Aug 252009
Townsman mrclean suggested a thread on polarizing bands. So here it is. He suggested Barbara Manning. I offer up The Smiths.
What say you?
Townsman mrclean suggested a thread on polarizing bands. So here it is. He suggested Barbara Manning. I offer up The Smiths.
What say you?
I think the Smiths are incredibly polarizing. Honestly I think they represent a cultural revolution (for better or worse, depending what side of it you’re on) in the idea not so much of rock and roll itself but the idea of the rock and roll fan.
On the one side, the drug-taking, rowdy, fun-loving, sometimes even politically revolutionary hell-raising that was still rock and roll even into the days not only of punk also of post-punk American bands like The Minutemen or Replacements.
On the other side, the rock fan as sensitive, misunderstood loner looking for a group music identity to give meaning to a world in which he/she has been abused, left out, abandoned by a cold, ruthless capitalism that has no room left for imagination or dreams. Concern for the environment (rock and roll shows leave huge carbon footprints, you know), diet, childhood, gender-bending and the tender outcast.
I’m maybe oversimplifying a bit (and having some fun doing it), but I think you get the point. The Smiths are polarizing because they cause a big rift in the idea of who the music is for.
And all these issues are reflected in their sound, quite literally. It makes some people immediately cringe and others go, “Finally something I can relate to.”
Yes, The Smiths may be the most polarizing band that I can think of. They mystify me for their lack of both rhythmic and melodic pulses that I can tune into.
KISS was pretty polarizing in their time. To this day they really bug me.
GBV polarized people.
Can’t top Mwall’s excellent analysis of the Smiths appeal, but I’d say XTC are pretty polarizing, too. Those who require at least a bit of “animality” in their rock can’t stand the thought of their overtly sanitized music; closeted Kentonites who can’t get enough meticulous, tuneful songcraft see them as the second coming.
The argument goes something like this:
XTC fan: hey, you like catchy, well-written songs. Check THIS out!
XTC non-fan: man, turn that shit OFF! That’s the blandest, most soul-less shit I’ve ever heard!
The fact that the XTC non-fan actually *does* like catchy songs causes the XTC fan much head-scratching.
Frank Zappa! Does anyone like Zappa “just a bit?”
I like Zappa just a bit.
Mmm, so much for that theory! I still think Zappa would qualify for polarizing though, right?
I like Zappa a very small bit. Actually like him more than Beefheart post Milk. I also like GBV a bit. Dont’ love or hate either.
I didn’t like the Smiths at all, then it clicked. It helped that around the time I started liking them was around when Morrissey started singing more in tune.
I know nobody knows them, but in my experience the group (mostly one guy) sElf is polarizing. I say this because when I play it for people I get two reactions:
1. “This is cool stuff!”
2. “This is giving me a headache.”
ELO
Steely Dan
[I had no idea this was a rule “You can only post a new comment every 30 seconds.”]
I would agree that Zappa is polarizing, although I like him a bit.
But is Zappa more polarizing than prog rock taken as a whole genre? Prog rock is polarizing.
Um, Phish is the most polarizing band I know of.
The Hold Steady
People fucking love them.
I can’t stand them.
(although I heard Craig Finn interviewed and thought he sounded like a very fine fellow…but sorry, I left after Art Brut opened for you at the TLA. I was home before you played a note).
Maybe this also has something to do with my hatred of Bruce…
I love most of these bands
Steely Dan, Zappa, XTC, Smiths
Smiths are even polarizing among the “alternative music” crowd, in a way that REM, Pixies, etc are not.
The Smiths. I absolutely loved The Smiths. It is still true I think that my friend Bonner and I remain the only Australians to ever interview Morrissey, which we did by phone from Perth, Western Australia, when their first album came out in (gulp) 1984.
It would be fair to say that I listened to The Smiths every day for five years. I guess I was that *sensitive* vegetarian outsider so sharply spotted by mwall.
