Bruce Springsteen/Suicide/Beat The Devil - "Dream Baby Dream [live 2005]"/"Dream Baby Dream [live 1979]"/"Mr Ray" 10"

Part of the Alan Vega 70th Vinyl Series.

I love "Most Of The Time." Great song.

I'm trying to decide: is it just the passing of time which makes it so easy to see one album as a classic and the other as a (at best) "transitional" album? I'm not sure. I can't believe a room full of people were enthused by "Tough Mama," "Hazel," etc. Maybe these were lost souls who still thought Dylan had all the answers to the universe.


Me too. Or three. I can't count.
-----
Oh! Dylan turns 75 in March! I assume there will be some sort of tribute. Watch him release a terrible album on purpose, just to fuck with people.

Meanwhile..

THE CURE - THE TOP: Strangely underrated. Anyone who likes HEAD ON THE DOOR shouldn't have a problem with this. Several great tunes. Allmusic: 2 stars (although fans have it at 3.5)

The Top is a great, but honestly I wish it sounded more like Head on the Door, which really stands out sound wise in the Cure's discography. Even among such a strong series of records, HOTD goes off in a number of different directions and doing so with better results than any other Cure album. Kiss Me... tries to do it better, but ultimately fails. The Top kind of got things started and laid the groundwork, but HOTD is exponentially better, in my always humble opinion.

It's hard to name a favorite Cure album, with gems all over the place, but I think Head on the Door is mine.

Also, anyone remember that scene in High Fidelity that features "Most of the Time" to great effect? Pretty perfect use of the song.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who appreciates the song... and the rest of Oh Mercy as well, certainly, though "Most of the Time" is the highlight for me.

I don't fuck with much before Mercy or after Blood on the Tracks. But I know someday I will dig in to that period of Dylan's music. His '60's records are almost perfect, the lot of them. In fact, I think he's the only artist fro that decade who can be compared to the Beatles. When people ask me the classic "Beatles or Stones?" question, I can't help but laugh. I love early Stones, but the question is an insult. Mostly because the Stones didn't release a perfect album until after the Beatles were done. I think "Beatles or Dylan?" Is really the question. America's 60's cultural game-changer VS. the UK's. I'd still go with the Beatles, but I could at least respect the opinion that Dylan was the "better" artist.

Which one?

Here's a comparison to chew on: Stones vs VU. Bad boy posturing ("all my friends are junkies") vs real world observation (see: "Heroin"). Teenagers vs adults. Product vs art.

Jagger has had 50+ years to write something as powerful as "Candy Says" and he's never once risen to the challenge. Loser.

The "live" side:

That is my bet. I'd go with "sycophants", though.


No, May 24th. :)


I have a problem with it. But I'm not a fan of The Cure, whom I pretty much hate. Sorry, Mascis, Yo La Tengo, Britt Daniel, etc.

Ah, I'm wrong about everything again. My New Year's resolution should've been to work on that bad habit.

Last night I acquired and started combing through Bob Dylan-Theme Time Radio Hour. Needless to say, I didn't get much sleep.

YES! I like also studio album, but in live they made as good material as for example Velvets!

About the Cure their four first album are their best (hard to say which one of them is the best, Faith?). They haven´t made a bad album (wild Mood Swings is the weakest), maybe s/t album from 2004 is one of their greatest later outputs.

About the Beatles, Stones, Dylan & V.U. I think it was the Beatles musically & Dylan lyrically. Velvet was the most important band in pop history just for that sake I don´t believe there ever would have been seventies punk/post punk without Velvet (Velvet was the first one to bring mean/dirty to the pop). But always when somebody asks Beatles or Stones I answer Stones maybe just because Stones have always been just much more R´N`R.

Well said.

I have nothing against the stones. I've seen them several times, between Voodoo Lounge and the time they toured with Cheryl Crowe (shiver). I LOVE early Stones. I think "Play with Fire" is one of the best songs of all time. But I don't give much of a shit about anything after 1972.

Velvets > Stones. They're the Beatles from some warped alternate reality, and everything I love pretty much came from Lou and John, or John and Paul.

But my personal '60s hierarchy goes like this:

1. Velvet Underground
2. Beatles
3. Kinks
4. Dylan
5. Stones

I don't think anyone really compares to the Velvets or the Beatles OR Dylan, as in there will never be another of any of those groups. But the Stomes? There have been soooo many. Every decade has a Stones of its own and every decade has had the fucking Stones. They've been shit for 40 years longer than the Beatles even existed. It's hard to talk about them like they compare. Ditto for Velvets.

Dylan vs. Stones is an interesting one, since they've been around for about the same amount of time. Still, Dylan takes it.

can we all agree that the Jefferson Airplane sucked? ha!

Make up your mind. But it's tough, isn't it? A productive decade followed by completely not giving a fuck about anything other than a paycheck. I so despise 70s-and-beyond Stones that it almost takes the shine off the good stuff.

But the good news is when Mick and Keith die, no one will ever say, "What a tragedy. They had so much more to offer."

I've probably derived more pleasure from the Byrds, so they'd go in my #5 slot. I don't expect anyone to agree.


I agree. But I was listening to that a few weeks ago and realized it only half sucks. What an impressive catalog.

Cure>Stones

Silly comparison, I know. But I'm right.


Jefferson Airplane>Herman's Hermits

This is the craziest fucking thing you've ever posted. Herman's Hermits wipe the floor with the Airplane!

Also, stop dissing '70s Stones. Some Girls is a masterwork and EVERY album between Exile and SG, and then until and including Tattoo You, has formidable songs. And ALSO, re: Mortte: "it was the Beatles musically & Dylan lyrically" — no, it was Dylan musically & lyrically.

Oh hell yeah Cure > Stones.

Wild Mood Swings was huge when it first came out. You guys remember. Maybe not huge sales wise (though it did pretty well), but huge as in "holy shit New Cure!!" I got swept up in that, and didn't even notice that the album half sucked until years later.

But it's still a good record. Thing about the Cure is that so many of their records are so good in such different ways. Boys Don't Cry/Three Imaginary Boys is excellent in a way that was never repeated. Seventeen Seconds is perfect. Pornography is post-punk executed with Joy Division-like precision and intensity. But somehow Disintigration and Head on the Door hit me hardest.

No. It was the Beatles and George Martin musically. Dylan lyrically. He's right, you're wrong.

This is the craziest fucking thing you've ever posted. Herman's Hermits wipe the floor with the Airplane!

Are you fuckin serious? "Mrs Brown has a lovely doughter...Uuuh!!

Also, stop dissing '70s Stones. Some Girls is a masterwork and EVERY album between Exile and SG, and then until and including Tattoo You, has formidable songs.

Agreed but I add to great Stones albums Undercover, Steel Wheels, Voodoo Lounge & Bridges to Babylon. Even Bigger Bang is better than Emotional Rescue.

No! Cure has never been greater than Stones. But it´s great anyway. And Wild Mood is not a bad album, it has some great moments. Also really liked Smith´s trilogy, Pornography, Disintegration & Bloodflowers.

Here´s my top10 of the sixties bands, in order (nothing to do with the importance of the pop music, just how important they been to me):
1. Pink Floyd
2. the Who
3. Stones
4. the Jimi Hendrix Experience
5. Velvet
6. Captain Beefheart & His Magic Band
7. the Beatles
8. the Doors
9. Traffic
10. the Mothers of Invention

Uuh, as always, have to leave so many great bands out! But most of these have been into my life almost my whole life.