PDA

View Full Version : Musicians who need to stop...



redsfanmia
11-05-2006, 06:35 PM
I think there are a long list of bands/solo artists who were once great but are tarnishing their legacy by continuing to record/tour.
Here is my short list:
The Who
R.E.M.
Paul McCartney
The Rolling Stones
Madonna
There are more these just came to mind.

Falls City Beer
11-05-2006, 06:38 PM
I think there are a long list of bands/solo artists who were once great but are tarnishing their legacy by continuing to record/tour.
Here is my short list:
The Who
R.E.M.
Paul McCartney
The Rolling Stones
Madonna
There are more these just came to mind.

Pretty good list.

McCartney had jumped the shark by the time of the White Album. Dude should have stopped with "Lady Madonna."

MrCinatit
11-05-2006, 06:59 PM
Meatloaf

Blimpie
11-05-2006, 07:17 PM
The lastest studio release by The Who (their first since 1982) is actually getting some fairly decent reviews. Just sayin'

redsfanmia
11-05-2006, 08:01 PM
The lastest studio release by The Who (their first since 1982) is actually getting some fairly decent reviews. Just sayin'

But is it really The Who, last time I checked Keith Moon and John Entwhistle were still dead.

GAC
11-05-2006, 08:23 PM
I think there are a long list of bands/solo artists who were once great but are tarnishing their legacy by continuing to record/tour.
Here is my short list:
The Who
R.E.M.
Paul McCartney
The Rolling Stones
Madonna
There are more these just came to mind.

McCartney is tarnishing his image by continuing to tour? They are considered one of the best live acts going around right now. And every show sells out. He gives very solid performances. And his last album was quite good, very well received, and nominated for an award. Have you listened to it?

redsfanmia
11-05-2006, 09:15 PM
McCartney is tarnishing his image by continuing to tour? They are considered one of the best live acts going around right now. And every show sells out. He gives very solid performances. And his last album was quite good, very well received, and nominated for an award. Have you listened to it?

I am a huge McCartney fan and have listened to his last album. I have seen him three times in concert, Indy 89, Cleveland 90, and Cincinnati 93 or 4 i cant remember and he is fantastic live. His last few albums have been good I really like Flaming Pie but its just not as good as he used to be, still better than most but just not up to the level of a Beatle. By the way just because its nominated for an award doesnt mean its good, and Paul will always sell albums because of the faction of people who want to own everything Beatle.

cincinnati chili
11-05-2006, 09:36 PM
John Mellencamp.

This is OURRRRR CUNNT-Trayyyy.

Lame.

MrCinatit
11-05-2006, 09:41 PM
I am a huge McCartney fan and have listened to his last album. I have seen him three times in concert, Indy 89, Cleveland 90, and Cincinnati 93 or 4 i cant remember and he is fantastic live. His last few albums have been good I really like Flaming Pie but its just not as good as he used to be, still better than most but just not up to the level of a Beatle. By the way just because its nominated for an award doesnt mean its good, and Paul will always sell albums because of the faction of people who want to own everything Beatle.

I will admit to being one of those guys. I still like the guy, a lot, though I also accept there are many who do not have the same taste.
Of course, I also faithfully bought Ringo's album released this year, as well.

redsfanmia
11-05-2006, 11:17 PM
I will admit to being one of those guys. I still like the guy, a lot, though I also accept there are many who do not have the same taste.
Of course, I also faithfully bought Ringo's album released this year, as well.

I used to be one of those guys. I still love the Beatles and still love a great majority of Paul's work but just wish he would stop. Ringo had a very good album out a few years ago and is just fun IMO.

Blimpie
11-06-2006, 09:09 AM
But is it really The Who, last time I checked Keith Moon and John Entwhistle were still dead.From where I stand, Townshend has always been the driving force behind the group--not so much because of his guitar/vocal ability, but because he primarily authored all of the group's songs. Granted, their sound would not quite be the same today if Daltrey was not there. His voice seems well rested today and that is a good thing.

Admittedly, I was always partial to The Ox on bass and loved the few songs that he was able to write and perform for the group. His death definitely caught me off guard and I never thought they would make another studio album without him. Moon has been gone for nearly thirty years (Who Are You was his last studio album) and--to me--he was always their biggest loss. I always thought Kenny Jones stunk on ice when I saw him play their songs that were written prior to Moon's death.

Anyway, the band will never be the same. But I just wanted to point out that this newest studio album has a typical Who "Rock Opera" vibe to it and it is getting some decent reviews.

GAC
11-06-2006, 09:13 AM
I am a huge McCartney fan and have listened to his last album. I have seen him three times in concert, Indy 89, Cleveland 90, and Cincinnati 93 or 4 i cant remember and he is fantastic live. His last few albums have been good I really like Flaming Pie but its just not as good as he used to be, still better than most but just not up to the level of a Beatle.

And yet you still think he should hang it up because he can't duplicate that Beatle "mystique"?

