Better run with the word 'interesting' as I detail Red Starr's review of TFAOS from Smash Hits 1 to 14 Nov 1979:

Here we go again. Look, this exceedingly tiresome record 'borrows' so heavily from Bowie and Springsteen that you might as well buy 'Hunky Dory and 'Darkness on the edge of town' and have two genuine articles rather than none. Much frantic activity - signifying absolutely nothing - the most overrated band of the century. Awful cover as well. Best tracks 'Keep it up' and 'Nothing happened today' 3 out of 10.

Well, it's a view.

Indeed Noel - this revisit was in the June 7 to 20 edition, 1984.

The cover page headline is The Boomtown Rats - the hope.......the heartbreak!

Inside, there's a 2 page spread, headed up 'What went wrong?' by Tom Hibbert, whick makes for a good read after he interviewed Bob in a Japanese restaurant. Quite favourable to the band despite the loaded headline.

What went wrong in a nutshell is that fashion and looks and image became more important than music. The Rats, by the mid eighties were well old hat, at least in terms of being a known entity. They had had their day, and as is the way with the music press, at least in those  days, there was always the search for the next big thing.

Can't help thinking that Smash Hits was in bed (metaphorically if not literally) with the likes of Duran Duran and Spandau Ballet durng the mid eighties. This was well before the modern era when a two page splash in a top pop magazine carried some kudos. Nowadays if there is a five second delay in getting info we tend to complain.

ArrGee wrote:

---

noelindublin wrote:

---

What went wrong in a nutshell is that fashion and looks and image became more important than music. The Rats, by the mid eighties were well old hat, at least in terms of being a known entity. They had had their day, and as is the way with the music press, at least in those  days, there was always the search for the next big thing.

---

 Maybe, but that doesn't explain why The Stranglers, The Police, The Damned, Squeeze, XTC, The Jam and The Clash  (and others) all squeezed a bit more out of their careers, whilst the Rats didn't. 

I think it went wrong for a few reasons.  In no particular order; Band/Live Aid, Paula Yates, loss of identifiable sound, poor single choices, no association with a movement, hatred from influential music press, lack of commitment when hits dried up, not having a decent single to follow Banana Republic, over experimental 4th and 5th albums, wasting time attempting breaking US, failure to re-invent.  And probably some others.

Now they may never have scaled the peaks of 1978/1979 again, but they could have had a good enough career after that.  They were still playing big venues in 1985.

What a band should do with the charts is build enough of a hardcore audience whilst they are big for a couple of years and then use that as the basis of the rest of their career.  Where it went wrong for me is they stopped. The Stranglers have made 17 studio albums.  13 post 1980.  Shame the Rats didn't.    

 

---

 Sorry ArrGee didn't go to the Dublin gig. Wasn't in right mood, but that's another story. Hopefully will get over to a gig in UK this year.

The Rats "career" lasted the best part of ten years, which is good enough for me- longer than the Beatles if you think about it. Some of your "what went wrong" reasons I agree with, some I don't. No association with a movement is interesting- would the Clash or the Jam have blatantly stated that the were part of the punk movement, with some sort of political/musical manifesto? Somehow I think not. Movements are the dream creation of music journalists to a large degree with their own agenda, normally some sort of left wing political idealisation. Loosely they were punk/new wave but a rose by any other name etc.

The hatred from influential music press bit might be a bit overstated, in that the music press is over rated and have a self aggrandising view of themselves as players in deciding what current/good taste is. Banana Republic was a big hit, despite the "weak white reggae" reviews I seem to remember. Most people heard the songs on the radio, and liked or disliked them.

Lack of commitment when the hits dried up? Not sure about this. Geldof had gone as far as he could after ITLG. If they had continued I suspect another album like INTG would have emerged, for me and some others , manna from heaven, but I suspect the music buying public would largely have ignored it. There is nothing sadder in music than a great band not having an audience and something tells me this is how the Rats would have finished up.

Loss of identifiable sound and failure to reinvent sounds a pit paradoxical. In many ways they never had an identifiable sound and were always reinventing. I think Geldof had had enough after Band Aid. He had more than achieved his musical dreams, and now a fame bigger than being in a band could give him, whether he had intended it to be that way or not.

Funny I once read someone accusing the Rats of being a "careerist" band, but most of the others you mention have managed to be just that. They, to some extend were of their time, and stretching it out into the eighties or nineties seems a bit ambitious. We will never know what a seventh Rats album would have sounded like, but Geldof was never better than writing Rats songs, and has never reached those heights since. Maybe that vitality, ambition, hunger is something that only emerges for a short time in music as in other aspects of life. It cannot be stretched out into the future without losing something of that core energy and purpose it had at its height. What was that that Kurt Cobain said about burning out rather than fading away?

noelindublin wrote:

---

..would the Clash or the Jam have blatantly stated that the were part of the punk movement, with some sort of political/musical manifesto?