But why? I’d say that for me, The Smiths named those things in the world and in life that needed naming. They were not afraid of confrontation. It is a very English mindset that Morrissey was fighting against, and perhaps that class antagonism doesn’t translate so easily in America (you’re a classless society, right? everyone is free and equal…no?).
The political attitudes were reflected in everything they did: the name, the clothing, gender ambivalence, the plain speaking and the accents. Strictly northern and not Thatcher’s prosperous south-east England. At one level quite conservative, but a stance that was also starkly opposite to England’s eighties pop. The Queen is Dead, Margaret on the Guillotine. It was a genuine revolt into style. I think there is something uncompromisingly punk about The Smiths.
Morrissey was/is not without a sense of humour. Marr’s guitar playing was peerless: melodic, crunchy, and always holding tight against the lyric. The Smiths were a great singles band. As great as The Kinks? Hmmm, maybe. Need to go away and think about that. But their output and the sustained quality of their records is astounding. The recent double CD of singles and b-sides is a good picture of what they achieved. Which was to make the humdrum towns the site of drama, conflict and passion.
I also agree that The Smiths were polar opposites to the American hardcore (?) bands — which I absolutely hated. I just didn’t get that. But worse for me were the ‘grunge’ bands that followed. Jeez. Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, etc, etc. What I hated was how shabby and retrograde the whole enterprise was…absolutely no taste or style at all. A movement that seemed to me boring in its hedonism and reactionary in its aesthetic. No, me and that period of American music didn’t get on. At all.
Good stuff, mikeydread! And yes, we’re completely free, equal, and without class, or at least the last bit:)
Grunge was polarizing here in the US too. I’m with you on that stuff.
The Dead.
I suppose The Smiths polarize me. I can’t stand them, and I can’t stand Morrissey, either. At least The Cure did whiny, “no one understands me and I cry a lot” with some panache. Not much, but some.
Tha band I always find myself on the wrong side of the fence with is Led Zeppelin. I just never understand their ponderous appeal, and everyone I know loves them.
There are two types of people: Those who like Neil Diamond and those who don’t.
Seriously, I’ve never been a Smiths or Morrissey fan and I believe that mwall has hit upon a great theory. One of my best friends loves Morrissey for the same reasons I’m no fan. I like good old rawk.
TB
I just like the way the Smiths’ records sound. The racket Marr and the rhythm section cook up would be great even if all they had was a tuneless, narcissistic whiner as vocalist.
I really like the concept of the carbon footprint of rock. I’m hoping RTH labs can flesh out the concept a bit and perhaps submit some samples for testing.
Oh, and why would Barbara Manning be polarizing?
The Cure may belong in this conversation as well.. I can’t stand them personally.. they seem to be some peoples entire life
I think jungleland may have tapped into something with his assessment of The Cure and their fans.
I’m a NASCAR fan. I’m from the South and it’s in my bloodline. Dale Earnhardt, Jr. is easily one of the most popular drivers in the sport. To hear his fans (mostly inherited from his father), he is the greatest thing to ever wheel a racecar. Here’s the thing: He hasn’t won crap. He’s never won a championship. He’s only won one race in the past three seasons. He drives for one the finest teams in the sport (Hendrick) and has yet to produce. I honestly feel that he is the most overrated driver in the sport. But, because of his popularity and the legions of fans, he is a worthy investment for any team owner and sponsor (which is what ultimatley makes the sport go). I like Dale. I think he’s an okay guy and seems pretty down to earth. But his fans can be the most obnoxious group of people at the track. Most are unaware of his (lack of) accomplishments and simply cheer him on as they follow the sport marginally. I’m this is case in any sport.
My point/question is this: Is there a band who may be okay but their fans make it almost unbearable to claim them? Or whose fans make you ashamed to admit that you like them? AC/DC?
