Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The Stranglers. Opinions?

Stanley Edwards

1967 Maserati Mistral.
R.I.P.


I'm not at all comfortable with liking much of their music. What were they about? Clever, certainly, but what else?
 
Last edited:
Enjoyed them immensely back in the day but I must say that the last two occasions I've seen them were pretty dire.
 
They hitched onto the punk thing because it was just happening when they were getting started, but they always were a bad fit and had nothing to do with that ethos at all. The picture of them wearing makeup on the cover of Rattus Norvegicus illustrates this very well. But they gave it their best shot and although they were far too blokey and had very old wave notions of what rock n roll was about, they made some certainly listenable songs. As punk ran out of steam they were able to follow their more conventional path allowing very un-punk notions of musicianship and conceptual tendencies to take hold and these would only become more characteristic.
 
Nobody has mentioned Golden Brown yet.

What were The Stranglers about? Just slightly to late?


A musician friend of mine wrote his own version of this song. He called it Gordon Brown and as you might expect it was very unflattering of Gordon Brown. By the time he wrote and performed it Gordon Brown was Chancellor.

Was the original song really about heroin? We will probably never know.
 
The Stranglers were fucking great, I saw them live a few years ago and they were still fucking great.
JJ's bass and Dave's keyboards.

Although, I saw the last couple of tours they did with Hugh Cornwell and they were very average.

Nic'n'Sleazy and Who Wants The World are my favourites.

Please allow me to re-arrange your face sometime
I'd really like to get to know you better
 
I'll add this one



(since people often wonder wtf this is when it's used in adverts and such)

my starting point was the 'feline' album, I was a bit too young for the whole punk thing

I'll nominate this (although the edit released as a single was a pale shadow of it)



overall - not shit, although sometimes wonder if they didn't try a bit too hard to be clever...
 
They hitched onto the punk thing because it was just happening when they were getting started, but they always were a bad fit and had nothing to do with that ethos at all. The picture of them wearing makeup on the cover of Rattus Norvegicus illustrates this very well. But they gave it their best shot and although they were far too blokey and had very old wave notions of what rock n roll was about, they made some certainly listenable songs. As punk ran out of steam they were able to follow their more conventional path allowing very un-punk notions of musicianship and conceptual tendencies to take hold and these would only become more characteristic.
I'd agree with this, as a teenie punk I was somehow aware there was something not quite right about them as punks (*cough cough* drummer's too old *cough*) but didn't really understand till later. I absolutely caned their 1st & 2nd Lps, loved them, the dodgy misogyny didn't put me off (in fact they were very popular at my school probably for this reason :oops:). It was only later that I realised that this misogyny was not really what punk was - or could be - about (Poly Styrene, Siouxsie, the Slits etc). Great tunes though, and an appealing truculent, snarly, aggressive image.

In terms of hitching onto the punk thing, yes, totally - but they weren't alone in that! The Vibrators spring to mind - far too musically competent :D
UK Subs' Charlie Harper was an old blues rocker wasn't he? And you could make a case for Joe Strummer doing the same thing when he jumped ship from the 101ers...a case of seeing which way the wind was blowing.
 
Back
Top Bottom