The Clash vs The Stranglers
Moderator: StanInBlack
Re: The Clash vs The Stranglers
They are part 2 of my triumvirate of overrate.
3 bands who I can never understand why they generate such adulation with such patchy output.
(1) The Stones
(2) The Clash
(3) Primal Scream
3 bands who I can never understand why they generate such adulation with such patchy output.
(1) The Stones
(2) The Clash
(3) Primal Scream
From Glasgow, the centre of Stranglermania (copyright Strangled 1982)
Re: The Clash vs The Stranglers
I agree about Primal Scream I just don't get them and I find their lead singer so annoying, people should never criticise Mr Roberts after Primal Screams lead singers stage antics, but again its personal opinion. Lt Kudu.
Re: The Clash vs The Stranglers
Never said it was. We were talking about Jets business sense compared to Rhodes.Lots of money isn't the only measure of success.
Being a successful musician is probably someone who doesn't have to rely on anything else to make money. Being a better business person is one that makes the most money.
Re: The Clash vs The Stranglers
I can't argue with that list. I think Bowie gets forgiven for a lot of dodgy output too.
- StanInBlack
- Man Of The Earth
- Posts: 5601
- Joined: 04 Apr 2002, 10:30
- Location: Durham, England.
Re: The Clash vs The Stranglers
Vanishing Point and XTRMNTR are excellent albums. I prefer Primal Scream when they make abrasive art-rock albums rather than when they self-conscious ape early '70s Rolling Stones. That you don't "get" them surprises me none.
- StanInBlack
- Man Of The Earth
- Posts: 5601
- Joined: 04 Apr 2002, 10:30
- Location: Durham, England.
Re: The Clash vs The Stranglers
The Rolling Stones' adulation is based on being an excellent singles band up until 1968 until briefly turning into an excellent albums band from 1968-1972. From 1972-1981 they were at best brilliant and at worst shite and they probably should have split up after Tattoo You and "Start Me Up", because the albums were just an excuse to tour after that point and none of them are particularly any good in full.
Re: The Clash vs The Stranglers
Do I care about what you think of anything about me no i dont. Lt KuduStanInBlack wrote: ↑18 Mar 2022, 23:45Vanishing Point and XTRMNTR are excellent albums. I prefer Primal Scream when they make abrasive art-rock albums rather than when they self-conscious ape early '70s Rolling Stones. That you don't "get" them surprises me none.
Re: The Clash vs The Stranglers
Wrong again, the Reason is they are still a fantastic live band and have the greatest frontman ever, and people love their music. You seem to think your views are above everyone else's, wrong again.I suppose they are Jagger and friends now without Mr Watts.He gave his blessing for the Stones to continue as did Jet. Lt Kudu.StanInBlack wrote: ↑18 Mar 2022, 23:49The Rolling Stones' adulation is based on being an excellent singles band up until 1968 until briefly turning into an excellent albums band from 1968-1972. From 1972-1981 they were at best brilliant and at worst shite and they probably should have split up after Tattoo You and "Start Me Up", because the albums were just an excuse to tour after that point and none of them are particularly any good in full.
- StanInBlack
- Man Of The Earth
- Posts: 5601
- Joined: 04 Apr 2002, 10:30
- Location: Durham, England.
Re: The Clash vs The Stranglers
Yes, the Stones' reputation is entirely built on their live act in 2022 and not based on songs like "(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction", "Paint It Black", "Jumpin' Jack Flash", "Honky Tonk Women", "Brown Sugar" and/or albums like Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers and Exile On Main Street. Only in your world, obviously.Greatkudu wrote: ↑19 Mar 2022, 09:38Wrong again, the Reason is they are still a fantastic live band and have the greatest frontman ever, and people love their music. You seem to think your views are above everyone else's, wrong again.I suppose they are Jagger and friends now without Mr Watts.He gave his blessing for the Stones to continue as did Jet. Lt Kudu.StanInBlack wrote: ↑18 Mar 2022, 23:49The Rolling Stones' adulation is based on being an excellent singles band up until 1968 until briefly turning into an excellent albums band from 1968-1972. From 1972-1981 they were at best brilliant and at worst shite and they probably should have split up after Tattoo You and "Start Me Up", because the albums were just an excuse to tour after that point and none of them are particularly any good in full.
Re: The Clash vs The Stranglers
You don't know my world, never presume. Lt Kudu. Over and out.StanInBlack wrote: ↑19 Mar 2022, 11:59Yes, the Stones' reputation is entirely built on their live act in 2022 and not based on songs like "(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction", "Paint It Black", "Jumpin' Jack Flash", "Honky Tonk Women", "Brown Sugar" and/or albums like Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers and Exile On Main Street. Only in your world, obviously.Greatkudu wrote: ↑19 Mar 2022, 09:38Wrong again, the Reason is they are still a fantastic live band and have the greatest frontman ever, and people love their music. You seem to think your views are above everyone else's, wrong again.I suppose they are Jagger and friends now without Mr Watts.He gave his blessing for the Stones to continue as did Jet. Lt Kudu.StanInBlack wrote: ↑18 Mar 2022, 23:49
The Rolling Stones' adulation is based on being an excellent singles band up until 1968 until briefly turning into an excellent albums band from 1968-1972. From 1972-1981 they were at best brilliant and at worst shite and they probably should have split up after Tattoo You and "Start Me Up", because the albums were just an excuse to tour after that point and none of them are particularly any good in full.
- StanInBlack
- Man Of The Earth
- Posts: 5601
- Joined: 04 Apr 2002, 10:30
- Location: Durham, England.
Re: The Clash vs The Stranglers
I don't need to presume anything. I know your viewpoint on the Stones is very comfortably a minority opinion. A minority of one at that.Greatkudu wrote: ↑19 Mar 2022, 12:03You don't know my world, never presume. Lt Kudu. Over and out.StanInBlack wrote: ↑19 Mar 2022, 11:59Yes, the Stones' reputation is entirely built on their live act in 2022 and not based on songs like "(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction", "Paint It Black", "Jumpin' Jack Flash", "Honky Tonk Women", "Brown Sugar" and/or albums like Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers and Exile On Main Street. Only in your world, obviously.Greatkudu wrote: ↑19 Mar 2022, 09:38
Wrong again, the Reason is they are still a fantastic live band and have the greatest frontman ever, and people love their music. You seem to think your views are above everyone else's, wrong again.I suppose they are Jagger and friends now without Mr Watts.He gave his blessing for the Stones to continue as did Jet. Lt Kudu.
- strangledinAuch
- The Man They Love To Hate
- Posts: 749
- Joined: 08 Mar 2014, 21:59
- Location: South West France
Re: The Clash vs The Stranglers
I'm old enough to have seen the Clash live back in the day
And I have to say,they were stonkingly good
Probably my 2nd favourite band up until London Calling
But quite some distance behind the Stranglers
And I have to say,they were stonkingly good
Probably my 2nd favourite band up until London Calling
But quite some distance behind the Stranglers
See You At The Bar