Still remember the first time I heard Blood on the Tracks. It's an absolutely magical record. Probably only heard Yes once and wasn't interested. I suspect if I went back now that would change at least a bit, but it's still Blood on the Tracks for me.
Oh, and the NME have a proud history of doing just that. Garbage publication, always has been
Not always Leuth. There was a time in the early 70's when they were the cutting edge of rock journalism, with writers like the aforementioned Charles Shaar Murray, Nick Kent and the late Ian MacDonald. They were a bunch of gits who could be cruel, dismissive and just plain wrong, but they were never less than brilliant writers, thought provoking, entertaining and often hilarious. Made the stuffy, staid Melody Maker seem hopelessly boring and dated.
Oh, and the NME have a proud history of doing just that. Garbage publication, always has been
Not always Leuth. There was a time in the early 70's when they were the cutting edge of rock journalism, with writers like the aforementioned Charles Shaar Murray, Nick Kent and the late Ian MacDonald. They were a bunch of gits who could be cruel, dismissive and just plain wrong, but they were never less than brilliant writers, thought provoking, entertaining and often hilarious. Made the stuffy, staid Melody Maker seem hopelessly boring and dated.
Very true and then they had Parsons, Burchill and Baker.
Not listened to either album & only track I've ever heard of is Tangled up in Blue. Not a fan of either artist but prefer prog rock over nasal Bob so would have to say YES
Not listened to either album & only track I've ever heard of is Tangled up in Blue. Not a fan of either artist but prefer prog rock over nasal Bob so would have to say YES
Oh, and the NME have a proud history of doing just that. Garbage publication, always has been
Not always Leuth. There was a time in the early 70's when they were the cutting edge of rock journalism, with writers like the aforementioned Charles Shaar Murray, Nick Kent and the late Ian MacDonald. They were a bunch of gits who could be cruel, dismissive and just plain wrong, but they were never less than brilliant writers, thought provoking, entertaining and often hilarious. Made the stuffy, staid Melody Maker seem hopelessly boring and dated.
Nick Kent, at least initially, was not a huge fan of Blood on the Tracks:
Nick Kent of the NME said “the accompaniments are often so trashy they sound like mere practice takes”
Not listened to either album & only track I've ever heard of is Tangled up in Blue. Not a fan of either artist but prefer prog rock over nasal Bob so would have to say YES
How can this be counted?
I think I can only accept votes from posters who have listened to both albums. Generally, I will assume that that is the case if someone has submitted a vote.
They aren't particularly long albums, so if anyone is interested in listening to them, there are spotify links in the original post and I would highly recommend them if you have some time to spare.
Comments
Nice tactics though!
There was a time in the early 70's when they were the cutting edge of rock journalism, with writers like the aforementioned Charles Shaar Murray, Nick Kent and the late Ian MacDonald.
They were a bunch of gits who could be cruel, dismissive and just plain wrong, but they were never less than brilliant writers, thought provoking, entertaining and often hilarious.
Made the stuffy, staid Melody Maker seem hopelessly boring and dated.
Must read paper for all 70s musos.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_on_the_Tracks#Critical_reception
Stay tuned for more
Looking forward to the next match