NEW ORDER vs THE SMITHS : WHO REALLY RULES THE ROOST??

Forget The Stone Roses, for the time being - they were too overrated anyway in their (relatively) short time with us: after all, they did start off as a dodgy goth band before hitting on their winning formula (ie: pilfering Primal Scream's "velocity girl" for "Made of Stone") and then blew it by claiming to invent indie-dance (bollocks, A Certain Ratio got there first) with the wretched and vacuous "Fool's Gold" and then precipitate their own demise by fucking off for five years only to come back with a second Lp that consisted of nothing but JohnSquire wanking himself off for no apparent reason.....with the rest hardly getting a look in. Forget , even, Happy Mondays, who were truly godlike for the first seven years of their crazy ramshackle existence before they too crapped out big-style in cacky cover -version -hell and, later still, sucking up to Orang-utan Arse-features Chris Evans. Allow yourselves to likewise forget The Fall , the perennial loose cannon amongst the lot of 'em. Reserve your comments then, for the two most influential Manchester bands of the 1980s, who between them have spawned more imitators than you dare shake a Perfect Kiss 12" sleeve or dog-eared Hand In Glove poster at.

Ladies and Gentlemen: In the blue corner: we have Morrissey, Marr, Rourke and Joyce. In the red corner: we have Sumner/Albrect/Dicken, Hook, Morris and Gilbert.

So, who's the greatest of them all ?

TIME TO THROW THAT SHIT AGAINST THE WALL!!!

That is a very hard call...

The Smiths are such a distant memory..but their music is still relevant; One of their greatest songs is "There is a light..." I don't think I can ever get sick of that song. Also, you cannot forget "Stop me..." I think if you were to ask me this same question 15 years ago..I would have without question put The Smiths at the top of my list...

Now, since NewOrder has withstood the test of time...BArney and the crew get my vote for the band that rules the roost!

No question...it's a tie. Come on, they're just too damn different, it's not fair to either group.

I got into the Smiths first, then JD, then NO (like I said, after I had run out of JD stuff minus the box set). I love the wry off-centre melodicism and overwrought vocalization of the Mozza just as much as Ian's deep lyrics and despair-drenched tone and Barney's sing-song "what rhymes with 'orange'?" There's just no point....

Take me out, to--night....

Besides, it doesn't really matter, because....................JOURNEY RULES!!!!!!

(can you tell I've only had 5 hours sleep?)

it's not journey without steve perry!!!

     g.

Sorry Smif fans, it has to be New Order. Listening to Morrisey mewl about his self-obsession is best done in small doses. Had no problem making a 60 minute best of tape, but I don't play their records any more at all, while I've never stopped listening to New Order. Morrissey also seemed to me to become a cartoon figure, one that was easily lampooned on an episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000. In it, a lookalike is released from a PopStar tupperware tub (to maintain pop star freshness over the years, of course), and immediately starts talking about "a time in my life when I was very depressed....this morning.." and starts singing some song about having a hangnail or something, whereupon he is immediately stuffed back into the tub. Bit cruel, maybe, but funny, yes.

Two of my favourite bands, both of whom ruled the roost in their own particular genre. If I had to pick one it would always be New Order, their influence stretches far beyond that of the Smiths and the Smiths never made an album as powerful as PCL or Low-Life or Technique, never mind Unknown Pleasures!

To me, The Queen Is Dead is THE album of the Eighties, and you do see an influence on the musings of REM, Trash Can Sinatras, Wedding Present, et al from the Smiths. Of course Mozza's a cartoonish character, but he sings about serious topics. To me, the idea of a "competition" between the two is pretty tempting, but I chose to straddle the fence if only because they're the best two bands to come out of Manc.

Originally posted by Taboo # 7 To me, The Queen Is Dead is THE album of the Eighties, and you do see an influence on the musings of REM, Trash Can Sinatras, Wedding Present, et al from the Smiths. Of course Mozza's a cartoonish character, but he sings about serious topics. To me, the idea of a "competition" between the two is pretty tempting, but I chose to straddle the fence if only because they're the best two bands to come out of Manc.

Meat Is Murder is a far better album in my opinion, I was very disappointed with The Queen Is Dead.

