Music opinion/question of the week...

General music discussion.
WestwayKid
User avatar
Unknown Immortal
Posts: 2997
Joined: 20 Sep 2017, 8:22am
Location: Mill-e-wah-que

Re: Music opinion/question of the week...

Post by WestwayKid » 30 Jan 2019, 12:53pm

Flex wrote:
29 Jan 2019, 9:01pm
I saw the Dead Boys last year with a replacement singer for Stiv Bators and a replacement guitarist for Jimmy Zero, but with Cheetah Chrome and Johnny Blitz still in it. Wasn't a "real" Dead Boys show by my instincts, but it was a great fuckin' time. When I've seen Brian, he's always been playing with more official members of the Beach Boys than the Mike Love Boys official version (and I think the 50th reunion shows were The Real Deal despite being down a couple Wilsons).

I saw a pre-Riot Fest Reunion lineup of the Misfits that was Jerry Only and a bunch of nobodies and it was unbearable. I wouldn't even say that I saw a "real" post-Danzig Misfits lineup, previous iterations of which usually at least had some other good band members.

Seeing Wayne Kramer tour as the MC50 supergroup was a great way to split the difference - something more than a cover band but not pretending to be The Real Deal. I think From The Jam is a similar situation.

A couple bands I recall having no original members left: the Cro-Mags and Napalm Death. The latter still puts on an insanely good show and those early lineups were so volatile that I don't hold it against them. I'm not sure how or why the Cro-Mags are still an ongoing affair, tho.
I also saw this lineup. It was horrendous. It was Jerry Only & Dez Cadena.

I agree on the BB - the 50th reunion shows were the legit band - but I have a hard time considering Mike Love's version of the band is the Beach Boys.
"If they believed in a place called Kokomo, then so did I." - Michael Edward Love

Marky Dread
User avatar
Messiah of the Milk Bar
Posts: 42632
Joined: 17 Jun 2008, 11:26am

Re: Music opinion/question of the week...

Post by Marky Dread » 30 Jan 2019, 4:02pm

Wolter wrote:
29 Jan 2019, 12:36pm
Marky Dread wrote:
29 Jan 2019, 12:18pm
WestwayKid wrote:
29 Jan 2019, 11:43am
JennyB wrote:
29 Jan 2019, 11:14am
I think it's much harder for it to feel like the real band if the lead singer isn't there.
Yup - loss of the lead singer is hard to overcome for me. I think the biggest offenders seem to be the bands that frequent state fair stages across the United States: Survivor and so on. I think what "saves" bands like that is that a lot of people who see them live have no idea who is original or not. They know the hit songs and as long as they hear Eye of the Tiger and The Search Is Over - they're happy.
Sometimes the band carries on like The Stranglers who are on their third lead singer and they still make good records. The thing is with bassist JJ Burnel also singing on some tracks it's like having two vocalists.
The same can be said for the Buzzcocks with Diggle singing a handful of tracks and it wouldn't be Pete Shelley but I'm sure Steve Diggle could sing those songs and would have a right to do so as opposed to getting another singer. Lest not forget Shelley wasn't the original singer.
I think it's better when an original member of a band takes over as you can still identify with that person. Sometimes replacement singers are ok. The Undertones carried on with a new singer when they reformed and hey it's not feargal but he does a decent job.
I also tend to use the rule over 50% of the classic lineup to maintain credibility. A band tends to be unequivocally the same band as long as at you don’t go below less than half of that lineup.

For example a three piece can lose one member from the universally agreed upon classic lineup and still maintain cred. A four-piece gets dodgy when it loses two, unless the songwriting and sound isn’t affected greatly. This is why the Clash II is so controversial.

...and BAD II.
Image

Flex
User avatar
Mechano-Man of the Future
Posts: 28195
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:50pm
Location: The Information Superhighway!
Contact:

Re: Music opinion/question of the week...

Post by Flex » 30 Jan 2019, 4:16pm

WestwayKid wrote:
30 Jan 2019, 12:53pm
I also saw this lineup. It was horrendous. It was Jerry Only & Dez Cadena.
Dez was actually out of the band by the time I saw them. Really, really bottom of the barrel stuff.
YOU MADE ONE MISTAKE, LENNON, YOU DOUBLE CROSSED MIKE LOVE AND LEFT HIM ALIVE

Sous les pavés, la plage.

