John Tesh.
Any questions?
John Tesh.
Any questions?
Next Reds manager, second shooter. --Confirmed on Redszone.
Originally Posted by SunDeck
He never should have started.
We'll go down in history as the first society that wouldn't save itself because it wasn't cost effective ~ Kurt Vonnegut
I know- he had such a promising career as a...shill for the entertainment industry?
Next Reds manager, second shooter. --Confirmed on Redszone.
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.
I'm not a system player. I am a system.
Billy Joel should have given up after Innocent Man.
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.
“And when finally they sense that some position cannot be sustained, they do not re-examine their ideas. Instead, they simply change the subject.” Jamie Galbraith
I agree. A good argument could be made that he should have stopped with Get Happy.
“And when finally they sense that some position cannot be sustained, they do not re-examine their ideas. Instead, they simply change the subject.” Jamie Galbraith
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/i...tid=&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!
Last edited by GAC; 11-06-2006 at 08:57 PM.
"In my day you had musicians who experimented with drugs. Now it's druggies experimenting with music" - Alfred G Clark (circa 1972)
To this day, my favorite Stones album.
Yeah, their last good album.
“And when finally they sense that some position cannot be sustained, they do not re-examine their ideas. Instead, they simply change the subject.” Jamie Galbraith
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.
There is no such thing as a pitching prospect.
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.
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.
See, I thought the Storm Front album was excellent. River of Dreams, however, was dreck.
"I can make all the stadiums rock."
-Air Supply
Their last album was terrific. They shouldn't have to stop as long as they are making good music.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.
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.
Last edited by Dom Heffner; 11-07-2006 at 11:39 AM.
Posting Permissions
|
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |
Reply With Quote