I was thinking about The Trashcan Sinatras the other day. Now some of you may not even know who they are and some of you may not even care. And perhaps a few of you on here may even already know them and like them. They’re a Scottish indie-pop band who have been around since the late ’80s. As evidenced by the video above for their 1993 single “Hayfever”, they were often tagged in the press as “the poor man’s Smiths”. Of course this isn’t entirely accurate. Sure some of their material bears more than a passing resemblance to that of Morrissey and Marr, but more often than not, it can also resemble bands as diverse as Aztec Camera, Prefab Sprout, The Housemartins (and by extension, The Beautiful South) and Orange Juice while simultaneously forging a unique identity all their own.
After an 8-year hiatus, The Trashcan Sinatras came back in 2004 with the masterful Weightlifting, showing a depth, maturity, and poise that can only come with age and experience. In that way they’re similar to Nick Lowe’s more recent records in that they’re definitely about making music for adults, but not in the generic adult-contemporary sense of the word. Now I know a lot of you dislike The Smiths and other similar artists, but other than going on about the greatness of The Trashcan Sinatras, there’s another, more pressing (and more vital to RTH) question at the heart of this post.
What bands that are generally considered “2nd division” do you like better than those to whom they get compared to? Are you a bigger Undertones fan than a Ramones fan (as I am)? Do you prefer The Kinks or even The Small Faces to the Fab Four or The Stones? Survivor to Journey? I think you see my point here. I look forward to seeing your responses on this topic.
I’m fairly certain I like Teenage Fanclub more than the Byrds. But not as much as Big Star, for what it’s worth.
i’m stealing fritz’ thunder here, i’m sure, but zz was, for a time, labeled as the “poor man’s skynyrd”, but i like zz better.
i know lots of people who, back in the mid to late 90s, would express their love for superchunk by situating them in relation to hüsker dü: “sure”, they’d say, “there wouldn’t be a superchunk without hüsker dü, but i like superchunk’s songs better”.
i like spaceman 3 better than jesus and mary chain, but i’m not so sure that it was ever fair to call the spacemen a poor man’s j&mc, or a j&mc ripoff.
matt, i have a question for you: where you write that, in addition to sounding like the smiths, the trashcan sinatras can sound like bands “as diverse as Aztec Camera, Prefab Sprout, The Housemartins (and by extension, The Beautiful South) and Orange Juice” are you giving them backhanded praise? in the big picture, this doesn’t sound like an all that diverse bunch.
art
Oats wrote:
I’m certain I agree with your math.
I prefer The Minders to Apples in Stereo (and I much prefer Beulah to both.
I prefer reggae as played by bands from the punk/New Wave era to much of Bob Marley’s records (although over the last 6 or 7 years I’ve begun to see the light on Marley’s pre-jahm-heavy material).
I prefer Morrissey to The Smiths. Does that count?
I think this would have to fall into a different category of preferring an artist’s solo work over their more well-regarded previous band or preferring a spin-off band or side project to the main attraction (liking The Postal Service more than Death Cab for Cutie, for instance).
Oh and Art, that wasn’t backhanded praise at all. Sure they’re not the most “diverse” band, but TCS do what they do very, very well. Plus, I really like most of the bands I mentioned that I would regard as “similar artists”.
I’ll take Slobberbone over the vast majority of their alt country peers, hell were they even considered second tier? They might have been third or fourth tier.
I’ll take the Swell Maps over The Fall, and The Sons of Champlin over Jefferson Airplane.
Nice to see you showing some love to the TCS, Matt.
Weightlifting is a gorgeous album, and the bonus dvd is a superb radio session.
Yes, I prefer (in the sense that their work means more to me) the Kinks and the Who to the Beatles. The Stones are somewhere in between.
I also prefer Bob Dylan to Woody Guthrie. (I know, that’s not really the same thing.)
That must be a northeastern perspective. From where I’m sitting Texas boogie and Southern (i.e., Alabama/Georgia/Florida) boogie are totally different animals.
I agree, BigSteve, re: the fundamental difference between Texas boogie and southern rock.
Even I agree re: the fundamental difference. Looks like Art fell prey to the Ol’ Thunder Switch. Those thunderbolts in airports all look the same!
