View Single Post
  #7  
Old 29-01-2018, 15:40
tomd2103 tomd2103 is offline
I am purity, they call me perverted
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 204
Quote:
Originally Posted by Europa Gluten Free View Post
One of the things I love most about the Manics is how they believed so strongly in the rock n roll myth. It took them from the rubble and shit of Blackwood to the soft rock of GT, the stadium rock of GATS, and the post-punk of THB in 3 years (!) before they reached their critical and commercial apex in 1996. The Manics were always about each era - it was the manifesto that inspired the lyrics and drove the music.

But because of this, they've made some questionable decisions in their history - artistic decisions that perhaps were the wrong move. Some of them they acknowledge, some of them they don't. And some of them they are completely wrong about (Lifeblood anyone?).

So, I thought about us pointing out some errors the Manics made at certain points and perhaps we can imagine what they might have done instead and what might have come of it?

DISCLAIMER: This thread is just for fun. And a bit of daydreaming. It is not meant as a criticism of the band.

I have a few, but I'll get us started with one that's close to my heart:

1. Know Your Enemy.
This era is a complete mess. (In a good way!) I do love the second half of the album. But Cuba was so incredibly naive and egotistical. The two singles was a crap idea.

What they should have done: They should have released two albums over two years as Wire has often mentioned. One could have been completely angular and weird (a la Intravenous Agnostic) whilst the other more commercial (SWSS, Door to the River, FD), They should have put Masses on one of those albums. They should have included most of the b-sides on those albums. They shouldn't have gotten so fat.

What would have happened: It would have saved us from a (crap) Greatest Hits era (although Jimbo looked good in 2002!), and a pretty pointless stop-gap b-sides era. It would have also lead to a reimagined Lifeblood, or perhaps straight into a less superficial SATT type era with straightforward rock without having to be afraid about commercial failure and being forgotten.
I think they found themselves with a real dilemma at that point. It's easy to forget that they were a very big band back then and over a six month period, had headlined Glastonbury, sold out the Millennium Stadium and had the first number one of the new millennium.

Only speculating of course, but I think they were probably really torn as a band around that time, as they seemed to have a love / hate relationship with the success they had experienced. As Masses highlighted, there was obviously a desire to strip things back, but I also think they had enjoiyed their success (why not!!) and wanted to prolong it. I think that confusion is reflected in Know Your Enemy and it has always seemed a bit directionless, even though it is far from being a bad album.

Hindsight is wonderful thing, but I have always thought that they may have been better off signalling their intent with Masses and following it up with a 'back-to-basics' / 'clear the decks' kind of album. It would have been the kind of move Blur did with their self-titled album and it might have set them up nicely to move forward from there. The songs for that kind of album are there in Know your Enemy (Found That Soul, Intravenous, Ocean Spray, Let Robeson Sing, Year of Purification, Dead Martyrs, The Convalescent, Royal Correspondent, Baby Elian, Freedom of Speech) and those along with one or two of the more experimental songs would have made a strong 10-12 track album.

The period after Know Your Enemy (the two compilation albums and Lifeblood) produced some of my favourite Manics songs (There By the Grace of God, Door to the River, Forever Delayed, 1985) and it would have been interesting to see an album reflect that three year period as a whole rather than those songs be spread over three albums. I guess it comes back to that conflict though and I'm sure there is pressure exerted on successful bands to keep the cash coming in.
Reply With Quote