Underated

All aspects of the Liverpool band - past present & future.

Moderators: Tony, Syl

Underated

Postby jammyc77 » Fri Mar 30, 2012 11:10 am

I've been thinking lately about the story of The La's, and how somebody as good as Lee did not get the acclaim he deserved. In the indieworld his name is known, a little! but the outside world it would be Lee, who? but yet if you said Noel Gallagher they would no him. So how can someone that writes Looking glass go unnoticed, noel can write a tune like! but he never got close to writing anything in the same league as looking glass,

The Roses also were bigger, but they never had a patch on the way lee wrote a song! his message was clear in his songs, an had a meaning! i don't care, i taste ambre solaire aint saying a great deal lol. Lee for fuck sake if you still love the music, bring it fucking home! once an for all and say it loud, because there is no one who can say it louder. :wink:
jammyc77
 
Posts: 54
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: Underated

Postby The_Midnight_Rambler » Fri Mar 30, 2012 11:30 am

I don't think anyone on here would disagree that The La's had the potential to be a huge band, but ultimately the reason they weren't is because Mavers wasn't willing, or was unable, to play the game in the way that's required to cross over into that world. We all know what a reluctant interviewee he was/is, how he refuses to compromise and generally shows disdain for the industry figures that run the record companies. I'd say it's pretty much impossible to get to an Oasis level of success without showing a bit more willing when it comes to promotion, interviews and photoshoots.

I'm a big fan of the Roses, but whatever you think of their music one thing that they're unavoidably good at is building mystique, hype and excitement around them. They've always been pretty secretive as to what they're doing, but they know how to release just enough information to keep people intrigued, but not enough to present a level of transparency that leaves people feeling like they're 'in the know'. In doing so they build excitement for albums (ala second coming) and tours (second coming/reunion shows) to fever pitch level. As for Oasis, well...they were just in the right place at the right time. Though maybe that's a tad biased as I'm really not a fan :wink:
User avatar
The_Midnight_Rambler
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Guildford

Re: Underated

Postby eggyroader » Fri Mar 30, 2012 11:50 am

4 singles in 4 -5 years didnt help, and as oasis said "you gotta make it happen". you can sit around jammin n chonging and talking idealistically, but before you know it it'll pass you by, farcical release dates, lots of money spent, no hits (tsg re-release excepted) same songs as 3-4 years previously, band members coming and going, pissed off journalists taking a dislike to lee's attitude, and his refusal to play the game and just a disdain for doing it and getting the band and the name out there, but i dont think it bothers him so ce la vie
eggyroader
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2011 2:31 am

Re: Underated

Postby markmc87 » Fri Mar 30, 2012 12:43 pm

The Stone Roses and Oasis were both hungry for the big time. Both had ambitions to be bigger/better/more important than the Beatles. TSR got f*cked about by their record company, they covered the offices in paint and secured a massive deal with Sony for the Second Coming. They had the same attitude towards interviews but played the game so they didn't need to do them. For the Second Coming they granted one interview only and that was to the Big Issue. Lee could have been more productive in helping the producers find the sound they were after rather than being as difficult as he possibly could. Both bands should have been bigger based on potential but compare their recorded output to that of The Beatles (or even Oasis), ~20 songs in 10 active years each (mid-eighties to mid-nineties) against ~200 Beatles tracks 1964-70, ~90 Oasis tracks 1994-04.

I've got to stick up for TSR as I love their album just as much as The La's. She Bangs The Drums, Waterfall, Made Of Stone, I Am The Resurrection, Fools Gold all timeless classics in my book. Bit unfair to compare the lyrics of B-side Going Down, but in any case Ian Brown was a different writer, all about the imagery & mystique. The meaning is there just not as immediate.

