Life magazine ranks the 100 greatest artists
Fenton1115
2. The Beatles
3. Bob Dylan
4. James Brown
5. The Rolling Stones
6. Madonna
7. Stevie Wonder
8. Chuck Berry
9. Michael Jackson
10. Kurt Cobain
11. Eric Clapton
12. Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young
13. Smokey Robinson
14. Aretha Franklin
15. Bruce Springsteen
16. Jimi Hendrix
17. Ray Charles
18. The Everly Brothers
19. The Drifters
20. The Beach Boys
21. Buddy Holly
22. The Band
23. Bob Marley
24. The Four Tops
25. Grateful Dead
26. Public Enemy
27. Sting
28. U2
29. The Isley Brothers
30. Little Richard
31. Janis Joplin
32. The Moonglows
33. Tina Turner
34. The Clash
35. Roy Orbison
36. David Bowie
37. The Doors
38. The Four Seasons
39. Ramones
40. Otis Redding
41. The Supremes
42. The Who
43. Blondie
44. Sly and The Family Stone
45. Van Morrison
46. The Shirelles
47. Sam & Dave
48. Elvis Costello
49. The Velvet Underground
50. Prince
51. The Righteous Brothers
52. The Byrds
53. The Bee Gees
54. Sam Cooke
55. Led Zeppelin
56. The Coasters
57. Santana
58. The Sex Pistols
59. Steely Dan
60. Wilson Pickett
61. Linda Ronstadt
62. Dave Matthews
63. Talking Heads
64. The Temptations
65. The Allman Brothers Band
66. Paul Simon
67. The Kinks
68. Marvin Gaye
69. R.E.M.
70. Dion
71. Dr. Dre
72. Dusty Springfield
73. Elton John
74. Curtis Mayfield
75. Radiohead
76. Beastie Boys
77. Black Sabbath
78. The Mamas and the Papas
79. Joni Mitchell
80. John Fogerty
81. The Pretenders
82. Al Green
83. Fats Domino
84. Martha and the Vandellas
85. Fleetwood Mac
86. Smashing Pumpkins
87. Kiss
88. Jefferson Airplane
89. The Flamingos
90. Dionne Warwick
91. Gene Pitney
92. George Clinton
93. Tom Petty
94. Bjork
95. Beck
96. The Eagles
97. Traffic
98. Rage Against the Machine
99. Pearl Jam
100. Frank Zappa
Belly Savallas
but why, oh why do these guys insist on putting Kurt Cobain on these lists?
i means the guy was a one hit wonder whose message was "we're bored now,
poor poor pitiful us". and to put him above peeps like Hendrix, Marley,
Sly, Little Richard for crying out loud.
bah, the guy can't hold a candle to any of them, or any other artists on
that list for that matter
feh!
"Fenton1115" <fento...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020312021717...@mb-mq.aol.com...
Ehtue
>1. Elvis Presley
>2. The Beatles
What the hell do they know?
-Ehtue
But it's a fairly decent list, as far as lists go. But Madonna over Chuck
Berry?
Ehtue
>seems like the original list must have been labeled something much more
>specific than "The 100 Greatest Artists." i mean, where's country? jazz?
>blues? classical? etc.? there were clearly some limits on the list's
>scope which we're not seeing here.
>
>missing pop/rock artists? well, to me, the glaring omission is
>definitely Pink Floyd. Or Randy Newman? Peter Gabriel? Iggy Pop? Patti
>Smith? just the first names which come to mind.
>
>the name -on- the list which puzzles me the most: the Moonglows. huh?
>and Dave Matthews. a big "ARRGH" on that one. also feeling iffy on the
>Mamas & the Papas, Martha & the Vandellas, the Shirelles, Tina Turner
>(seems like this woman was canonized based on -marital abuse- rather
>than music), Sam & Dave, the Flamingos, and Traffic.
>
>Cobain does seem ranked a bit too high, but he certainly deserves a
>choice slot.
Good points. I'm guessing they meant pop. But then, it's LIFE, so one doesn't
expect too deep of an analysis. Where's the pics?
-Ehtue
Was Hank on there? If not, forget it.
Belly Savallas
"jbaldwin223" <jbald...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:jbaldwin223-2904...@nnrp02.earthlink.net...