And therein (above) is where the problem lies. He is no longer a Beatle. And to expect any of the ex-Beatles, during their solo careers, to produce that "magic" on the same level of what those four lads forged as a collective identity/personality is being unfair IMO. But for many years that "burden" of replicating it was placed on them as individual artists, while many didn't give the music credit. They were too busy being hung up on "But they aren't the Beatles!"... "It's not a Lennon-McCartney song".... therefore, it can't be as good. ;)

I was finally able to see past that and recognize that they did a very good job of forging their own identities/personalities via their solo careers, and wrote some very influential and relevant work. I thought Lennon, McCartney, and Harrison wrote some very strong post-Beatle material. Now maybe it wasn't as commercially successful, and thus getting the mass air play and recognition of many of the Beatle hits, because again, too many wanted to relive the good old days of four mop tops with collarless suits singing "Yeah, Yeah, Yeah"; but IMHO, I thought it was still strong artistically.

As Lennon once said after the breakup... "The Beatles were the 60's, and not intended to go any farther beyond that. Enjoy it for what it was, don't get so hung up on it, and move on with your lives."

If they had continued on, they probably would have ended up like the Rolling Stones, and their image would have been tarnished IMO because they wouldn't have been able to replicate it.

registerthis
11-06-2006, 09:15 AM
McCartney is tarnishing his image by continuing to tour? They are considered one of the best live acts going around right now. And every show sells out. He gives very solid performances. And his last album was quite good, very well received, and nominated for an award. Have you listened to it?

I agree, Sir Paul's latest was actually quite good. I thoroughly enjoyed "Flaming Pie" as well.

Aceking
11-06-2006, 09:25 AM
I have a problem where I get to a point where I've just heard enough of a band. It's not that they've gotten worse... I've just heard all I need to hear. So, my list looks a little weird:

Dave Matthews Band
U2
R.E.M. (should have broken up when Bill Berry quit)

Also... Any band still touring playing hits from the 70's or 80's with a new lead singer who sounds sorta like the old one:

Journey
Styx
(pretty much the whole Riverbend lineup)

redsfanmia
11-06-2006, 09:43 AM
Paul McCartney touring is an Oldie act and it makes me sad. There is something to be said for what the Beatles did and by that I mean never recording again together after thier break up. The Rolling Stones are an embarrassment now IMO and I dont want Sir Paul to be like that. Maybe its just me being selfish and wanting him to stop so I can remember him for the songs he has written that are great instead of the the mediocre stuff he is recording now.

registerthis
11-06-2006, 10:16 AM
I have a problem where I get to a point where I've just heard enough of a band. It's not that they've gotten worse... I've just heard all I need to hear. So, my list looks a little weird:

Dave Matthews Band
U2
R.E.M. (should have broken up when Bill Berry quit)

Agree completely about U2. Used to be my absolute favorite band on the planet, but their sound and act have grown so tiresome I can scarecely stand to listen to them now. "Atomic Bomb" should appear next to the dictionary definition of "Phoning It In."

Tony Cloninger
11-06-2006, 10:37 AM
It's better to burn out.......then to fade away........

Just like the Sex Pistols.........Police......

I mean......Van Halen, to me (and i really hated that style of music back then) died when Roth left. I appreciate some of their music more now, but i was a punker back then and that stuff was terrible to me. But having Sammy hagar and then the next guy come in and try to keep this going.....it's like Led Zep bringing in Michael Bolton to replace Robert Plant.

A lot of artists it seems....once they hit their commercial peak....seem to quit trying to experiment or take it further.

McCartney seem to turn into Burt Bacharach after "Band On the Run".

Stevie Winder, after his 2 great albums in the mid 70's, turned into the punch line for a joke in that movie with Jack Black in the record store, who blasts someone who came in to buy "I just called to say I love you."

At least U2.....while maybe phoning it....had tried to keep it fresh and different after their 3 great albums in the late 80's.

Razor Shines
11-06-2006, 10:46 AM
I have a problem where I get to a point where I've just heard enough of a band. It's not that they've gotten worse... I've just heard all I need to hear. So, my list looks a little weird:

Dave Matthews Band
U2
R.E.M. (should have broken up when Bill Berry quit)

Also... Any band still touring playing hits from the 70's or 80's with a new lead singer who sounds sorta like the old one:

Journey
Styx
(pretty much the whole Riverbend lineup)

I used to go to a lot of their concerts but Dave's refusal or inability to quit smoking has wreaked havoc on his voice.

Ltlabner
11-06-2006, 11:30 AM
I don't mind musicians that cary on past their prime. Let's face it, there will come a time in our lives where we are not as sharp in our chosen profession but I highly doubt any of us will "hang it up" early to maintain integrity or some tripe like that.

What I DO mind is musicians that cary on past their prime and try to pretend they are still in their hayday. If the Stones (for example) want to be a traveling oldies act I have no problem with that. Just don't try to act like you are still in your pee and vinegar days of the late 60's early 70's. Go out...play your set...move on. Don't turn out some tepid album and use it as a pretext to tour.

If you want to replace every originial member of the band except the keyboard player don't sell yourself as Journey/Foghat/Styx/Forigner/et al. Just be honest and say, "were a totally different band but we love playing Foghat songs so if you'd like to hear them, come on out to the show".

Someday I'd love to hear a musical act say something to the effect of, "we know we're not in our prime. But we've acheived enough success to continue to put out music. Give it a try. It's not the old stuff, and we're not pretending to be the same band from 14 years ago. You might like it, you might not. But this is where we are now".

