dando, Appreciate the attempt here but you would have been better off to do Floyd vs. The Kinks or even The Ramones (talk about polar opposites!) I agree completely with you that music is subjective and a matter of taste, but you might be the only person outside of relatives in the Smithereens band that thinks "A Girl Like You" or any of their other songs are better than anything that Floyd did.
Well, then how come, at this point, The Smithereens have a higher percentage against Pink Floyd than The Who does against Led Zeppelin? I purposely picked a group that's not as famous as The Kinks and The Ramones. I knew that some, or many, or all would come on here and have a "how dare he" attitude because it's the mighty Floyd. Now, I say all this as a huge Floyd fan, so I don't want to come across as criticizing them- it's more of a devil's advocate thing. But there are many individuals who find Floyd's music boring, slow, etc. Music does not have to be epic in length and structure to be great. Songwriters themselves will tell you that it was harder to write some of the more simple songs than the epics. So, I don't look at a song like Stairway to Heaven or Free Bird and rate them #1 and #2 based on their length and complexity. I'll rate a song like Satisfaction from the Stones or She Loves You from The Beatles just as high, if not higher, than those. Doesn't mean I don't appreciate those songs- L.A. Woman from The Doors is one of my all-time faves. But it just means that the criteria shouldn't be song length, complexity, the reputation of the group, etc. And the Smithereens have a song called Strangers When We Meet that I feel is one of the best pop songs ever written- I felt that way when I first heard it back in 1987 and I still feel that way. And I would definitely choose it for a Desert Island CD disc over any song from Floyd. Now, Floyd would be on there- personal faves are Dogs, the 2nd song off Meddle- the one that talks about the eiderdown of clouds or something like that- Brain Damage, Nobody Home, Run Like Hell, Fletcher Memorial Home, Sheep (heck, all of Animals- that CD is something else), and the whole Brick in the Wall suite. But Strangers is my favorite song among any either group wrote; I've got a definite case to state for The Smithereens being a better band, having more of my favorite songs, and a personal favorite. I've got a case to state for Pink Floyd being a better collection of musicians, putting out better albums, writing somewhat better lyrics, and creating songs of more complexity. That's just me- I prefer I Wanna Be Sedated to Kashmir, Any Way You Want It to Free Bird, and Rocks Off (from the Stones) to Hotel California.
It is a higher percentage because you got people who are voting AGAINST Floyd, not because they think The Smithereens are a great band. Floyd is definitely more polarizing of a band than Zeppelin. And honestly, if you look at Floyd, the only above average musician in the group, IMO, was Gilmour. Rick Wright has a case but you wonder how strong of a musician he was to have Waters fire him. As much as Waters argued with Gilmour, even he wasn't dumb enough to fire him. Waters and Mason were an average rhythm section at best. Could you imagine Floyd with Gilmour and Wright and having Entwistle and Moon as their rhythm section? The problem would be obviously no one in that foursome is a strong songwriter (Entwistle comes close but that is about it). But the point is that Floyd had some of the best chemistry any band could have outside of The Rolling Stones (another group that didn't have the most sterling of musicians, IMO). That chemistry is what made them special, obviously.
I guess I should stop here- I'm just- I think the whole chemistry thing is overdone. I mean, what does that exactly mean?? I could listen to 100 different bands and say that they all have good chemistry. It's easy to say why Pink Floyd is great- they mastered the art of dynamics in their music, they created concept albums, sonically there were and are miles ahead of most groups, no one used sound effects in music like them, and the whole crazy, demented persona in albums like The Wall and Animals struck a chord with people. Chemistry? They recorded all those parts separately, so I don't know if it's chemistry so much as it is they mastered the studio (well, and Alan Parson was a big reason). I really think chemistry comes into play more live- and that's when you look at groups like The E Street Band, The Smithereens, The Ramones, REM, Cheap Trick, Live, The Red Hot Chili Peppers, and The Who. Here's what Pink Floyd did as far as live that I distinctly remember. They were the only artist that made the Astrodome sound great. Every other group I've seen in the Dome- The Who, Michael Jackson, U2, the Texas Jam concerts- the sound was bad. Somehow, P.F. managed to make that sound like an arena rather than a stadium (this was the Delicate Sound of Thunder tour, I think), and that was their main accomplishment, as it's always been with them. Tight playing? Eh, that's not what people love about the Floyd. But, hey, to each his own. I do agree on Animals- I like that one in particular because I think it's as close to a rocking album as any they've put out (I heard that Waters was tuning in to some of the punk music at the time and it did have a bit of an influence in the harder edge of songs like Pigs 3 Different Ones and Sheep). Plus, I'm a big Orwell fan, so that's another plus.
You don't understand how someone who prefers faster, harder music with more of a pop feel could like the Smithereens more than Pink Floyd? Or The Ramones more than Led Zeppelin? Or The Pretenders more than Rush? Makes complete sense to me. That's the beef I have with putting certain bands up on a pedestal. Some people just aren't into progressive rock, that's all. And it's not like I picked a cornball or prefabricated artist like The Bay City Rollers or New Kids on the Block. The Smithereens are a great, great band with 6 excellent, underrated studio albums who I happen to like SLIGHTLY more than Floyd. And that's the same, as well, for anyone who prefers any band to The Beatles- you're gonna get the "are you kidding????" response from most.
Yes, true. But you also have Roxy Music in your top 10 favorites and as many people know about The Smithereens as they do about Roxy Music. Yet, I bet if people asked whether you preferred The Beatles or Roxy Music, you'd say the latter and duck when the inevitable s**tstorm of negative feedback came your way.
No: The Rolling Stones vs. The J. Geils Band Led Zeppelin vs. The Black Crowes Rush vs. Alice in Chains The Eagles vs. Buffalo Springfield The Beatles vs. Elvis Costello and the Attractions It's time to tear down the rock giants! J/K, but seriously, the standard comparisons get old- I'd like to see some new, outside-the-box polls that give credence to some of these underrated bands.
I was just having a little fun with the comment. To be honest with you, that's the great thing I love about music, it does different things to different people. If you like the Smithereens more, I actually respect that. I'm def not a music snob, I love so many kinds of music, just depends on the mood I'm in. Not everyone should feel the same, it would be very boring. Like I said I was just having a little fun with the play on words more than anything, it just wasn't all that funny. Glad you stayed true to how you feel, makes me respect it that much more.
Oh, hey, I love The Call. And really, to be fair, I expected people to say, "The Smithereens vs. Floyd- now THAT'S a fair comparison- NOT!" But it just goes to show that it's like, don't dare compare a marginally popular band with a recognized all-time great. I like REM SLIGHTLY more than The Beatles. Just my own personal preference. Yet, I'd be called all sorts of names by a large majority just because I DARED to compare anybody but maybe The Stones or Zeppelin against them. I mean, at least my comparison was reasonable. Just think of it, there are millions of young people out there who think Justin Bieber is way better than The Beatles. Wow.
Whether or not I agree with the REM/Beatles thing, it doesn't really matter, I totally get it. I could name several bands that I like and tell you the first time I heard them and was hooked. Not sure if you were old enough while the Beatles were pumping out music, but if not, it makes sense to dig REM more. You were there to share it with them. Let's hope those millions of young people that like Bieber, only do so because they don't quite fully think for themselves yet.
Born in 1967, the Summer of Love- but my first exposure to music was AM radio in the early 70s, so I had a steady diet of "Delta Dawn," "Tie a Yellow Ribbon," "Hooked on a Feeling," "The Night Chicago Died," etc. They did play a lot of Beatles as well as of course all their solo stuff. Another thing that boggles the mind is: what if the Beatles didn't break up until, say, 1980 instead of 1970? Just think, the CD would be: THE BEATLES GREATEST HITS: 1970-1980 1. Imagine 2. Band on the Run 3. Mind Games 4. My Sweet Lord 5. Let Em In 6. Instant Karma 7. Jet 8. What Is Life 9. Uncle Albert 10. Photograph 11. Whatever Gets You Through the Night 12. Give Me Love (Give Me Peace on Earth) 13. Silly Love Songs 14. No. 9 Dream Of course, there might be a few songs that didn't make the cut, but since they wrote in isolation in their later period, most of these probably would have found their way on to Beatles albums. Amazing.
Let's be clear about a few things here, dude. I don't need millions and millions of people to know that I'm an idiot... ...wait, that didn't come out right... ... what I mean is... No - you can't compare two bands that are dissimilar! I won't allow it! Yes, you are on crack. Denial is the first stage. You need rehab. Most of all.... .... ....it's good fun. don't be disgruntled.
For that person who said he could not name one Smithereens song, here is a primer, the first 3 songs off their best CD "11" : <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5LwjD8z2mOg?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5LwjD8z2mOg?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object> <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KxzOaI4Pfkw?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KxzOaI4Pfkw?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object> <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8Uf0ga085hQ?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8Uf0ga085hQ?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
Well, if I was asked which group had the greater impact and as a result was the greater band, I would have to choose the Beatles despite the fact that I don't like them as much as I do Roxy Music. You see dando, you are using your heart and not your head in doing these comparisons. Some might say that everyone should in their head pick Zeppelin over The Who but I feel that it is a lot closer despite what the results of that poll is saying. But this question you have asked in this thread is one where it is obvious in your heart, you like The Smithereens more but if you used your head and looked at this objectively and with no bias, you have to give the nod to Floyd here. And I think deep down, you know that I am right about this. As for Roxy Music, a poster named "Win" (who hasn't posted here in ages) first told me about them. They were along with David Bowie and Marc Bolan/T Rex the leaders of the glam rock movement in the early '70s. Their first 5 studio albums are ones that are still revered in the UK. And I am sorry to say this but I don't know of the Smithereens influencing as many artists as Roxy Music did. Here is a list of some of the groups that Roxy Music influenced: Magazine Duran Duran A Flock of Seagulls Japan Ultravox Talk Talk Talking Heads Simple Minds The Cars Pulp Suede Gary Numan Bauhaus The Psychedelic Furs Depeche Mode Echo & the Bunnymen Siouxsie and the Banshees Soft Cell Split Enz The Police Blondie Pere Ubu Joy Division Wire Public Image Ltd. etcetera Pretty much anyone that was a new wave act owes a HUGE debt to Roxy Music. They were also very influential to many post punk bands. You probably should have done a poll of The Smithereens vs. Roxy Music. If the conditions were such that we knew people were voting properly, Roxy would win. Don't get mad at me for saying that but their influence in music is just greater than that of The Smithereens.
