I was listening to some of my favorite rockin’ Mott the Hoople songs today – early period stuff like “Death May Be Your Santa Claus”, “Walkin’ With a Mountain”, and “Rock ‘n Roll Queen”, and I got to thinking about artists who do much more than could be expected with the little bit they’ve got. No offense to Ian Hunter and his fine, rockin’ mates, but with the exception of the Bowie-penned “All the Young Dudes”, “Roll Away the Stone”, and maybe one or two other songs, Mott the Hoople made their career on exactly two types of songs:
1) The bashing guitar rocker that goes, more or less, from an A chord to a D chord
2) The late-night, cry-in-your beer piano ballad that goes, more or less, from an A chord to a D chord
Hunter yelps out essentially the same tune for both types of songs, and his raucous lyrics are humorous but often hard to follow. They round it out with some shit-hot Chuck Berry-based guitar, fat bass, the organ from “Like a Rolling Stone”, piano, occasional horns, and chugging drums. At the heart of almost every Mott the Hoople song are Hunter’s one melody, his boisterous approach to singing, and two chords. Does any other artist do more – and I mean MORE (no “less is more” types allowed in this thread, like Jonathan Richman) with less? The Replacements are along the same lines, but I don’t get as much “more” out of their music. I’m looking for artists with a very narrow range who managed to squeeze more out of their limited talents than most more widely talented musicians have been able to do. Ah, here’s another good one: AC/DC. That’s right, the elusive simplicity of rock ‘n roll!
Ah, a bread and stout question.
The idea that “narrow range” equals “less talent,” which this post doesn’t state but implies, is of course questionable. Some highly talented artists do more or less the same thing their whole careers, deepening their initial impulses, while other talented artists go for range. Needless to say, there are pitfalls to either approach.
But I’ll let your question stand in all its fuzziness. Black Sabbath may very well do more within its limits than Mott; a judgement call. How about Skynyrd? Would they count as “talented” here? The Ramones probably do a little less than Mott, but the comparison isn’t unreasonable. Psychedelic Furs also give Mott a definite run for their money. Are the Stooges “talented”? If not, they do a hell of a lot with a very few tunes. Sex Pistols? Hell, they kind of suck, and they blew rock and roll to pieces.
Because by now, see, I don’t even know what you mean by “more.” More better songs? Or just more effect on rock and roll?
AC/DC, like them or not, are pretty predigiously talented, I would say.
Mwall, first of all, I’m not judging “talent.” The fact is, Mott is a 2-trick pony, and they rode that pony as well as possible. I’m also not intending to make this a competition, you know, “Bo Diddley did more of more with less of less than your suggestion,” although it’s understandable that we’d get into this territory. I will, however, try to weed out artists who don’t exactly fit my half-assed criteria. Black Sabbath? I don’t know. Musically they kept within a narrow range, but didn’t they try to invoke Satan and stuff like that? I’d say that’s pretty ambitious. Same with the Sex Pistols, their sole album, and their anarchy stuff.
The Ramones definitely fit, although they were consciously doing more with less, so maybe they verge on that Jonathan Richman thing.
Skynyrd had 3 lead guitarists, no? That’s more with more. The fact that they (and anyone else) has talent is not an issue. Trust me on that.
By “more” I meant More Essence of Rock. More of that pimply faced, teenage boner stuff Epluribus and Hrrundi imagine themselves being the last men on earth to appreciate. More of what makes any of us drum on the steering wheel, raise a beer-soaked fist, what have you. More, but with less devices, shall we say. Talent or lack thereof does not matter. More rock ‘n roll with the use of not much more than two stones. I hope that’s clearer.
After Mr. Mod’s first post I thought “Marc Bolan / T. Rex”. After his clarifying second post I state definitively “MARC BOLAN / T. REX”.
Okay, that helps. But you did say “limited talents.” And I thought for sure it was a competition!
Leaving aside Bo Diddley, you bring up another obvious answer: Chuck Berry. Only one stone, but the whole ball of wax when it comes to the “essence of rock.”
Fifties rock: one stone. Sixties rock: two stones. Enter three stones, and rock’s already on the way out.
But let’s say we’re not talking about the fifties. And I’ll leave aside too the fact that Sabbath rarely talks about anything OTHER than Satan, and still gets away with it: talk about doing a lot with one really bad stone. The Psychedelic Furs still come very close here: three solid albums and some other good tunes, and almost every single one the same.
Still, given your criteria, I would almost say yes, Mott the Hoople best meets the criteria you suggested they meet when you developed the criteria to suggest that they were the ones that best met the criteria that they best meet.
But how about Graham Parker? Or Doug Sahms?
Seriously, though, this is a really great question, despite the fact that it doesn’t make much sense if you look at it too closely.
Neil Young & Crazy Horse.