TB
The Dead
Nice answer to this question, shawnkilroy:
Not rock ‘n roll, but I feel this way about the Red Sox, post-2004. All those WASPy lawyer types in East Coast cities who walk around with those stone-washed, super-curved-brim Red Sox hats make me want to hate the current team I respect and actually kind of like and always liked a lot when they were solid runners up in the ’70s. If the Phils continue to win and become a nationally beloved team I truly hope their marketing department resists the urge to produce stone-washed, super-curved-brim editions of their hat. I think it’s post-2004 Red Sox fans that made me embrace the “flat-brim” Look that former Nationals reliever Chad Cordero tried to launch a few years ago.
Would it help the nay-sayers if I mentioned that the teenage Johnny Marr was a huge Rory Gallagher fan?
No, I didn’t think so.
Wake up, Modman, you’re dreaming. Those two things don’t exactly go together.
AC/DC fans are exactly who I want to see at a concert. The 2008 shows had the crowd on their feet for the entire show (even the new songs), nobody on their cell phone, nobody texting, people bought t-shirts at the venue and put them on over the shirt they wore, knew the words to all the songs (again,even the new ones) and didn’t talk through the guitar solos
Certainly the Grateful Dead are one of those bands that people say they might have liked if not for their unbearable fans.
That’s awesome, jungleland. I’ve got 3rd row tickets for AC/DC in New Orleans in October. I’m pumped. We’ll be so close that we’ll be looking up Angus’s shorts.
AC/DC is one of my favorite bands. I was only offering up their fans as an example of the type of fan who has the potential to be obnoxious enough to turn you off when claiming them. I, myself, have never once denied my love for the band, particularly Bon Scott-era.
Plus, your story pumps me up even more!
TB
mikeydread, I don’t care if Johnny Marr was the messiah. I never understood what all the fuss was about that guy’s guitar playing, but trying to listen to The Smiths with an open mind a few years ago made me realize that he’s good at a certain jangly style of playing that just isn’t my cup of tea. What I learned the last time I tried listening to The Smiths and Morrissey is that I MUCH prefer Morrissey’s solo records. The guitar and drum rhythms show a dedication to a rock ‘n roll backbeat, and the songs have better-defined angles, forcing Morrissey’s vocals to work within a rhythmic pulse. My dislike of The Smiths from the first time I heard them to this day has nothing to do with macho, homophobic, party-hearty, meat-eating nonsense, which I know Mwall was joking about to some extent. It’s always been about what I perceive as a lack of CENTER in their music.
Good story about those AC/DC fans, by the way!
Good story about those AC/DC fans, by the way!
I can’t remember having a better TIME at a concert
WE had a pre-show party, got in my sister in laws mini-van (no child seats -she uses this to haul her drums to gigs)got on the train full of AC/DC fans and stepped into the arena just as they were about to start. Also helps that I had killer seats (section 104 just to the side but higher than the floor)
..and we listened to the new Motorhead on the way there to get us even more pumped up
Randy Newman? Or do people not dislike him?
Mod, Morrissey’s musical leanings are naturally very glam, big riffy guitars. I can get with that too. It certainly can work really, really well live. That’s very interesting about the need to work within a pulse. Definitely makes sense. Perhaps the early songs were steered by a confessional impulse that pushed the structures out of shape.
Yes, cher, I know from experience that Randy Newman can be quite polarizing. As with many other artists, though, I’ve come a long way. Now I can handle him in small doses and hear the songs for what they are despite that voice.
tom waits
Tom Waits for no one.
Sorry about that.
I’m actually just now getting aboard the Tom Waits train. I really like the stuff I’ve heard so far, but I want to take my time and digest each record on its own. In other waords, it might take me twenty years to hear all the Tom Waits stuff because it is alot to digest.
TB
I didn’t know anyone hated Tom Waits; I like him to an extent and at the same time I’ve found him easy to ignore.
Although I do believe that “The Queen is Dead” is a true masterpiece, I’ve never been able to understand all the adulation for Johnny Marr’s supposed guitar-heroics. I jus’ don’t hear it!
I certainly can’t put him in a class with Hendrix, Beck or even David Gilmour for that matter. I guess that whole jangle-pop style of playing just doesn’t do it for me.
Oohh, and I too prefer Morrissey’s solo stuff. Like way moreso.