I guess I just want them to learn to be comfortable with where they are, not so hyper-focused on where they were.

registerthis
11-06-2006, 11:38 AM
At least U2.....while maybe phoning it....had tried to keep it fresh and different after their 3 great albums in the late 80's.

I actually really enjoyed "Zooropa" and "Pop." I even found redeeming qualities in "Passengers". But their two most recent albums--particularly "Atomic Bomb"--is just boring U2-by-numbers tripe. Bono is trying so hard to be sincere and relevant, and Edge is trying so hard to capture that "U2 sound" that both come off as forced and flat. Blech.

westofyou
11-06-2006, 11:45 AM
R.E.M. (should have broken up when Bill Berry quit)

REM post Berry is a different band, much more layered, mello and narcissistic lyrically.

Personally I like it, but it is like Green Tea Milkshake, it's not for everybody.

Yachtzee
11-06-2006, 12:02 PM
REM post Berry is a different band, much more layered, mello and narcissistic lyrically.

Personally I like it, but it is like Green Tea Milkshake, it's not for everybody.

REM was my favorite group in high school. I not only had every album, but also rare bootleg and limited release vinyl LPs. I just really couldn't get enough REM. Bun then Out of Time was released. I bought it in the special edition packaging and wasn't impressed. "Shiny Happy People" was really annoying after a few listens. After that my interest waned. Then I saw the video for "Everybody Hurts." That song and that video were like fingernails on the chalkboard for me. It was at that point when REM became dead to me. I will not listen to their new stuff, for fear that they might unleash more of that dreck. I will still listen to the old CDs I have on occassion (I don't have a turntable for the LPs), but only in measured doses. If I listen too much, I think of Michael Stipes caterwauling from "Everybody Hurts."

kbrake
11-06-2006, 12:11 PM
I used to go to a lot of their concerts but Dave's refusal or inability to quit smoking has wreaked havoc on his voice.

The problem with DMB for me is not Daves voice, though I agree with you, it is the lyrical quality of their music. Dave Matthews Band peaked with Before These Crowded Streets and I dont think they will ever make it back to that, but that doesnt mean it has to be terrible music or they should stop. However if Stand Up is the best they can do then maybe it is time to call it quits.

Ravenlord
11-06-2006, 12:12 PM
Skid Row needs to stop. so should Metallica, but that's a pipe dream. probably wouldn't be a bad thing if Sebastian Bach stopped (or at least stopped trying to write stuff).

Ltlabner
11-06-2006, 12:15 PM
Skid Row needs to stop. so should Metallica, but that's a pipe dream. probably wouldn't be a bad thing if Sebastian Bach stopped (or at least stopped trying to write stuff).

Metallicas "Some Kind of Monster" behind-the-sceens video was 100% HORRIBLE. They went from bone crushing monster riffers to a bunch of inner children in search of their warm happy place. The bit with Dave Mustaine going on about how he's till tortured because he got the boot in 198-fricken-2 made me want to barf.

You are right...they should knock that crap off right away.

Ravenlord
11-06-2006, 12:23 PM
The bit with Dave Mustaine going on about how he's till tortured because he got the boot in 198-fricken-2 made me want to barf. it's also edited out of order to make Mustaine say things waaaayyy out of context. Mustaine actually sued over it and had the original bit on his website. Metallica counter-sued over the original bit and Dave was forced to pull it from his site.

registerthis
11-06-2006, 12:24 PM
REM post Berry is a different band, much more layered, mello and narcissistic lyrically.

Personally I like it, but it is like Green Tea Milkshake, it's not for everybody.

I know it isn't th emost popular opinion in the world, but quite enjoyed "Around the Sun." Definitely not the REM of the Eponymous era, but few bands remained unchanged over the course of such a long career.

westofyou
11-06-2006, 12:26 PM
I know it isn't th emost popular opinion in the world, but quite enjoyed "Around the Sun." Definitely not the REM of the Eponymous era, but few bands remained unchanged over the course of such a long career.

Yep, I saw then prior to that release and Wilco opened for them, great show all around.

TeamCasey
11-06-2006, 12:29 PM
Styx should have stopped before Mr. Roboto.

westofyou
11-06-2006, 12:31 PM
Styx should have stopped before Mr. Roboto.

They should have stopped when they first started looking for rehersal space.

TeamCasey
11-06-2006, 12:31 PM
Bruce Springsteen

Razor Shines
11-06-2006, 12:49 PM
The problem with DMB for me is not Daves voice, though I agree with you, it is the lyrical quality of their music. Dave Matthews Band peaked with Before These Crowded Streets and I dont think they will ever make it back to that, but that doesnt mean it has to be terrible music or they should stop. However if Stand Up is the best they can do then maybe it is time to call it quits.

And I agree with you on that. I haven't really enjoyed any of the band's studio albums since BTCS, I did like Dave's solo album though.

Razor Shines
11-06-2006, 12:55 PM
Oh and I've got one. I was in my brother's car the other day and he was listening to a CD of a band called "Fall Out Boy". Are you freaking kidding me? Apparently anyone who buys the equiptment can make a CD and get songs played on the radio. Now I'm not saying that I want them to die, but if their tour bus broke down and they were eaten by a pack of wild dogs I wouldn't be mad.