Pex Lives!

WestwayKid
User avatar
Unknown Immortal
Posts: 2997
Joined: 20 Sep 2017, 8:22am
Location: Mill-e-wah-que

Re: Music opinion/question of the week...

Post by WestwayKid » 30 Jan 2019, 4:25pm

Flex wrote:
30 Jan 2019, 4:16pm
WestwayKid wrote:
30 Jan 2019, 12:53pm
I also saw this lineup. It was horrendous. It was Jerry Only & Dez Cadena.
Dez was actually out of the band by the time I saw them. Really, really bottom of the barrel stuff.
Didn't they feature a guitarist named Jerry Other for a short period a few years ago?
"If they believed in a place called Kokomo, then so did I." - Michael Edward Love

Heston
User avatar
God of Thunder...and Rock 'n Roll
Posts: 30958
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 4:07pm
Location: North of Watford Junction
Contact:

Re: Music opinion/question of the week...

Post by Heston » 30 Jan 2019, 4:31pm

Marky Dread wrote:
30 Jan 2019, 4:02pm
Wolter wrote:
29 Jan 2019, 12:36pm
Marky Dread wrote:
29 Jan 2019, 12:18pm
WestwayKid wrote:
29 Jan 2019, 11:43am
JennyB wrote:
29 Jan 2019, 11:14am
I think it's much harder for it to feel like the real band if the lead singer isn't there.
Yup - loss of the lead singer is hard to overcome for me. I think the biggest offenders seem to be the bands that frequent state fair stages across the United States: Survivor and so on. I think what "saves" bands like that is that a lot of people who see them live have no idea who is original or not. They know the hit songs and as long as they hear Eye of the Tiger and The Search Is Over - they're happy.
Sometimes the band carries on like The Stranglers who are on their third lead singer and they still make good records. The thing is with bassist JJ Burnel also singing on some tracks it's like having two vocalists.
The same can be said for the Buzzcocks with Diggle singing a handful of tracks and it wouldn't be Pete Shelley but I'm sure Steve Diggle could sing those songs and would have a right to do so as opposed to getting another singer. Lest not forget Shelley wasn't the original singer.
I think it's better when an original member of a band takes over as you can still identify with that person. Sometimes replacement singers are ok. The Undertones carried on with a new singer when they reformed and hey it's not feargal but he does a decent job.
I also tend to use the rule over 50% of the classic lineup to maintain credibility. A band tends to be unequivocally the same band as long as at you don’t go below less than half of that lineup.

For example a three piece can lose one member from the universally agreed upon classic lineup and still maintain cred. A four-piece gets dodgy when it loses two, unless the songwriting and sound isn’t affected greatly. This is why the Clash II is so controversial.

...and BAD II.
I thought BAD II started with real promise, there is a very good album there if you distill Kool Aid and the Globe down into one LP. After that they just fell off a cliff for me, some real substandard stuff on Higher Power and F-Punk.
Why should I plan for the future? Let the future make plans for me.

Marky Dread
User avatar
Messiah of the Milk Bar
Posts: 42632
Joined: 17 Jun 2008, 11:26am

Re: Music opinion/question of the week...

Post by Marky Dread » 30 Jan 2019, 5:02pm

Heston wrote:
30 Jan 2019, 4:31pm
Marky Dread wrote:
30 Jan 2019, 4:02pm
Wolter wrote:
29 Jan 2019, 12:36pm
Marky Dread wrote:
29 Jan 2019, 12:18pm
WestwayKid wrote:
29 Jan 2019, 11:43am


