Should I have heard these, cos I haven't...

I've never heard much of the smiths, or the stone roses, or primal scream.

It all depends on what is in your record collection?

Some of those bands are great, others a bit crap but they're all worth checking out. Jefferson Airplane are much underated in my opinion. Breeders first album Pod is great but its downhill from there. Bon Jovi, Cure, Bauhaus and Depeche Mode also fail to flaot my boat.

Some of them like hendrix, the animals and kinks have been poorly served by a multitude of shoddy reissues. Get any of the three Jimi Hendrix Experience albums and Something Else and Village green Preservation Society by the Kinks.

Why are you proud of never having ehard Primal Scream - I suppose its an achievement but doesn't real serve any purpose, you might like them.

Are you qualified to be hear? If you have ears.

New Order is good too, but their albums-- even their Best Of -- is kind of hit-or-miss in my opinion. But "Best of" is a good place to start.

I used to be a Kinks NUT! I think they are very underappreciated. Anything from 1967-1970 in their catalogue is great. Also, check out "Muswell Hillbillies" if you dig "Exile on Main Street."

The Replacements are great, but their albums are not very consistent. Their comp album sucks because it misses their early years. Start with "Let it Be" or "Tim." Their best song-- in my humble opinion-- is the Big Star-esque "Skyway" off of "Pleased to Meet Me."

By the way, to the guy who hasn't heard the Stone Roses: the first album is an absolute MUST! I was sleeping on that one for 12 years since its release before discovering it!

But they heavily float mine, so check them out. ;-) The trick, David, is to listen and hear at your own pace. Forcing yourself to hear something is a terrible approach.

*furtively raises hand*

Definitely listen to that one- I just heard it & Psychocandy for the first time about 6 weeks ago, and they're both amazing.

David, this is beautiful. 9/10, not 10 because you had that comment in brackets.

The computer you are sat at was made after 1975.

what are you waiting for? you can download half a dozen tracks by any of these artists in an afternoon.

Sorry to sound so fly, your question was a good one and many of the bands you mentioned are well worth checking out but this stuff is all over the net and it's free, so go to it.

PS Appetite for Destruction is a great record.

I don't actually own Appetite for Destruction, mind you, although I did at one point. But I'm never sad when a track from it comes on the radio. I'm not really sure that how often you listen to a record has anything much to do with its worth, anyway.

I was in LA a few weeks ago, went to Santa Monica, beautiful sunny day, and some burned-out old psychedelic case was blasting "Paradise City" on the beach, and I was just like, this is what LA is supposed to be like haha...

I take it you have never heard Second Coming, then? Because THAT's really the worst album ever made.

why would it be boring right now? please, please explain George. band of gypsies 'live at filmore east' and 'electric ladyland' are quite brilliant alb. that still sound great today.

First time I listened to ladyland I didn't have any hedphones so i couldn't hear the riffage he was getting out of the guitar. It would be a year later till i tried again and what a fucking good record. the riffage, the songs (the vocals aren't great but not disatrous but I've been through this on other threads, vocals aren't important).

And that's the thing: david, try it, and if you don't enjoy it then don't listen to it. Though remember not to give anything JUST ONE GO like a few on this thread. I haven't got a few bands on this list and i don't give a shit (you can't get everything!) so go for hendrix, 'live/dead' by the grateful dead, 'Double nickels' by minutemen, 'zen arcade' by husker du, 'surfer rosa' by pixies, 'sister' by SY, 'psycocandy' by mary chain, 'green' by REM is pretty decent and have a party man!

'surfer rosa' by pixies; oh, this was so hip at the time, and the song structures style was so new, but you can get sick of songs like 'gigantic' very quickly (cf: 'bone machine'); maybe the pixies deserve your money more than many other bands; 'bossanova' and 'doolittle' albums too; OK nothing much has happened to the song form like the pixies in all this time

'sister' by SY; well if you get 'daydream nation' it's all downhill from that and this is a pretty average record for maybe 1/2 a year of your life if well spent but tracks like 'pacific coast highway', 'catholic block', 'white cross' and 'cotton crown' will bore you sooner or later, maybe sooner; there's something obvious about most of these songs and i think they pall quickly; that this band is supposed to be SO interesting might be the reason people bother to take time out to investigate them at all; it's a pretty average record at the end of the day, just happens to be by a band with a different 'stance' or m.o. in this case; you'll wonder what all the fuss is about with 'sister'

'psycocandy' by mary chain; band makes a statement with a cynically planned "new sound", albeit with average songs

'green' by REM; well the REM sound breaks across to the big time, so very accessible, once again it's the REM sound that's "new" but once again after all these years hardly a necessary addition to any library of knowledge

jimi hendrix; haven't heard those albums in years and while appreciating say the sheer studio finesse of 'electric lady land' (and me too; 'cross town traffic' is ace, albeit swinging sixties society ideals) all these albums do break down to extensions of the blues and introduction of creative studio and/or guitar ideas and i know i don't need any of them now; easy listening pop music

ok, admittedly it's all good party music

Talk about understatement...