RichRed
11-06-2006, 01:06 PM
John Mellencamp.

This is OURRRRR CUNNT-Trayyyy.

Lame.

Add his Chevy-hawking colleague, Bob Seger, to the list.

vaticanplum
11-06-2006, 01:35 PM
Bruce Springsteen

Blasphemy!

RichRed
11-06-2006, 01:56 PM
Jimmy Buffett

kbrake
11-06-2006, 04:45 PM
Jimmy Buffett

Absolutely not. Buffett concerts are so much fun, I saw him in Cincinnati in June this year and had a blast. I honestly cant say I recall too many of the songs but it was fun.

RichRed
11-06-2006, 05:08 PM
Absolutely not. Buffett concerts are so much fun, I saw him in Cincinnati in June this year and had a blast. I honestly cant say I recall too many of the songs but it was fun.

Exactly, it's all about the party and not so much the music with Buffett. I used to love him, I've had some great times at his concerts but his act just doesn't do it for me any more.

M2
11-06-2006, 05:32 PM
I didn't hear much of it, but what I have heard off the latest Stones record was pretty damn good. Sounded a lot more stripped down. I've always kind of subscribed to the notion that old guys could be real dangerous if they concentrate on being angry about their impending deaths and stopped trying to be rock stars. Maybe the Stones will break through on that.

I didn't like U2 much in the 90s. My chief complaint was they were trying to ape the Euro club scene which really wasn't them, basically acting like Jesus and Mary Chain wannabes (and that came on the heels of their, IMO, failed attempt to act like blues men). I thought "All the Things ..." was actually a good effort from them. Yes, it was on the pop side, but U2's a pop band, a thinking man's pop band, but still a pop band. I thought it was a nice and needed statement at that moment in time that pop music doesn't have to suck. I'll make no excuses for their latest effort (though I didn't mind the lead single).

Mettalica only ever had a narrow band to work with and they've used it up. Pretty much the last meaningful contribution they made to music was covering some Misfits tunes. But let's face it, Glen Danzig would barbecue James Hetson's head. He wouldn't touch Kirk or Lars because he's not a vegetarian.

Anyway, I can't imagine speed metal acts will age well.

Though my pick for take 'em out back and put 'em out of their misery: Aerosmith. It's gotten so bad they can't even find a Hollywood songwriting hack to craft them a turgid power ballad anymore.

redsfanmia
11-06-2006, 05:55 PM
I agree with Aerosmith, and Metallica was cool until Lars took on Napster.

Cedric
11-06-2006, 06:23 PM
The Rolling Stones have absolutely earned the right to do whatever the hell they want. You don't tell Mick Jagger and Keith Richards to stop writing music. The greatest rock band of all time deserves a little more respect.

registerthis
11-06-2006, 06:36 PM
I didn't like U2 much in the 90s. My chief complaint was they were trying to ape the Euro club scene which really wasn't them, basically acting like Jesus and Mary Chain wannabes (and that came on the heels of their, IMO, failed attempt to act like blues men). I thought "All the Things ..." was actually a good effort from them. Yes, it was on the pop side, but U2's a pop band, a thinking man's pop band, but still a pop band. I thought it was a nice and needed statement at that moment in time that pop music doesn't have to suck. I'll make no excuses for their latest effort (though I didn't mind the lead single).

Here's the thing about 1990s U2--they were actually trying new things. They were experimenting with different sounds, and they cared much less whether or not the end result fit the mold of what people thought of when they heard the name "U2". I know a lot of fans didn't care for the "Pop" album because they thought the songs were weak. And they have a legitimate argument there. But I also hear the Edge's guitar making noises that you couldn't imagine a guitar could make, I see them branching off and trying new styles or unconventional structures, I see Bono being more personal and sincere, absent the pseudo-emotional and heartfelt gunk that you see on their more recent releases.

I'm not saying that everything they did during the 90s was gold, or that everything they've released since '97 is rubbish (I, too, have a certain fondness for "All That You..."). But I can say this with authority: U2 were a hell of a lot more interesting during the 90s than they are now. I'll take a so-so album that tries to be different and interesting any day over one that plays it safe and phones it in. And that's true for any band.

RedsBaron
11-06-2006, 07:14 PM
I don't subscribe to the theory that any entertainer should just quit out of fear of tarnishing his, her or their legacy.
First, if the entertainer is still enjoying performing or recording, so be it. No one forces anyone to buy the entertainer's tickets or CDs. If you do not want the arguably diminished efforts of an aging entertainer to adversely affect your memory of how the person was in his or her prime, don't listen.
Second, we would have lost a lot of good music if all entertainers had quit at their peak. Paul McCartney's greatest work was with the Beatles four decades ago, but so what? I'm still glad he has produced some other great, if less memorable, music since 1970.
Third, sometimes "has been" acts may surprise us. Johnny Cash was well past his prime and regarded as a "has been", yet in the final years of his life produced some of his very greatest music with his American Recordings series of work.

