Music opinion/question of the week...

[Silent Majority]

They had fans, but again, not massive like in the UK.

Argument over. US > UK.

The Oasis-mania was unreal oer here in the mid-90s. I just never got them at all. Too whiny, too derivative, unlikeable people, lacking in stagecraft, too apolitical, the list goes on.

Funny thing is I saw them several times early one Definitely Maybe/What's the Story era and when I saw them towards the end of their career - they had become a far better live band. The early shows were not that great - more attitude than substance.

Did they not become better because they kept sacking people and replacing them with muso-type identikit Noel and Liams? I thought their original drummer at least gave them some drive, they were just plodders after that.

There's no need to listen to Oasis for the rhythm, but I liked what Zak Starkey did on The Importance of Being Idle.

[Marky Dread]

So what did the Clash have that the Jam didn't to suceed in the US? I see them as being cut from similar cloth but the Americans must have seen something in the Clash that they liked more. I'd have the Jam down as the more commercial of the two.

It is an odd one with Weller's love of Motown and soul being a big American thing but it has to be down to the world view of his lyrics. Weller was way more a writer in the vein of 60s Ray Davies singing about England etc. The Clash took a much wider viewpoint with lyrics about Sandinista etc. Dare I say it that Joe was more a romantic lyricist in the vein of Woody Guthrie and Springsteen.

[Marky Dread]

Argument over. US > UK.

The Oasis-mania was unreal oer here in the mid-90s. I just never got them at all. Too whiny, too derivative, unlikeable people, lacking in stagecraft, too apolitical, the list goes on.

Funny thing is I saw them several times early one Definitely Maybe/What's the Story era and when I saw them towards the end of their career - they had become a far better live band. The early shows were not that great - more attitude than substance.

Did they not become better because they kept sacking people and replacing them with muso-type identikit Noel and Liams? I thought their original drummer at least gave them some drive, they were just plodders after that.

There's no need to listen to Oasis for the rhythm, but I liked what Zak Starkey did on The Importance of Being Idle.

Steve White was no slouch either. In fact he was most likely Oasis best drummer. Also the likes of Andy Bell (Ride) and Gem Archer (Heavy Stereo) were simply better musicians than Guiggs and Bonehead. The problem that Oasis had wasn't the lack of songwriting but the shit awful production where everything had to be louder than everything else with no room for any finesse always way too bombastic. Interesting you pick The Kinks rip-off song The Importance of Being Idle as it's one of the better productions.

[101Walterton]

So what did the Clash have that the Jam didn't to suceed in the US? I see them as being cut from similar cloth but the Americans must have seen something in the Clash that they liked more. I'd have the Jam down as the more commercial of the two.

It is an odd one with Weller's love of Motown and soul being a big American thing but it has to be down to the world view of his lyrics. Weller was way more a writer in the vein of 60s Ray Davies singing about England etc. The Clash took a much wider viewpoint with lyrics about Sandinista etc. Dare I say it that Joe was more a romantic lyricist in the vein of Woody Guthrie and Springsteen.

Yes this was what I was going to post. The Jam’s lyrics were very much just their world.

[Chairman Ralph]

Cant say exactly how much difference it made but the Clash worked America, coast to coast several times over, while The Jam never really took to US tours with any great zeal. Not the whole story probably but a contributing factor. Weller obviously wanted US success but maybe just not badly enough. The Clash embraced it and made it happen.

Exactly: the Clash did the classic thing of working America, slow but steady, whereas the Jam essentially gave up there when it didn't happen right off. Back then, especially, there was no VH1 or Internet to get the word out -- so continued touring was one of the only ways to build an audience that, over time, might move from buying tickets, to actually buying the records. At least, that's how the theory worked then.

Did they not become better because they kept sacking people and replacing them with muso-type identikit Noel and Liams? I thought their original drummer at least gave them some drive, they were just plodders after that.