Again, i myself do not need to listen to this from the perspective that I have learned song structures but surely all records get 'old' sooner or later. Again, I've heard many times and haven't heard all the way through in months but I'll always pick one side to listen to every so often.

'''double nickels' by minutemen; don't own that one but spun several minutemen albums for a while and they'd leave me wanting more what with their minute economies and little room for instrumental stuff except all at the same time which was quite nice; sure one of their albums should be owned perhaps as acknowledgement of this bands elegant brevity''

the last line of the above is very well put. It's still a remarkable sound that must be heard to be believed. It's all easy to learn but all of these bands have their own unique sound that cannot be replicated. Again, you can learn all of the structures of the songs because songs are there to be learned. Minuteman tunes stand out and that's why they will always have a special place for me.

Disagree w/ your comments on 'Sister'. Those riffs do burn. I don't have the record w/ me and I'd like to talk abt how much i like this one in more detail (because i only got it myself a couple of months back). SY have found it difficult afetr 'Daydream..' to match these but it's very hard. Psycocandy's songs are average. But then again I do not care for songs. What's so amazing is how the noise they fill these songs transform them from being just average to really very good. A great rock n'roll record.

'''green' by REM; well the REM sound breaks across to the big time, so very accessible, once again it's the REM sound that's "new" but once again after all these years hardly a necessary addition to any library of knowledge''

your comments sometimes puzzle me George: Library of knowledge?! Again, David has never heard any REM alb all the way through so I'd recommend this. Of the alb. I've heard (3) this is very very nice. REM aren't original but why must verything be that. I've only heard it a few times but this is 'decent' as I've said before.

''all these albums do break down to extensions of the blues and introduction of creative studio and/or guitar ideas and i know i don't need any of them now; easy listening pop music''

Compared to difficult, anti-commercial music, I'd say this is 'easy listening'. It is all 'songs' which are all 'composed' and so on...but I'd like to know what's wrong w/that (you definetely make it sound as if there's something wrong with it). Again, I'm always buying new recs and am very busy but it all must be heard (in my opinion) if you like rock, I think.

yeah, you've got a point but say with the 'White album' (the only beatles record I have heard in full). Overall it is just some very lovely tunes with some very good, at times stunning arrangements (my favourite is the piano arrangement on 'sexy sadie'). This applies to all tracks bar revolution no9.

I didn't mean to rubbish 'songs' or 'melody' but my point is that it is 'easier' to listen to because there are songs and melodies there. There are feautures that 'do not conform to type' which is what makes recs like the 'white alb' stand out (the arrangements).

Overall I am accustomed to it, but yeah, it's not just 'easy listening'.

''To hear old blues as something other than "old blues" - in other words, to really hear it - I had to make the easy become difficult to my ears, like counting along with the measure bars and suddenly saying to myself, "What the fuck is going on here?"''

a lot of blues is lost on me because i do not know how to count bars so it's very difficult for me to appreciate what's going on. hopefully I'll learn it someday.

I'm going to do what Frank suggested above. I never saw that post before; I mean he said he was going to post but I thought he didn't get round to it, I'm glad he did.

First of all, as someone pointed out above, you're probably wasting your time and money by trying to investigate this through purchases. You can find stuff online to listen to (I'll admit that I don't do this, however, and am ill-informed about the cost/legality). Alternatively, if you live near a large record store, it may have listening stations that allow you to listen to CDs before you purchase. Or, seek cheap used copies or borrow from friends.

Second of all, I believe that if you've heard a whole album, or even a song or two, by an artist, you probably have a good sense for yourself of whether you like them or not. I've heard more of The Who than My Generation and, though I'm missing out on much of the early stuff, I think you can judge whether you need to hear anything else from '70 on by them by asking how much you want to hear songs like it. Don't feel the need to be completist about a given artist unless your mind/body tell you that you need to be. No one is uncool because they don't own or have never heard something, and there is no library of music you *have* to have. You should focus on discovering the stuff that's out there that's likely to provide an epiphany of pleasure or change your ears somehow.

For me (and maybe not you, tho if you're the original poster, your comments on what you do have are otm), there isn't too much on your list that qualifies. Certainly, the objective answer starts with any rock pre-60s. If you've heard early Rolling Stones or early Beatles, you've heard pretty great versions of '50s rock 'n roll, but the original thing may be better. If you like cheap, short, fast, syncopated "rock 'n roll" (and, if you like the Buzzcocks and the Pistols, it's a good bet), it's defined by Chuck Berry. The Great Twenty-Eight is a classic singles collection. But certainly get yourself something with Maybellene, Roll Over Beethoven, You Can't Catch Me, School Days, Johnny B. Goode and No Particular Place to Go. The songs will all sound the same at first. Later, you won't be able to do without each one. Jerry Lee Lewis adds piano to Chuck's rawer guitar sound, plus a touch of honky-tonk, and is worth owning at least for singles. And there are all sorts of great '50s singles, especially in the rockabilly department. Try to find a compilation with Little Richard, Richie Valens, Bo Diddley, Buddy Holly, etc.. I don't have much use for doo-wop, but I wouldn't want to go without the hushed transcendence of "I Only Have Eyes for You" and maybe "Earth Angel", and I can understand arguments for the pealing "Why Do Fools Fall in Love." On top of all this, I think you're missing out if you haven't heard some early Elvis. I don't need to listen to him much, but his excitement (Hound Dog) and subtlety (Mystery Train) in ragging up country-blues and his breathless ballads (Blue Moon) really hit many people. Go for the Sun Sessions and/or his debut album, or the 30 #1 hits.