Yup - loss of the lead singer is hard to overcome for me. I think the biggest offenders seem to be the bands that frequent state fair stages across the United States: Survivor and so on. I think what "saves" bands like that is that a lot of people who see them live have no idea who is original or not. They know the hit songs and as long as they hear Eye of the Tiger and The Search Is Over - they're happy.
Sometimes the band carries on like The Stranglers who are on their third lead singer and they still make good records. The thing is with bassist JJ Burnel also singing on some tracks it's like having two vocalists.
The same can be said for the Buzzcocks with Diggle singing a handful of tracks and it wouldn't be Pete Shelley but I'm sure Steve Diggle could sing those songs and would have a right to do so as opposed to getting another singer. Lest not forget Shelley wasn't the original singer.
I think it's better when an original member of a band takes over as you can still identify with that person. Sometimes replacement singers are ok. The Undertones carried on with a new singer when they reformed and hey it's not feargal but he does a decent job.
I also tend to use the rule over 50% of the classic lineup to maintain credibility. A band tends to be unequivocally the same band as long as at you don’t go below less than half of that lineup.

For example a three piece can lose one member from the universally agreed upon classic lineup and still maintain cred. A four-piece gets dodgy when it loses two, unless the songwriting and sound isn’t affected greatly. This is why the Clash II is so controversial.

...and BAD II.
I thought BAD II started with real promise, there is a very good album there if you distill Kool Aid and the Globe down into one LP. After that they just fell off a cliff for me, some real substandard stuff on Higher Power and F-Punk.
Kool Aid/The Globe just the same album for me. I can find good stuff on all the BAD II/Big Audio/Big Audio Dynamite albums.
Image

WestwayKid
User avatar
Unknown Immortal
Posts: 2997
Joined: 20 Sep 2017, 8:22am
Location: Mill-e-wah-que

Re: Music opinion/question of the week...

Post by WestwayKid » 30 Jan 2019, 7:43pm

What about a band like CCR? Stu Cook (bass) and Doug Clifford (drums) formed a knock-off group called Creedence Clearwater Revisited to play Creedence Clearwater Revival songs - but without John Fogerty. They have a guy who kind of sounds like John Fogerty, however. The thing is Fogerty wrote ALL of their hits (and the vast majority of their songs) on his own. I don't begrudge Cook and Clifford trying to make a living - but it seems iffy. It's one thing for Fogerty to play those songs as a solo artist. He wrote them and he's performing them as John Fogerty - not as Creedence Clearwater Revival (or Revisited, for that matter). That being said - I'm sure a lot of the people who see CC-Revisited don't know or care that it's just the rhythm section with some hired guns - they're just happy hearing a live band play "Proud Mary".
"If they believed in a place called Kokomo, then so did I." - Michael Edward Love

Dr. Medulla
User avatar
Atheistic Epileptic
Posts: 83717
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
Location: Nerdo Crombezia
Contact:

Re: Music opinion/question of the week...

Post by Dr. Medulla » 30 Jan 2019, 7:56pm

WestwayKid wrote:
30 Jan 2019, 7:43pm
What about a band like CCR? Stu Cook (bass) and Doug Clifford (drums) formed a knock-off group called Creedence Clearwater Revisited to play Creedence Clearwater Revival songs - but without John Fogerty. They have a guy who kind of sounds like John Fogerty, however. The thing is Fogerty wrote ALL of their hits (and the vast majority of their songs) on his own. I don't begrudge Cook and Clifford trying to make a living - but it seems iffy. It's one thing for Fogerty to play those songs as a solo artist. He wrote them and he's performing them as John Fogerty - not as Creedence Clearwater Revival (or Revisited, for that matter). That being said - I'm sure a lot of the people who see CC-Revisited don't know or care that it's just the rhythm section with some hired guns - they're just happy hearing a live band play "Proud Mary".
That feels like a higher order tribute band. Admittedly I'm being dismissive of the rest of the band here, and unfairly, but CCR to me is fundamentally John Fogerty by another name.

Here's a weird one for me: Johnny Marr performing Smiths songs and singing them. Yeah, he has equal claim to the songs, but it seems wholly strange to me for him to sing Morrissey's words even as it doesn't seem odd Morrissey's band playing Marr's music.

edit: Yet I have no issue with New Order or Peter Hook playing Joy Division songs, singing Ian Curtis' words. The ownership feels clear to me. Totally inconsistent on my part.
Poonty, boloques, juffmunch, carpoo, snazellfonks.

revbob
User avatar
Unknown Immortal
Posts: 9198
Joined: 16 Jun 2008, 12:31pm
Location: The Frozen Tundra

Re: Music opinion/question of the week...