> and Dave Matthews. a big "ARRGH" on that one.
i'm happy to announce that i have never heard one single dave matthews song
in my life.
the joys of living in oz, i guess.:)
>also feeling iffy on the
> Mamas & the Papas,
agreed.
>Martha & the Vandellas,
well they did have those couple of big hits and she really had some exciting
vocals goigng.
>. the Shirelles,
eh.
> Tina Turner
> (seems like this woman was canonized based on -marital abuse- rather
> than music),
i would dispute that. i think she has proved herself pretty talented over
the years.
>Sam & Dave,
yeah pass.
>the Flamingos,
?
>and Traffic.
yeah, i guess their main claim to fame is their heritage rather than their
accomplishments.
>
> Cobain does seem ranked a bit too high, but he certainly deserves a
> choice slot.
ya reckon?
Ryno Richards
<a6l0ba$g1s$0...@pita.alt.net>.
In response:
>>and Traffic.
>
>yeah, i guess their main claim to fame is their heritage rather than their
>accomplishments.
40,000 Headmen is *not* mocked.
>>
>> Cobain does seem ranked a bit too high, but he certainly deserves a
>> choice slot.
>
>ya reckon?
Remember that tribute the Doug Anthony Allstars did, to the tune of JJ
Cale's "Cocaine"?
You go die, you go die, you go die..... Co-Bain!
that was a classic!
Ryno
--
Lizz Holmans
It's all defensible, except I'd have put Nine Inch Nails or the
Sisters of Mercy instead of Rage Against the Machine.
Lizz 'Head like a vole' Holmans
Lizz Holmans
wrote:
>>
>> Cobain does seem ranked a bit too high, but he certainly deserves a
>> choice slot.
>
>ya reckon?
Yeah, I do. He was *very* influential in the States. The longer I
listen to it, the more I love Nirvana.
Lizz 'but not expecting to get there anytime soon' Holmans
paulisme
> not a bad list, as far as lists go.
>
> but why, oh why do these guys insist on putting Kurt Cobain on these lists?
Because he's dead. That's why he's so high on the list and Pearl Jam's at 99.
Paul
Frannie
> jbaldwin223 wrote:
>
> >seems like the original list must have been labeled something much more
> >specific than "The 100 Greatest Artists." i mean, where's country? jazz?
> >blues? classical? etc.? there were clearly some limits on the list's
> >scope which we're not seeing here.
> >
> >missing pop/rock artists? well, to me, the glaring omission is
> >definitely Pink Floyd. Or Randy Newman? Peter Gabriel? Iggy Pop? Patti
> >Smith? just the first names which come to mind.
> >
And the Who are way too far down...
>
> Good points. I'm guessing they meant pop. But then, it's LIFE, so one doesn't
> expect too deep of an analysis. Where's the pics?
>
> -Ehtue
>
Remember, LIFE went out of business last year.
Frannie
From Me To You
>Was Hank on there? If not, forget it.
Hank Williams was not on the list and the list is therefore invalid. Also,
where are The Everly Brothers?
Blondie but no Brenda Lee or Barbra? The list, as all lists are inherently,
is a joke.
--=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=--
lstoll
>
> seems like the original list must have been labeled something much more
> specific than "The 100 Greatest Artists." i mean, where's country? jazz?
> blues? classical? etc.? there were clearly some limits on the list's
> scope which we're not seeing here.
I saw it in the grocery store yesterday and I'm pretty sure it's called a
list of the greatest *rock & roll* artists. -laura
Strabbo
>
> but why, oh why do these guys insist on putting Kurt Cobain on these
lists?
Because he influenced a crapload of music in the 90's - too much, really.
I'm sick of bands that try to sound like Nirvana or Pearl Jam.
> i means the guy was a one hit wonder whose message was "we're bored now,
> poor poor pitiful us". and to put him above peeps like Hendrix, Marley,
> Sly, Little Richard for crying out loud.
I agree with the last part, but he had a couple hits, with more messages
than that.
>
> bah, the guy can't hold a candle to any of them, or any other artists on
> that list for that matter
He can hold a candle or eight to some of them, but then Dr. Dre was never my
tastes.
And Zappa only #100????
Marty
Belly Savallas
"Lizz Holmans" <di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6h1s8u0jr9pc58e64...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 00:41:12 +1100, "Belly Savallas" <k...@jak.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >>
> >> Cobain does seem ranked a bit too high, but he certainly deserves a
> >> choice slot.