Morrissey wrote better lyrics than Sumner but musically, i think neworder have the edge. I had a dream the other night that the Smiths, New Order and the Cure toured together in 80's revival. If they promised to not play anything after 1989, it could be an amazing show.

Barney needs some influence on his lyrics if neworder are to release another album. It doesn't matter if the Philharmonic Orchesra is playing if someone keeps spouting nonsense over the top.

Originally posted by brian geoghagan Morrissey wrote better lyrics than Sumner but musically, i think neworder have the edge. I had a dream the other night that the Smiths, New Order and the Cure toured together in 80's revival. If they promised to not play anything after 1989, it could be an amazing show.Barney needs some influence on his lyrics if neworder are to release another album. It doesn't matter if the Philharmonic Orchesra is playing if someone keeps spouting nonsense over the top.

Part of the beauty of New Order is the fragility of the lyrics, the fact that there is no attempt to change the world going on there.

Not playing anything after 1989 would be easy for the Smiths (broke up in '87) but to limit NO and the Cure to pre-fall-of-Communism material would leave out some great stuff. Yes, I'm a Republic fan, and the whole Wish album has some of my favorite stuff.

Meat is Murder is a good one, but overall I feel that Queen is their most "complete" album. They had a nasty habit of releasing singles collections even when they were together, so the self titled, Meat, Queen, and Strangeways are their only proper albums. Though Queen should have ended with There is A Light instead of Some Girls Are Bigger Than Others (funny how both the Smiths' and NO's 1986 efforts end with silly songs. Must've been something in the air), but on the whole it's the better album, in my opinion

I just find the lyrics too stupid in places but I also think musically Meat Is Murder is superior. We'll just have to agree to differ I suppose Tabsy!

No! You must come around to my point of view or die! There is no compromise!

Okay, just kidding....Believe me, I like Meat, but for me the Queen will be my first love.

This line from 'What She Said' on Meat Is Murder is my favourite Smiths lyric:

'I smoke, cause i'm hoping for an early death'

Never bettered!

Originally posted by Taboo # 7 Besides, it doesn't really matter, because....................JOURNEY RULES!!!!!!(can you tell I've only had 5 hours sleep?)

Oh number 7, why did you HAVE to go and spoil it all by saying that again???!!??!!

(have you received my email of "New Order Story" yet - if you got it at all that is???)

Originally posted by Muffy > Originally posted by Taboo # 7> To me, The Queen Is Dead is THE album of the Eighties, and you do see an influence on the musings of REM, Trash Can Sinatras, Wedding Present, et al from the Smiths. Of course Mozza's a cartoonish character, but he sings about serious topics. To me, the idea of a "competition" between the two is pretty tempting, but I chose to straddle the fence if only because they're the best two bands to come out of Manc.

Meat Is Murder is a far better album in my opinion, I was very disappointed with The Queen Is Dead.

And, as we all know, reasonably goog tho' "TQID" is, it came out the same year as New Order's GODLIKE (no other word) "Brotherhood", and guess which album ran off with all the end-of-year plaudits, whilst the other sank into obscurity... guess which one I would prefer? It's not hard to...is it???

Originally posted by Muffy > Originally posted by Taboo # 7> To me, The Queen Is Dead is THE album of the Eighties, and you do see an influence on the musings of REM, Trash Can Sinatras, Wedding Present, et al from the Smiths. Of course Mozza's a cartoonish character, but he sings about serious topics. To me, the idea of a "competition" between the two is pretty tempting, but I chose to straddle the fence if only because they're the best two bands to come out of Manc.

Meat Is Murder is a far better album in my opinion, I was very disappointed with The Queen Is Dead.

And, as we all know, reasonably good tho' "TQID" is, it came out the same year as New Order's GODLIKE (no other word) "Brotherhood", and guess which album ran off with all the end-of-year plaudits, whilst the other sank into obscurity... guess which one I would prefer? It's not hard to...is it???