Falls City Beer
11-06-2006, 07:25 PM
The last person to know he or she needs to stop is the artist him or herself. So time's cruel judgments do the littlest harm to their ears. And maybe that's how it should be.

Strikes Out Looking
11-06-2006, 07:39 PM
Pains me to say this, but Elvis Costello. His first few albums got me through high school and college. Then he got high brow...and lost me.

SunDeck
11-06-2006, 07:43 PM
John Tesh.
Any questions?

RFS62
11-06-2006, 07:46 PM
John Tesh.
Any questions?



He never should have started.

SunDeck
11-06-2006, 07:48 PM
I know- he had such a promising career as a...shill for the entertainment industry?

M2
11-06-2006, 07:57 PM
But I can say this with authority: U2 were a hell of a lot more interesting during the 90s than they are now. I'll take a so-so album that tries to be different and interesting any day over one that plays it safe and phones it in. And that's true for any band.

I'm not so sure about them being more interesting a decade ago. I'm all for trying things, but it seemed to me that what they were trying in the later 90s was being 10 years younger than they were. You almost wanted to send them a telegram that Birmingham had already come and gone, twice, and they missed it. They really didn't have a feel for electronica. They never came close to making a good dance track.

They'd managed to become the biggest band of their generation, but it didn't seem to sit well with them they'd done it without being considered particularly cool. I actually think that's kind of cool in itself that they got over so big by going right past the hipsters. Yet I can see where that would wear on a rock band. You go to a party in Ireland and all they play is That Petrol Emotion. You run into Ian McCullough and he let's you know that you're still ten years behind him. You turn on British radio in 1992, when you're supposedly doing terribly important musical things, and all anyone can talk about is the Wedding Present. And then there's those damn Reid brothers, who someone managed to be cool, relatively popular and Scottish.

Worst of all, by the mid '90s, if you keep doing your big rock band thing, you're suddenly thrust into a conversation about whether you're better than Oasis, and those guys are crap.

So I'm sympathetic to the box they found themselves in, but I found their avenue of escape particularly uninteresting. They were looking to get onto the coattails of something and perhaps usurp it rather than blaze a new trail. At least that was/is my take. I thought they became a lot more relevant when the century turned when they got back to writing (or at least attempting to write) songs that can stick in your head for a few decades.

MrCinatit
11-06-2006, 08:17 PM
Billy Joel should have given up after Innocent Man.

Falls City Beer
11-06-2006, 08:24 PM
The Rolling Stones have no business producing music after the crimes against humanity known as Undercover and Steel Wheels (their "comeback" album Some Girls was nearly 30 years ago). Some things just aren't forgiveable. Yeah, I suppose they have a right to make the stuff, but the audience bears no responsibility for them being a total inconsequence at this point.

Falls City Beer
11-06-2006, 08:38 PM
Pains me to say this, but Elvis Costello. His first few albums got me through high school and college. Then he got high brow...and lost me.

I agree. A good argument could be made that he should have stopped with Get Happy.

GAC
11-06-2006, 08:55 PM
I agree, Sir Paul's latest was actually quite good. I thoroughly enjoyed "Flaming Pie" as well.

I thought his last few albums have been quite good.

The guy wrote some real fluff in the 70's.... Red Rose Speedway, Wild Life.... around some good albums IMO.... Band On The Run, Venus and Mars... But overall, I've enjoyed alot of his material.

It's McCartney, not the Beatles. You have to be a fan. Different strokes for different folks.

The triple "live" album Wings Over America was an excellent live album IMO.

Flowers In The Dirt Was also a good album.

On A&E the other day I watched a 1 hour special on McCartney called "The Space Within Us"....

http://store.aetv.com/html/product/index.jhtml?id=76291&browseCategoryId=&location=&parentcatid=&subcatid=

It covered his tour last year. What I liked about it was the FAN interviews intermixed with the footage as to their views on the tour, why they go, and what the music still does for them.

Sure, there is some sentimentality/nostalgia there as I saw people my age singing along with such Beatle classics as "Please Please Me" and others with tears in their eyes.

And IMHO, there's nothing wrong with that as it is taking you back to that special time of your youth. I don't see it simply as an "oldies" show.

McCartney has over 40 years worth of material to draw off of. And he's designed one heck of a concert tour around it.

I still love "Maybe I'm Amazed". One of my all-time favorites of his period!

Blimpie
11-06-2006, 09:25 PM
The Rolling Stones have no business producing music after the crimes against humanity known as Undercover and Steel Wheels (their "comeback" album Some Girls was nearly 30 years ago). Some things just aren't forgiveable. Yeah, I suppose they have a right to make the stuff, but the audience bears no responsibility for them being a total inconsequence at this point.To this day, my favorite Stones album.

Falls City Beer
11-06-2006, 09:55 PM
To this day, my favorite Stones album.

Yeah, their last good album.

vaticanplum
11-06-2006, 10:02 PM
Pains me to say this, but Elvis Costello. His first few albums got me through high school and college. Then he got high brow...and lost me.

Oh, I don't know about that. All This Useless Beauty is a great album, and while I know it goes against popular opinion (and traditional Elvis Costello) I liked North too. He saves himself with his lyrics as far as I'm concerned; his lyrics are still among the best in the world.