> >
> >ya reckon?
>
> Yeah, I do. He was *very* influential in the States.
rubbish.
>The longer I
> listen to it, the more I love Nirvana.
wow lizz, i bet the imps are impressed..:)
Lizz Holmans
wrote:
>
>"Lizz Holmans" <di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:6h1s8u0jr9pc58e64...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 00:41:12 +1100, "Belly Savallas" <k...@jak.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >>
>> >> Cobain does seem ranked a bit too high, but he certainly deserves a
>> >> choice slot.
>> >
>> >ya reckon?
>>
>> Yeah, I do. He was *very* influential in the States.
>
>rubbish.
Not rubbish, Nick. There would have been no
SmashingPearlPilotsNailedInChains without Nirvana.
>
> >The longer I
>> listen to it, the more I love Nirvana.
>
>wow lizz, i bet the imps are impressed..:)
They're too busy listening to the Lord of the Rings CDs I got them.
Lizz 'Moooommm!! Turn that music down!' Holmans
>
>
Mister Charlie
> In article <a6lqdq$nu0$0...@dosa.alt.net>, "Belly Savallas" <k...@jak.com>
> wrote:
>
> > > >> Cobain does seem ranked a bit too high, but he certainly deserves a
> > > >> choice slot.
> > > >
> > > >ya reckon?
> > >
> > > Yeah, I do. He was *very* influential in the States.
> >
> > rubbish.
>
> facts. first the "one-hit wonder" thing, now this. cheers.
They did seem to start a whole new (and irritating) trend in music, although
they only had about 2 "hits" per se. I would guess this ranks them above VU
who apparently didn't have any hits, but still seem to have influenced
musicians well into the future (or so I'm told).
Belly Savallas
> On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 08:06:18 +1100, "Belly Savallas" <k...@jak.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Lizz Holmans" <di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:6h1s8u0jr9pc58e64...@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 00:41:12 +1100, "Belly Savallas" <k...@jak.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Cobain does seem ranked a bit too high, but he certainly deserves a
> >> >> choice slot.
> >> >
> >> >ya reckon?
> >>
> >> Yeah, I do. He was *very* influential in the States.
> >
> >rubbish.
>
> Not rubbish, Nick. There would have been no
> SmashingPearlPilotsNailedInChains without Nirvana.
more rubbish.
Belly Savallas
> In article <a6lqdq$nu0$0...@dosa.alt.net>, "Belly Savallas" <k...@jak.com>
> wrote:
>
> > > >> Cobain does seem ranked a bit too high, but he certainly deserves a
> > > >> choice slot.
> > > >
> > > >ya reckon?
> > >
> > > Yeah, I do. He was *very* influential in the States.
> >
> > rubbish.
>
> facts.
i dont "hate" them. hell , i went to see them. they were ok. i prefer the
RHCp and Faith No More. better records, better songs, better shows.
i just like a touch of reality and the god status afforded kurt just doesnt
work for me.
.
>first the "one-hit wonder" thing, now this. cheers.
cheers!
Lizz Holmans
wrote:
>> Not rubbish, Nick. There would have been no
>> SmashingPearlPilotsNailedInChains without Nirvana.
>
>more rubbish.
And just what is it that makes you such an expert on what is
influential in American music, Nick? You got a direct pipeline to
Seattle or something?
Whether you like it or not, Nirvana was very influential. And not just
for the plaid flannel shirts, either.
Lizz 'There's something going on and you don't know what it is, do
you, Mr. Andrews?' Holmans
Belly Savallas
> On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 18:57:31 +1100, "Belly Savallas" <k...@jak.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >> Not rubbish, Nick. There would have been no
> >> SmashingPearlPilotsNailedInChains without Nirvana.
> >
> >more rubbish.
>
> And just what is it that makes you such an expert on what is
> influential in American music, Nick?
ears and a brain...:)
You got a direct pipeline to
> Seattle or something?
oh dear, the "seattle sound"?...; /
sorry to rain on your parade, but that was not only a lot of marketing
hoo-haa, but also a big fucking yawn.
> Whether you like it or not, Nirvana was very influential.
>And not just
> for the plaid flannel shirts, either.
