Premier Rock Forum

all the bands that I am able to choose here are equally good, except perhaps the Pop Group. I find them pretty unlistenable.

I used to think that too, about the Pop Group, but they really hit the spot sometimes when I'm in a super pissed-off/nihilistic mood.

There are some itches that only they can scratch. Same with This Heat.

NerblyBear wrote:The desire to quantify bands is lazy and intellectually bankrupt.

And yet we do it fairly often, whether knowingly or not, when we decide what to listen to.

To be honest, I'm not a huge fan of these thunderdome-type threads either, but they're nothing if not hypothetical---like if you were out fishing with a buddy and he asked you which of your former significant others you'd chose to spend all eternity with. Whatever your answer you're not gonna be held accountable in a court of law, because this isn't a court of law, or a logic lesson-- it's a message board.

These threads are a way of passing time, and if some worthwhile observations come out them, I fail to see the harm.

Also, I just realized why I chose Wire: Their records, the actual punk/post-punk ones -- which is only what they should be judged upon, Steve V. -- sound the best. Not just because of Mike Thorne's otherworldly production, but also the recording quality itself. I guess they had a pretty decent budget back then, and, like the Buzzcocks, Wire put it to good use.

I voted PiL, up to their Paris in The Spring album at least. Other PiL related bands from that period worth comparing are 2 be 4, The Basement 5, Steel Leg v. The Electric Dread. Early Jah Wobble. Even early Bollock Brothers.

While I like Entertainment! a little bit better than Pink Flag or Chairs Missing, if I consider cumulative worth, figuring in 154, Solid Gold, and a sprinkling of singles, I must admit that Wire has given me more great music.

So it's Wire, but only because The Birthday Party wasn't an option.

I'd say Gang of Four or Wire, I hate the rest of the bands on that list.

Some people mentioned This Heat, I'd never put them in a group with those bands personally, I think they were above that really and what they did was way better.

NerblyBear wrote:How about someone trying to explain why we have to give quantitative values to artists' work? Each of these bands is significant in its own unique way.

The desire to quantify bands is lazy and intellectually bankrupt.

We're humans, not robots, we do things we probably shouldn't do and aren't completely perfect. Life is complex, putting things in boxes and putting measurements on them makes things more simple for those of us who are too busy to take every facet of everything 100% seriously, like we're solving the worlds problems, like music and musicians are actually important. I'm not always precious about music though but I'm also quite possibly intellectually bankrupt.

Gang of Four, hands down.

Steve V. wrote:Gang of Four is an excellent band, but in my opinion only on two records.

In everyone's opinion, more like. Even the songs that are good from Songs of the Free are less-than-awesomely recorded.

But seriously.

Entertainment?

What a fucking monster of a record.

Antero wrote:

Steve V. wrote:Gang of Four is an excellent band, but in my opinion only on two records.

In everyone's opinion, more like. Even the songs that are good from Songs of the Free are less-than-awesomely recorded.

But seriously.

Entertainment?

What a fucking monster of a record.

Solid Gold is better. Even without the Another Day, Another Dollar EP appended.