Wednesday, November 25, 2015

pub rock versus pub rock

it's like the difference between Watney's Red Barrel and Double Diamond

11/26 bonus beers


  1. Respectfully disagree on this one - I think Dr. F sound much leaner and fiercer, unless my ears are subconsciously adopting visual cues.

    Thing about Mud is, they seem to be in that zone where no critical standards apply. Not beneath contempt, just kind of outside the set of things that are deemed to be critically contestable. Like The Dooleys or Barron Knights or Marti Caine.

  2. Oh i agree Phil - "She Does It Right" is much more exciting and inventive - what Wilko's doing with the guitar. And in that clip Brilleaux seems to be popping out of his shirt and tie with all the speed he's on.

    (Although I've never heard any other song by Dr F as thrilling or musically "forward'" as that - "Roxette" is good. The other really exciting one is post-Wilko, "MIlk and Alcohol")

    But i what i meant really was that it's two clips in the same TV studio - possibly a year apart? - with the same camera angles, seemingly the same audience almost. And both are plying this real back-to-basic grubby sound.

    I don't think I've ever tasted Double Diamond. Probably someone who drank in the 70s could think of a better beer versus beer analogy. I didn't think a CAMRA ale really fit with Dr Feelgood though.

    Tidbit - you sometimes see Watney's sold in America as an exotic import. Same applies the other way round of course - Budweiser in America is only a notch above piss. But I remember it at least at one point in the U.K. being a "cool" beer.

  3. I know what you mean Phil, about Mud being sub assessment, they do appeal on a uniquely lowly level. But I like "Dyna-Mite" - it's quite proto-punky - enough to make you wonder why the Count Bishops are considered so much cooler....

    And even "Tiger Feet" has this great little zig-zaggy riff in it - something that really comes out in the breakdown bit....

    but yes, to make even this most modest analytic comment about Mud, it feels impossibly uncalled-for. it is what is, it does what it does.

  4. Another thing about Mud is I think they were designed to appeal to young children - under 10's - with the bright colours, songs about animals, larking about, sticky name etc. A lot of glitter rock seems to have been partially aimed at that market - also Wizzard, Sweet, *shudders* Gary Glitter.

    Has anyone ever done an analysis on this? It seems to be an overlooked aspect of pop culture, which is normally written up as adolescence, sex, transgression, rebellion etc. I loved pop music when I was 6 years old, but it was a kind of warm friendly fun I responded to. I was amazed that Sparks had Hitler in their band.

  5. i think you're onto something - although Mud I think it's like they found this perfect cross-section appeal - somewhere between a bouncy beat for kids and then a sort of office party peak-hour / pub do things-getting-a-bit-raucous sound. They seem like a "dirty" band - Les has that leering Confessions of A Windowcleaner type vibe about him. Then you got the guitarist with the Frank Spencer in drag look nodding to glitter but more in a having a lark, local football team putting on women's clothes for charity..

    but in the UK a lot of pop got exposed through shows like Saturday Scene (with Sally James as everykids's big sister) and Crackerjack and later on Runaround, so i'm sure you right about the bright colours etc etc

    Slade were another band who had this sort of salty, bawdy appeal aimed at teens + upwards (stage banter about knickers and so on) but i'm sure the gaudy outfits and the larking about it went down well with pre-teens

  6. When dynamite is on who's thinking?

    It's just pressing all those pleasure buttons - sonically and visually.

    Critical analysis goes out the window with Mud because they do it right.