>
> Lizz 'There's something going on and you don't know what it is, do
> you, Mr. Andrews?' Holmans
am i the only one whole loves this juxtaposition?
the ageing mum trying to look cool by "liking" some garage rock band but
resorting to the 60s for her "philosophies".:)
Lizz Holmans
wrote:
>
>ears and a brain...:)
I also have the same equipment, but I would never argue whether this
or that British or Australian group could be considered seminal
because I didn't grow up with the music. I only heard bits of it.
>oh dear, the "seattle sound"?...; /
>
>sorry to rain on your parade, but that was not only a lot of marketing
>hoo-haa, but also a big fucking yawn.
To you, perhaps. Not to the thousands of kids in garages all over the
US. I was *there*, Nick, listening to the music, watching the
reaction, hearing the spread of the grunge sound. I know when I'm
being hyped, and there was much more to this than hype.
Was the 'Liverpool' sound also a 'big yawn?' Lotta hype there. Lots of
groups didn't make it.
Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Stone Temple Pilots, Smashing Pumpkins, Nine Inch
Nails--no, they didn't sell in Beatles' numbers, but not many do.
Doesn't make them rubbish.
>
>
>am i the only one whole loves this juxtaposition?
>
>the ageing mum trying to look cool by "liking" some garage rock band but
>resorting to the 60s for her "philosophies".:)
And now with the gratutitous insults about my age and my state of
parenthood, which, of course, have nothing to do with my taste in
music. And you know so little about my philosophies that for you to
comment on them is absurd. It's also a little desperate. Have you no
other cogent argument? Or has aging fatherhood stripped you of your
critical faculties?
Do you just like to argue with me, Nick? Is that it? Do you enjoy
trying to make someone look stupid just because they disagree with
you? Is it because I'm too polite to call you a wanker? Would you
prefer that?
OK, Nick, you're a wanker. You don't know bupkes about influential
American music. And next time I try to act all cool and knowledgeable
about the Australian music scene, you can call me a wanker.
Lizz 'by the way, this is an internym, not a philosophy' Holmans
mcnews
the band?????
where's AD/DC?
sting was a rocker with police.
Frannie
> >the ageing mum trying to look cool by "liking" some garage rock band but
> >resorting to the 60s for her "philosophies".:)
>
> And now with the gratutitous insults about my age and my state of
> parenthood, which, of course, have nothing to do with my taste in
> music. And you know so little about my philosophies that for you to
> comment on them is absurd. It's also a little desperate. Have you no
>
'Desperate' sums up this angry little man quite adequately. Good to
see the two of us using the same, appropriate 'mot juste' no matter
how seldom we agree on other, more Beatle-y topics, Lizz.
> OK, Nick, you're a wanker. You don't know bupkes about influential
> American music.
Add to that, American politics, American sentiments, or American
values...
Frannie "I guess there are disadvantages as well as advantages living
9,000 miles from anywhere" Schwartz (tip o' the yarmulke to Ms.
Holmans)
--
Insanity in individuals is something rare -- but in
groups, parties, nations, and epochs it is the rule.
~ Friedrich Nietzsche ~
Lizz Holmans
<AllYourBaseAreB...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>Depends on the time frame you use.
>
>In the short term, I don't think you can deny their influence. Almost
>single-handedly, they turned much of the pop music business upside down. Almost
>overnight, bands like Whitesnake, Poison etc. -- the acts that had completely
>dominated MTV -- were completely passe (and MTV's fickle role as tastemaker
>can't be ignored in charting Nirvana's rise to influence). The range of
>permissible subject matters, presentations and even instruments that could be
>used in pop songs changed. In many ways it was comparable to the second British
>invasion, except that Nirvana was even more individually the catalyst than the
>Sex Pistols had been. So in that sense they were pretty important.
Nirvana and grunge were the sound of the 90's in America. It really
changed things, thank God. Otherwise people would still be thinking
that Journey was rilly kewl.
>
>On the other hand, its not clear what lasting influence Nirvana will have.
>Grunge had its day a long time ago now. What has replaced it is just as awful
>as what preceded it. And Nirvana's influence was felt only in a narrow part of
>the musical spectrum. Much of music has continued as if Nirvana never existed,
>and I'm not just talking about music outside of rock. Bands like Metallica,
>Black Flag and Iron Maiden preceded Nirvana, and there are still bands that are
>making almost precisely the same kind of music now. The seeds of current hip
>hop were evident before Nirvana and to some extent Nirvana merely brought to
>metal-based pop what hip hop had already brought to R&B -- raw unfinished
>production, socially realist poetry, etc. To take one example, the influence of
>Velvet Underground and Lou Reed still very much reverberate today throughout all
>kinds of different musics -- and while the jury is still out, I don't think
>Nirvana's influence will turn out to be nearly as long or as broad.
