The Smiths: 30 years since the split and still the best British band ever? - Metro

Discussion in 'General Discussion archive 2017 (read-only)' started by Famous when dead, Sep 21, 2017.

By Famous when dead on Sep 21, 2017 at 10:32 PM
  1. Famous when dead

    Famous when dead Vulgarian Moderator

    Dec 7, 2000
    Birmingham, U.K.
    The Smiths: 30 years since the split and still the best British band ever? - Metro
    By: Alice Wright.

    "If we set out criteria for what makes not just a great band, but one of the best (in my heart I know they ARE the best) then this would be the checklist:
    • Iconic songwriting partnership
    • Revolutionary and original
    • Era and generation defining
    • Legendary live shows
    • Controversial, divisive and memorable
    • Passionate fans
    • Musical longevity
    • Life changing songs
    • Something indefinable
    Which probably just about sums up The Smiths.

    Despite chart success and constant media attention they kept their ‘alternative’ tag – maybe because they were so very different to the glamorous, colourful mainstream 80s music happening at the time – but they were genuine one-offs."

    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 23, 2017
    1. Anonymous
      And then years down the line we found out Steven was nowt but a CrankFruad. :eek:

      #cheap tatty merch shame
      #Kerrygold Dubliner

      Benny-the-British-Butcher :greatbritain::knife:
      • Troll Troll x 5
    2. Anonymous
      the beatles are unarguably the best british band... they sold more, redefined popular music and along the way influenced a generation, lennon in particular touched and changed the minds of the young... although sadly it didn't last. it's not even close people.

      although morrissey was much of the charm of the smiths, he had much less influence and impact on his generation for many reasons... his personality being one, and also he ultimately had much less to really say than lennon. his world view was always very one (or two)-note. so harping on about the royal family and vegetarianism, and very little else for 30 years... made his impact and credibility much less, and not exactly universal. (the wasted years of chug rock and borderline illiterate lyrics hasn't helped either).

      in the sugar coated 'imagine' lennon summed up all that is wrong in the world, and all we have to remove to put it right. in 3 mins.

      morrissey seems much less intelligent in comparison. yes it would be nice to get rid of the royals (but it won't happen) and totally it would be better if the world didn't slaughter animals (also won't happen)... but beyond these issues... what has morrissey really said that is world or generation changing? has he really done or said anything more than prince william to better the world? let's be honest, most of morrissey's utterances are about how the world is unfair to morrissey.

      much of his talk in recent years gets instant derision and shows a very tentative grasp of history, current events, religion, or consensual reality. he thinks he's an intellectual, but shows his poor-education in every utterance...

      at times he reminds me of the kevin kline character in a fish called wanda.

      "Don't call me stupid. Apes don't read philosophy."

      "Yes they do, Otto. They just don't understand it."

      so part of the smiths success.. but ultimately the reason they would never have the same universal impact, love or sales of the beatles (which is probably what M wanted).

      nevertheless... a distant runner up. unless you want to argue that joy division or echo and the bunnymen deserve that second place on the podium?
    3. Anonymous
      I give to say, despite my feelings towards Morrissey now, that's a genuinely odd post to see on a website devoted to a Morrissey and the Smiths.
      • Funny Funny x 1
    4. Anonymous
      Isn't this article onanism of the media ?
      What about the bands that have inspired them ?
      Are the Smiths more important than the Rolling Stones?
      Are the Smiths more important than the Jimi Hendrix Experience band, the Velvet Underground ?

      The Smiths were the most important band of the 1983-1987 era for their fans because their discography is flawless bar the 2 b-sides of Girlfriend. Other people will say that the Jesus and Mary Chain were as magnificent in another dtyle, or even the Cocteau Twins...

      Whatever this is a very poor article of Metro.
    5. Anonymous
      Excellent, thanks.
      Lennon could be bleak, funny, romantic, poetic, mainstream, experimental, raunchy...etc etc and then add the other Beatles...Masters...
    6. Ketamine Sun
      Ketamine Sun
      'yes it would be nice to get rid of the royals'

      why do you think it would be nice to get rid of the royals ? And what kind of impact would it make on the lives of the people of Britain if the royals were removed?

    7. Lustman
      Beatles are great with songs that invent modern pop music... Mick Jagger is great ( but often the rolling stones songs are awful)... Bowie is great... Sex pistols are great... Jam is great... Kinks are great... nick Drake is amazing... Scottish bands are great... Even Prefab sprout is great...

      But the best are the Smiths :thumb:, the perfect mix of all those artists.
    8. celibate
      The Beatles and Rolling Stones were mainstream ,and even created a more passionate,influencial periode in musichistory,with no internet and mobiles, as the 80's

      The Smiths came around in the new wave period, and got in some way back to the Beatles /Rolling Stones way, plus they were far more 'did it on their own',even going to London for a recorddeal, I'v written it a lot, but the Smiths should be forever gratefull to John Peel, as lots of other bands, which he gave airplay, and people going to musicstores asking for songs. The Smiths lead this 80's period, a band who existed 5 year, who still sell their albums, re releases...The Smiths are dead, long live The Smiths
    9. Musician
      Funny, how The Smiths being a "band" or not changes, depends on what fits the agenda of certain fans here. So was Mike Joyce replacable and The Smiths only Morrissey and Marr (or Morrissey only, as the hardcore "bots" reckon)? Then they weren't REALLY a band.

      Even with Lennon/McCartney's dominance, The Beatles were much more a band, with Harrison and Ringo as essential parts. Or Queen, for instance, where some of the biggest hits were written by the drummer and/or the bass player. This list could go on.
    10. gonzax
      The word "british" is unnecessary in that phrase. Best band ever. Period.
    11. Anonymous
      Agreed, on the contribution of george and ringo, but i watched a few smiths live clips the other day and i don't think joyce and rourke were replaceable lawnmower parts. they certainly didn't believe they were. the passion and level of skill far surpasses the lumbering session musicians morrissey and marr currently employ. as things turned out rourke could write music... "Yes I am blind" and you can't help but wonder what he could have contributed if he had been allowed... but wasn't the smiths music strictly marr's domain? the band setup seemed like joyce and rourke couldn't contribute a tune here or there if they'd wanted?
      • Interesting Interesting x 1
    12. Anonymous
      i think moz has exhaustively covered the pros and cons of the monarchy. i don't think i can add anything more to his argument. he is correct-it's an anachronism, and astonishing in a modern age we pay for and look up to people just because of luck of birth. i guess where morrissey loses me (and most of the population) is when he blames all the world's ills on the queen, prince william, charles etc ... and everything relates back to them, and that's moving into crank on corner territory... and ultimately undermines his (very real) objections.
      • Interesting Interesting x 1
    13. Anonymous
      The Smiths are alright, but let's face it - they ain't a patch on The Wurzels.

Share This Page