Best/Worst 7" Covers

suss · In the Long Grass

Best/Worst 7" Covers

ArrGee · Back To Boomtown

I'd rank Someone's Looking and Lookin' After No. 1 along with Dave/Rat Trap as the best front covers. The Long Grass singles all had decent covers and were well themed to tie in with the LP.

I have the Blondie, Clash & Jam box sets and to be honest their single covers weren't that great either. Some bands do very good single covers, Franz Ferdinand and Pulp come to mind, but it didn't seem to be very important in the seventies.

http://www.gigwise.com/news/51878/function.chmod

http://www.rankopedia.com/Best-Rock-Single-Cover/Step1/17161/.htm

-- Edited by ArrGee on Friday 20th of July 2012 03:51:51 PM

noelindublin · Loudmouth

Suss the woodlouse is a creature that lives in the long grass. Hence the motif/stage backdrop. Coincidentally I did a science project on woodlice for school about 1980 before ITLG was released so I was already familiar with the little critters.

In a rush, but for me the single covers don't matter too much. In general they could be a lot better- it's not 4AD records were dealing with. Like a book it's what's inside that matters. Maybe it was something to do with the punk 'rough and ready' attitude, or possible deliberate 'bad art' so as not to make the band and its work look too studied. Hardly, but it's a good theory anyhow.

Maybe Ensign as a new label just didn't have the budget to hire proper artists or designers. Worst cover was Never In A Million Years- just what was the designer thinking? Rat Trap picture photograph is iconic (well at least in Ratfan land) so I'll give that my number one vote.

-- Edited by noelindublin on Friday 20th of July 2012 08:13:39 PM

Lisa · Mondo Bongo

suss wrote:
Aesthetically unpleasing - Banana Republic, Guilty ('got' even less the skinny half naked bloke shots around that time

Yes, I know, I mean why were they only half naked?? Anyway if you want, you could pass that one on to me - just as a favour to you, you understand, so that it doesn't continue to bother you! smile

suss · In the Long Grass

noelindublin wrote:
Suss the woodlouse is a creature that lives in the long grass.
-- Edited by noelindublin on Friday 20th of July 2012 08:13:39 PM

Guess I should have made the association, but I always think of them as teeming all over (or rather under) decaying branches, or inside a rotting stump etc. Never think of them scuttling about in grass or fields. Rats should have gone with a snake logo - I'd have got that smile .

Looks like Rat Trap is a clear favourite and early frontrunner. I don't mind most of the covers - just NIAML that missed its purpose in so many ways, and (unlike Lisa) the fleshy photos from Mondo Bongo era did nothing for me and just made the band come across as slightly uncool in my view.

I'd contend that Jam did classy covers in same era, and always seemed to be glossy quality ones too. Madness sleeves were iconic too.

Can't help but conclude that image can make or break a band. We all know the Rats' music was, in the main, bloody good, but with hindsight the videos and covers etc were fairly uncool, not to mention some Geldof antics. I see some lesser bands who appear to have stood test of time better only because they kept some sort of mystique or coolness. Too many people now seem faintly embarrassed to admit they loved the Rats early on, probably because of what followed. They seem to be remembered as slightly naff, sad to say. Realise you can't pin that on the artwork only, but can't have helped.

Honestly think had they bowed out after Tonic, or maybe Surfacing at most, the interest in seeing current Rats would be far greater, even without BG.

noelindublin · Loudmouth

The music is by far the most important thing rather than the packaging. So what if the Rats artwork wasn't great- they were not directly responsible, and in the case of singles covers it's very unimportant unless once is scoring for imagined kudos outside of the musical product.

Most of the videos were pretty ok for me. I particularly liked Banana Republic and Never In A Million Years. If they had bowed out after two albums I doubt any of us would be here talking about them now, never mind people turning up to see a reformed version without the original iconic singer. Six good albums is about right- not overdoing it or boring people.

I might be embarrased about liking say Adam and the Ants or The Human League, but certainly not about The Boomtown Rats or Bob Geldof. Anyway the world of cool is a very fickle mistress. Musically I would argue there was more 'mystique' in the songs on V Deep and In The Long Grass than in the brash earlier songs.Whether Geldof or the rest bothered with cultivating a cool image just for the sake of it remains a moot point. Geldof was intelligent but not pretentious to be fair to him.