As this is all in the future, one WAG is as good as another. But I see
the grunge/Nirvana influence in a lot of women's music, neofolk music,
and other non-rap-non-stadium acts. I'm not sure I'd compare Kurt
Cobain to Lou Reed (mainly because it wouldn't be fair: I like Kurt a
*lot* more than I like Lou), but I know if there is ever to be a
renaissance of real rock and roll, Kurt will not have lived for
nothing.
There is still a big market for grunge-type bands in the
twenty-something age group--hell, Green Day just did a huge tour Over
Here.
Lizz 'Losing My Bad Religion' Holmans
>
>interstate5
Strabbo
in message news:a6nmq...@drn.newsguy.com...
> >
> In the short term, I don't think you can deny their influence. Almost
> single-handedly, they turned much of the pop music business upside down.
Almost
> overnight, bands like Whitesnake, Poison etc. -- the acts that had
completely
> dominated MTV -- were completely passe
True. Long-hair (or, more accurately, big-hair) bands were out, and
harder-edge lovers drifted toward Nirvana. I was into the Beatles when
Nirvana came out, and I saw the types of folks at my school that loved them,
so I took a pass on them. It wasn't until a year or so later over a
medicinal cigarette that a couple friends of mine made me listen closely to
them. With my mind a bit more open, I heard something I liked, and I'm glad.
(and MTV's fickle role as tastemaker
> can't be ignored in charting Nirvana's rise to influence).
Or just about anybody in popular music today.
The range of
> permissible subject matters, presentations and even instruments that could
be
> used in pop songs changed. In many ways it was comparable to the second
British
> invasion, except that Nirvana was even more individually the catalyst than
the
> Sex Pistols had been. So in that sense they were pretty important.
Pearl Jam rose up around the same time, but with a slightly different sound.
I still think that most of what is on rock radio today has spawned from that
phase. Look at Nickelback (a band I hear endlessly on the radio, living
where I do), look at Creed, look at all the bands that sound like them.
The roots of their sound go back further than Nirvana and Pearl Jam, but
that style of music being way up on the charts can be pinpointed right back
to that time.
How much as popular music - and I'm talking all kinds here: dance, techno,
house, r&b, rap, rock, etc - changed in the past 10-12 years? If
Soundgarden's "Superunknown" came out today, would it sound retro? What
about Pearl Jam's "10"? How is "Jeremy" that much different than "How You
Remind Me"?
I think popular music has hit a major stagnant point unlike anything we've
seen in history. The really brilliant and innovative stuff is still being
pushed forward, but not on top 40 radio, and not on rock radio.
> On the other hand, its not clear what lasting influence Nirvana will have.
> Grunge had its day a long time ago now. What has replaced it is just as
awful
> as what preceded it. And Nirvana's influence was felt only in a narrow
part of
> the musical spectrum. Much of music has continued as if Nirvana never
existed,
> and I'm not just talking about music outside of rock.
But speaking in terms of modern rock (call it alternative rock, whatever),
the stuff that's played on the radio... it's sprouted from the same place!
We've got a mid-size radio market, and our choices are top 40, lite rock,
classic rock, country, or rock. Like I said, the innovative stuff - stuff
that has a sound really different from what was popular in the mid-90's -
has to be sought elsewhere. There are exceptions, of course.
>Bands like Metallica,
> Black Flag and Iron Maiden preceded Nirvana, and there are still bands
that are
> making almost precisely the same kind of music now.
Yes, that's true. But I still think Nirvana had their hand in how harder
music sounds today.
The seeds of current hip
> hop were evident before Nirvana and to some extent Nirvana merely brought
to
> metal-based pop what hip hop had already brought to R&B -- raw unfinished
> production, socially realist poetry, etc.
Well put!
To take one example, the influence of
> Velvet Underground and Lou Reed still very much reverberate today
throughout all
> kinds of different musics --
Well, that's a different thread....
>and while the jury is still out, I don't think
> Nirvana's influence will turn out to be nearly as long or as broad.