Post by revbob » 30 Jan 2019, 8:52pm

Dead Kennedys without Jello??? It's just a cover band without him.
Same as CCR without John Fogerty. Shit could you have Blondie without Debbie Harry?

I think in most cases the singer is integral to the band's identity. Even if he/she didn't write all the songs.

I'm a big Black Sabbath fan but honestly once Ozzy left they were a different band and should have gone by another name. Geezer Butler wrote the majority of the lyrics during the Ozzy era but few people recognize him as a key figure.

Certain bands seem to take on the personality of the singer or maybe the guitar player and when you lose those key people you lose the band.

I'm not a huge Deep Purple fan (I do enjoy some of the old tunes, Highway Star will get me going any day). Anyway apparently they still exist in some form but without Blackmore who I always thought was key to the band's identity.

WestwayKid
User avatar
Unknown Immortal
Posts: 2997
Joined: 20 Sep 2017, 8:22am
Location: Mill-e-wah-que

Re: Music opinion/question of the week...

Post by WestwayKid » 30 Jan 2019, 8:53pm

Dr. Medulla wrote:
30 Jan 2019, 7:56pm
WestwayKid wrote:
30 Jan 2019, 7:43pm
What about a band like CCR? Stu Cook (bass) and Doug Clifford (drums) formed a knock-off group called Creedence Clearwater Revisited to play Creedence Clearwater Revival songs - but without John Fogerty. They have a guy who kind of sounds like John Fogerty, however. The thing is Fogerty wrote ALL of their hits (and the vast majority of their songs) on his own. I don't begrudge Cook and Clifford trying to make a living - but it seems iffy. It's one thing for Fogerty to play those songs as a solo artist. He wrote them and he's performing them as John Fogerty - not as Creedence Clearwater Revival (or Revisited, for that matter). That being said - I'm sure a lot of the people who see CC-Revisited don't know or care that it's just the rhythm section with some hired guns - they're just happy hearing a live band play "Proud Mary".
That feels like a higher order tribute band. Admittedly I'm being dismissive of the rest of the band here, and unfairly, but CCR to me is fundamentally John Fogerty by another name.

Here's a weird one for me: Johnny Marr performing Smiths songs and singing them. Yeah, he has equal claim to the songs, but it seems wholly strange to me for him to sing Morrissey's words even as it doesn't seem odd Morrissey's band playing Marr's music.

edit: Yet I have no issue with New Order or Peter Hook playing Joy Division songs, singing Ian Curtis' words. The ownership feels clear to me. Totally inconsistent on my part.
I think maybe because Morrissey's voice is so distinctive and so much a part of the sound of the Smiths. That said - one could say the same thing about Marr's guitar playing. I've read many times that even really experienced guitarists struggle to play his parts.
"If they believed in a place called Kokomo, then so did I." - Michael Edward Love

Dr. Medulla
User avatar
Atheistic Epileptic
Posts: 83717
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
Location: Nerdo Crombezia
Contact:

Re: Music opinion/question of the week...

Post by Dr. Medulla » 30 Jan 2019, 10:15pm

WestwayKid wrote:
30 Jan 2019, 8:53pm
Dr. Medulla wrote:
30 Jan 2019, 7:56pm
WestwayKid wrote:
30 Jan 2019, 7:43pm
What about a band like CCR? Stu Cook (bass) and Doug Clifford (drums) formed a knock-off group called Creedence Clearwater Revisited to play Creedence Clearwater Revival songs - but without John Fogerty. They have a guy who kind of sounds like John Fogerty, however. The thing is Fogerty wrote ALL of their hits (and the vast majority of their songs) on his own. I don't begrudge Cook and Clifford trying to make a living - but it seems iffy. It's one thing for Fogerty to play those songs as a solo artist. He wrote them and he's performing them as John Fogerty - not as Creedence Clearwater Revival (or Revisited, for that matter). That being said - I'm sure a lot of the people who see CC-Revisited don't know or care that it's just the rhythm section with some hired guns - they're just happy hearing a live band play "Proud Mary".
That feels like a higher order tribute band. Admittedly I'm being dismissive of the rest of the band here, and unfairly, but CCR to me is fundamentally John Fogerty by another name.