Bob Geldof always argued that he wanted the band to have hits rather than being a band that was critically aclaimed but just a cult band. I find very little in the music or lyics to sell the Rats short. I just wish their music was recognised by more people and equally that 'fans' might see more worth in Mondo Bongo and V Deep.

ArrGee · Back To Boomtown

suss wrote:
... just made the band come across as slightly uncool in my view.
...
Can't help but conclude that image can make or break a band. We all know the Rats' music was, in the main, bloody good, but with hindsight the videos and covers etc were fairly uncool, not to mention some Geldof antics. I see some lesser bands who appear to have stood test of time better only because they kept some sort of mystique or coolness. Too many people now seem faintly embarrassed to admit they loved the Rats early on, probably because of what followed. They seem to be remembered as slightly naff, sad to say. Realise you can't pin that on the artwork only, but can't have helped.
Honestly think had they bowed out after Tonic, or maybe Surfacing at most, the interest in seeing current Rats would be far greater, even without BG.

Image is key. The Rats up until Mondays hadn't really put a foot wrong in that respect, but after that they seemed to lose a lot of respect.

Maybe Surfacing wasn't a very new wave album, maybe Diamond Smiles was too dull, maybe the whole Paula and Bob thing was too close to Rod and Britt, but they still managed to put out a couple of more big hits.

I don't think it mattered that they carried on until 1986, and made a few albums, there are plenty of bands that did that, faded away, and have come back. What I think did for the Rats were Paula Yates and Live Aid.

If they did Family Fortunes and you had to name the top five answers for name something associated with Bob Geldof, you'd be lucky if the Rats or any song other than Mondays was mentioned, wheres if you did that with Elvis Costello, Paul Weller, Joe Strummer, or Sting (to name a few), the top answer would be a song or the band. Or possibly tantric sex, but again that's down to Geldof.

With a fair listening, without the Geldof baggage, I think many people would say the Rats were a great band, certainly on the first two albums, and had some gems on all the subsequent LPs.

There's nothing too much wrong about Geldof's songs, nor the early posturing, and had Geldof not hooked up with Paula Yates I think the Rats would have been more respected.

Now had Martin Amis being the singer...

ArrGee · Back To Boomtown

suss wrote:
If anything, Geldof provides the perfect case against 'any publicity is good publicity'. Lost thousands of 'rebellious' new wave fans as he saturated Swap Shop and covers of Look In and Jackie, and simultaneously alienated the mainstream music press so band got vilified.
Looking back, you do have to feel for the other five, but would they have ever charted without him?

Up until Mondays, Geldof was the gob, and he ruffled quite a few feathers in the establishment.

His appearances on The Late Late Show and Eamonn Andrews show, along with their first live appearance on Rock goes to College and the subsequent dethroning of all the Grease songs at the top of the charts made them the band of the moment in late 1978/early 1979, well they were in my school along with the Pistols and the Stranglers.

Being an early adopter of all three, I had some kudos as someone who knew something about music despite being an A-grade geek. And when Mondays came out, it cemented them as one of the cooler bands to like.

But then there was the comedown. Some ground was regained with Someone's Looking, Leixlip and Banana Republic, but by and large it was more about Paula & Bob, with her getting her kit off, doing the rock stars in her pants book, and the weird kids names.

Being such a high profile couple they deflected attention away from the band, and the haphazard nature of the songs post-Tonic didn't help.

And when Geldof did Band Aid/Live Aid that just put the tin lid on it. Music was never going to be central to Geldof again.

-- Edited by ArrGee on Sunday 22nd of July 2012 08:42:47 PM

ArrGee · Back To Boomtown

noelindublin wrote:
If they had bowed out after two albums I doubt any of us would be here talking about them now, never mind people turning up to see a reformed version without the original iconic singer. Six good albums is about right- not overdoing it or boring people.
...
Bob Geldof always argued that he wanted the band to have hits rather than being a band that was critically aclaimed but just a cult band. I find very little in the music or lyics to sell the Rats short. I just wish their music was recognised by more people and equally that 'fans' might see more worth in Mondo Bongo and V Deep.

Agreed. You need a bit more than one or two albums. As much as I like The Pistols and the Stone Roses, the dearth of material counts against them.

And ironically enough The Rats are now a true cult, with a few ardent devotees.

I do see worth in Mondo and V Deep, but I also see why the albums weren't the greatest. I haven't listened to either for about 8 years since I reviewed them. Nor Surfacing. But there ain't any dust on the other three.