Originally posted by Green Sorry Smif fans, it has to be New Order. Listening to Morrisey mewl about his self-obsession is best done in small doses. Had no problem making a 60 minute best of tape, but I don't play their records any more at all, while I've never stopped listening to New Order. Morrissey also seemed to me to become a cartoon figure,

My thoughts exactly Green, it seems the Smiths - and Morrissey in particular - did become more of a self-parody in later years, I mean, one illustration of this is the propensity for song-titles that were deliberately "controversial" but backed by increasingly flaccid and unremarkable music (viz: "We Hate Itt When Our Friends Become Successful" "The National Front Disco" "....International Playboys" "Piccadilly Palare"). The only period when Moz temporarily halted his inevitable artistic decline was when he released "Vauxhall and I" in 1993. (The lead-off single "The More You Ignore Me..." is easily as good as "Everyday Is Like Sunday" and prime Smiths moments such as TQID's "...Light..." "How Soon..." and "This Night Has Opened My Eyes...")

I too, very seldom play Smiths LPs in full these days, though if I need to reminisce about my good old days as a thin, underfed, naive, uncynical - and single-chinned - undergraduate I would stick on the odd moment from "Louder Than Bombs" or "Hatful of Hollow" just to momentarily remind me what an influential band they indeed were in some respects. Basically, the argument that The Smiths had only one tune does kind of ring true: Morrissey's lyrical prowess is inversely matched by his limited singing style (okay okay, so Barney is no choirboy either!!!) his tendency to yodel the same three notes (if you want proof of this, listen to the very first few seconds of "Girl Afraid" - he uses these identical three descending notes on a hell of a lot of Smiths songs, thus lending wiegthto this of -debated "sameyness" argument.) means that one quickly tires of the same formula - no matter how earnest their relatively traditionalist musicianship. Now, New Order, on the other hand, have a tendency to make a far more expressive musical statement with a lot of their songs - especially during their"Low-Life"-"Brotherhood" period - piling their songs high with mountainous synthesised climaxes that literally have your pulse racing.
This brings us to perhaps the greatest irony/paradox of all: The Smiths were often claimed to be the more emotional(ly honest) band of the two: yet their songs, finely realised and succinct many of them are, sound a little gutless and derivative compared to New Order's occasionally mammoth edifices of pure sound (I was going to start banging on about s***c c*******ls before wisdom got the better of me) - even though New Order were always dismissed as "lyrically cold, obtuse, and soulless" (from an old "Movement" review).

And, as we know, which band are still with us today, enthralling and captivating and infuriating their devoted fanbase even as we type???!!! Go figure!!

Well, yes the Smiths are no longer with us (as a collective, that is), but there's something to be said for knowing when to quit. New Order, thankfully, haven't sunk into self-parody, but a lot of bands that've held on as long or longer either have degenerated into crap or have always been that way, no one noticed. The Smiths aren't everyone's cup of tea, but I happen to love what music they put out while they were together. Mozza solo, that's another subject entirely (New Order easily outdistance themselves compared to him).

Oh, I've been too lazy to check my account, but I'll let you know if and when.

Originally posted by Taboo # 7 Mozza solo, that's another subject entirely (New Order easily outdistance themselves compared to him).

Well that's a good enough prompt for a slight diversion - very very very slight of course , unlike loads of threads elsewhere (!!!) - from the main thread. Does anybody think Morrissey's solo stuff has stood the test of time as well as his parent bands?? He did do some pretty rank stuff at various points didn't he? (oooh...contentious word : old Smiths Live album title!!)

Let's gleefully pick over the bones of these shall we??

"Ma ma...they've taken my (overcooked) goose away...."

Originally posted by Allen Jarvis The Smiths broke up in - what? - 86/87? so I don't really see how they're relevant these days, except perhaps to anyone over 30. There was a piece in the Grauniad a couple of months ago - I think I posted about it here? - which focused on a Smiths Disco held monthly in Manchester, where even the DJ (aged just 28) admitted he'd never even seen the Smiths live. Sort of defeats the notion of fandom, really? To be fair, on their day, the Smith were probably 'bigger' just because I've always thought they sounded more 'commercial' - all those jingly-jangly 3-min pop songs which stick in your head. Every fucking person at my VIth Form simply adored the Smiths, but then they loved all that C86 Tallulah Gosh bollocks too. I've always found New Order fans to be more discerning in the long term..