Hard to compare, really. VU has had a lot more time to cause a much bigger
ripple in a lot more styles of music. Nirvana only released two studio
albums at the height of their popularity, and their impact will be mainly
centered in one style of music. Thing is, that style sells a lot of records
and gets a lot of airplay.
Marty
eji...@eyex.netcom.com
> And the Who are way too far down...
> Frannie
Hey Frannie,
Where's Yoko Ono?
howldog
>Hey Frannie,
> Where's Yoko Ono?
Dont worry, she's only bleeding in the snow.
howldog
Better Living thru Redneck Smartassery
BlackMonk
>
> >and while the jury is still out, I don't think
> > Nirvana's influence will turn out to be nearly as long or as broad.
>
> Hard to compare, really. VU has had a lot more time to cause a much bigger
> ripple in a lot more styles of music. Nirvana only released two studio
> albums at the height of their popularity, and their impact will be mainly
> centered in one style of music.
If you mean the VU has had more time since they were together, that's one
thing, but they only released 4 albums themselves.
BlackMonk
>
>
> >Hey Frannie,
> > Where's Yoko Ono?
>
>
>
> Dont worry, she's only bleeding in the snow.
>
>
You're thinking of Lydia Lunch.
Frannie
On her way to Liverpool, I suppose, to unveil the bronze statue of her late husband.
:-)
Frannie
--
He who makes a beast of himself
gets rid of the pain of being a man.
~ Samuel Johnson ~
Beth Girsch
"Frannie" <franc...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:b8bebffe.02031...@posting.google.com...
> eji...@EYEx.netcom.com wrote in message
news:<3C8FBF10...@ix.netcom.com>...
> > Frannie wrote:
> > > And the Who are way too far down...
> > > Remember, LIFE went out of business last year.
> > > Frannie
> >
> > Hey Frannie,
> > Where's Yoko Ono?
>
> On her way to Liverpool, I suppose, to unveil the bronze statue of her
late husband.
did she call to tell you that?......:)
Strabbo
news:a6om25$g6d1f$1...@ID-133514.news.dfncis.de...
I meant that they've had around 30 years to have a cause-and-effect on other
artists, who then influenced other artists, and so on. People influenced by
Nirvana were influenced by them first-hand for the most part.
Marty
howldog
wrote:
>I meant that they've had around 30 years to have a cause-and-effect on other
>artists, who then influenced other artists, and so on. People influenced by
>Nirvana were influenced by them first-hand for the most part.
>
>
bllleeeeccchhhhhh
so you mean, its really the Velvet Underground's fault for all these
awful new crap bands?
mcnews
initiated me as their group butt wash. Those who weren't pissing were busy
watching the dark yellow leaks of their buddies wash down the tube and into
my gulping wide-eyed toilet face. Thick rivulets of sweat dripped from my
face and ran in brown stripes between my shaven pec cleavage.
"The pig needs more, more!" one stud yelled who'd been staring me directly
in the face and taunting me with a filthy litany of abuse about my wretched
toilet status, promising me the real feeding was yet to come. "Slop, slop,"
the chant went up around the room.
My head continued to spin from the constant popper feeding, my throat
opened to process the endless flow of thick, stinking beer piss -- even
through the air filter and poppers I could smell the heavy stench of piss
and shit the pervaded every inch of the reeking, crowded urinal room.
mcnews
mcou...@mindspring.com
lstoll
jweb
>
> The tiny, sweltering room
Laura did NOT write that...
Jeez, who are ya gonna forge next... the Pope?
-John W.
The new album is here: http://www.mp3.com/lielock
Strabbo
news:kbh19uchaboj4dblj...@4ax.com...
Depends which crap bands you're talking about! There's a lot out there - be
more specific!
Marty
Beth Girsch
"AllYourBaseAreBelongToUs" <AllYourBaseAreB...@newsguy.com>
wrote in message news:a6r37...@drn.newsguy.com...
> On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 17:42:31 +0000, in article
> <4g3v8usfdqnu29i3h...@4ax.com>, Lizz stated:
>
> >There is still a big market for grunge-type bands in the
> >twenty-something age group--hell, Green Day just did a huge tour Over
> >Here.
>
>
Dickies
> and Plastique Bertrand than it does to Nirvana. YMMV.
spot on. green day are the monkees of punk
>
> As for the grunge sound, I'm less sanguine than you are about its "legs,"
seeing
> how scarily easy it was for it to be appropriated by the likes of posers
like
> Creed.
god i hate those MOR bands masquerading as rock acts.
