It sounds like it might be pretty good, here's a link to the article: [www.rollingstone.com]

The Dolls were never really good. They became kind of legendary because of their history but both their albums are plain shite. They can barely play their instruments and Johansson's voice is not a voice. He can't sing, let's face it. I just bought Bob Gruens DVD "All Doll'd up" and it contains fantastic NYD footage. But musicwise the Dolls were always crap.

We all have different taste.
Dolls for me is almost as high ranked as Pistols...
Which you maybe not fancy either, good Aucoin?

Thunders is the closest to Keith you'll come.
Johansen maybe same with Jagger...
Still I cant see them as Stones copies.

The missing link between pop wave/60s-70srock and, primarily
glam... And the 'pure' or at least original punk rock

The Pistols were great up to a point. Before they became a sell out. The Dolls were sort of a punk band before punk really existed but they were worse than most "real" punk bands. Whatever - The Dolls were always ahead of their time. Musically and visually. Thunders looked so much of a 80's hairband rocker (Poison, Crüe etc) already in 1972 - it's hard to believe. Nobody looked like him back then but everybody looked like him some 15 years later.

Aucoin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Dolls were never really good.

what a load of baloney!

Aucoin, the "Dolls were never really good" that must be the most stupid comment i've seen on this board, you know nothing about rock n roll, go directly to jail, do not pass go.............

In my view the Dolls can't be the Dolls without Johhny Thunders. It would like the Stones without Keith.

Baboon Bro Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We all have different taste.
> Dolls for me is almost as high ranked as
> Pistols...
> Which you maybe not fancy either, good Aucoin?
>
> Thunders is the closest to Keith you'll come.
> Johansen maybe same with Jagger...
> Still I cant see them as Stones copies.
>
> The missing link between pop wave/60s-70srock and,
> primarily
> glam... And the 'pure' or at least original punk
> rock


Right on Babsy Bro!

The All Doll'd Up DVD is fantastic. Great commentary track also by Syl Sylvain.

Karl

What Baboon Bro said about the Dolls.

And I highly recommend David Johansen's later work with the Harry Smiths. Trad blues/folk covers. What a voice that bloke has got.

[www.chesky.com]

First off,I don't usually get snarky about people's opinions(to each their own and all)but to say the Dolls albums were "shite" is the most ridiculous proposal I've heard in a long time(I know someone else just said that but it bears repeating!).Aucoin,if you think so little of them,why did you buy the dvd?And to ChrisM,I agree with you about the Dolls not being the Dolls without Thunders in theory.When I first heard about the reunion,I was extremely skeptical.But I kind of came around and when I saw them last summer I was blown away-it was just so much fun.The band and the audience seemed genuinely thrilled to be in each other's presence,even the notoriously aloof Johansen.Dude had a huge grin on his face as he held the mike out to the crowd to sing along and the crowd knew every effin' word.One of the best shows I've ever seen,Thunders or not(and I'm a huge Thunders fan).As to whether the new album will be any good,who knows...but I kinda think if you don't get the Dolls,what is it exactly that you like about the Stones?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-04-07 02:01 by andrewm.

The Dolls were great rock n roll. Without Johnny Thunders, though, there are no Dolls. Not to mention Arthur Kane and Jerry Nolan. Saw Thunders once in '85 or '86.

This will be like Mick and Ronnie hiring some session guys and calling themselves The Stones.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-04-07 02:30 by Chas.

.....isn't Mick sometimes showing up with session guys on this tour???????............but lets get serious.......the Dolls transcend NY punk rock...........they were magnificent with Thunmders and I'd be curious to see what they can do now with new material...........Johansen is an incredible artist

I saw the original line up after their second album came out (the one after the one with the Black and White cover) They used to rock but isn't at least half the band dead now?

Maybe Mick+ Ronnie + session musos wouldn't be "The Stones" but it might be bloody hot band anyway you'd crawl over broken glass to see.

Ditto Dolls. Who cares what they're called, Johansen has earned the right to a hearing at the very least.

Might wear my Dolls shirt to the Stones on Tuesday! ;-)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2006-04-07 03:15 by Fembot.

LOL LOL LOL!!!

Those people who say that the Dolls are a great Rock ' Roll band (sic) are the same people I guess who say that the Keith Richards of the 21st century isn't embarassing or Ron Wood still can play solos or ABB is the best Stones record since Some Girls and things like that. Wake up, people The Dolls were nothing but hype. They looked great and had a cool attitude but this was it. It was a bunch of chaotic junkheads who could barely play. Sid Vicious was even a better bass player than Arthur and that means something. Even Syl Sylvain said in 2001 "we are a legend - but nobody really knows why". In their career they sold more T-Shirts with their logo on than they sold records because it was cool to say that the Dolls are cool and to wear a shirt of them. They never sold any records. For a good reason.

Aucoin, that could be misunderstood by some to be slightly harsh....BTW, anymore good Stones clips you can turn us on to on MyTube ?

I'm not even sure why I'm bothering to respond to this but Sid was not a better bass player than anybody,literally.Aucoin,you seem to have a real axe to grind especially since you keep quoting band members and you purchased the recent dvd.Is this some kind of weird love/hate thing?

I am a huge Dolls fan I know Syl and knew Johnny both well. I am totally into the whole image-romance of Thuinders,a dnalso of the Dolls. Theyw ere pioneers of sorts and were one of the bands that actually started Punk. Solo JoHnansson is excellent to some degree. I own every note the Dolls ever released. BUT I agree with Aucoin. As a recording band the Dolls were lousy. IMO. One has to be honest ; when listening to dolls studio records they are in no way execllent.