Steve White was a way better drummer -- after all, he's the one who's continued playing in various bands, whereas McCarroll's career ended when he left Oasis. if he was such a world beater, surely some other band would have picked him up. Owen Morris's description of TM's style, or non-style sums it up for me ("extremely basic," but with timing and tempo that were almost "autistically perfect")

That said, I agree the addition of Andy Bell and Gem Archer definitely upped the muso-ey quotient of the band, something that couldn't have happened with the original lineup, where the attitude was first and foremost. By then, though, I'm not sure how much attention people were paying, at least over here in the US -- it's no accident that people cite the 1994-96-era model more than they do the later albums, which have their gems, but tend to be more hit and miss. And I say that as someone who did enjoy them during their original run.
'
And it's not always the production that's always to blame -- to me, the lyrics were the weakest part of the whole Oasis package, especially when Noel started banging on endlessly about how rich and famous he'd become. So, in that sense, TM wins on points, being part of the "classic" (non-muso) lineup.

[Heston]

Cant say exactly how much difference it made but the Clash worked America, coast to coast several times over, while The Jam never really took to US tours with any great zeal. Not the whole story probably but a contributing factor. Weller obviously wanted US success but maybe just not badly enough. The Clash embraced it and made it happen.

Exactly: the Clash did the classic thing of working America, slow but steady, whereas the Jam essentially gave up there when it didn't happen right off. Back then, especially, there was no VH1 or Internet to get the word out -- so continued touring was one of the only ways to build an audience that, over time, might move from buying tickets, to actually buying the records. At least, that's how the theory worked then.

Did they not become better because they kept sacking people and replacing them with muso-type identikit Noel and Liams? I thought their original drummer at least gave them some drive, they were just plodders after that.

Steve White was a way better drummer -- after all, he's the one who's continued playing in various bands, whereas McCarroll's career ended when he left Oasis. if he was such a world beater, surely some other band would have picked him up. Owen Morris's description of TM's style, or non-style sums it up for me ("extremely basic," but with timing and tempo that were almost "autistically perfect")

That said, I agree the addition of Andy Bell and Gem Archer definitely upped the muso-ey quotient of the band, something that couldn't have happened with the original lineup, where the attitude was first and foremost. By then, though, I'm not sure how much attention people were paying, at least over here in the US -- it's no accident that people cite the 1994-96-era model more than they do the later albums, which have their gems, but tend to be more hit and miss. And I say that as someone who did enjoy them during their original run.
'
And it's not always the production that's always to blame -- to me, the lyrics were the weakest part of the whole Oasis package, especially when Noel started banging on endlessly about how rich and famous he'd become. So, in that sense, TM wins on points, being part of the "classic" (non-muso) lineup.

Oh yeah, I agree about White being a technically better drummer. I just thought Tony drove the early stuff along quite well, I thought they lost a bit of oomph when he was sacked. It goes back to that thing about sometimes keen amateurs are better then technical wizards. Some personality left the band once all the non-Gallaghers were replaced.

[101Walterton]

Kind of a twist on the question, but Depeche Mode were huge everywhere BUT their home country.

They are pretty big here I think. They no longer trouble the charts but they still sell out arenas. Did I ever mention I saw them live in 1984 when they were good?

Yes, you did! They were good then and now!

I like the cut of your jib

[101Walterton]

Bands/musicians that didn't translate well across the Atlantic? Kind of an vague question - but thinking it could lead to some interesting discussions. I've always been interested in Bruce Springsteen, for instance. Growing up in a Rust Belt city in the 1980's - his imagery always hit home because it's what I saw growing up. How well did that message cross the ocean?

I was going to mention this in the XTC thread that just started, but generally speaking bands that seem excessively English, that don't seem "cosmopolitan" enough, tend not to catch on in North America. XTC fits that bill, so did the Jam or Blur (notably, Blur's only success was "Song 2," which is very American sounding).

My understanding was that Albarn wrote Song2 specifically to be a Nirvana / grunge copy (whether that was with intention to be a US hit or pisstake?) and is why it doesn’t sound like any other Blur song.

[Chairman Ralph]

Oh yeah, I agree about White being a technically better drummer. I just thought Tony drove the early stuff along quite well, I thought they lost a bit of oomph when he was sacked. It goes back to that thing about sometimes keen amateurs are better then technical wizards. Some personality left the band once all the non-Gallaghers were replaced.