Quite, Allen. If you had a look at my brief synopsis a few posts back you will see that I, also, was of the opinion that The Smiths basically had more of a "sound of the times" feel about them and that , yes, they don't seem to be relevant today.....frankly the sight of all these frail, sensitive young waifs hurling their gladioli and hearing aids all over the dancefloor at the Star and Garter (the Manchester pub where this occasional disco thingy occurs - yep I read the article as well, and was not surprised to see that most of the Mozzaphiles there possessed little or no awareness - let alone acceptance - of other types of music) makes me feel rather ill....who on earth goes round dressed like that IN MANCHESTER these days? Unless you're crusing for a brusing from the city's festering and ever-increasing populace of runt-faced designer-clad baseball-capped scallies. That was then, and influential though the Smith's legacy may be, Johnny Marr obviously ha d his head screwed on right when he decided to "Ditch The Dorrissey" (© 2001 Anne Robinson....)

.....and climb into bed with Barney to share his toys, figuratively speaking, of course!!!......

Originally posted by Martin Gray Forget , even, Happy Mondays, who were truly godlike for the first seven years of their crazy ramshackle existence before they too crapped out big-style in cacky cover -version -hell and, later still, sucking up to Orang-utan Arse-features Chris Evans.

but the mondays started the same time as the roses & they were pants to begin with, that support set on the technique tour sounded dire - a complete mishmash. & the appearence on wilsons program where heproclaimed them to be the next big thing - awful (ok so he was rite in the end, but how much of that was hype, how much cos of some hidden facet of their ability they didn't show that day?) sure they got a lot better very quickly, but don't overlook the fact they had dodgy beginnings too.

& as for original question. the order. nuff said.

Originally posted by dave hibell > Originally posted by Martin Gray> Forget , even, Happy Mondays, who were truly godlike for the first seven years of their crazy ramshackle existence before they too crapped out big-style in cacky cover -version -hell and, later still, sucking up to Orang-utan Arse-features Chris Evans.

but the mondays started the same time as the roses & they were pants to begin with, that support set on the technique tour sounded dire - a complete mishmash. & the appearence on wilsons program where heproclaimed them to be the next big thing - awful (ok so he was rite in the end, but how much of that was hype, how much cos of some hidden facet of their ability they didn't show that day?) sure they got a lot better very quickly, but don't overlook the fact they had dodgy beginnings too.

& as for original question. the order. nuff said.

If you enjoy an unholy mix of early James, mid-80's Fall and prime-period Ohio Players then you will perhaps understand why "Squirrel & G-Man...." is such a fucking amazing début album even though "Delightful" their debut 12" was a bit of a ramshackle mess....I just thought they'd sold themselves down mundanity street when they started twisting their fucking lemons about, that's all. And as for that loaded/penthouse bollocks...well.... Yes - I saw the Mondays supporting James around the time prior to the release of "Bummed" and they truly sucked big ones. The second gig I turned up at on their '88 tour (in Newcastle upon Tyne, ) Shaun Ryder was so fucking out of it the band couldn't play as he had all but fucking disappeared!!! So James had to play a double-long set instead - and they weren't happy. That says a lot about the Mondays, really.

Originally posted by dave hibell > Originally posted by Martin Gray> Forget , even, Happy Mondays, who were truly godlike for the first seven years of their crazy ramshackle existence before they too crapped out big-style in cacky cover -version -hell and, later still, sucking up to Orang-utan Arse-features Chris Evans.

but the mondays started the same time as the roses & they were pants to begin with, that support set on the technique tour sounded dire - a complete mishmash. & the appearence on wilsons program where heproclaimed them to be the next big thing - awful (ok so he was rite in the end, but how much of that was hype, how much cos of some hidden facet of their ability they didn't show that day?) sure they got a lot better very quickly, but don't overlook the fact they had dodgy beginnings too.

& as for original question. the order. nuff said.

What ??!!? The Mondays were far far better as a live band early on - Finsbury Park supertent 1987 they were fuckin awesome - it's only when they started earning a bit of dosh, after Squirrel.... that they started losing it

I agree with you totally Ken........