Sad, but true. After the initial inspiration of their earlier work, most bands seem to lose momentum and fizzle out. Not many stay the course. It seems to me the only ones that do, are the bands who change with the times or experiment and set the pace (e.g. The Beatles).
What saddens me most, are the ones that make a comeback with new material, only to have repeated requests for their old stuff yelled out at their comeback gigs. I admit, I love hearing the 'old crowd pleasers' myself, but when all they play are the oldies, then they run the risk of turning into their own tribute band and I'm not sure which is worse.

That is the dumbest thing I have ever seen

'Ohh I know i`ll list a load of 'classic' bands because I worship the 70s & pretend that nothing was crap then & then list a load of ****ty bands from now just to get my point across.'

yop, agreement, that was a completely stupid and irellevant post.

oooh, what a big man you are...hey let me buy you a pack of gum, i'll show you how to chew it!!!

^Beg pardon? All I did was disagree with you, no name calling, only respect. For someone who is in their 30s you don't seem to take opposing view points very well, do you? I'm sure you're still a bit tense towards me from the racist remark you tried to cover up earlier. Come back in a week and hopefully you will post in mature, intelligent back-n-forth music conversations.

There have been a lot of good points made in this thread. Forgive me for not citing each poster for their comments, but you know who you are.


Someone said that a band puts alot of effort into that first album, and may lose it after the second or third efforts. That is very true in a lot of cases. However, there are also bands that don't really find their 'niche' , or their sound, until two or three albums in. Aerosmith's first two albums are vastly different from their third, 'Toys in the Attic'. Sadly, though, around 86-87, Aerosmith hit a formula that sells, and have not strayed from that formula since.



Ditto Alice Cooper. His band (one of the most underrated ever, in my opinion), hit their musical stride around their 3rd or 4th album, 'Killers', and 'Love it to Death'. Very few people are aware of their earliest stuff, 'Pretties for You' and 'Da Da'. Way more experimental, musically.

Also, someone said that marketing is irrelevent. With all due respect, marketing is priority #1 in the music industry today. Musicianship is secondary. Well, let me clarify that: Musicianship is secondary when it comes to the charts. I took a look at the Billboard charts last week. 9 of the top ten were singers. Exactly ONE band, with actual people playing instruments. Appalling, and a testiment to the sad state of corporate music. Look good, sell records.

Don't get me wrong, I am not dumping on today's music. There is good stuff out there. I enjoy Jet, Foo Fighters and a few others.

Overall, though, the sheer volume of quality music from yesteryear completely blows todays music out of the water. That's just my opinion, though.

so is this thread about a band's older stuff vs their newer stuff or the modern vs the classics? or both?

well i made the thread with the purpose of discussing the differences between older stuff and newer stuff from one band but its kind of developed into both :)

Aiii, your right.

Bands seem to have changed to fit in with 'what people want' and have lost their individuality, they are all begining to sound the same...

Music needs a new burst of life before we all stop caring.. :band:

Old stuff vrs. new stuff!