Doug Sahm, The Psychedelic Furs, T-Rex, and yes, even Neil Young & Crazy Horse do the trick for me. I like the way BigSteve specified “& Crazy Horse”. Although I love Graham Parker and his range of devices is limited, he spends a lot of time working on his personal mythology when he could be doing more rocking with all that less he’s got.
Mwall, once again, I’m sorry that I gave the impression that there was competition involved here. You know that’s not in my nature.
How about The Saints, a band with an extremely limited arsenal and range that put out 3 or 4 in-your-face albums before going the way of Graham Parker minus The Rumour?
It doesn’t usually result in steering-wheel thumping, but the artist I always thought wrote the book on using your less is Eno. He can’t play much, and has a very limited vocal range, and a poetically unadventurous lyric sense. And the hired guns he brings in usually rein it in in terms of heavy chops use.
I’ve also been listening to a lot of Mott lately, and Rock from that era. I found a Uriah Heep CD in a crappy mall store for cheap, and it’s been very entertaining. They are in the more with less vein as well.
I think Sabbath definitely fits the bill, too, because singing about Satan, somewhat uninventively isn’t “cheating” on the less. Any more than singing about the Glory of Rock, or about Girls.
I think the Ramones don’t fit, because they used less to make less. The more can take the form of any kind of expanse: sonic, sweep of gestural sound, *effective* poetry and lyric power, what have you.
I know some of you wait for me to say it, but there’s Kiss. Now, listen, come on. Don’t say that! Here’s why. No one can argue their bountiful supply of “less.” But from the makeup out, they’re all about more. Their live shows were always about a mythical level hugeness, achieved with meagre resources (musically.) And their records never acknowledge their lessness.
How about Gary Numan? creating a whole paranoid futuristic dreary world propelles by four note mid-tempo riffs without solos, or chopsery of any kind.
And in that vein, has anyone mentioned Joy Division? Boy, they’ve got less in spades. And there is something huge and evocative in their almost-no-material. Not like the Fall, because Mark E. Smith’s lyrics count as “more” I think. I think it may not work for Mr. Mod, being a far cry away from Mott, in so many ways, but valid.
The Stooges fit my criteria, especially on the first two albums.
Good stuff, by the way, General. I’m not sure that Eno qualifies however, because his studio gimmickry was a big “more,” don’t you think? He’s to the studio like Hendrix was to the guitar.
Eno is definitely a more, creating, or at least codifying, whole genres and attitudes of sound. He’s an architect. Mott weren’t anywhere near that and in fact their ethos was a lot closer to the 50’s, or at least the Rolling Stones. Mott are the guys installing the sheet rock and then going out for some beers.
My guess is they went out for stout, and had a tasty hunk of hard bread along with it. Serious healthfoods.
Once we’re on the sheet rock metaphor though, how about Motorhead?
If this were a competition, Mwall, Motorhead would pull into the lead.
Can Motorhead really be included? Heavy Metal is a really restrictive genre, where most bands probably “make it” on the strength of one album, and fade into oblivion because the next one doesn’t grow in the right direction at the right speed, or it’s just more of the same. Fickle fans, those guys.
Kiss ws my first thought. Not a lot of musical talent, but marketing genius (other bands have been marketing creations, but none has had a career one tenth as long as Kiss). The make up even gave them the opportunity o replace key members and even age without upsetting the fan base. They even endured their “New Coke” idea of dropping the make up. Maybe they aren’t the only ones, but they’re certainly the most enduring.
I’d like to toss Uriah Heep in there, too. But more in line with the Mott the Hoople comparison. And while I’m at it, Deep Purple. Both are one trick ponies, but when they pull the trick off, it’s a pretty good trick.
2K sez:
And while I’m at it, Deep Purple. Both are one trick ponies, but when they pull the trick off, it’s a pretty good trick.
DP crossed my mind as well, but my immediate thought was that they made more with more. Every player in their best kine ups was kick ass in his own right, and some great songwriting, especially instrumentally. And I’d say they were at least two-and-a-half trick ponies. From “In Rock” through “Burn” they covered some varied ground.
Vox suggests:
Eno is definitely a more, creating, or at least codifying, whole genres and attitudes of sound. He’s an architect.
I totally see where you and Mod are coming from with this, but I still maintain, Eno did the things you suggest, but he did them with less! He’s got no chops on any instrument or on vocals, and though he grew into a great producer, he wasn’t a studio wizard from the get-go. He turned his moderate inventiveness toward the studio, which no one else was doing. And that could be a “more.” But I have spent 30 years taking inspiration from his less-ness and can’t give that up. It’s true that using the I-Ching and his flash card system to make songs was brilliant, but then he never used that system to create anything more complex or highbrow. It was still mostly music anybody could play.
And for those who feel they made “more,” the Byrds fit. For many of us, they made less with less. But if you like that stuff, clearly not many bands had less to start with.
One that keeps insisting itself to me, too, is the Band. I do love their music, but to have seen the interview sections of Last Waltz before hearing them, I would not have laid odds on that!