Here's a weird one for me: Johnny Marr performing Smiths songs and singing them. Yeah, he has equal claim to the songs, but it seems wholly strange to me for him to sing Morrissey's words even as it doesn't seem odd Morrissey's band playing Marr's music.

edit: Yet I have no issue with New Order or Peter Hook playing Joy Division songs, singing Ian Curtis' words. The ownership feels clear to me. Totally inconsistent on my part.
I think maybe because Morrissey's voice is so distinctive and so much a part of the sound of the Smiths. That said - one could say the same thing about Marr's guitar playing. I've read many times that even really experienced guitarists struggle to play his parts.
Again, we come back to the distinctive voice, that clearly human quality. (And completely solid example by revbob with Jello and DKs.) There's perhaps something comforting there that we are still drawn to the distinctly human quality for our stamp of authenticity,
Poonty, boloques, juffmunch, carpoo, snazellfonks.

Wolter
User avatar
Half Foghorn Leghorn, Half Woody Allen
Posts: 52475
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 7:59pm
Location: ¡HOLIDAY RO-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-OAD!
Contact:

Re: Music opinion/question of the week...

Post by Wolter » 30 Jan 2019, 10:24pm

CCR is a very perfect example of a one-man band really. No Fogerty, no CCR. And the hilarious thing is: their rhythm section isn’t even that good. No one ever accused them of being anything but workmanlike.
”INDER LOCK THE THE KISS THREAD IVE REALISED IM A PRZE IDOOT” - Thomas Jefferson

"But the gorilla thinks otherwise!"

101Walterton
User avatar
The Best
Posts: 18828
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 5:36pm
Location: Volcanic Rock In The Pacific

Re: Music opinion/question of the week...

Post by 101Walterton » 30 Jan 2019, 11:48pm

Dr. Medulla wrote:
30 Jan 2019, 10:15pm
WestwayKid wrote:
30 Jan 2019, 8:53pm
Dr. Medulla wrote:
30 Jan 2019, 7:56pm
WestwayKid wrote:
30 Jan 2019, 7:43pm
What about a band like CCR? Stu Cook (bass) and Doug Clifford (drums) formed a knock-off group called Creedence Clearwater Revisited to play Creedence Clearwater Revival songs - but without John Fogerty. They have a guy who kind of sounds like John Fogerty, however. The thing is Fogerty wrote ALL of their hits (and the vast majority of their songs) on his own. I don't begrudge Cook and Clifford trying to make a living - but it seems iffy. It's one thing for Fogerty to play those songs as a solo artist. He wrote them and he's performing them as John Fogerty - not as Creedence Clearwater Revival (or Revisited, for that matter). That being said - I'm sure a lot of the people who see CC-Revisited don't know or care that it's just the rhythm section with some hired guns - they're just happy hearing a live band play "Proud Mary".
That feels like a higher order tribute band. Admittedly I'm being dismissive of the rest of the band here, and unfairly, but CCR to me is fundamentally John Fogerty by another name.

Here's a weird one for me: Johnny Marr performing Smiths songs and singing them. Yeah, he has equal claim to the songs, but it seems wholly strange to me for him to sing Morrissey's words even as it doesn't seem odd Morrissey's band playing Marr's music.

edit: Yet I have no issue with New Order or Peter Hook playing Joy Division songs, singing Ian Curtis' words. The ownership feels clear to me. Totally inconsistent on my part.
I think maybe because Morrissey's voice is so distinctive and so much a part of the sound of the Smiths. That said - one could say the same thing about Marr's guitar playing. I've read many times that even really experienced guitarists struggle to play his parts.
Again, we come back to the distinctive voice, that clearly human quality. (And completely solid example by revbob with Jello and DKs.) There's perhaps something comforting there that we are still drawn to the distinctly human quality for our stamp of authenticity,
I agree to a certain extent and include The Specials in there however I am also inconsistent. For example if Suggs left Madness and Chas took over vocals I would still consider it to be Madness but did not think the same when Mick left The Clash.