...The hatred from influential music press bit might be a bit overstated, in that the music press is over rated and have a self aggrandising view of themselves as players in deciding what current/good taste is...

Lack of commitment when the hits dried up? Not sure about this. Geldof had gone as far as he could after ITLG. If they had continued I suspect another album like INTG would have emerged, for me and some others , manna from heaven, but I suspect the music buying public would largely have ignored it. There is nothing sadder in music than a great band not having an audience and something tells me this is how the Rats would have finished up.

Loss of identifiable sound and failure to reinvent sounds a pit paradoxical. In many ways they never had an identifiable sound and were always reinventing.

... What was that that Kurt Cobain said about burning out rather than fading away?

---

 Picking out some of this, but The Jam/The Clash were in many ways more about their audience than their music at times.  The Jam certainly represented Mods and The Clash likewise were punk figureheads.  The Rats along with many others didn't really belong to a movement but unlike say The Stranglers who cultivated their fanbase, the Rats (or more particularly Geldof) alienated theirs.

The music press hatred was a big factor.  I think that the need to prove them wrong led to the band not making the albums they should have but the albums that would impress.  The thing is that even if they had knocked out London Calling or All Mod Cons in 1979, it would have been dismissed.

The lack of commitment comes from the fact that once V Deep stiffed, they didn't make another record for three years whilst Geldof made movies. 

There is a sound of the band, definitely on the first two albums and to a degree on the third, but on Mondo Bongo and V Deep, there isn't any consistent feel to either.  They both sound like lots of ideas and genres thrown in.  The Police are a good example of reinvention.  Ghost in the Machine and Synchronicity threw away the white reggae blueprint and they made two very good coherent albums.

I don't really go along with the burning out theory.  I've always found it disappointing that bands don't make more and more good music. 

noelindublin wrote:

---

Geldof always complained that the Rats were overexposed and people were tired of them even after Tonic For The Troops.

---

 Don't really remember this - but there's alot that I fail to recall. Where was he most vocal on this aspect?

Strikes me as a bit hypocritcal from one who clearly courted publicity as well as getting rich and laid. Even moreso if he used the press/radio to complain about how they were overexposed.

Any evidence we can peruse?

The fact there are so many centrespreads on eBay from Smash Hits, Jackie, Look In, you name it shows how the band, or at least management/Geldof, were prepared to be plastered everywhere and (over) exposed, presumably all for further income. They must have featured more than Stranglers, Clash and Jam combined.

More significantly for every appearance in a teen mag it was another bullet in the magazine of the detractors at NME etc. I can see why Rats weren't taken too seriously on that front, but we've covered the 'cool'aargument elsewhere.

Must have been a calculated risk though. They weren't wet behind the ears teenies themselves, so can't believe they were dragged kicking and screaming to photoshoots or SwapShop studio or radio studios. Even then, at age of around 30, Bob would surely have told F O'K to stuff it if he saw it all as detrimental.

Pete said on the 1978 summary they wanted to be the biggest band in the world, and 78-80 they were unquestionably on crest of that wave, apart from stateside. Point being they were seeking publicity, or at very least not shy of it. 

I just don't get how Geldof could possibly have claimed that with a straight face or without share of the blame. As mentioned, must have missed or forgotten any such quotes. At best he must have said it with wistful hindsight, probably aroud 1984 I'd hazard.

I know exactly where you're coming from Noel. Smash Hits from Dec '85 reports Geldof saying:

'Next year, I'll really have to sort myself out. I really want to have a rest for a bit, but I'm absolutely skint. So I've got to start doing some work again. You know it really annoys me but no-one in the media has seen the Boomtown Rats play for years or heard our records. You're not in a band for 10 years without being any good, you know'.

Therefore Geldof, at least in '85, thought there had been no over exposure for years, but the perception was different certainly in the first five years from '77, and maybe beyond, and this was later aired by the likes of NME, RM, Sounds reflecting the numerous Superstore, Tiswas, Cheggers, Look-In, Jackie, Blue Jeans coverages. I think  NME, RM, Sounds etc were ok in the beginning to the Rats but loved the thrill of destruction after '80 and the Bob/Paula thing only whetted their appetite.

This thread is making my brain hurt .

Interesting stuff though, and I'm concluding it was more a case of Bob complaining they were deemed passe or cliche (where's the acute accent on here?) rather than than simply over exposed. 

Maybe that was nagging at him whilst Surfacing was being put together, and coming out with a vengeance with MB and V Deep. Had to be seen to be doing something different and reinvented.

Problem was that every experiment was alieniating further, as discussed on numerous other threads here.

Off for a nurofen....