I do think that it doesn't quite live up to the brilliance of his earliest stuff...but some of that is just freakishly good, he could never live up to that, and had he stopped trying he wouldn't have done the recent stuff I like. Part of that is the fact that he CAN'T have the impact that he did earlier due to the times. But his stuff is still good, if not as, I dunno, relevant.

dman
11-07-2006, 06:06 AM
I agree with Aerosmith, and Metallica was cool until Lars took on Napster.

I think Aerosmith remains a viable act, despite their age. To me, they are a lot like AC/DC, where they keep a sound that can remain good album after album.

Tony Cloninger
11-07-2006, 07:39 AM
I love "When the whip comes down" by the Stones.

I thought "Emotional Rescue" was very avant-garde for them and underrated and "She's So Cold" is a great rocker.

Isn't "Tattoo You" the last great album? It seems like that to me.....beacuse that was considered the big comeback for them....as "Some Girls" and "Emotional Rescue" were at that time considered weak showings.
Disco and Punk had kind of pushed the Stones to the side.....and Keith had that big drug bust in Canada in 1977. So for about 4 years before "Tattoo You" the band seemed as closed to breaking up as never before.


Aerosmith should have stopped when Perry left the 1st time.

I give them big props for their comeback......but besides "Love in an Elevator" (Great song and even hotter video)...... they just really became so overexposed and commercail they would make Paris Hilton think she is shy.

RichRed
11-07-2006, 09:38 AM
Billy Joel should have given up after Innocent Man.

See, I thought the Storm Front album was excellent. River of Dreams, however, was dreck.

Dom Heffner
11-07-2006, 11:30 AM
The Rolling Stones have absolutely earned the right to do whatever the hell they want. You don't tell Mick Jagger and Keith Richards to stop writing music.

Their last album was terrific. They shouldn't have to stop as long as they are making good music.

As far as U2 being more interesting in the 90s- "All That You Can't leave Behind" was considered a comeback album because they weren't interesting during the 90s for the most part. Zooropawas awful.

For me, bands cannot "remain" interesting. How do you sustain interest over a 20 year period where you are taking 2 year breaks between albums?

U2 was an important band, but now they are still making good music and in fact, I'd argue that "Beautiful Day" is one of the best singles of all time.

Their last album was "All That You.." part II, so it didn't make as big a splash, but it was very listenable and better than the Fall Out Boy crap that is the current alternative to hip hop being played on top 40 radio.

U2 is never going to be like they were simply because young people aren't going to flock to 40 year old musicians. Rock has always been about sex, and teenagers aren't going to rush out to buy their music like they once did.

I would have said that Elton John should have quit 5 years ago, but then he made 3 albums that were pretty good that sounded like his old self.

The only problem is that people aren't going to buy it no matter how good it is, simply because Elton John isn't going to be played on the radio anymore.

Ltlabner
11-07-2006, 11:50 AM
Aerosmith should have stopped when Perry left the 1st time.

I give them big props for their comeback......but besides "Love in an Elevator" (Great song and even hotter video)...... they just really became so overexposed and commercail they would make Paris Hilton think she is shy.

Joe Perry left more than once? News to me.

I thought Permeant Vacation, Pump and Get a Grip were interesting albums. Certinally not their best work, but viable rock albums. Pump was certinally the strongest of the 3.

Somewhere after Get a Grip, IIRC Sony signed them to a 8 album deal (or something big like that) which was mind bogling at the time. They promptly put out 9 Lives (bleh) and Just Push Play (I don't think I've ever heard any songs of it).

To fullfil their contractual obligations I'm pretty sure they released at least 1 more live album and maybe another greatest hits type deal.

Their last album, Honkin on Bobo, an album of blues covers (+ 2 originals) was pretty decent IMO. Not spectacular but decent music. They didn't really push any boundries...it sounds exactly like Aerosmith playing the blues. The cut, "The Grind" (one of the originals) stood out a solid track IMO.

Rumor has it they are in the studio. It will be interesting to see if they put out more duds or find some more magic. I'm sure Sony is pretty currious about the same question.

vaticanplum
11-07-2006, 11:57 AM
For me, bands cannot "remain" interesting. How do you sustain interest over a 20 year period where you are taking 2 year breaks between albums?

The ONLY way to do it, in my opinion, is to change and adapt. Relying on what made you successful in the past is a recipe for disaster. Those two-year breaks shouldn't be "breaks". They should be spent working and moving forward.

Radiohead is a band that had a huge influence on me when I was young because of that, not only because their music was good but because of their attitudes towards it. They were still a pretty young band at the time, but OK Computer, their third album, was one of the most critically lauded albums ever, and very commercially successful too. They took three years to make their next album and the press over it was absurd. They very well could have continued in the direction they had been going in and done it very well. But they made a conscious effort to do a 180. They had already done what they had done and knew that any effort to repeat it, even if good/successful, would still be just that: an effort to repeat something already done. They're now three albums past that and still a very good band, going on 20 years old now (their first album was released 14 years ago, but they've been together since they were kids), still making great albums.

they became huge since I first fell in love with them, and I'm old and jaded now, but I can still point to that band as something that had a huge influence on a young teenage me. They got me thinking about [Warning: extremely pretentious statement to follow] what it means to be an artist, the reponsibilities you have to yourself as such, they got me into details of music, they even got me thinking about politics. My opinions have changed over time but the fundamental attitudes are still there just like they are with the band. That's why they're still good. Another rather big band that I think can think of offhand that has managed to pull this off is Blur. There are plenty of smaller bands that have managed this -- easier to do in that environment -- but with the pressures of money and fame it becomes harder, so as I said I think the only way to do it successfully is to look forward.