If anything, unless Lee gets it together and shows the world what he's capable of, the general opinion of the band may end up as over-rated, especially with the endless set-backs and recent trash-talking. As always, I sincerely hope Lee's exorcised his demons and the current activity isn't just another retread as per 2005. And besides, why would you take any notice of what the indieworld think? :)
User avatar
markmc87
 
Posts: 75
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 9:25 pm

Re: Underated

Postby jammyc77 » Fri Mar 30, 2012 1:41 pm

I just think its a crime that people no more of songs like "Dont look back in anger" and "Fools Gold" then they do of a song like Looking Glass. I really don't believe there is a game to play to get success, i believe in the power of the music, of the message, of the song! an i can guarantee you if i pulled 10 people of the street an played them each of them songs 5 times each, looking glass would be the one that would get them. I care not of the indieworld m8 an what it thinks, hehe! and im not trying to start a debate, This is me in hope trying to gee lee up. All im saying is credit never went to where it was due, really! I think though it will be impossible for The La's to become overated, lee sprinkled to much magic dust over them songs for that to happen :) The roses are cool dudes an i like them, and love a few tunes of the first album to! but even in 89 when they was in there prime, there was numerous bad shows! Thats something that was never said about The La's, musicianship for me is what the game should be about! an Lee was only second to Lee. Go on Lee, hehe :)
jammyc77
 
Posts: 54
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: Underated

Postby The_Midnight_Rambler » Fri Mar 30, 2012 2:25 pm

I love The La's, they're my favourite band, so yeah...I'd like to believe that if you were to play people music by each band they'd agree that The La's are the best. I totally disagree that there's no game to play though, I wish there wasn't but there is. Essentially the "pulling people off the street and playing them songs" is exactly the job that record labels and the music media do, so if you spend a couple of years actively defying them at every turn they're going to lose the desire, and become reluctant, to push your music on the public over a band/musician that's friendly, helpful and/or treats you with respect.

I should point out that I have a great deal of respect for Lee for being so unwilling to compromise with his art, but this approach is definitely not conducive to selling records and getting exposure.
User avatar
The_Midnight_Rambler
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Guildford

Re: Underated

Postby mark » Fri Mar 30, 2012 4:56 pm

In my eye's Lee didnt care for "big time". The la's weren't trying to be anything they were not, what you see is what you get type thing...

Oasis wanted to be "THE BIGGEST",They wanted popularity, they wanted to do interviews, the only thing Lee wanted was for the sound of his music to have a certain feel and quality, a song like looking glass was not written with lee thinking "This song is gunna make me sooooooooooo famous!" its just written from the heart! in my eyes he cannot be compared to oasis
mark
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2006 1:24 am
Location: earth

Re: Underated

Postby IfIHadAGun » Fri Mar 30, 2012 6:01 pm

music and new bands are all about marketing, sad but true.
http://rockndolestar.blogspot.com/2011/ ... eller.html (La's interviews)
http://vimeo.com/user2266034/videos (Live @ Manchester, Amsterdam & Liverpool videos)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLzZdY0flSM (L'pool Music Documentary)
User avatar
IfIHadAGun
 
Posts: 855
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 8:11 pm
Location: Liverpool

Re: Underated

Postby da capo » Sun Apr 01, 2012 4:16 am

"You still listen to hip hop?"
"Yeah, why?"
"Cause it's all about marketing..."

- Sopranos
User avatar
da capo
 
Posts: 323
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 2:50 am
Location: USA

Re: Underated

Postby Gav » Mon Apr 02, 2012 9:30 am

mark wrote:In my eye's Lee didnt care for "big time". The la's weren't trying to be anything they were not, what you see is what you get type thing...

Oasis wanted to be "THE BIGGEST",They wanted popularity, they wanted to do interviews, the only thing Lee wanted was for the sound of his music to have a certain feel and quality, a song like looking glass was not written with lee thinking "This song is gunna make me sooooooooooo famous!" its just written from the heart! in my eyes he cannot be compared to oasis

Didn't seem to care for the small time either. Or writing songs, still playing the same 18 or so songs pushing 30 years since he wrote them.
User avatar
Gav
 
Posts: 330
Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 7:20 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: Underated

Postby Dan » Mon Apr 02, 2012 4:08 pm

Lee isn't underrated in any sense whatsoever. One albums worth of songs written over 20 years ago and still being talked about despite coming back each time playing the same songs with a worse band lineup - that's overrated surely!
Dan
 
Posts: 500
Joined: Thu Dec 19, 2002 11:05 pm
Location: England


Return to The La's

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 1 guest

cron