-- Edited by ArrGee on Sunday 22nd of July 2012 08:41:29 PM

suss · In the Long Grass

I'd say that's a spot on analysis, and far more coherent argument than mine.

If anything, Geldof provides the perfect case against 'any publicity is good publicity'. Lost thousands of 'rebellious' new wave fans as he saturated Swap Shop and covers of Look In and Jackie, and simultaneously alienated the mainstream music press so band got vilified.

Looking back, you do have to feel for the other five, but would they have ever charted without him? Martin Amis?? confuse

At least plans with Chris De Burgh never got off the ground, for which I'm eternally grateful!

ArrGee · Back To Boomtown

suss wrote:
Martin Amis??

Google "Martin Amis Boomtown Rats", and you'll see where I'm coming from.

Lisa · Mondo Bongo

suss wrote:
If anything, Geldof provides the perfect case against 'any publicity is good publicity'. Lost thousands of 'rebellious' new wave fans as he saturated Swap Shop and covers of Look In and Jackie, and simultaneously alienated the mainstream music press so band got vilified.

But they must have gained new fans through the publicity rather than just appealing to a narrow audience. I loved new wave, but also listened to other stuff, less meaningful but feel good "poppy" stuff. Good to have a balance, though. And if they hadn't been so newsworthy then I might not have got into them initially. First got into them through TFTT, then went on to get FAOS and then back to the beginning. I think the main interest for me was the lyrics and energy of the music, but it was enhanced by reading interviews with them and seeing photos etc (clothed ones too!) as it becomes more real then and you feel you "know" them a bit more. Would say that I lost interest in the later years, mainly because the "stories" in the songs weren't there, no characters or situations to empathise with or get interested in, and also perhaps as by the time I was in my late teens, had left home and perhaps had a new life to get on with rather than being so self-indulgent and just lolling around at home immersing myself in another world.

I guess at different stages of life you get wrapped up in certain music, or revisit earlier stuff, maybe to recreate lost youth (!) or just because it holds a special place inside you and becomes meaningful again.

I just wish I hadn't discarded the scrapbook I used to fill with pictures/interviews from Jackie etc cry

ArrGee · Back To Boomtown

Lisa wrote:
suss wrote:
If anything, Geldof provides the perfect case against 'any publicity is good publicity'. Lost thousands of 'rebellious' new wave fans as he saturated Swap Shop and covers of Look In and Jackie, and simultaneously alienated the mainstream music press so band got vilified.
But they must have gained new fans through the publicity rather than just appealing to a narrow audience.

They may have gained some new fans but quite possibly lost far more, particularly the more dedicated type of fan. I remember Pulp in 1995 started to attract a different audience but they were very fleeting and by the time of the Hardcore tour had all moved on to some other band of the day.

Up until Mondays, the Rats were on an upward trajectory, and were considered to be the most likely of the New Wave bands to break America. Geldof was never particularly liked by the music press, but A Tonic for the Troops was critically acclaimed and very successful, and Mondays was a bonefide smash hit. And much of this had been achieved without too many appearances in the mainstream media.

That the Rats effectively slipped out of the public consciousness by the start of 1981 isn't really a big issue. They had four good years from 1977-1980 with at least eight good singles and two big selling LPs. Most bands with that sort of track record would have some sort of legacy. Yet nowadays The Rats are dismissed as a one-hit wonder!

That there has never been a revival in interest is most like due to the perception of Geldof and the attendant baggage. Mention Geldof and it's most likely people will talk about band aid/live aid, his celebrity offspring, Paula Yates, and possibly Mondays as his one hit.

People who like music of that era, who are significantly younger than me, will be attracted to The Clash, Pistols, Jam, Buzz****s, Stranglers etc. as they and their front men are known primariy for the music. Geldof isn't.

I don't really care about how cool they are or if no one else likes them. In some ways, it's better as it makes it more personal to me. I like the music, I identified what Geldof said about Ireland, the Church, the Schools etc. in the seventies as I attended a school run by the Christian Brothers. They were, and are, a superb live band, and have been a obsession of mine that had given me a lot of pleasure down the years.

I'll live with the mediocre single covers smile

noelindublin · Loudmouth

The average music fan will 'sample and move on', in other words will buy perhaps two or three of any bands albums, bands needless to say that have impressed them.

Sometimes people come to know what a band sounds like and feel they have gotten whatever that group 'is about'. Who buys six of anyones albums unless they are pretty much into the band, verging on hardcore interest?