Marky Dread
User avatar
Messiah of the Milk Bar
Posts: 42632
Joined: 17 Jun 2008, 11:26am

Re: Music opinion/question of the week...

Post by Marky Dread » 31 Jan 2019, 7:07am

101Walterton wrote:
30 Jan 2019, 11:48pm
Dr. Medulla wrote:
30 Jan 2019, 10:15pm
WestwayKid wrote:
30 Jan 2019, 8:53pm
Dr. Medulla wrote:
30 Jan 2019, 7:56pm
WestwayKid wrote:
30 Jan 2019, 7:43pm
What about a band like CCR? Stu Cook (bass) and Doug Clifford (drums) formed a knock-off group called Creedence Clearwater Revisited to play Creedence Clearwater Revival songs - but without John Fogerty. They have a guy who kind of sounds like John Fogerty, however. The thing is Fogerty wrote ALL of their hits (and the vast majority of their songs) on his own. I don't begrudge Cook and Clifford trying to make a living - but it seems iffy. It's one thing for Fogerty to play those songs as a solo artist. He wrote them and he's performing them as John Fogerty - not as Creedence Clearwater Revival (or Revisited, for that matter). That being said - I'm sure a lot of the people who see CC-Revisited don't know or care that it's just the rhythm section with some hired guns - they're just happy hearing a live band play "Proud Mary".
That feels like a higher order tribute band. Admittedly I'm being dismissive of the rest of the band here, and unfairly, but CCR to me is fundamentally John Fogerty by another name.

Here's a weird one for me: Johnny Marr performing Smiths songs and singing them. Yeah, he has equal claim to the songs, but it seems wholly strange to me for him to sing Morrissey's words even as it doesn't seem odd Morrissey's band playing Marr's music.

edit: Yet I have no issue with New Order or Peter Hook playing Joy Division songs, singing Ian Curtis' words. The ownership feels clear to me. Totally inconsistent on my part.
I think maybe because Morrissey's voice is so distinctive and so much a part of the sound of the Smiths. That said - one could say the same thing about Marr's guitar playing. I've read many times that even really experienced guitarists struggle to play his parts.
Again, we come back to the distinctive voice, that clearly human quality. (And completely solid example by revbob with Jello and DKs.) There's perhaps something comforting there that we are still drawn to the distinctly human quality for our stamp of authenticity,
I agree to a certain extent and include The Specials in there however I am also inconsistent. For example if Suggs left Madness and Chas took over vocals I would still consider it to be Madness but did not think the same when Mick left The Clash.
When a frontman vacates a band you lose that distinct feel. But if that band has two vocalists like Madness/Buzzcocks/Strangles etc the feel of familiarity is still there.

When Mick vacated The Clash it wasn't a case of losing a vocalist it was a case of losing the groups best musician and arranger. To me it was no surprise that the mk II version went down the back to basics route. Mick was the innovator and unafraid of exploring new territory. To some this was made The Clash sound softer and way less punk rock. However to me The Clash were always about moving forward not backwards.
Image

WestwayKid
User avatar
Unknown Immortal
Posts: 2997
Joined: 20 Sep 2017, 8:22am
Location: Mill-e-wah-que

Re: Music opinion/question of the week...

Post by WestwayKid » 31 Jan 2019, 7:33am

Marky Dread wrote:
31 Jan 2019, 7:07am

When Mick vacated The Clash it wasn't a case of losing a vocalist it was a case of losing the groups best musician and arranger. To me it was no surprise that the mk II version went down the back to basics route. Mick was the innovator and unafraid of exploring new territory. To some this was made The Clash sound softer and way less punk rock. However to me The Clash were always about moving forward not backwards.
I completely agree. There were a lot of punk bands that never moved beyond making punk. They did it well - some of them continue to do it today - but the Clash moved beyond punk so quickly and that is all because of Mick - the music fanatic.
"If they believed in a place called Kokomo, then so did I." - Michael Edward Love

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests