Nah, i quite liked it the first time round thanks! I am too clever for you, as you have found out tonight! Hence your hasty retreat to "bed"!

Simon and Garfunkel wrote and performed far more interesting stuff than Blue or Keane!! Your bands you mentioned are so incredibly dull and samey! They are acts that stick to the lazy pop formula.

Keane sell 3 million albums every day - every single day. No i cant link you to any data for that, it just seems about right. A bit like your Beatles data

Nowhere near as successful though my friend. And i dont care if you dont think sales have any bearing on an artists career as they do.

Firstly, they don't mean an awful lot, as people buy bad music....but hang on a minute about sale!?! :

Blue....and Keane are more successful than Paul Simon and Art Garfunkel??? hahahahahahhahah, what nonsense! Simon and Garfunkel have sold 40m albums in America alone and easily over 50m albums worldwide! Blue or Keane are NOWHERE near that!

Blue have had 3 number 1 singles and 3 number 1 albums in this country, Simon & Garfunkel have had 2 number 1 albums and 1 number 1 single in this country. That is how i make them more successful in this country. I dont know how you work it but thats how i do it

What a truly short sighted and narrow way of viewing an artists success in a country, surely the fact that one of Simon and Garfunkels albums is one of THE biggest selling albums in british history, and spent a record 40+ weeks at #1 is a better indicator.

Overall, Simon and Garfunkel are a lot more successful in this country, and i think your "system" of determining success is severely limited.

sorry dude, that just isnt true. you might prefer todays music as a choice, but there wouldnt be anything today if it wasnt for the likes of the beatles, cream, zeppelin and all the old groups with all their varying styles.

everything today is derived from the old greats, nothing today is original... but im not saying it isnt good.


as for oasis... i quite like them, but bg is quite right, they havnt developed in 10 years. 'importance of being idle' could have been a track off 'morning glory'.. where as the beatles evolved dramaticly over their 8 year chart run.

and forget the hoardes of screaming girls, that was a phase that although never went, wasnt all there was to beatle fans.... thats just how teenage girls expressed themselves. there were plenty of blokes/adults who were fans who didnt partake in the scream-fest

Not strictly true that, is it? The Gang Of Four have far more influence on new music today than the Beatles yet no one would ever call them one of the "old greats". They were great nonetheless, but not commercially.

BTW, there was an excellent article in Saturday's Independent about Syd Barrett, who was 60 this weekend. You can't underestimate how important his guitar playing and attitude are to the history of modern music.

To me, a kid in the 60's with older cousins I was brought up on R&B (that's old school R&B not the stuff given that label now) and so was subjected to stuff like John Mayall and the Bluesbreakers and the Yardbirds from wayyy to young and while I don't think it was the best as such, it has coloured how I look at music - and a guitar based band will always win out for me (or even, as the O/H says, dodgy looking guy with guitar )
To me, The Who were the best the 60's had to offer - and after a brief sidetrack to the Bay City Rollers - normal service was resumed with The Jam/Paul Weller.
Loved Punk/New Wave but that's just probably 'cos I was the right age at the right time to really appreciate it but London Calling still is one of my all time favourite albums, but also like Ska.

But for every Abba there was a Brotherhood of Man and while a lot of the bands I liked back then have stood the test of time a quick trawl through the 45's and 33's shows that a lot haven't and there are quite a few I would be happy to forget buying!

Also like a lot of the new stuff around now - latest CD's are from Hard Fi and Dead 60's (but they are very Specials!) so the best I can come up with is that cream rises and good stuff is good stuff whenever it first came out - to me The Who and The Jam still sound as if they could be new stuff in the charts now, but that's just me.

maybe so, but to mention james blunt in the same breat as mr blobby and bob the builder. are you deliberately taking the piss?


foo fighters lame? you are having a laugh, aren't you?

Iain

Foo Fighters lame ... back off, they are a really really good band, ok not as good as Led Zep but Dave loves them and looks upto them musically. they are far from lame, if you sit down and listen to them from the first album to the newest you should change your mind, they are a good band and people will still listen to them in 10 years time.

Red Hot Chili Peppers and Foo Fighters are both top class bands and will still be heard of for a long time to come.

who the hell are Cream by the way.

some new music is good i.e alot of the indie bands such as Maximo Park, Bloc Party, Nine Black Alps.

but alot of the music nowadays is sh!t like the hip-hop/r'n'b same old trash. guns,girls,money wow such talent! i think not.