In the Rats case the law of diminishing returns was in operation by the time of Mondo Bongo and V Deep. It happens to other bands too. You get your day in the sun and then it all starts to go downhill. At least in terms of how the public view your work. If the Rats could have foreseen the splash they would make when they were forming I imagine they would have taken the result as pretty impressive, in the amount of chart hits, 'notoriety', fame, credibility, and largely consistent output. You could argue that wanting anything more might be seen as greedy.

Geldof was pretty perceptive when he sang 'You're lucky if time remembers you..'

suss · In the Long Grass

Not seeing anything to dispel my theory that Rats could have bowed out with Mondays, at top of their game, and retained a greater 'respect'. Whether it was the musical downturn, or at very least alienating experimentation, or whether it was the tabloid cum teen mag exposure, they very quickly managed to lose that 'respect'.

Concede the artwork argument is a weak one by comparison, but the lack of decent image is symptomatic. This isn't just hindsight - I had real reservations about the Surfacing cover, and Banana Republic cover (and advertisng/marketing posters let's not forget) even then.

That said, I'm also not bothered about the 'cool' aspect - would never have stayed with them if that was a factor, and quite like being in this minority (of about 5 or 6 it seems hmm ) who still care.

My point in amongst all this is that Rats would now be more revered than reviled had it ended in '79, and chances are Geldof would be remembered more for the music. Is it just coincidence Garry and Simon have steadfastly refused to add anything later than Someone's Looking to their set, not even Banana Republic (3rd biggest hit?)? Geldof might even have been tempted to revive the band himself had he not gone on to do what he did.

Having said all that, would I have had it any different to way it turned out? Almost certainly not.

noelindublin · Loudmouth

suss wrote:
Not seeing anything to dispel my theory that Rats could have bowed out with Mondays, at top of their game, and retained a greater 'respect'. Whether it was the musical downturn, or at very least alienating experimentation, or whether it was the tabloid cum teen mag exposure, they very quickly managed to lose that 'respect'.
Noel: Some of us like the fact that the band didn't just churn out the same old sound and for me most of the 'experimentation' type songs work. I liked them when the albums were released back in the day and still do today. Of course it's all a matter of musical taste and fair enough if some of us felt a bit alienated from the more traditional Rats guitar sound. Songs like Please Don't Go for me opened up a vague psychedelic feel in the music, a sort of Rats consciousness expansion, but each to his own as they say.
Re teen mag exposure isn't that what happens to all successful bands and musicians? I believe that after a certain amount of success and exposure things move on, new bands come on the scene, like the New Romantics and synthpop scene, and the old guard is 'moved on' regardless of how good their music is. As Paul Simon said 'Every generation throws a hero up the pop charts...'
The press seemed to have an unhealthy interest in Justine from Elastica and Damon Albarn in the nineties.
PS Not sure how to selectively quote from postings. Must look it up some day!

-- Edited by noelindublin on Tuesday 24th of July 2012 12:54:44 PM

suss · In the Long Grass

Noel, I'm not suggesting I didn't like anything post Tonic. As mentioned, I wouldn't have changed the history, and I was always barging the record shop door down to get latest release. All I'm saying is it pains me that circumstances conspired to leave a well respected band remembered so differently, if at all - probably the only good reason to stop at Mondays.

As for Jackie/LookIn etc, may be wrong but don't remember Weller, Strummer, Cornwell etc adorning the covers quite so much. As you rightly stated, Geldof courted publicity and wanted hits - just seems to have come at a price.

I've just tried to present an objective standpoint and to some extent play devil's advocate to provoke some response, and it's proved interesting. Seen some good counter argument and valid points.

My conclusion really is I'm glad they persevered, tried to vary it, often got it wrong, but kept us all on the hook, ever more defiantly as the eighties progressed. Think I'm most glad that ITLG left us on a relative high.

Lisa · Mondo Bongo

suss wrote:
As for Jackie/LookIn etc, may be wrong but don't remember Weller, Strummer, Cornwell etc adorning the covers quite so much. As you rightly stated, Geldof courted publicity and wanted hits - just seems to have come at a price.