Fair point...perhaps my theory about Bob "reacting" stacks up better post Surfacing. Assume that album was in the can, or whatever they say in music, by time Mondays was out, at which point you'd be lucky to find a daily red top without a reference to Bob and/or band, let alone regular music press and teen mags.

Was only picking up on the suggestion it was post Tonic that others were sniping, which they probably were, although your evidence shows it wasn't a wholesale campaign by the time of Mondays...even in NME 

The backlash begins?

http://boomtownrats.activeboard.com/t4522127/nme-readers-poll-79/

Geldof was in the most wonderful human being list in 1978.  And the band had dropped from 3rd most popular to 16th.  Not even as good as Genesis

Despite all that Mondays was 6th best single.

spacemag wrote:

---

Hi

just found this forum when i was searching for info on a Rats related manner and then read this forum thread, thought i'd pitch in. I was a music journalist throught the 80s and 90s and started out my career at Smash Hits in the days following the release of FAOS (which i love, and always have, BTW).

Most of the journos at SH were uncomfortable around Bob because he didn't make life easy for them, he was a regular visitor at the Carnaby St offices (often just wandering in unanounced - but, then again, a lot of musicians did) and wasn't afraid to publicise hisself to the hilt, as well as telling the assembled journos about the "**** music" they were writing about. He would routinely tell everyone who they should be writing about (i.e him mostly!) and calling them "trendy ****s" a lot. I just used to stand back and look on, a bit scared TBH. He particularly hated Ian Cranna if i remember rightly - but for good reason as well due to his purposely antagonistic past reviews.

The rats always seemed like outsiders because they never fitted into any particular genre (and, let's face it, genres are only created by the music press and for record shops to file music easier [sorry, showing my age] after all) and because, despite Geldof's better efforts, they didn't really play the game. They sat somewhere in the middle between the alternative acts of the time and the pop acts - whilst never wholly accepting/being accepted by either. All this resulted in the music press losing interest rapidly, even though Geldof was a bloody good interview subject (i sat in on a few in the early days  and then did a few of my own in the 80s/90s). I suppose it all comes down, sadly, to fashion - the rats were never fashionable and fashion is what sold magazines in those days - you have to remember that the selling of copies was much more important than the promoting of good music. This was the case then and much more the case today. 

Thats why i walked away eventually.

I could go on for a long time and bore you all rigidly - but i'd better not  but, in finishing, i do genuinely believe that the music press were very powerful in the rats swift fall from grace, along with many other factors previously discussed, due to their own snobbish attitude.

Sorry if i've bore y'all.

---

 Not boring at all Spacemag. In fact very interesting. In general the music press acts as 'kingmaker'-making and breaking careers as they see fit. Anybody with half a brain would know that. For me Geldof's best retort to the music press was the single A Hold Of Me, for me one of their best and quite likely not too well known outside fan circles, as it was at the tailend of their career.

I just get the feeling it was aimed at the music press-the lines about 'They'll never never get a hold of my heart, they'll never never get a hold of me.. All the lyrics point to Geldof being 'misunderstood' by the music press but the sense of defiance in that song speaks volumes for me. A really great single from In The Long Grass, and another flop single Never In a Million Years lyrically is in a similar vein.

As a music fan I know that all bands tend to have a golden period than peaks,and then it's all downhill from there. Things have to move on, but in the case of the Rats the music was always very good, particularly the last album In The long Grass.

The Rats were so much better than Duran Duran,Spandau et al but Smash Hits by the mid eighties was aimed at the teenage girl market in the main, and not that interested in serious music. In all honesty as someone who read both NME, Melody Maker, Sounds, I'm not sure if they were really responsible for the bands downfall. It's just so hard to pinpoint why songs like Elephants Graveyard, House On Fire or Never In a Million Years don't do as well as previous efforts. Mistake singles like Charmed Lives are easier to account for, showing a lapse of judgement by management, record label or even certain band members. No band is beyond making mistakes to be fair.

Geldof may have been egotistical, loud etc but most of the time his, and the Rats music stood up to scrutiny, and still packs a punch today.

spacemag wrote:

They sat somewhere in the middle between the alternative acts of the time and the pop acts - whilst never wholly accepting/being accepted by either.

It's always good to have a slightly detached viewpoint.  I suppose this is crux of the matter.     With Mondays and the rise of Geldof's celebrity, they were seen more as a pop band.  In doing this they probably lost their "alternative leaning" fans but the pop fans gained rapidly disappeared in the wake of the New Romantics. 

 

Got dragged along to see the Human League at Wolverhampton last year and pondered then that their commercial success was not really that much different to that of the Rats, yet it was packed. I had been surprised back in 1990 when Geldof appeared at the Civic then, with the success of 'Indifference' and 'Vegetarians of Love' behind him and really still less than a decade on from the big time, and the place was much less busy than I had expected.