Oasis do not need to develop, even though in my opinon they have, they know what they do well and they stick to it, there is no need for them to change a winning formula. Why is it every successful band around at the moment gets slagged off because they havent "developed". Oasis are an amzing band and Noel is an amazing songwriter.

As for the Beatles, they were a 1 off, an amazing band who were also good at what they did. I will give you that band but lets be honest there are not many others from yester year that deserve anywhere near that sort of top quality status. People keep mentioning Cream, as i have said they were an awful band who could not score a hit in this country.

Music is so much better now. Arctic Monkeys are another band which are going to be huge yet no doubt they will not "develop" either

Are you telling me that Dr Dre, Eminem and Snoop Dogg are not talent?

They certainly had number one albums in both the UK and the US.

I was talking about singles, they never had a UK number 1 single. Talking about albums though, they released 11 in this country and 1 got to the number 1 slot, well done

I really dont see how people can talk about Cream in the same breath as the beatles and oasis

burbs is right about their singles, that's for sure:

Weekly position/total weeks in Top 75.

22/10/1966 Cream Wrapping Paper 34 45-{34}-35-37-42-49->6
17/12/1966 Cream I Feel Free 11 50-40-27-25-21-13-{11}-12-16-27-36-49->12
10/06/1967 Cream Strange Brew 17 43-32-22-19-18-{17}-18-29-35->9
08/06/1968 Cream Anyone For Tennis (The Savage Seven Theme) 40 45-{40}-48->3
12/10/1968 Cream Sunshine Of Your Love 25 40-33-{25}-28-30-36-50->7
18/01/1969 Cream White Room 28 48-37-30-31-30-{28}-34-46->8
12/04/1969 Cream Badge 18 43-36-20-28-{18}-25-20-22-31-37->10
28/10/1972 Cream Badge {1972} 42 48-43-{42}-46->4

http://www.polyhex.com/music/chartruns/chartruns.php

dre yes.
early snoop yes. now no.
eminem no sorry.

people like akon, fiddy, beyonce and stuff like that is awful pointless

cream were a legendary band from the 60's, only together for a few years but very influential, clapton at his best

badge is one of my favourites of theirs

That's the thing though, isn't it - it's only in retrospect that we know which bands are going to last. I could sit here and say all the bands I liked in the late 70's/early 80's which now have some kudos and have fantastic music taste - but that's not mentioning all the ones that fell by the wayside into one-hit wonder terriotory or simply not good enough land and my old record collection is stuffed with 'em!
I used to like Wham! but that's 'cos I liked throwaway pop not 'cos I thought George would go on to have the career he did (I mean, really, who woulda thought that?)
Who knows, of all the good bands around now possibly only 2 or 3 will make it into being discussed on a board like this in 10-20 years time and there may be some that are being dismissed as throwaway artists that stand the test of time .. that's the beauty of music.

(btw - weren't Cream supposed to be the first super group - Jack Bruce/Ginger Baker/Eric Clapton - all well know and well recognised artists at the time coming together)

cream?... the first supergroup, one of the most influenvial and yes successful bands that we have ever produced!

you cant call a bad crap because of poor singles sales! they were an album band. led zep never scored a single hit, and apart from 'brick in the wall' pink floyds singles career was also poor...

in 4 years cream clocked up 8 top ten albums.. thats pretty impressive.

i think they might sound dated by todays standards, but they were one of our greatest 60's bands.




ps... love the yardbirds, my fav group of all time.

he he.. well its close

I love your logic burbs....ahem! Just because a band does not score a hit single in UK, means you are not worthy!! Even by your twisted logic, Cream did have a few top 40/20 hits, and more importantly (since albums are the only reason bands actually EXIST) they have had something like 5 top 5 albums, including a #1 album.

In the early 1970s, it was always deemed a bit "uncool" like it is now, to be in the singles chart in Britain anyway. Some of the worlds biggest/best bands never achieved huge success or never even released singles in Britain - Led Zeppelin, the Yes, Cream, the Doors etc etc....yet because Cliff Richard did, that makes him better!! hahaha.

Cream were, and still are an amazing band, which is why they done some impressive gigs recently and given rave reviews for it. Burbs, you probably didn't even realise Eric Clapton was in Cream!! The ignorance!!

Cream don't sound dated. Songs like "White Room" and "Swlabr" are just awesome!

Yardbirds were great as well they kind of evolved into Led Zeppelin didn't they? Not a lot of people know that!

P.S Ignore Burbs comments, he/she has this logic of rating bands purely on 1 week single sales success....so he loves Westlife, Blue and the Spice Girls!