Sure, I get your point completely -- my wife always laughs when I tell her, there's no keener enthusiast of meat and potatoes punk and/or garage than I. I was alluding to the irony of Noel apparently deciding that the band couldn't continue on attitude alone, so he chose the radical makeover route...precisely at the point, where they'd peaked, in purely commercial terms, and hence, wasn't going to win any new converts. Or, at least, not many more than the ones they'd already picked up.

Put it this way: I remember my own reaction to the slide break in "Fade In-Out," from Be Here Now, and thinking, "Sounds good, but...hang on. Do you really listen to Oasis for their great slide guitar? Hmm..." So there you go.

[Dr. Medulla]

Bands/musicians that didn't translate well across the Atlantic? Kind of an vague question - but thinking it could lead to some interesting discussions. I've always been interested in Bruce Springsteen, for instance. Growing up in a Rust Belt city in the 1980's - his imagery always hit home because it's what I saw growing up. How well did that message cross the ocean?

I was going to mention this in the XTC thread that just started, but generally speaking bands that seem excessively English, that don't seem "cosmopolitan" enough, tend not to catch on in North America. XTC fits that bill, so did the Jam or Blur (notably, Blur's only success was "Song 2," which is very American sounding).

My understanding was that Albarn wrote Song2 specifically to be a Nirvana / grunge copy (whether that was with intention to be a US hit or pisstake?) and is why it doesn’t sound like any other Blur song.

Pretty sure "Song 2" is a Graham Coxon number. He's a sincere fan of more aggressive rock. But I think you're right that Albarn framed it as light parody of grunge.

[Silent Majority]

Bands/musicians that didn't translate well across the Atlantic? Kind of an vague question - but thinking it could lead to some interesting discussions. I've always been interested in Bruce Springsteen, for instance. Growing up in a Rust Belt city in the 1980's - his imagery always hit home because it's what I saw growing up. How well did that message cross the ocean?

I was going to mention this in the XTC thread that just started, but generally speaking bands that seem excessively English, that don't seem "cosmopolitan" enough, tend not to catch on in North America. XTC fits that bill, so did the Jam or Blur (notably, Blur's only success was "Song 2," which is very American sounding).

My understanding was that Albarn wrote Song2 specifically to be a Nirvana / grunge copy (whether that was with intention to be a US hit or pisstake?) and is why it doesn’t sound like any other Blur song.

Pretty sure "Song 2" is a Graham Coxon number. He's a sincere fan of more aggressive rock. But I think you're right that Albarn framed it as light parody of grunge.

It's very Blur to have their most joie de vivre filled tune come from a studied pose.

[WestwayKid]

They had fans, but again, not massive like in the UK.

Argument over. US > UK.

The Oasis-mania was unreal oer here in the mid-90s. I just never got them at all. Too whiny, too derivative, unlikeable people, lacking in stagecraft, too apolitical, the list goes on.

Funny thing is I saw them several times early one Definitely Maybe/What's the Story era and when I saw them towards the end of their career - they had become a far better live band. The early shows were not that great - more attitude than substance.

Did they not become better because they kept sacking people and replacing them with muso-type identikit Noel and Liams? I thought their original drummer at least gave them some drive, they were just plodders after that.

I think that is true with Gem Archer and Andy Bell...but I never thought original drummer Tony McCarroll was anything special (and he was the first to go as the Gallagher's remade the band in their own image). Alan White was pretty good...as was Starkey on the final 2 albums.

[WestwayKid]

Bands that should never have gotten back together.

I overheard some idiot wearing a Lynyrd Skynyrd shirt blathering on about Trump and so on the other night and got to thinking...man...that is a band that should have never gotten back together.

The original Lynyrd Skynyrd were a pretty interesting bunch of guys: Southern hippies who actually had a pretty progressive world view...but the "new" version of the band has been turned into a Confederate flag waving parody that uses stupid right wing ideology/imagery to play up to the #MAGA crowd.

This is a case where a band was sadly cut down in their prime - but could have left a pretty solid legacy (I like their original albums) - only to have their name brought back from the dead and now turned into a joke. Yuck.

[Wolter]

The Sex Pistols. There. I said it.

[Wolter]

The Misfits post-reunion have mostly been unnecessary.