Lizz Holmans
<mareks...@beth.com> wrote:
>
>spot on. green day are the monkees of punk
Aw, what an old fogey. Green Day is *fun*.
Bad Religion is a much better band, though. Pretentious as hell
lyrically, but how many bands can boast a Ph.D. candidate in Physics
at Cornell in their line-up?
>
>>
>> As for the grunge sound, I'm less sanguine than you are about its "legs,"
>seeing
>> how scarily easy it was for it to be appropriated by the likes of posers
>like
>> Creed.
>
>god i hate those MOR bands masquerading as rock acts.
The Younger Imp of Satan likes Creed. I expect he'll get over it.
Lizz 'Can't wait till he discovers Gwar' Holmans
BlackMonk
"AllYourBaseAreBelongToUs" <AllYourBaseAreB...@newsguy.com>
wrote in message news:a6r37...@drn.newsguy.com...
> On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 17:42:31 +0000, in article
> <4g3v8usfdqnu29i3h...@4ax.com>, Lizz stated:
>
> >twenty-something age group--hell, Green Day just did a huge tour Over
> >Here.
>
>
Dickies
> and Plastique Bertrand than it does to Nirvana. YMMV.
>
Plastic Bertrand? Did he do anything that quaifies him as an influence on
anybody? "Ca Plane Pour Moi" is a great single, but as a punk, he didn't do
anything not done by the Buzzcocks before him. Well, he did add a saxophone.
I guess Belgium is all right if you like saxophones too.
It all goes back to the Ramones and the Rich Kids.
eji...@eyex.netcom.com
> On her way to Liverpool, I suppose, to unveil the bronze statue of
> her late husband.
Oh you think you know how to be funny.....
Lizz Holmans
<Blac...@email.msn.com> wrote:
phones too.
>
>
>It all goes back to the Ramones and the Rich Kids.
When we were in NYC two years ago TMIL had to stop to take a picture
of the street sign at 53rd & 3rd.
Lizz 'There's a New Mook in Heaven Tonight' Holmans
Beth Girsch
> On Fri, 15 Mar 2002 08:45:57 +1100, "Beth Girsch"
> <mareks...@beth.com> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >spot on. green day are the monkees of punk
>
> Aw, what an old fogey. Green Day is *fun*.
QED.
> Bad Religion is a much better band, though. Pretentious as hell
> lyrically, but how many bands can boast a Ph.D. candidate in Physics
> at Cornell in their line-up?
i'm sure some bands have actual PhDs in their ranks. that doesnt give them
any cred.
> >
> >>
> >> As for the grunge sound, I'm less sanguine than you are about its
"legs,"
> >seeing
> >> how scarily easy it was for it to be appropriated by the likes of
posers
> >like
> >> Creed.
> >
> >god i hate those MOR bands masquerading as rock acts.
>
> The Younger Imp of Satan likes Creed. I expect he'll get over it.
when i first saw them i thought they had captioned the wrong film clip.
thats how bad they are.
Beth Girsch
plus he had pink plastic clothes.
thats got to count for something.
Lizz Holmans
<mareks...@beth.com> wrote:
>
>> Bad Religion is a much better band, though. Pretentious as hell
>> lyrically, but how many bands can boast a Ph.D. candidate in Physics
>> at Cornell in their line-up?
>
>i'm sure some bands have actual PhDs in their ranks. that doesnt give them
>any cred.
Nick, go retrieve your sense of humor, will ya?
Lizz 'you definitely need more Gwar in your life' Holmans
BlackMonk
>
> >
> >> Bad Religion is a much better band, though. Pretentious as hell
> >> lyrically, but how many bands can boast a Ph.D. candidate in Physics
> >> at Cornell in their line-up?
> >
> >i'm sure some bands have actual PhDs in their ranks. that doesnt give
them
> >any cred.
>
The lead singer of the Chocolate Watchband is an astronomy professor at
Harvard. Their new songs are still awful. They sound great when they do the
old stuff though.
jweb
> The lead singer of the Chocolate Watchband is an astronomy professor at
> Harvard. Their new songs are still awful. They sound great when they do the
> old stuff though.
I assume they still perform "Are You Gonna Be There (At the Love-in)"?