Ltlabner
11-07-2006, 12:17 PM
The ONLY way to do it, in my opinion, is to change and adapt. Relying on what made you successful in the past is a recipe for disaster. Those two-year breaks shouldn't be "breaks". They should be spent working and moving forward.

I think too, bands have to get comfortable with the idea that they aren't the 20-somethings that ruled the world anymore. They still have skills and something relevant to say, but stop pretending that you are the king of sex, drugs and rock-and-roll when we all know you are long past that stage in your life.

If music is your passion and you have skills (and you likely do or else you wouldn't have gotten this far) focus on creating something that represents your voice now, not what it was 13 years ago.

To me, the most interestesting music tends to be a reflection of what the artist is feeling/experiencing. When they stop doing this because what they are feeling/experiencing may not be "cool" anymore they quickly become irrelevant.

vaticanplum
11-07-2006, 12:20 PM
They still have skills and something relevant to say, but stop pretending that you are the king of sex, drugs and rock-and-roll when we all know you are long past that stage in your life.

Well, unless they're not past that stage in their lives, even if they "should" be ;)

But I agree with everything you say.

registerthis
11-07-2006, 02:29 PM
The ONLY way to do it, in my opinion, is to change and adapt. Relying on what made you successful in the past is a recipe for disaster. Those two-year breaks shouldn't be "breaks". They should be spent working and moving forward.

That sums up my feelings on U2, really. In the 90s, they realized that to remain relevant and interesting, they had to change what they were doing. Rattle & Hum, IMO, flat out sucked. Achtung baby doesn't even sound like the same band, which is a good thing so far as that goes.

It's when they retreated back to the familiar and known--and decided to play it safe rather than continue on the path they forged on Pop and, to a greater extent, Passengers, that I lost all interest in them.

Johnny Footstool
11-07-2006, 03:49 PM
Styx should have stopped before Mr. Roboto.

Nothing is as quintessentially early-80s as "Mr. Roboto".

Johnny Footstool
11-07-2006, 03:55 PM
That sums up my feelings on U2, really. In the 90s, they realized that to remain relevant and interesting, they had to change what they were doing. Rattle & Hum, IMO, flat out sucked. Achtung baby doesn't even sound like the same band, which is a good thing so far as that goes.

It's when they retreated back to the familiar and known--and decided to play it safe rather than continue on the path they forged on Pop and, to a greater extent, Passengers, that I lost all interest in them.

They got old and rich, and their hunger, righteous anger, and energy waned. They went from being rockers to being pop stars.

Achtung Baby was brilliant, but it was pop music through and through. Beautiful, but ultimately irrelevant.

registerthis
11-07-2006, 04:12 PM
They got old and rich, and their hunger, righteous anger, and energy waned. They went from being rockers to being pop stars.

Achtung Baby was brilliant, but it was pop music through and through. Beautiful, but ultimately irrelevant.

You can't really compare Achtung Baby with, say, War though. They're two completely different animals. War was so blatantly political in scope, it essentially eschewed the personal side of songwriting. Achtung baby was the polar opposite--an intensely personal album that had a small degree of universal political content. I can't say that one is more relevant than the other--After all, an album such as War was pop music, too. Just with a more political--rather than personal--bent to it.

Johnny Footstool
11-07-2006, 05:49 PM
You can't really compare Achtung Baby with, say, War though. They're two completely different animals. War was so blatantly political in scope, it essentially eschewed the personal side of songwriting. Achtung baby was the polar opposite--an intensely personal album that had a small degree of universal political content. I can't say that one is more relevant than the other--After all, an album such as War was pop music, too. Just with a more political--rather than personal--bent to it.

I consider U2's work up to and including The Joshua Tree as art with an underlying (and sometimes overt) political message. As such, they possessed an edge (pun intended) not often found in pop music.

Achtung Baby and the subsequent albums don't have that edge. In fact, you can almost see that edge being gradually blunted as the band released each album.

Ltlabner
11-07-2006, 06:22 PM
While I would hardly call a professional musician who's made it big a "tough life" I do suppose that it would be difficult after being in a popular act for say 10+ years to suddenly hang it up and become an accountant.

Since many entertainers are insecure by nature (as are salesmen, so I know one when I see one ;) ) I'd imagine it would be tough to not recieve the adulation you crave. That is if you never matured past the insecurities and needed public approval to boost your self immage when you progressed into your late 30's and into your 40's.

That's in addition to not having the fame, notariety and huge amounts of doh-ray-me comming in.

TeamCasey
11-07-2006, 06:40 PM
Blasphemy!

I love Bruce - pre-80s Bruce.

Ravenlord
11-08-2006, 02:25 AM
...and Metallica was cool until Lars took on Napster.
nah, Metallica was cool until they released Re-Load, confirming that the suckitude they achieved with Load was going to be their new standard.

