Older Stuff vs Newer Stuff (lyrics, hardcore, indie, instrumental)

right-track · 07-08-2005, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pastor of muppets

Is it just me, or is most bands older stuff better than their newer stuff?

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.

Urban Hat€monger ? · 07-08-2005, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boo boo

then:
beatles
zeppelin
floyd
who
hendrix
doors
yes
crimson
ELP
sabbath

VS:

now:
good charlotte
simple plan
the libertines
yellowcard
slipknot
linkin park
green day

ill go with then.

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.'

PhishFood · 07-08-2005, 03:10 PM

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

Krosstika · 07-09-2005, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hookers with machineguns

A particular band does not need to stand the 'test of time' in terms of their magnitude of popularity to be considered 'good' musicians. Marketability is rather irrelevant, at least if we are appreciating music here (not doing an economic profit analysis).

Judging an entire sector of music based on heavy rotation radio songs is foolish. Most commerical rap seems uninspired, but to draw the trigger so quickly on it without listening to more apt artists is not something an advocate for originality and music appreciation would do. It's easy to disdain the current music movement, but it's even easier to not fully grasp the movement by only considering popular acts.

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

hookers with machineguns · 07-09-2005, 09:50 AM

^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.

jr. · 07-09-2005, 11:43 AM

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.

shandapanda · 07-09-2005, 04:43 PM

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

07-10-2005, 01:33 AM

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

1337 Sam · 07-10-2005, 01:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pastor of muppets

Is it just me, or is most bands older stuff better than their newer stuff?

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..

- x .R.o.c.k tunezZ · 07-17-2005, 02:15 PM

Old stuff from most bandz is waaaayy better. Like for example:
Greendays old stuff is MAXIMUM way BETTER!: ) like basket case and all that shizZ
Sum 41's stuff is way better old..like into deep and makes no difference and fat lip!

yay
Blink-182s old stuff is awsum too..but there new stuff is still WICKED

!..yay!

07-08-2005, 03:10 PM	#23 (permalink)
PhishFood Bottom-Feeder Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: The American Dreamscape Posts: 316	yop, agreement, that was a completely stupid and irellevant post. __________________ Winos don't march

07-09-2005, 09:50 AM	#25 (permalink)
hookers with machineguns Music Addict Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,753	^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. __________________ LASTFM

07-09-2005, 11:43 AM	#26 (permalink)
jr. Seeker of Peace Join Date: May 2005 Location: Newark, De. Posts: 341	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. __________________ Be strong then, and enter into your own body; there you have a solid place for your feet. ~ Kabir

07-09-2005, 04:43 PM	#27 (permalink)
shandapanda Music Addict Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: bababbabababaaa Posts: 354	so is this thread about a band's older stuff vs their newer stuff or the modern vs the classics? or both? __________________ The Law of Awesome states: Those who are more awesome will cast down those less awesome than themselves, thus climbing the Hierarchy of Awesome and maintaining a balance in the world of Awesome Me poo you

07-17-2005, 02:15 PM	#30 (permalink)
- x .R.o.c.k tunezZ Groupie Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Newfoundland...YES it roxs here!: )...and no...im not a baymen GOD! lol Posts: 23	Old stuff vrs. new stuff! Old stuff from most bandz is waaaayy better. Like for example: Greendays old stuff is MAXIMUM way BETTER!: ) like basket case and all that shizZ Sum 41's stuff is way better old..like into deep and makes no difference and fat lip! yay Blink-182s old stuff is awsum too..but there new stuff is still WICKED!..yay! __________________ - . * The girl at the Rock Show .. <3

07-10-2005, 01:33 AM	#28 (permalink)
pastor of muppets Guest Posts: n/a	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