That's my favorite Watchband song. Have you ever purchased any of the
"Nuggets" or "Pebbles" reissues on Rhino Records? They always resurrect
pre-punk groups, and I have a fondness for some of those garage bands.
--
BlackMonk
> > The lead singer of the Chocolate Watchband is an astronomy professor at
> > Harvard. Their new songs are still awful. They sound great when they do
the
> > old stuff though.
>
> I assume they still perform "Are You Gonna Be There (At the Love-in)"?
>
Of course. And they do a pretty good job of it too. Dave's voice is still
there.
There's a live album on ROIR that was recorded at Cavestomp in 99. I was at
that show, but if you look closely at the crowd pictures and see someone who
looks like me, it isn't. I was standing on the other side of the stage.
> That's my favorite Watchband song. Have you ever purchased any of the
> "Nuggets" or "Pebbles" reissues on Rhino Records? They always resurrect
> pre-punk groups, and I have a fondness for some of those garage bands.
>
I've got the box set (also volume 2, which might be more on topic for this
group since Apple considered signing two of the acts on it). I don't have
any of the single album nuggets (That was Rhino's series. They don't have
anything to do with Pebbles. I've got about 12 of those on record and one
CD.)
Beth Girsch
"jb" <jbald...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:jbaldwin223-6BFC...@nnrp06.earthlink.net...
> In article <a6r5g3$uk4$0...@pita.alt.net>,
> "Beth Girsch" <mareks...@beth.com> slagged nirvana, plus:
>
> > spot on. green day are the monkees of punk
> >
> >
> >
> > i'm sure some bands have actual PhDs in their ranks. that doesnt give
them
> > any cred.
> >
> >
> > thats how bad they are.
>
ya reckon?....:)
> are there any post-eighties bands which you -do- respect? cheers.
sure. ( i don't have to list them, do i?)
but really, i think a lot of these corporate-bands-disguised-as-indie-bands
snuck in under the credibiltiy/good taste radar.
Beth Girsch
> In article <a6rnkm$1ek$0...@pita.alt.net>,
> "Beth Girsch" <mareks...@beth.com> wrote:
>
> > > are there any post-eighties bands which you -do- respect? cheers.
> >
> > sure. ( i don't have to list them, do i?)
>
ok ,well its not terribly startling or innovative, i dont pretend to be an
avid chaser of obscure stuff for the sake of it. if i hear a track on the
radio and i like it, i chase it up.
amongs those i have chased, in no particulaur chronological or preferential
order are(some may be from the eighties, i'm not sure of their exact start
and finish times):
gomez
the eels
ween
avalanches
john butler trio
system of a down( i dig their facial hair.:)
the mutton birds
alien ant farm
peppers
pollyanna
faith no more
us3
the hive
you am i
goldfrapp
bad
chem bros.
ani difranco
jebediah
fun lovin criminals( great live show)
ben folds
the living end
Bill
AllYourBaseAreBelongToUs wrote:
>
> To my ears, the Green Day sound owes a lot more to the Ramones, 999, the Dickies
> and Plastique Bertrand than it does to Nirvana. YMMV.
>
> As for the grunge sound, I'm less sanguine than you are about its "legs," seeing
> how scarily easy it was for it to be appropriated by the likes of posers like
> Creed.
>
> interstate5
It's not a matter of grunge having "legs". What you will see happen is
5, 10, 15 years down the road, Nirvana will still be influencing kids to
pick up guitars and playing the drums. And that is where the new music
will come from.
Bill
howldog
<di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Bad Religion is a much better band, though. Pretentious as hell
>lyrically,
the prosecution rests.
howldog
<mareks...@beth.com> wrote:
>
>i'm sure some bands have actual PhDs in their ranks. that doesnt give them
>any cred.
>
exactly. Who gives a shit about yer scary physics knowledge if yer a
fricking guitar player?
Unless you doube as an amp tech maybe.
I think Brian May of Queen is some kinda Astro-physicist or something,
but then again, he CAN actually play well. Very well.
Strabbo
in message news:a6r37...@drn.newsguy.com...
> >
Dickies
> and Plastique Bertrand than it does to Nirvana. YMMV.
I agree.
> As for the grunge sound, I'm less sanguine than you are about its "legs,"
seeing
> how scarily easy it was for it to be appropriated by the likes of posers
like
> Creed.
But that's my point - like the new permutations of it or not (and I, for the
most part, don't), the influence is still felt.
Marty