I thought Robert Plant was quite good and it intrigued me to seek out his new album (but haven't got it yet)

i was waiting for someone to start this topic so I could say how rubbish The Fall were. They were embarrassing. Yeah, the 'note' thing was a bit funny, but overall, crap. Not as bad as Athlete though. I. Don't. Understand. Why. The. Singer. From. Athlete. Sings. Every. Word. As. One. Sentence. Yeah, Plant was rockin. Gotta love the voice. Gotta love it.

at least he can still sing, unlike Mark E Smith, who puts in no effort, and is nothing short of a grumpy fart. So, if you want to start talking about 'glory days'...

The Fall were terrible but I did enjoy Robert Plant's set. I've heard some of his other solo work and it's not recommended but the songs that he played on 'Later...' sounded pretty good. Jools was like an excited child though introducing him every time.

The Fall have always sounded like that, seriously, well if the live CD I listened to (The 27 Points) is anything to go by, Mark E. Smith sounds permanently trashed, he really always has been that cynical, thats part of the appeal. I thought their performance on Jools Holland was utterly fantastic. The Fall isn't really one of those bands people tend to get straight away, if ever. In terms of his attitude, Mark E. Smith is smith is kind of like Aphex Twin: mischevious, impossible, cynical, cantankerous, genius. Its a lot to put up with and enough to turn people off. The Fall always have been and always will be a "cult" band who will divide opinion. The Fall can never really be accused of sitting on past glories though. Unlike many other post punk/indie bands of the 70s/80s, The Fall (which is basically Mark E. Smith + revolving band members) has remained a functioning unit, touring and releasing albums. There have been a couple of really dodgy compilations and albums due the sheer size of the Falls discography but overall they have remained a pretty great band. Its because the havent stopped or lost momentum, that no-one really has been able to totally digest The Falls' back catalogue build up a rose tinted mythic legacy round them like so many other bands of the early 80s, none of that fans waiting round for a "return to form" or even a reunion, no critics wetting themselves over the first album in X number of years. The Fall are still very much a band of the now, as vibrant, relevant and interesting as they ever were. Anyway, I also really enjoyed The Go! Team even if their performance of "Ladyflash" was a bit underwhelming. I'd say judging by their overall performance that Mark Keanes recent live review of them on Cluas was pretty much spot on: http://www.cluas.com/music/gigs/go_team.htm Got a bit bored by Athlete to be honest, I can see why people like them though, no disrespect, just not really my thing. Same with Robert Plant really, but then I've never really liked Led Zeppelin, which I suppose is kinda strange because I used to be really into all thats 70s classic rock stuff like Deep Purple and Cream in when I was in my very early teens.

You're right about The Fall just being Mark E Smith, I don't know why he bothers with the band name. I like some of the stuff from The Fall, mainly their Rough Trade stuff, Drag Net and that, but I just thought the performance was rubbish, and although Mark E Smith was brilliant back in the day, I don't see why he should be congradulated for being cantankerous. He hates Jools Holland and his music, said that Jools couldn't interview him, or even come near him - so why the f**k did he bother going on the show? I just thought the band were totally pedestrian and Mark E Smith was embarrassing. At least Robert Plant was gracious.

I'm not congratulating him for being cantankerous as such, even though I do find it amusing. Its not something to be praised, or even excused, its just that its part of The Fall baggage, ya know? You just gotta take the bitter with er.. the bitter I suppose. I dunno, I don't really get too worried about ya know? (not suggesting you are either or anything), I just really enjoyed the performance, each to their own I suppose. It didn't really bother me that there wasn't an interview (would have been rubbish anyway), or that he and Jools don't see eye to eye. I suppose like any artist he just went on to plug his record! Speaking of interviews, the very brief couple of minutes with Tony Visconti (producer for David Bowie and countless others) were great. I thought his advice to young people to "go and study music..or at least listen to a lot of records" was a pretty refreshingly straightforward and commonsense view. I don't think he was suggesting that you go away and spent 5 years at a Music conservatory, just to get a decent understanding of music theory and an informed appreciation of music. Over the years there been this kind of mythology built up since punk that you should just get out there and play, rawness and energy over finesse. I mean that view has merit too, but I think he really has a point, as uncool as it sounds, maybe more bands should spend a little more time getting to grips with theory to start pushing the things on again in terms of originality and creativity again? After all, maybe you need to know the rules to break them? Any thoughts?

It's defintely a topic to debate but with alot of bands the rawness and bursts of enegry is where they excell. The best musicians are the one's who have a great understanding/respect for music and being able to perform (both live and on record) with a gusto that makes them original.

most people in bands know a lot about music. What you're talking about is production more than anything.

That was the worst performance of any band i have ever seen in my life. It was very embarrassing. There's being different and there's just being bad. Trying to be different just for the sake of it just doesnt work. You have to back it up with the material. e.g Arcade Fire

Dad?

Tonight on 'Later With..... Jools Holland' is Van Morrison, Kaiser Chiefs, Eels, Martha Wainwright, Frank Black Francis