan's and Ned's answer on every thread from now on.

― Vinnie, Friday, 3 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Pond! Wow! They were great! "The practice of joy before death" was one of my faves from the 1990's! I'm gonna go and listen to them right now!

Used to think B&S were okay, but probably bought 3 albums too many by them. I never learn. As for the Smiths, don't really know many of their songs.

― jel --, Friday, 3 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Pond's first one wast the best I think. I saw 'em live, too.

― Sean, Friday, 3 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

yep! I have that one on tape! I missed them when they came here, way back when!

― jel --, Friday, 3 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I just remember they almost had a radio hit in 1993. But not quite.

I'll just copy Dan's and Ned's answer on every thread from now on.

As well you should, my young apprentice.

― Ned Raggett, Friday, 3 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

B + S are undoubtedly fantastic when they're good. (Last two EPs weren't much though). But they still can sound an awful lot like Donovan. There's not much that's truly new there other than their timing and the fact that they introduced the masses to an epic English twee band sound (which has been floating around in a variety of forms and bands in one version or another for years and years -- Sarah Records, anyone?).

The Smiths were truly epic, however. Yes, they were a traditional four piece, but they came out with chunks of music that somehow sounded truly new and have still have a sound and an integrity that has not been copied successfully (though some have tried). Until the muddle that was Strangeways . . ., they ruled the world (or mine at least).

― James, Friday, 3 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

B + S are undoubtedly fantastic when they're good.

I like the potential sliding scales here. Are Molly Hatchet fantastic when they're good, or are they just good?

― Ned Raggett, Friday, 3 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

i forgot pond actually existed

― mark s, Friday, 3 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Molly Hatchett are fantastic. Period.

― James, Friday, 3 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Thread from another forum in response to this (hope I remembered the URL right).

― Tom, Saturday, 4 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

on the pearlfishers' website david scott opines that the new gentle waves album is epic(he's producing or something), so maybe next time it will be the smiths v. gentle waves, ha. when is the drummer's side project coming out?

― keith, Saturday, 4 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

From that other forum Tom links to:

For starters, I don't think Ewing listened to the records very carefully. It is typical for a music reviewer to listen once or twice than dissect the lyrics and comment. Most of his views on single songs are without foundation or simply wrong. He misunderstood a lot of things and I hardly think he took the time to listen to the albums carefully.

In otherwards, "Dear MM/NME Editor: Did you listen to the same record I did?" And thus we are condemned to repeat the past.

BTW..."Bowlie: A Lifestyle"? Kill me.

― Ned Raggett, Saturday, 4 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

belle & sabastian are grandma's pants, all weak piss and frills - even compared to The Smiths. you don't get morrissey singing about foxes in snow.

― squea, Sunday, 5 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

they both suck. can i vote for the stones?

― geeta, Sunday, 5 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

taking sides: belle and sebastian vs gwar

― geeta, Sunday, 5 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

FuXor in the snow! (haha! sorry couldn't resist!)

― jel --, Sunday, 5 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.