A.M.
Being There (double album)
Summerteeth
Yankee Hotel Foxtrot
A Ghost Is Born
Sky Blue Sky
Kicking Television (double live album)
Wilco
The Whole Love

I've said this before…but this new album has me saying it again.

Other than A.M. these guys are flawless.

anyone have those Mermaid Avenue albums?

n/m

that would still make wilco number one here in america tho.


avy: our new album. you may just like it. listen for free online @ http://theyesyesyalls.com

http://twitter.com/shamelessplug
http://theyesyesyalls.com

you're the guy I'm waiting to admit Wilco as the champs.

one day my friend…one day.

how many more great albums do they have to put out?

and the 2011 rematch? First round knockout for Wilco.

Plus for some reason Radiohead have begun to piss me off ever since KoL was released. Their air of self importance is just too much.

Also Wilco keeps changing up their live shows (the 3.5 hour epic show I saw in a tiny 600 seat theater was unforgettable) where Radiohead shows have become somewhat predictable and overloaded with new material.


...but I've shit on Radiohead too much, they're both great bands.

I do agree their discography is stellar.

I mean, 7 great albums and 1 great live album is a pretty damn good run.

I don't know who else has released that much material at that high of a level in a loooong time.

I could start throwing legendary groups in here but that would just catch hate.

Sonic Youth
R.E.M. (though two of their best were before '85)
Radiohead
Smashing Pumpkins
U2 (ugh)
The Cure
New Order
Pixies
Nirvana
EDIT: The Legendary Roots Crew

I dunno, I'm just brainstorming at this point who *might* be in the discussion.

Most of these bands though just don't have the level of output or are lacking the extremely high batting average that Wilco has.

>Most of these bands though just don't have the level of output
>or are lacking the extremely high batting average that Wilco
>has.

Even then, Sonic Youth still has them beat.

Pretty sure even Jeff Tweedy would admit that.

~Austin

and it's not a matter of quality of quantity.

it's a matter of quality AND quantity.

Wilco has other bands beat.

Look at your own fucking avatar for someone *ELSE* who's got Wilco beat.

They're good, but come on.

And I love how you just immediately disregard anyone who isn't American.

America is not the world © someone that you should be paying attention to

~Austin

First of all, Neil is probably my favorite artist ever but, plays with various bands and release solo albums. Plus, in the past 25 years, he hasn't had as strong of a track record.

Second, I haven't said one thing about a band being American or not and could really give a fuck where they're from so I'm not sure where you're drawing that comment from.

but probably radiohead.

wilco is my favorite band, radiohead probably in 2nd place. then a loooooong way before whoever my #3 is.

if I had to rank their top 10 albums in order it would go like this:

OK Computer (10 points)
The Bends (9 points)
Yanke Hotel Foxtrot (8 points)
Being There (7 points)
Summerteeth (6 points)
Sky Blue Sky (5 points)
In Rainbows (4 points
Kid A (3 points)
A Ghost is Born (2 points)
The Whole Love (1 point)

Wilco has 6 albums, compared to Radiohead's 4.

Radiohead 26 points, Wilco 29 points.

wow..... Wilco wins.

I'll let it be because Wilco still won.



>
>OK Computer (10 points)
>The Bends (9 points)
>Yanke Hotel Foxtrot (8 points)
>Being There (7 points)
>Summerteeth (6 points)
>Sky Blue Sky (5 points)
>In Rainbows (4 points
>Kid A (3 points)
>A Ghost is Born (2 points)
>The Whole Love (1 point)
>


but, YHF is the best album to me on that list. For an album to start of with "I Am Trying To Break Your Heart, and then continue to get better the entire way through is remarkable to me.

is your favourite wilco album,no?

AGIB has maybe the highest highs.

but there's just something special about that Sky Blue Sky album.

one of my favorite "sounding" albums.

I love the fact they went for the more simple songwriting style after releasing YHF and AGIB.

those first 4 tracks in a row is possibly the best 4 tracks in a row of any wilco album

YHF is an alltime album period

but giving the whole love only one point is a travesty.

i won't have a real opinion for at least a year.

a lot of albums can really grab me for a month or so, and then get exposed. other albums take me awhile to grow on me, but end up becoming favorites. i wouldn't have put it on my list at all but i really do think it will age well with me.

You left out Amnesiac, Hail to the Theif, Pablo Honey and King of Limbs lol.

and aren't better than those Wilco albums.

lol

Wait what? Neither Amnesiac or Hail to the thief really? OK.

It's Radiohead by this >>>> much to me, so I didn't catch on to what you were saying.

>You left out Amnesiac, Hail to the Theif, Pablo Honey and
>King of Limbs lol.

amnesiac is pretty good... life in a glasshouse is one of my fave radiohead songs, but its not fucking with those wilco albums..

hail to the thief is meh, a few very good songs, but i can rarely play the entire album

pablo honey is terrible

king of limbs is boring

I was trying to think of a more consistently excellent American band (or band, period) over the last 20 years and I kept coming up nil. Their studio mastery is second to virtually none, including Radiohead. (Although, the consecutive 1-2 punch of OK Computer and Kid A are unarguably unfuckwitable...)

(Although, the
>consecutive 1-2 punch of OK Computer and Kid A are unarguably
>unfuckwitable...)

I'll take YHF and AGIB over those two any day.

even Summeteeth & YFH

*shrugs*

maybe Thom's bitch ass just gets to me after a while.

lol

it just isn't for you, and that's fine.

okay, i'll immediately contradict myself and say that it possibly IS overrated - but only in the way that truly great albums and artists are.

I just don't think it's the be all and end all like some folks do. Or even Radiohead's best album.

And maybe you're the exception to this, but whenever I have this convo, I tend to catch people with this question: When's the last time you listened to it? And whenever it was, did you actually like it as much as you think you did?

a couple times a year - which is fairly often for me considering how many damn albums I own now. Yeah, I still quite like it.

still love it.

one of those... and i still listen to the album decently often... but sure, Kid A might be "overrated".. but the only way i'd agree to that is if temporal/sequential context doesn't count in judging an album's greatness... even in a vacuum though, i think it's a great album start to finish..

for what it's worth, i think

OK Computer, Kid A, Amnesiac and In Rainbows are pretty much flawless... and yea, i prob. like Amnesiac more than Kid A.. maybe an unpopular view, but i never viewed it as Kid A's little brother, there's a complete and distinct album there (2 versions of Morning Bell goes a decent way in proving me wrong tho lol)... King of Limbs is getting up there for me.. i think i'll eventually consider it one of RH's GREAT albums.. The Bends is very very good to me, just not on the same level as the others, but probably because i heard OKC, Kid A and Amnesiac before hearing it and the band really evolved a lot in that time span.. HTTT is def. a very good album... I'd hold it in the same regard as the other top albums if they just cut a few tracks (Backdrifts, Suck Young Blood, The Gloaming).. and i still haven't actually listened to Pablo Honey cuz i didn't want to eff w/ the track record in my head lol

so yea, even the albums i have at the bottom of their catalog are still better than most bands' better albums, imo...

Deal with it or don't.

But there it is.

~Austin

You're the reason why Radiohead probably wants to kill some of their fan base.

~Austin

Kind Of Blue to me was always an album that novices to jazz could get into - and an album that jazz aficionados appreciated equally. it's the greatest selling jazz album and it's also one of the best critically received albums of all time.

where does kid a factor in this?

Because the comparison makes no sense.

If he said Bitches Brew or something I may have asked to explain but saying Kind of Blue is just nonsense.

. . .but didn't really have the time to get fully into it.

Before I say anything further, I am not saying either album is as good as the other or that they even sound like one another. I was merely trying to say that both had similar impacts on the culture.

Both were albums by big established names that went for something "new" in their sound, while they were essentially just summarizing the creators' influences in the preceding years (Miles' interest in modes and Radiohead's interest in electronic music). As far as the mainstream audience (the bulk of people who bought the albums) was concerned, these were very new sounds and directions for these musicians. So, in the eyes of the mainstream, these were rare albums that managed the hat trick of simultaneously being on the cutting edge of new sounds in the mainstream, being creatively challenging for listeners and being major commercial successes (easily expanding audiences in their wake).

~Austin

as YHF is to okcomputer

for me wilco and radiohead are too tough to call.

With that said: Melvins.


THE HOME OF BOOK-NESS:
http://www.thisisbooksmusic.com/
http://twitter.com/thisisjohnbook
http://www.facebook.com/book1


http://i32.tinypic.com/kbewp4.gif

still chugging along in 2011.

They have 27 main albums listed on allmusic.com (some of which are live), and I've heard maybe three (?) in total.

When it comes to the Melvins, that is a relevant question...

I actually like it more than most if not all of the Wilco albums on that list (and that's not even a slight at their catalog, they've done some stuff I love).

They make beautiful use of those Guthrie lyrics & having a mix of vocalists makes you really appreciate Tweedy's best signing moments on the record (California Stars, At My Window Sad & Loney, and the solo piano Another Man's Done Gone).

Outside of 'Hoodoo Voodoo' the rest is as flawless a 45 or so minutes of music as anybody on it's been a part of in their career to me.

well, at least for me. i love those guys.

there is no spoon.

Hard to say who'd I'd choose if I had too, but Spoon's catalogue is as strong as Wilco's, I think.

They are good but not something I listen to.

Personally, I think Fugazi, Cows and the aforementioned Melvins have some really strong catalogs in the past 25 years.

He has played them in his car and on spotify, don't remember what records. I also checked out their debut back in the day...

but if they're not for you, they're not for you.

this is the first track from their newie live on letterman:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLCkBp5bEVQ

nels cline is a beast.

THe Melvins, My Bloody Valentine, and Dinosaur Jr.

IKR, I listed like 4 of my top 10 bands :).

Radiohead, My Bloody Valentine, Sonic Youth, and Dino Jr?? It's not even close to me.

Probably because I don't really feeeeeel Wilco, not enough atmosphere moodiness for me.

i was being a little facetious, i must admit.

wilco belongs in that company.

>THe Melvins, My Bloody Valentine, and Dinosaur Jr.

Possibly, no, not enough output, no, hell no, no, not NEARLY enough output, and no.

that are mellower/poppier/less abrasive/less rocking? Especially any bands with country or Americana influences? I'm starting to think this is just a set of taste buds you don't have, perhaps. Do you spend much listening time with Gram Parsons, The Beatles, Tom Petty, Springsteen, The Byrds, The Flying Burrito Bros., Fleetwood Mac?

I generally tend toward harsher music myself, but growing up in America (and specifically in the Midwest), listening to some pop and rock radio as well as my parents' folk and soft rock records, I do have a taste for that style when it's done well. I think Tweedy writes really good songs influenced by most of the people I just named, and experiments just enough to push it well away from overly polished Eagles territory. But at the same time, some days I would much rather listen to Jesus Lizard, Fugazi, or Darkthrone and Suffocation.

<grin>

The Byrds is one of my GOAT bands and in terms of mellow stuff, I love Beach Boys as well. Buffalo Springfield, CSN&Y, Neil Young, Love, Zombies, Big Star, Jellyfish, Posies, Cardigans, Eggstone etc.-there's a shitload of soft stuff I dig

>Do you spend much listening time with
>Gram Parsons,

Yes

> The Beatles
I like Revolver

> Tom Petty, Springsteen,

Big NO on both even if Petty made some pretty dope power-pop in the 70's...

>Fleetwood Mac?

I prefer the Peter Green era (not so much the albums but the singles and B-sides)-the slick 70's stuff is not my thing...
>

>I generally tend toward harsher music myself, but growing up
>in America (and specifically in the Midwest), listening to
>some pop and rock radio as well as my parents' folk and soft
>rock records, I do have a taste for that style when it's done
>well. I think Tweedy writes really good songs influenced by
>most of the people I just named, and experiments just enough
>to push it well away from overly polished Eagles territory.
>But at the same time, some days I would much rather listen to
>Jesus Lizard, Fugazi, or Darkthrone and Suffocation.

Teh problem with "softer" rock (and a lot of harder trock too of course) in the past two decades is that it has gone in a "texture-music" direction; people get blown away by all the little details and creativity in the arrangements and "interesting" sounds and it feels like prog-rock again, just in a vertical sense rather than a horizontal one. The love for Radiohead, Flaming Lips and post-early records Wilco is an example of this.

Harder rock has done a better job at avoiding the pitfalls of this approach since it is SO closely tied to the guitar/bass/drums set-up and for all the weaknesses that approach has in terms of dynamics and texture, it IMO MORE than make up for that in terms of riffs, song-structures, cool patterns etc.; basically, stuff I consider far more substantial than Wilco putting some bleeps in a stadiumrock song or Radiohead discovering dubstep...

>basically, stuff I consider far more
>substantial than Wilco putting some bleeps in a stadiumrock
>song or Radiohead discovering dubstep...

cute, but offbase.

.

you're quite right, i was obviously offbase.

just that, based on opinions you've posted previously, i did think you were only about the Rawk.

<shrug>

given that i was wrong, and the list of bands you mention above,

i do find it surprising that you'd dismiss wilco so.

i get your point about textures - BUT wilco write and perform and get their songs very tight in a 'traditional' band sense before they start to fuck with them.

and tweedy's an exceptional songwriter.

>Teh problem with "softer" rock (and a lot of harder trock too
>of course) in the past two decades is that it has gone in a
>"texture-music" direction; people get blown away by all the
>little details and creativity in the arrangements and
>"interesting" sounds and it feels like prog-rock again, just
>in a vertical sense rather than a horizontal one. The love for
>Radiohead, Flaming Lips and post-early records Wilco is an
>example of this.

I don't find that to be a problem, personally. I like texture. I like krautrock and minimalism and (some) electronic music - all the stuff that influenced the post-rock bands from Chicago, as well as the three you just mentioned. I guess this is just a divide of personal taste. Texture is good stuff to me. And I think conversely it's quite possible to over-value riffs, song structures, and such - I think the relatively small amount of exploration left to be done in those areas (at least within the confines of the rock genre) is a big reason why rock feels so exhausted the last couple decades, and why there aren't as many great bands any more. If there's ever going to be another big rock boom, I think the genre is going to have to change pretty radically, maybe to the point that it won't even be rock any more.

To stand up for Wilco on your own ground though, I don't think their songs are as wholly uninteresting as you imply. Tweedy writes actual songs, not experimental jams, and some of them are pretty interesting little numbers (although a lot are just straight-forward verse/chorus pop rock songs). He is fond of the occasional weird chord change, the melody that takes an unexpected turn, etc. Some of it is borrowed from familiar sources like the formal boundary-pushing of the mid-to-late Beatles and so forth, but he does do interesting things, is my point. I've always loved the bridge/chorus section of "Can't Stand It," to name just one example - he wrings a whole lot of pretty out of a riff and chorus vocal that are melodically and rhythmically not at all standard (at least by pop/radio norms).

I LOVE krautrock, I dig experimental jams, I love Beefheart (who of course worked in a stripped-down band context but still...), Chrome, 80's Butthole Surfers, freejazz, "Twin infinitives"-era Royal Trux and numerous other artists that didn't write "songs (tm)". In the case of Wilco and Radiohead for that matter, (and this is just my opinion) the texture and "experimentalism" is used as a flavor/effect rather than the main course which has a tendency to make the music sound overblown and epic which is something I DON'T like in rock(U2=the enemy)

>(U2=the enemy)

First of all I think "A.M." is a bit underrated. It's not as ambitious as any other Wilco album and the songwriting is still locked in that country/rock mode (like a less adult contemporary Eagles, or more charitably, like a more rock-oriented Gram Parsons). But it has some gems. I'd rather listen to "Casino Queen" or "Box Full of Letters" than most of "Wilco (the album)" (which I found pretty dull and not particularly well-written, compared to "Sky Blue Sky").

Second, yeah they have a great discography. Here are the other bands that come to mind:

Radiohead. Gotta give them props for "OK Computer," "Kid A" especially. I also love "In Rainbows" and "Amnesiac," and to a lesser extent "The Bends." On the other hand if you look at things album by album -

A.M. > Pablo Honey
Being There > The Bends (barely)
OK Computer > Summerteeth (it pains me to say so, because I love Summerteeth)
Kid A = Yankee Hotel Foxtrot
A Ghost is Born > Amnesiac
Sky Blue Sky > Hail to the Thief
In Rainbows > Wilco
The Whole Love > King of Limbs

I have Wilco coming out ahead here. This might not be the best way to compare two bands, but it looks to me like Wilco started stronger, is finishing stronger (perhaps - jury's still out), and had a roughly equivalent prime. If it wasn't for the high esteem in which I hold "OK Computer," I actually think Wilco would be the OBVIOUS choice.

--

Modest Mouse. "Lonesome Crowded West" through "We Were Dead" are all classics or near-classics to me; they had their abrasive, quirky indie record to end all abrasive and quirky indie records; then an album moving somewhat into accessibility without getting commercial about it, and every bit the equal of its predecessor; then the improbable breakout success record which still managed to be really good (though it has a few filler tracks); and finally a worthy follow-up to that, showing that they know their lane well and could ride in it for a while if they choose. The big problem is that their earlier albums pre-"Lonesome" all kind of blend together. I like some stuff on all of them (especially "This is a Long Drive") but they are all the work of a band still finding itself. So half their discography is great to me, the other half not so much.

--

Flaming Lips. They have more bad or average albums than any of these other bands (all their early stuff, pre-1990). But they also have three classics (The Soft Bulletin, Yoshimi, and Embryonic); two near-classics (Transmissions and Clouds Taste Metallic); a couple of very good albums (Hit to Death and Priest Driven Ambulance); a wild experiment that actually has good songs on it if you put forth the effort (Zaireeka); a latter-day clunker, a la "Wilco" or "King of Limbs" (At War With the Mystics); and a just-for-fun take on a classic album by another band (Dark Side of the Moon). Basically I would argue that their highlight reel is as strong or nearly so compared to Wilco and Radiohead, and due to being more prolific it's easier to give them leeway on a few bad albums, because they made up for it with so many good ones.

--

And here's where I don't mention a few extreme metal bands, because no one will know or care what I'm talking about. (Except Jakob of course.)

king of limbs is far from a clunker.

what makes you say so?

that aside, i also think modest mouse and the flaming lips are in the conversation - but i'd take wilco over either.

>king of limbs is far from a clunker.
>
>what makes you say so?

I just find it uninteresting. It's not a clunker the same way "At War With the Mystics" was for the Lips, where they overreached and tripped over their own feet (I hope to never again hear them trying to write a Prince song). But "King of Limbs" was just a snoozer to me.

the weekend i broke up with my last girlfriend.

for a couple of weeks, i literally listened to nothing else. i found that songs really opened up to me on repeated listens.

did you see them perform on colbert?

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/397957/september-26-2011/radiohead----bloom-

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/397958/september-26-2011/radiohead----little-by-little-

>
>Kid A = Yankee Hotel Foxtrot

I think that is where Wilco becomes the obvious choice.

Rest of you album analysis I do agree with.

and I just don't think any of the bands you listed, while having great discographies, have ever reached the height that Wilco has.

but they offer very different things. certainly, YHF has more singalongability.

i finally got round to watching 'i am trying to break your heart' yesterday. what a great documentary that is!

and I fully understand why some people don't, but I think it has several of the best songs Radiohead ever did, plus an overall vibe that is so eerie and fragmented and melancholy. I'm a big fan of that album. It's actually a big compliment to YHF that I put it on the same level. Fortunately for Wilco, I love YHF as well - that album got played front to back countless times in the 2-3 years after it came out.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/397959/september-26-2011/sign-off---radiohead----the-national-anthem-

start with the latest album. you'll be sold by the opening track.

But I think Radiohead's catalog is much stronger.

stellar throughout albums that put them into contention:
A Peacetime Boom
Japaneska
Faceless Man
Remix Man
Far East Samba
Remix Man '95
Tropicalsim, 0 Degrees
Afrosick (Kazufumi Miyazawa solo album)

Albums/projects that are good, but not quite as good as the above:
Siren No Ohisama
D.E.M.O.
Shushinki (though it launched the massive 'Shima Uta' single)


Later albums are also good though not as up my alley as the above:
The Boom: Hyakkei, Lovibe, No Control, Okinawa Watashi No Shima, haven't heard the newest ones Shijuso of Yochabare
Miyazawa solo: Sixteenth Moon, Spiritek, Miyazawa, at least one or two newer ones I haven't heard

One of the reasons I believe they're a serious contender is that they are another band that has never stopped experimenting and mixing new sounds. Arguably they peaked on Tropicalism in 1996, which mixes influences from Jamaica, Okinawa, Indonesia, Brazil, and Afro-Cuban jazz.

Another reason is that I love them, and I've never been a big Wilco fan. Honestly A.M. is pretty damn good, and certainly Being There is great, but I'm a fan of roots rock, not really experimental rock or whatever you'd call their later projects. Overall, gimme Uncle Tupelo's 4 album discography over Wilco's however many albums any day, and I'll be very, very happy.

(i'll be sure to check out this boom bad you speak of).

I'm not sure AM was even out yet, for that matter.

have you even listened to wilco?

Wilco is up there though.

i'm about to completely discredit my vote, but i'm just going based on that "Yankee Hotel Foxtrot" album... wasn't feeling it very much, so i just named the other 2 bands that top my personal list...

obviously radiohead has already been mentioned quite a few times... I think Lambchop's catalog holds up to just about any recent band:

1994 I Hope You're Sitting Down
1996 How I Quit Smoking
1997 Thriller
1998 What Another Man Spills
2000 Nixon
2002 Is a Woman
2004 Aw C'mon
2004 No You C'mon
2006 Damaged
2008 OH (Ohio)

... possibly Belle & Sebastian?

Tigermilk (1996)
If You're Feeling Sinister (1996)
The Boy with the Arab Strap (1998)
Fold Your Hands Child, You Walk Like a Peasant (2000)
Storytelling (2002)
Dear Catastrophe Waitress (2003)
Push Barman to Open Old Wounds (2005)
The Life Pursuit (2006)
Belle and Sebastian Write About Love (2010)

particularly with mint jelly.

so i don't know if you're joking or not... if you are, i *highly* recommend What Another Man Spills, Nixon, Is A Woman, Damaged, and OH (ohio)... the band is super consistent while always tweaking their style.. no one album has a sound that is representative of them as a band.. but they're all pure Lambchop through and through and each one of their albums has some of their best tracks... that being said, i'm prob. one of their biggest fans/cheerleaders/word-spreaders in the US lol

you're right, they're damn good. which album is your favorite?

it'd be really hard for me to pick a favorite.. mainly because it seems like they highlight a different component of their sound on every album.. and i think they're really good at doing all of that stuff.. i know it's a copout, but i think those 5 i named are all tied for me.. i probably listen to "Is a Woman" most often, but only because it keeps pretty much the same pace/vibe throughout.. but yea, Lambchop is a national treasure, more ppl need to get on board lol...

you have a favorite album or lambchop "vibe"?

Lazer Guided Melodies
Pure Phase
Ladies and Gentlemen We Are Floating In Space
Let It Come Down
Amazing Grace
Songs In A&E

Amazing Grace is the weak link, and even that is a great record.

Ladies and Gentlemen We Are Floating In Space
I love that album. ^
For some reason I never checked out any more of their music though, going to have to now though.

For some reason, I never checked out anything after the third record. I guess I just thought they had said everything they needed to say and perfected it. Basically, I never felt the need to own/listen to another Spiritualized record. Maybe I was wrong...

. . .outside of Radiohead.

For the most part, mentions here are US bands.

What about Belle and Sebastian?

Portishead?

New Order?

PJ Harvey?

The Cure?

The "obscurities" who don't have hits —or even that much notoriety— but who seemingly can't make a bad record: Trashcan Sinatras, Trembling Blue Stars, Vini Reilly and the fucking Durutti Column, Slowdive, David Sylvian's work, fucking Talk Talk, motherfucking STEREOLAB HELLLOOO????????

And the **GOOD** American bands who have not remained "cool": the Ocean Blue, Throwing Muses, the Sea and Cake, amongst others??????

And the few sane people in the room have actually mentioned Sonic Youth. Fucking Sonic Youth makes Wilco look like idiots (and I *like* Wilco, but come the fuck on).

This topic is fucking horseshit. I'd call it nonsense, but nonsense is funny.

The contents of this topic came from a horse's anus. Think about that.

~Austin

>What about Belle and Sebastian?

very good band. not fucking with wilco.

>Portishead?

come on.

>New Order?

what have they done for me lately, eddy?

>PJ Harvey?

not a band.

>The Cure?

see the new order comment.


>And the few sane people in the room have actually mentioned
>Sonic Youth. Fucking Sonic Youth makes Wilco look like idiots
>(and I *like* Wilco, but come the fuck on).

sonic youth are fantastic. how do they make wilco look like idiots?

. . .both in 1989.

Both albums are better than anything Wilco has done.

Don't say anything about them being "old" albums either. Because if dates matter, years and timeframes should not have been named.

Sonic Youth makes Wilco look silly in the sense that Wilco have this air about them of being 'artsy' and 'experimental' while still retaining a strong song-based sound. The Velvet Underground started that idea. Sonic Youth perfected it.

I'm sorry you guys, Wilco is fine and I own (and rather like) some of their records but they're just not as good to my ears. They are second tier in the contemporary landscape of bands. I guess I just don't see how a band that has released acknowledged underwhelming albums can be better than a band who releases something strong every time out.

Hell, if you really want to go there, the Appleseed Cast made a shoddy first album and has been incredible every single album since.

And truthfully, Fleet Foxes already have them beat.

~Austin

we're just gonna have to agree to disagree on this one!

for me, even wilco's 'underwhelming' albums are up there with others' peaks.

<shrug>

the beautiful and infuriating nature of subjectivity.

>I'm sorry you guys, Wilco is fine and I own (and rather like)
>some of their records but they're just not as good to my ears.
> They are second tier in the contemporary landscape of bands.
>I guess I just don't see how a band that has released
>acknowledged underwhelming albums can be better than a band
>who releases something strong every time out.

Well, first of all, part of the problem here is that you obviously have standards that are 1. going largely unstated and unargued-for, and 2. are not shared by all. I almost put up a spinoff post about this very subject called "Quantity >>>>>>> Quality" (boy would THAT get some attention). I do think it's a great achievement to make a long string of very-good-to-great albums, even if the best of those albums are not as good as somebody else's strongest work. Call it the desert island test: if I was going to a desert island and had to choose one artist's discography to take with me, I'd prefer Wilco's over, say, My Bloody Valentine, because as much as I enjoy "Loveless" and to a lesser extent its predecessor, I'm going to drive myself insane if that's all I have to listen to. Give me Wilco's long run of good-to-great and I will be happier, even though it's arguable if even "Yankee Hotel Foxtrot" is as good/impactful/groundbreaking/whatever of a record as "Loveless."

I think people default to the position that quality is better than quantity, because it's so obviously the "correct" choice. But if I can get quantity at a very high (but not the highest) quality, I would. Yessir. I think that conversation is worth having and more importantly, I think it NEEDS to be had for this discography comparison thing to go in any meaningful direction. Otherwise it's just people with different standards talking past each other.

Second, there's the very subjective matter of whether Wilco's highlights match those of Sonic Youth, MBV, and whoever else. That's a different set of standards that you really can't even defend, though you can describe them. I hold that a lot of people who are pop culture and indie rock enthusiasts put too much importance on albums that blew their mind, and maybe not enough on albums that are just extremely well-made and enjoyable front to back. That's why I respect what Wilco does, even though they've never blown my mind even slightly. But I respect that your standards may differ. Wilco is never going to make one single song that is a shock to the system like "Titanium Expose" was (I single that one out because it made a small dent in the mainstream - it was from SY's first major label album and it was on a soundtrack of a fuckin' Christian Slater movie!). But to me, Sonic Youth will never write a song as beautiful or indelible as any of Wilco's top ten. Maybe it's a wash. Maybe not.

Finally, who do you think hasn't made "acknowledged underwhelming albums"? What band with 8+ full-lengths has actually been awesome every time? Even most of my favorite bands have a clunker or two, or at least albums where they are less than inspired. And the bands that just do their thing over and over tend to get into a cycle of diminishing returns. Basically, it's hard to make the same album repeatedly without producing a faded photocopy-of-a-photocopy-of-a-photocopy at some point, and it's hard to continually challenge yourself and evolve without sometimes meandering down some evolutionary dead ends, or backtracking for no clear reason. I honestly can't think of a single band or solo artist I love who has made as many albums as Wilco and doesn't have at least one that I think somewhat less of compared to the rest.

I'd rather have one life changing album than a dozen okay ones.

And Trembling Blue Stars are eight albums (plus EPs, plus a b-sides compilation) into their catalogue and have gotten better with every record.

~Austin

Aren't favored by critics like Wilco is and thus would never get mentioned.

Stupid superficial, music nerd crap.

All those bands people "should" have mentioned are british-so much for "the world"...

i mean, i could also say that australian band machine translations are up there - but if noone's heard them..

>i mean, i could also say that australian band machine
>translations are up there - but if noone's heard them..

I doubt they'd even be in my top 30, but props for mentioning them.

are two of my favorite albums of the last decade.

>What about Belle and Sebastian?

It would take a twee-er man than me to compare them to Wilco favorably. (Although I do like a couple of their albums.)

>Portishead?

They have just three albums, and to me only one of them is a classic, though all three are good.

>New Order?

1. Not for me. 2. Their career was half over by the time period we're talking about (1986 and forward).

>PJ Harvey?

Love her, and her discography is GREAT, but she's a solo artist. If solo artists counted I would just as readily throw in Bjork, who isn't American OR British. (And yes I know that initially PJ Harvey was the name of the band that just happened to be led by Polly Jean Harvey, but that stopped being true after the first two albums.)

>The Cure?

For my money The Cure made two really good albums (one a classic) after the cutoff. And then they went into a prolonged cycle of repeating themselves and sullying their name.

>The "obscurities" who don't have hits —or even that much
>notoriety— but who seemingly can't make a bad record: Trashcan
>Sinatras, Trembling Blue Stars, Vini Reilly and the fucking
>Durutti Column, Slowdive, David Sylvian's work, fucking Talk
>Talk, motherfucking STEREOLAB HELLLOOO????????

I won't lie and say I'm well-acquainted with most of those bands. I love Stereolab but - maybe it's just me - they're not in this conversation. Their discography has a few amazing highlights and a lot of albums that sound like less-inspired echoes of those highlights. Also (and I know this is gonna out me as someone with bad taste or something), I don't really love their pre-"Dots and Loops" work, though I acknowledge that everybody but me loves "Emperor Tomato Ketchup" to death. And by the way, Stereolab was named before you.

>And the few sane people in the room have actually mentioned
>Sonic Youth. Fucking Sonic Youth makes Wilco look like idiots
>(and I *like* Wilco, but come the fuck on).

Sonic Youth's best records are amazing. And I think there are about three of them. The rest are, to varying degrees, just Sonic Youth-y material that I don't want to listen to half as much as their best stuff. You'd get no argument from me that Sonic Youth is probably a more "important" band than Wilco, but do they write better songs? Do I feel like listening to their entire discography as much? Probably not.

>This topic is fucking horseshit. I'd call it nonsense, but
>nonsense is funny.

The mature approach would just be to name your bands and make a case for them, rather than throwing a fit.

(By the way, one of my very favorite bands is the Japanese band Melt-Banana. I like them at least as much as Wilco, and they're way more out there in terms of doing new/crazy shit. But do I think their discography is as good as Wilco's? A couple of amazing albums aside - no.)

they have some pretty material but it's all bit samey and unmemorable for mine, despite being very competently put together.

I do think they wrote their best batch of songs on "Dots and Loops" though, which is part of what makes it their best album to me. Some of what they did after that is like a slight spin on the sound of that album, but with songs that don't grab me as much; ergo it's hard for me to consider them in this conversation.

I do think the right set of sonics can overwhelm any objection to lack of songwriting. Obviously "In a Silent Way" is a huge sonics record and it's one of my top twenty by anybody in any genre - I love that album so much it hurts. But Miles was smart enough to not just repeat himself, which is a real sinkhole when you're working more with sound than song structure and melody. There's not one other album in his discography that sounds much like "Silent Way" - the very next thing he released was already on a whole different planet. Miles was restless.

;)

Radiohead has turned into that at times (i.e. certain albums, or certain tracks on certain albums). They certainly didn't start that way, and they still write very memorable and interesting songs, I think - when they want to. Wilco has always been a songs band to me; even when Tweedy wants to stretch out and do his krautrock/post-rock thing, you can feel the call of traditional songwriting pulling him back in.

It's more when the sonics/4texture is used as a layer in regular rock-songs or stdium-shit that I have a problem... I didn't explain myse4lf well but I think I cleared it up in a later post...

A few others have already been mentioned, Spoon, Pavement and motherfucking Radiohead.

Wilco has a bunch of them on quantity, but their best isn't really fucking with the best of these bands IMO.

Just to make Austin suicidal, Animal Collective is right up there.

AC have NOTHING on wilco. they certainly don't have the songs to fuck with 'em, hell, they don't even have the production (which is all AC are, in any case. they are the epitome of what jakob is talking about above).

hell, now i NEED a hug.

anyway

obviously, this is all subjective

but

nope! wilco better.

than ALL of those mentioned.

yo la tengo? please.

and dale covered above why the flaming lips - while a fantastic band - aren't quite seeing wilco.

do yourself a favour (c) molly meldrum

and go to listen to wilco's ouput again.

>do yourself a favour (c) molly meldrum
>
>and go to listen to wilco's ouput again.

I've been listening to them a little more recently in anticipation of the new album, which I didn't even know had leaked yet. Don't get me wrong, I really like Wilco. They're definitely one of the most consistent bands out there, but they just don't jump out at me like some others do. For me, they're in the same category as bands like Doves and Elbow. They make some really great fucking music, but it doesn't capture me like it does for everybody else.

POW!

Just. . . stop.

I know you're madly in love with me, but it just wouldn't work.

If you truly love something, let it go.

~Austin

~Austin

game over. got tour love

got songs for there fans

got albums for there fans

strong fan base.

good to see you, regardless!

>game over. got tour love

Discography, not live show.

>got songs for there fans

Discography, not singles.

>got albums for there fans

Yeah but... for anybody else?

>strong fan base.

Disc... o... graph... y.

Anyway I can't even argue this intelligently because that Grover-sounding whitebread turkey gets on my last nerve. I have a use for about two Dave Matthews songs. Mostly he writes semi-annoying, mediocre tunes for hippies and frat boys. His band can play though, I'll give him that.

(Hard to believe it's that much now - they're approaching "The Simpsons" levels of shitting on their own legacy.)

(I might be slightly overstating the case, but damn, I just really don't need to hear any of their albums after "Maladroit" again. I still own a copy of "Make Believe" and I feel like throwing it away rather than selling it, just to make sure one other person doesn't suffer unnecessarily.)

but seriously, ive liked every weezer album, and i dont really like wilco at all

pretty cool album - (Blue, Pinkerton, Green, respectively) outside of that, "eh" imo

wilco is this generation's the band.

there's room for both to exist at the top simultaneously.

for me at least.

different sides of a coin. a coin very beatles-y on both sides too.

i have nothing really relevant to say. i just wanted to make those comparisons.


avy: our new album. you may just like it. listen for free online @ http://theyesyesyalls.com

http://twitter.com/shamelessplug
http://theyesyesyalls.com

Pink Floyd was overrated as well.

lol

I don't think The Band is a good comparison for Wilco though.

they're very similar sylistically.


avy: our new album. you may just like it. listen for free online @ http://theyesyesyalls.com

http://twitter.com/shamelessplug
http://theyesyesyalls.com

plus you then compared the to The Beatles so we might as well use The Beatles.

even though, we can never really compare a band to them, it just sounds better.

if one were so inclined.


avy: our new album. you may just like it. listen for free online @ http://theyesyesyalls.com

http://twitter.com/shamelessplug
http://theyesyesyalls.com

but we're not

lol

even at their most purposefully obtuse & experimental.

implying that wilco don't value songwriting or have great songs just shows a complete lack of awareness of their music.

.

my apologies

i shouldn't have been posting drunk.

you're quite right, i clearly was mistaken - but i've seen that accusation levelled at both bands

and i disagree, in any case.

no need to be obnoxious to you, though. i'm sorry.

>my apologies
>
>i shouldn't have been posting drunk.
>
>you're quite right, i clearly was mistaken - but i've seen
>that accusation levelled at both bands
>
>and i disagree, in any case.
>
>no need to be obnoxious to you, though. i'm sorry.

The Band's first two albums son Wilco's entire career & the musicianship, live prowess, stylistic range, singing abilities, & influence is easily in favor of The Band.

Wilco have carved out a nice niche for themselves with a small loyal following & some critical love but it's also a lot easier to make records in that little universe than actual try to actually maintain/function in the hot lights of being a major rock band.

Stop trying to make these cats the Rolling Stones simply because you love a lot of their albums.

stating that a modern band is better than one from the 60s or 70s.

I forgot that was impossible.

>stating that a modern band is better than one from the 60s or
>70s.
>
>I forgot that was impossible.
>
>

but go ahead and keep talking like you know some shit.

.

Nm

.

Nm

A modern rock album have about a snowballs chance in hell of being as good as something released when the genre was fresh and "cutting-edge"-dudes (as opposed to hipsters or retro-guys) were making the music. You think a hip-Hop album of the 2000's have a chance as being as dope as something from the late 80's-early-mid 90's?

> You think a hip-Hop album
>of the 2000's have a chance as being as dope as something from
>the late 80's-early-mid 90's?


and I grew up with hip-hop in the 90s so I see many albums as classics.

but I know how to separate "classics" and actual quality.

there have been a ton of great hip-hop albums to come out in the past decade.

people don't know how to separate the "impact" of an album and its actual quality which is why you have a ton of people believing it to be blasphemy to say a "modern" album is in fact *better* or just as good as one of their beloved classics.

Do you honestly think Paid In Full is as high quality of an album as (and let be careful here because you and everyone else with turn this into a Rakim vs whoever post with your ignorance) Game Theory?

there have been so many musical advances that alone can propel Game Theory ahead of Paid In Full. BUT because Paid In Full is an all-time hip-hop classic due to its impact, people tend to take it personal if you state a more modern album is in fact of higher quality.

it's actually the most frustrating thing when conversing about music and hip-hop specifically because people get so tied to what are considered the "classics" and refuse to even entertain a new album being better than it.

but they never seem to draw the line. like it's ok to say ATLiens and Aquemini are better than Southern because they aren't to far removed but it would be insane to say Sir Luscious is better than Southern because it doesn't have the same impact culturally or personally. but when are we placing too much weight on those two things?

the state of the music won't allow someone to say a great album that dropped in 2011 is better than a classic album that dropped in 1994.

My last point is, people feel safe saying that the classic album from back in the day is better than a newer album because they feel as though their hip-hop opinion is solidified by doing so. They feel like if they list Pac and Big as the greatest then they obviously know what they're talking about because so many other people list them as the greatest. It's a very "Groupthink" mindset and really gets tired when discussing music.

I find it hard to believe that people can't understand listing Wilco ahead of The Band. Like that is completely impossible. It is ignorance at its finest and proof that people have a hard time forming their own opinions. Were you even around when The Band was so "cutting edge"? I doubt it, so by the time you heard it, it wasn't so "cutting edge". You're only drawing that from what older heads have already told you. but you probably heard The Band and Wilco around the same time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmZfV6tqbTU&feature=related

Wilco may not be my favorite band but the run Jeff Tweedy has had from Uncle Tupelo to now has been pretty amazing. But AM is my second favorite to Summer Teeth.

The band lost something to me during YHF and GIB when Jeff was all fucked up on pills and started writing songs that didn't make an awful lot sense. I thought Wilco was a strong comeback lyrically though.

Not to take anything away from the rest of their catalogue.

is bringing out all the aggression in this post.

Wilco is about as polite as a band can be without being straight up pussy.

I like Wilco, too, btw. Haha.

as somehow being the best rock band of the past three decades is sorta offensive in its own right, to some they might not even qualify to be called a 'rock band' anyway.

The vitriol I'm seeing in here likely has more to do with this post's premise than its subject's actual music.

not the band itself.

a lot of people are taking it out of context.

discography.

discography discography discography.


avy: our new album. you may just like it. listen for free online @ http://theyesyesyalls.com

http://twitter.com/shamelessplug
http://theyesyesyalls.com

bottom line is I'd have a hard time putting them on any short list of all-time great rock bands when their 'discography' boasts not a single solitary game-changer on the landscape of the genre in song or album form (nobody that doesn't own Yankee Hotel Foxtrot could name two songs off it before you mention that one).

Wilco's documentary film was a sleepy black-and-white centered around whether they might get dropped from their label-deal and whether or not Jeff Tweedy felt like listening to Jay Bennett anymore, The Band's was a veritable Last Supper spanning multiple generations of American music cited by many as one of if not the best concert film ever made.

Is Jeff Bridges a better actor than Robert Deniro, Al Pacino or Jack Nicholson because he's still around making solid films while those guys burned out a decade ago & are clearly just cashing paychecks at this point?

Or could it be that while those guys were under the hot lights giving tour-de-force performances in some of the best films ever made Bridges was humming along under the radar in stuff like Rancho Deluxe or Hearts of the West?

Strike that though, because Bridges is at least a peer of those guys & a better actor than Wilco is a band.

You only get so much time to be at the creative/cultural zeitgeist of your art form but you absolutely cannot be on the short list without having been there for at least a time.

You need albums, songs, moments that people can point to, it's the reason why Guns N' Roses only lasted about four years as a functioning unit but still made a bigger contribution to rock music than Wilco has done in their twenty-plus year run.

Same reason Masta Ace isn't better than Rakim despite a career that's lasted longer as well.

This is why Wilco is not only opening for an ancient Neil Young while in their prime but actually getting blown off the stage doing it.

I like Wilco but they ain't even on the Black Crowes level let alone The Band or The Stones.

'Discography' is a cute end-around to inflate a perfectly solid band that's proven to have a long shelf life in their lane for the purposes of this post but 'nah man, I ain't buyin it'(c)Ms Melodie

>Strike that though, because Bridges is at least a peer of
>those guys & a better actor than Wilco is a band.

In a way, this is the most interesting part of your post, because I think those of us who are with Anon on this think that Wilco *is* a peer to these other, zeitgeistier, flame-burning-brighter bands that have been brought up. And it's exactly in the same way that Bridges is a peer to De Niro - he's less showy (usually) and didn't ever have a stretch like De Niro did with "Taxi Driver" and "Raging Bull," etc., but he hung in there for years, vacillating between a solid leading man who anchored decent commercial pictures and an underrated character actor who always delivered something a little different. I feel about Wilco very much the same way that I feel about Bridges.

>You need albums, songs, moments that people can point to, it's
>the reason why Guns N' Roses only lasted about four years as a
>functioning unit but still made a bigger contribution to rock
>music than Wilco has done in their twenty-plus year run.

Ehhhh... LOTS of bands are critical darlings with good discographies who don't make "big contributions to rock music." This is a very sketchy area, to say the least.

>I like Wilco but they ain't even on the Black Crowes level let
>alone The Band or The Stones.

I'd never put them with the Stones but... Black Crowes? Hell no. The Crowes were a pure retro act who had a couple huge hit singles. They brought nothing new to the table and have vanished into the ether. I like the sound of the Crowes but song for song, I think Wilco kills them. The Black Crowes are Drivin' 'n Cryin' with hits. If we're putting them in the pantheon, there's a lot of journeymen that need to be admitted, and I'm not ready to fight that war.

>
>>Strike that though, because Bridges is at least a peer of
>>those guys & a better actor than Wilco is a band.
>
>In a way, this is the most interesting part of your post,
>because I think those of us who are with Anon on this think
>that Wilco *is* a peer to these other, zeitgeistier,
>flame-burning-brighter bands that have been brought up. And
>it's exactly in the same way that Bridges is a peer to De Niro
>- he's less showy (usually) and didn't ever have a stretch
>like De Niro did with "Taxi Driver" and "Raging Bull," etc.,
>but he hung in there for years, vacillating between a solid
>leading man who anchored decent commercial pictures and an
>underrated character actor who always delivered something a
>little different. I feel about Wilco very much the same way
>that I feel about Bridges.
>
I realized at the end (hence 'srike that') that I elevated Wilco by comparing them to Bridges, I like Wilco but they're not occupying that same perch as Bridges relatively speaking.

But nah, all the Rocky & Bulwinkle's in the world can't take away Deniro's contributions from the 70's on through the better part of the next two decades or so (with multiple pantheon performances in some of the best films of all-time).

Same with Nicholson or Pacino.

That stuff alone places him above Bridges overall for me even if I'm done checking for Deniro and have loved some of Bridges' recent work.

If the Bridges or Masta Ace analogies didn't already illustrate what I was trying to say, I'll risk sounding redundant & say I think Badu has been better on record (shit, maybe even onstage *ducks*) in the past 15 years than Prince has while still not seeing him as an overall contributor to the world of music.

>>You need albums, songs, moments that people can point to,
>it's
>>the reason why Guns N' Roses only lasted about four years as
>a
>>functioning unit but still made a bigger contribution to
>rock
>>music than Wilco has done in their twenty-plus year run.
>
>Ehhhh... LOTS of bands are critical darlings with good
>discographies who don't make "big contributions to rock
>music." This is a very sketchy area, to say the least.
>
exactly, lots are.

and not one of them would I think of while in discussion and say 'you know they might be the best rock band ever'.

Conversely there's bands that have been fairly popular in their time that don't get that critical love so they don't come up in these discussion either, like Thin Lizzy, who I'd also put above Wilco (who despite the impression I'm giving while trying to put their legacy in perspective, I actually do like).

Shit, there's probably more people out there right now who think Phish is one of the all-time great bands than there is Wilco & I'd have to point out to them how to at least insert a little perspective beyond their own little circle as well when speaking on rock music out in public.

>>I like Wilco but they ain't even on the Black Crowes level
>let
>>alone The Band or The Stones.
>
>I'd never put them with the Stones but... Black Crowes? Hell
>no. The Crowes were a pure retro act who had a couple huge
>hit singles. They brought nothing new to the table and have
>vanished into the ether. I like the sound of the Crowes but
>song for song, I think Wilco kills them. The Black Crowes are
>Drivin' 'n Cryin' with hits. If we're putting them in the
>pantheon, there's a lot of journeymen that need to be
>admitted, and I'm not ready to fight that war.

Chris Robinson bests Tweedy as a vocalist fairly easily, the Crowes have a better live show (I've seen both five or six times over the years so feel qualified to speak on it), their ten or so best cuts would be better than Wilco's & despite them sort of drifting into that High Times Magazine ether around album 3/4 they're still a harder ticket on tour than Wilco.

And no I *wouldn't* ever put the Black Crowes in the pantheon, that was my point in bringing their name up, that's more the junior middleweight or welterweight class Wilco is looking to fight in then being in their with the Ali/Louis/Johnson/Tyson type of bands.

Thin Lizzy. The string of records starting with Jailbreak and ending with Black Rose (my favourite) is one hell of an achievement-killer stuff...

. . .or will ever do.

I'm glad we agree so strongly on something.

~Austin

smfh

. . .heard an entire Thin Lizzy album.

Maybe I'm wrong and you have. But. . . I'd be surprised.

~Austin

throw me in with a cosign on this

>. . .or will ever do.
>
>I'm glad we agree so strongly on something.
>
>~Austin

>exactly, lots are.
>
>and not one of them would I think of while in discussion and
>say 'you know they might be the best rock band ever'.

BUT - that's not what we're talking about, is it? We're talking about best discography (not best band overall) in the last twenty-five years (not the entire history of rock). I'm gonna take a pretty non-controversial stance and say that the only reason Wilco is a factor in the conversation is that rock isn't what it used to be. Which isn't to lessen Wilco or any of their peers, really, but the overall inspiration in the genre has waned. There's never gonna be another Rolling Stones. Never.

>Chris Robinson bests Tweedy as a vocalist fairly easily, the
>Crowes have a better live show (I've seen both five or six
>times over the years so feel qualified to speak on it), their
>ten or so best cuts would be better than Wilco's & despite
>them sort of drifting into that High Times Magazine ether
>around album 3/4 they're still a harder ticket on tour than
>Wilco.

Almost none of that has to do with discography, or it's tangential at best.

>>exactly, lots are.
>>
>>and not one of them would I think of while in discussion and
>>say 'you know they might be the best rock band ever'.
>
>BUT - that's not what we're talking about, is it? We're
>talking about best discography (not best band overall) in the
>last twenty-five years (not the entire history of rock). I'm
>gonna take a pretty non-controversial stance and say that the
>only reason Wilco is a factor in the conversation is that rock
>isn't what it used to be. Which isn't to lessen Wilco or any
>of their peers, really, but the overall inspiration in the
>genre has waned. There's never gonna be another Rolling
>Stones. Never.
>
I know this, I also know that 'discography' in this thread felt like an end-around to a bigger statement.

>>Chris Robinson bests Tweedy as a vocalist fairly easily, the
>>Crowes have a better live show (I've seen both five or six
>>times over the years so feel qualified to speak on it),
>their
>>ten or so best cuts would be better than Wilco's & despite
>>them sort of drifting into that High Times Magazine ether
>>around album 3/4 they're still a harder ticket on tour than
>>Wilco.
>
>Almost none of that has to do with discography, or it's
>tangential at best.

I was already talking about my overall band point by then, though despite the lack of critical love they get here I'd say that any of the Crowes first two minimum but probably three can hang with any of Wilco's three best but I'm sure that's considered blasphemous amongst this generation of 'rock fans' who fellate Radiohead here daily & listen to Sufjan Stevens.

>I was already talking about my overall band point by then,
>though despite the lack of critical love they get here I'd say
>that any of the Crowes first two minimum but probably three
>can hang with any of Wilco's three best but I'm sure that's
>considered blasphemous amongst this generation of 'rock fans'
>who fellate Radiohead here daily & listen to Sufjan Stevens.

I like Radiohead, but apart from that you have the wrong guy, sorry. I'm 37 years old. My favorite rock band is the Stones. I don't like Sufjan Stevens at all. In fact, nowadays I barely like indie rock - most of it seems really weak to me.

I just have never cared for the Crowes - they seem like a retro band without the songwriting chops to back it up. (Not that they're BAD songwriters per se, but it's pretty straightforward changes and simple bluesy melodies, for the most part; they're not remotely fucking with their biggest influences, like the Stones or even Skynyrd, on a songwriting front.)

are a lot more interesting to me than the black crowes.

the black crowes stuff i've heard has been pretty MOR to me, if not downright corny.

they still around?


avy: our new album. you may just like it. listen for free online @ http://theyesyesyalls.com

http://twitter.com/shamelessplug
http://theyesyesyalls.com

>
>>I was already talking about my overall band point by then,
>>though despite the lack of critical love they get here I'd
>say
>>that any of the Crowes first two minimum but probably three
>>can hang with any of Wilco's three best but I'm sure that's
>>considered blasphemous amongst this generation of 'rock
>fans'
>>who fellate Radiohead here daily & listen to Sufjan Stevens.
>
>I like Radiohead, but apart from that you have the wrong guy,
>sorry. I'm 37 years old. My favorite rock band is the
>Stones. I don't like Sufjan Stevens at all. In fact,
>nowadays I barely like indie rock - most of it seems really
>weak to me.
>
>I just have never cared for the Crowes - they seem like a
>retro band without the songwriting chops to back it up. (Not
>that they're BAD songwriters per se, but it's pretty
>straightforward changes and simple bluesy melodies, for the
>most part; they're not remotely fucking with their biggest
>influences, like the Stones or even Skynyrd, on a songwriting
>front.)

____________________

Plushdamentals mean winning

Metallica's first 5 are very strong, don't really know if anything since the Black album has been well received but still have a huge fanbase. Since this is strictly about discogs, than idk if Wilco has 5 better but definately don't have any that made as much noise since most people couldn't tell you what Wilco is including me.


Also, would throw in Pearl Jam. I have no idea how people feel about their releases after Vs but appear to still get some critical praise and have a large touring fanbase yet.

NIN i never really followed much, not sure how people feel about their discog.

just some bigger names to throw around really and still would take these over some answers like Dave Matthews who i never heard a full album from or care to. I might have to check Wilco now due to this post tho.

>Metallica's first 5 are very strong, don't really know if
>anything since the Black album has been well received but
>still have a huge fanbase. Since this is strictly about
>discogs, than idk if Wilco has 5 better but definately don't
>have any that made as much noise since most people couldn't
>tell you what Wilco is including me.

Metallica's first two are before the 25 year cutoff. That's a big problem. After the cutoff they have:

Master of Puppets - classic
And Justice for All - classic
Black album - good to great
Load/Reload - not good
St. Anger - the opposite of good
Death Magnetic - good

They need those first two. If this was about the last 30 years instead of the last 25, I think they're big contenders on the basis of the first four or five alone.

Never heard anything post-Black Album, nor do I ever want to. But I didn't like the Black Album, either, so there's that.

just more proof Wilco is the greatest band in the past 25 years.

avy: our new album. you may just like it. listen for free online @ http://theyesyesyalls.com

http://twitter.com/shamelessplug
http://theyesyesyalls.com

>just more proof Wilco is the greatest band in the past 25
>years.

What are the "quintessential" songs or albums that could get someones attention. Not familiar with these dudes AT ALL.

summerteeth, yankee hotel foxtrot, a ghost is born & the whole love.

then being there & sky blue sky are great too.

songs?

well, here are a few:

art of almost
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtM-piNM6iM

i'm the man who loves you
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Kl7hvsW5cI

misunderstood
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_q-Rl7i2mE&feature=related

jesus, etc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdXzY5kLK4k

a shot in the arm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VQAvnCKkiQ

handshake drugs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRhwyYXNa3w&feature=related

hummingbird
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEyiR_lc_cY

..i could go on!

where was that...letterman?


avy: our new album. you may just like it. listen for free online @ http://theyesyesyalls.com

http://twitter.com/shamelessplug
http://theyesyesyalls.com

and, yeah, they killed it alright.

nels cline is a-maz-ing.