"...no longer shall you trudge 'cross my peaceful mind."

The Dolls were a MESS............but they were NYC's mess and they were fabulous...........ghetto fabulous.......... before the word even existed.....they were the epitome of NYC glam rock n roll debauchery......the only person who came close was Iggy Pop (and he arrived via Detroit).........Thunders was out of his mind all the time.....how that band even found the recording studio is a story in and of itself.............Johansen in make up was as pretty as Mick in the 70's but he had this incredible voice that came from somewhere I don't really know where........the Dolls never reached mass appeal........they were crazy out of their minds..the performances were electric......they are legendary more for their influence and performing abilities than their recordings...although they do have a couple of catchy tunes too.........

Both albums are brilliant.

the dolls without thunders aint dolls. that's it. no more comments.

Does anyone know the members of the David Johansen Band?
I saw them once,I guess around '87 or somet like that. they looked like real small puertoricans except David Johansen, but played real cool - luved it.

Johnny Thunders, saw him twice in Berlin - solo. both times he was so knackered, could hardly play the guitar and asked the audience to pass over a joint,
and the 2nd gig was his last gig. Next day we heard the news that he died on the flight back home - think he was heading New Orleans or maybe Memphis.

I only have one New York Dolls CD - Red Patent Leather - it's pretty awefull^^
but still they remain my r'n'r heroes

"New York Dolls" seems like it ought to be more than just David and Syl (come to think of it, Syl was in David's band in '78 when he toured with his first solo album, and I saw them...so I SAW THE DOLLS!!! Not really.), but by today's standards (The Who, etc.) it's probably enough for some people.

Since Johnny was Keith to David's Mick, I am amazed that anyone would take such a reunion seriously, especially on this board.

I can honestly see both sides on this debate on the quality of the Dolls. I own both albums and a couple bootlegs. And I like them....but...when you say that they are great, there should be a qualifier attached. The Dolls were "great" in sort of a conceptual modern-art way, not really musical. (And they were very controversial: in the 1973 Creem reader's poll they were voted both "Best New Band" AND "Worst Band."

Now everybody calls them "punk" or "pre-punk" but back then the label was "glitter" or "glam." Like other fads that were blips on the musical radar screen (ex. 1: "raga-rock" in the 60's) the quick end of that trend killed most of smaller stars associated with it--Bowie survived, the Dolls and Mott the Hoople didn't.

It was cool back in the day to say you liked the Dolls, it indicated that you "got it."

Were they "great?" Like the Ramones (who soon followed), in a wild, DUMB, loud, alive, way, yes.

Were they great like the Stones? Let's see, here's Let It Bleed, and theres In Too Much Too Soon. Is it even possible to mention the two together with a straight face?

For better or for worse, the Dolls had a great impact. For me, their debut starts an era of BS that never really ended. As time goes by, I think the joke goes over a lot of people's heads.


They were great.
They sucked.

Okay,one more thought and I'll bail on this.I understand what you're getting at loog but I think the Dolls were far more than a hip "in-joke" or a conceptual statement.They were a kick-ass band.All this talk about musical chops or their supposed lack thereof(though I'd argue Jerry Nolan was a monster drummer and Thunders was,in his prime,amazing)misses the point:it's about spirit and soul and they had both in spades.I would put Personality Crisis and the performance of it on the first alb. up there with Tumbling Dice as two of my favourite examples of that which I'm talking about-that intangible that makes for great rock'n'roll.

dolls are one of the best bands of all time period.anyone who doesn't know that is a friggin idiot.cant wait to hear some new material,even if only david and sylvain are the only 2 original dolls.saw them last year on the reunion tour.great show.

john scialfa

Sam Yaffa on bass transcends any band. One of the truly great rock musicians of our time. Yup, I can't wait to hear this!

andrewm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not even sure why I'm bothering to respond to
> this but Sid was not a better bass player than
> anybody,literally.Aucoin,you seem to have a real
> axe to grind especially since you keep quoting
> band members and you purchased the recent dvd.Is
> this some kind of weird love/hate thing?

No, I wouldn't call that a love/hate thing. Neither I love the Dolls nor I hate them. As I said before they were cool in some ways but (of course) not musically. Their history and the personalities of each member is rather interesting and that's why I'm interested in that band and I've read some books about them, purchased that DVD and surfed the Net to find out more (Can't wait to purchase the DVD "When I Was a Doll" about the late Arthur Kane as well). I'm a fan of the early 70s New York Rock scene and like a lot of bands of that time and the Dolls were pioneers in certain ways. But I stand by every word I say-musically they were complete crap.

Calling Jerry Nolan a "monster drummer" is one of the funniest things I've read in a looong time. Yeah, and the Ramones were a bunch of virtuosos playing Prog Rock

@Chelsea Drugstore: I concur.

To end that: Billy's dead, Johnny's dead, Jerry's dead and Arthur's gone, too (tragically he passed away only a few weeks after the Dolls reunited in 2003-4(?)) so you can't call that Syl/Johansen project "New York Dolls". It's just another rip-off or sell out of a legendary name.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-04-07 10:51 by Aucoin.

"musically they were complete crap"...
Absolutely no meaning in those words,
if they aim at a group that write songs like "Crap".

It is supposed to be crap, maaan!

Punkwise its just GREAT.

My pals in world cult-wise well-known oi-punk rock band Krunch
used to say to the mixin' guys (after they - always had stated:
"It sounds just like crap!" "Thats the sound, mate!")

right on! better to sound like crap than to smell like old farts



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-04-07 11:31 by Child Of Clay.

I often quote to people around me
what Keith use to say about 'clever bastards'.
Such must exist & will always do, but dont involve me, mate!