I think I like Micael Damian more than Rick Springfield, BUT IT’S CLOSE!
I’ll take The Specials over The Skatalites and prefer the dub tones of PIL over any of the original dubsters, though that may be a stretch of the category. (Listening to a dub station right now so…)
If this is really true Kevin, then I’m sure you’ll appreciate this link:
http://lostturntable.blogspot.com/2007/02/revised-remix-of-rented-remake.html
wow, this is gloriously bad, thanks Matt, I’m currently forwarding this link to some fellow rock geeks. I hope they love it as much as me.
I’m curious, how did you find this? Random search, or are you a fellow Y & R devotee?
I definitely prefer The Undertones to The Ramones. Not even close.
I also prefer 90’s Aerosmith to 70’s Aerosmtih!
uhhh…yeah, Texas boogie and Southern (i.e., Alabama/Georgia/Florida) boogie different animals.
but they’re not “TOTALLY” different. forest? trees? anybody? beuler?
they’re about as different as all those “diverse bands” matt named.
but that isn’t even the point.
i didn’t say i thought zz and skynyrd played the same kind of music.
I said zz are described as a poor man’s skynyrd (inaccurately, i agree). it’s in some rock book i’ve owned since i was a kid…i’m guessing it’s an old edition of the Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock. Those snobs WOULD slight the zeez, wouldn’t they?
the reasoning went: both are from the south, both came to prominence at about the same time, but one is smaller (more economical) than the other.
snicketty snicketty picketty picketty….nitty nitty pick pick.
That is exactly my point: Texas is not the South. It’s like a whole nother country.
Texas is the south in exactly the way that Philadelphia is an outer borough of New York City.
steve, i’m sorry if i’ve offended your southern sensibilities with my northeastern seaboard ignorance.
but again…i get your point and i’ve already expressed my agreement with it.
i’m just reporting what i read somewhewre about zz being the poor man’s skynyrd, and trying to explain why someone would say that.
i’m not saying it’s correct. but in the context of the topic of this thread, i thought that the characterization of zz as a poor man’s skynyrd was worth bringing up.
i like zz better. so, clearly, i agree with you: casting them in this relation to one another is bullshit.
the southern cultural / demographic quibbles, however, are interesting. and i like the analogy of philly / new york, great 48.
basta…
matt, here’s another one, for you:
in watching the shelved mc5 documentary, we see the stooges characterized as the “baby brother band” to the mc5.
but surely, as much as the mc5 are important for me, personally, i’d be crazy not to acknowledge how many more people there are out there who know the stooges, like them better, and would probably blanche at the idea that the stooges are, in any way, a “little brother” adjunct to their five piece detroit bretheren.
art
New York City is the poor man’s Philadelphia.
Who ever called ZZ Top a poor man’s Skynyrd? It’s not a matter of geography. You need multiple guitarists to be gauged against Skynyrd.
I thought Skynyrd was considered a poor man’s Allman Brothers. In that case, I’ll take the poor man’s Allman Brothers.
I thought Molly Hatchet was the poor man’s Skynyrd. In this case I stick with the wealthier version.
A link to it was posted on the Idolator blog a few days ago. Every day at the end of the day they do a round-up of what the blogs are posting called “Aggregated Assault” and it just happened to come up.
Tom wrote:
Who ever called ZZ Top a poor man’s Skynyrd? It’s not a matter of geography. You need multiple guitarists to be gauged against Skynyrd.
i write:
read the posts, tom. info provided above.
TOWNSWOMEN, I must have an answer to the following Soap Star-as-Rocker question: is there anything remotely attractive about this performance? Try clambering into the 1985 way-back machine and think through it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXO3zOafBYg
Oh, wait — RICK MASSIMO, I must have your thoughts as well!
I look forward to your responses.
Ewwwww! Every detail of that Jack Wagner clip makes me more certain how bad the ’80s were. I also feel ashamed of my race. Even the black guy in that band made me hate white people.
To his credit, Wagner made a tasty little “Take that!” face to his guitar, a few notes into his solo.
Mr. Mod, please deploy quote marks as appropriate here, viz. “his” solo. Or perhaps “his” “solo”.
Thank you.