Next, my personal taste says look at the Grateful Dead, tho I'm not sure they'd be your style based upon your other purchases. They are *not* "where the Flaming Lips come from". That's more likely to be Pink Floyd, or Husker Du. I don't like the Lips much, but I used to love the Dead. What I found/find (less so today) valuable in them is their rock improvisation and their distinctly American folk-country-blues-"psychedelia" (for lack of a better word that would come with more thought, and it means something different in the Dead's case than it does to the people who use it to describe British bands). The improv brings a bit of jazz and 20th century composition into rock, but more importantly successfully seeks after beauty in a way few other rock bands have done (for me - Television, Sonic Youth, Phish, ignoring lots of African artists). Its classic form is captured best on Live/Dead (or Two From the Vault). If you want a fuller song list and the big stadium sound that later became part of their appeal, go for Dozin at the Knick (three CDs, I think - a purchase). The folky song stuff is probably best introduced on the record American Beauty, which is ruminative in music and lyrics, and expresses unique forms of weariness and optimism. Even as I love parts of these, I'm not sure that for you they would be essential purchases. But I would *not* go without giving them two listens.

Jimi Hendrix has never moved me much, perhaps because I have a block when it comes to the blues or to "rock", which would explain why I went for his funk stuff first. While I concede I may be missing something, I think he's more important than necessary. It may be that his best stuff is from live albums that I haven't heard. But I would certainly hear him.

Led Zeppelin too. They define hard rock/heavy metal, so I would check them out. But I like my heavy metal (which I don't listen too much at all) more pop/rock 'n roll than "rock" - compare Poison - or with greater velocity - see Slayer. And you may get tired of how serious they are about their own mythology and misogyny.

The Replacements - as said above, you're missing on at least one (Let It Be) if not three (Pleased to Meet Me, Tim) albums that are widely regarded as classic (tho I've always liked them for their singles first - heresy). I think one is all you need, but I would check out their shtick, which is heartland rock robbed of its bombast and given an edge by punk and composed by a major melodist. And they do the beautiful loser thing much better than most. If you like Wilco, you'll love these guys.

For Husker Du, I was sort of in the same boat you are as recently as two years ago - had never heard, figured I needed to own something. I got what's probably the wrong first album - Warehouse - and found it somewhat useful for its guitar inertia and its distorted melody - more of a Pavement predecessor than a punk descendent, but I'm not often compelled to listen to it. If I had gotten one of the earlier albums, I imagine I might listen more.

GnR - my favorite band in 8th grade, I find them mostly unlistenable today. Their appeal was mostly visceral, which they did pretty great, and was popular because it had melody and rock 'n roll and clean production for such dirty music. And yeah, Slash is a great guitar player. But the singles you've heard mask much of their ugliness - misogyny, drugs, anger, ignorance. There are many who will tell you Appetite is a classic, but they're lying through the bad songs, whose attitudes eventually infect the 'good' songs.

Bon Jovi - I'm curious as to why they're on your list. Is there something else you like that leads you to think you'd like them? Their appeal was pretty much of the moment they were in, in which music adopted marketing techniques. Bruce Springsteen does most of what they did better, and he's not dumb like they are, but they added more hard rock guitar and more pop, which can be nice. People who liked them back when still find some of their big singles undeniable but that's mostly a sense of campy nostalgia. I won't say they're not worth hearing, but I don't predict much success. And I always liked Cinderella, who threw a little Aerosmith into the proceedings, much better. Oh, and if you do get something by them, avoid anything after 'New Jersey' like the plague.

As far as Sonic Youth, you probably have a good idea about whether you like or don't. If you like Sister, Daydream Nation might also float your boat. But do go for A Thousand Leaves, their more adult, less ironically beautiful 1998 album. It will grow on you.

REM - I haven't heard Up, and I'm not deep enough into their catalogue to say much. I think it's probably worth investigating more though, as their albums do vary a bit, while keeping in mind that their significance is wildly overstated by their superfans. While I don't listen much, I am quite fond of their repressed rock tendencies, their quiet ruralness, their dissenting bohemianism, their public-secret 'psychedelia'. I don't know if they've ever made a bad record, but I wouldn't be the best to tell you where to start.

I've always liked the damaged optimism of the Cure, especially on their poppest singles - Just Like Heaven, Close to Me, Friday I'm in Love, Boys Don't Cry - but I've never felt the need to listen to more than one song at a time. Not a major band, but I don't know them very well (own the early singles collection).

The rest of your list I'm really not qualified or don't care enough to comment on.