Dom Heffner
11-08-2006, 09:55 AM
Second, we would have lost a lot of good music if all entertainers had quit at their peak.

Indeed. It is a rare feat that any artist continues to raise the bar. If they do take their music to a new level, a lot of their fans have left them behind.

What seems to happen is we just have greater distances between great songs. Instead of loving an entire album, you like three or four songs. It's hard to write 10 songs for a single album that are wonderful. Johnny Rzenik can only write so many "Black Balloons." Springsteen isn't going to write another "Thunder Road" or "Born to Run" (though his acoustic version of the former is gorgeous).

Speaking of Bruce, if Springsteen were to have quit in 1978, we wouldn't have "I'm On Fire." If he stops after Born in the USA, we don't get his most underrated, "Tunnel of Love." If he had quit in 1990, we wouldn't have "Secret Garden." Sure, we suffer through some crap (those two solo records released on the same day were terrible), but I'm glad he's still trying. There's always that chace that these guys will do something great again, and that adds hope to our lives. I've given up on REM, but I tell you, if they wrote something great, I'd be right back with them.

There is this line between art and what's popular that can be confusing as well. Rod Stewart pointed out that Elton John's new records were wonderful, but nobody was hearing them. He basically admitted there was never going to be another "Maggie May" for him, so rather than do what Elton did and return to being an artist, he was going to do covers (some of Stewart's best work was covers, anyhow, but they were usually obscure songs). It's all about taste because my mother would tell you that Stewart has never been better, while I would rather jump of a cliff before I hear another version of "Someone to Watch Over Me."

Back in the 1990s, I had my own mobile DJ company and I also had a radio show in Richmond, Indiana (while interning at WLW and WCKY). I always was amazed at the varying opinions in music. I ran into the music snobs at Camelot Music, who couldn't understand how I was buying a Mariah Carey CD along with Portishead. I took requests from stoned students at Earlham College who were obsessed with being the first people to love a band and then abandon them once they became popular. Their high school counterparts were into Smashing Pumpkins, Nirvana, and Sarah McLachlan. Drunk wedding guests wanted "Rocky Top" and Bob Seger's "Old Time Rock and Roll."

To each his own, I guess. I like all kinds of music, and I find the less I try and exclude things that others might laugh at me at for, the broader my horizons get, even if it means sticking with a few over the hill artists who keep plodding along.

vaticanplum
11-08-2006, 01:13 PM
The Springsteen thing I totally don't get. I thought his last two albums were great -- the first more than the most recent.

M2
11-08-2006, 01:45 PM
Johnny Rzenik can only write so many "Black Balloons."

If only he'd write more like "Don't Beat My Ass (with a Baseball Bat)"

RedsManRick
11-08-2006, 01:56 PM
Anybody who can make a living being a musician should continue to do so until they can't anymore. If you don't like their "new" stuff, don't listen to it or don't buy it. The bigger problem is that it's much easier to make money selling McCartney's 73rd CD of crap than selling some great new talent's 1st masterpiece. Just avoid FM radio and you'll be fine.

registerthis
11-08-2006, 02:24 PM
Anybody who can make a living being a musician should continue to do so until they can't anymore. If you don't like their "new" stuff, don't listen to it or don't buy it. The bigger problem is that it's much easier to make money selling McCartney's 73rd CD of crap than selling some great new talent's 1st masterpiece. Just avoid FM radio and you'll be fine.

If this thread heads down the how-awful-is-FM-radio path, I will unleash a doctoral thesis on the subject.

vaticanplum
11-08-2006, 02:27 PM
If this thread heads down the how-awful-is-FM-radio path, I will unleash a doctoral thesis on the subject.

That would be AWESOME.

westofyou
11-08-2006, 02:30 PM
If this thread heads down the how-awful-is-FM-radio path, I will unleash a doctoral thesis on the subject.

Gather around kids.... back in the day not only was FM great, but AM was awesome too.

Dom Heffner
11-08-2006, 02:35 PM
Gather around kids.... back in the day not only was FM great, but AM was awesome too.


And then came deregulation...

Ltlabner
11-08-2006, 04:24 PM
If this thread heads down the how-awful-is-FM-radio path, I will unleash a doctoral thesis on the subject.

Sooo....how awful is FM radio Reg? :p:

TeamCasey
11-08-2006, 05:00 PM
Remember this soundtrack?

http://cover6.cduniverse.com/MuzeAudioArt/100/102724.jpg

I wore that album out.

I know, I know ..... completely unrelated to the thread.

TeamCasey
11-08-2006, 05:01 PM
It was a double album ...... which also made it handy. ;)

westofyou
11-08-2006, 05:01 PM
Remember this soundtrack?

http://cover6.cduniverse.com/MuzeAudioArt/100/102724.jpg

I wore that album out.

I know, I know ..... completely unrelated to the thread.

Shoot I saw the midnight showing at the Mariemont Theater and was snuck in by the usher.

GAC
11-08-2006, 08:29 PM
So I guess Bob Dylan should have left well enough alone and not released his latest which has gotten really solid reviews. After all, it's not Highway 61. ;)