That's because they weren't so good-looking wink

Lisa · Mondo Bongo

... and of course although the others were very musically talented and good to listen to, they weren't as great as the Rats! Just thought I'd clarify that in case I was thought to be shallow

Maybe we should just send lots of current photos of Simon, Gary et al to all the mags and then it will all really take off again - just an idea.

noelindublin · Loudmouth

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Look-Boomtown-Rats-Bob-Geldof-Martin-Peters-CHiPs-Larry-Wilcox-Erik-Estrada-/160846023377?_trksid=p2045573.m2042&_trkparms=aid%3D111000%26algo%3DREC.CURRENT%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D27%26meid%3D856315183367768673%26pid%3D100033%26prg%3D1011%26rk%3D2%26

The Boomtown Rats, Worzel Gummidge and the Bionic Woman. Could you get a more unlikely grouping? Lisa maybe there were pin ups of Paul Weller in the Socialist Worker centre spread.

-- Edited by noelindublin on Wednesday 25th of July 2012 12:43:39 PM

-- Edited by noelindublin on Wednesday 25th of July 2012 12:46:12 PM

Lisa · Mondo Bongo

He he! Maybe with Billy Bragg too

Those photos don't look very natural do they? Maybe a better one inside - tempted to buy it ... but am trying to be strong and resist

Not sure I'd be allowed to put up poster on bedroom wall anyway!!

ArrGee · Back To Boomtown

suss wrote:
Not seeing anything to dispel my theory that Rats could have bowed out with Mondays, at top of their game, and retained a greater 'respect'. Whether it was the musical downturn, or at very least alienating experimentation, or whether it was the tabloid cum teen mag exposure, they very quickly managed to lose that 'respect'.
Concede the artwork argument is a weak one by comparison, but the lack of decent image is symptomatic. This isn't just hindsight - I had real reservations about the Surfacing cover, and Banana Republic cover (and advertisng/marketing posters let's not forget) even then.
That said, I'm also not bothered about the 'cool' aspect - would never have stayed with them if that was a factor, and quite like being in this minority (of about 5 or 6 it seems ) who still care.
My point in amongst all this is that Rats would now be more revered than reviled had it ended in '79, and chances are Geldof would be remembered more for the music. Is it just coincidence Garry and Simon have steadfastly refused to add anything later than Someone's Looking to their set, not even Banana Republic (3rd biggest hit?)? Geldof might even have been tempted to revive the band himself had he not gone on to do what he did.
Having said all that, would I have had it any different to way it turned out? Almost certainly not.

I'd have it different. Prior to Surfacing, everything was perfect. After that, it wasn't.

noelindublin · Loudmouth

The first two albums by both The Jam and XTC were not that great. It took both bands three efforts to come up with their first classic-The Jam with All Mod Cons and XTC with Drums and Wires. The Rats were out of the traps with two classics from the get go.

The Jam and XTC of course had a few great singles to start but overall their albums were pretty mundane, though not awful by any means.

ArrGee · Back To Boomtown

noelindublin wrote:
The Rats were out of the traps with two classics from the get go.

Most bands I like have a few skeletons lurking prior to getting their act together.

In my opinion,Teardrop Explodes had two great albums to start with and Franz Ferdinand have three, but more often than not, there are some ropey ones in band's distant past. Pulp's Freaks is an album that had I heard it first, I'd vow never to listen to the band again.

diffbrook · House on Fire

ArrGee wrote:
noelindublin wrote:
The Rats were out of the traps with two classics from the get go.
Most bands I like have a few skeletons lurking prior to getting their act together.
In my opinion,Teardrop Explodes had two great albums to start with and Franz Ferdinand have three, but more often than not, there are some ropey ones in band's distant past. Pulp's Freaks is an album that had I heard it first, I'd vow never to listen to the band again.

Squeeze were the same. Their first album is rubbish, and they freely admit it, but from then on in they produced great albums.

noelindublin · Loudmouth

Looking at the Squeeze album debut the only song that is familiar is Take Me I'm Yours. You can just tell by the song titles that is was a bit of a false start. 'They' always say the second album is the difficult one, but I would argue that it's more likely to be the debut. You get a bit of time to appraise your songwriting skills and figure out what you are about musically- at the start you are just naive and inexperienced, and possibly unwilling to listen to advice.

Once the ratio of good to bad albums is in your favour you can relax a bit. Most critically acclaimed acts have at least one or two albums they are less than proud of. I think all the Rats albums are pretty consistent- most of the flaws are minor, if anything straying away from the meat and two veg guitar sound for more ambitious and exotic sounds- always interesting and never boring.