Older Stuff vs Newer Stuff
 

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

Nope it's not just you! i also think the same...personaly i'v always thought it something to do with getting old!...seriously tho,hardly any music bands/artists are gonna be reknown,for there great tunes etc 50 years from now,than what there was through the 60's,70's and 80's.Today it seems anyone will do anything to get famous,and sing a crappy song to get rich and then get on tv! so yeah the old music will always be true music,until things 'maybe' change!???

yeh... i dont know... just things like red hot chilis, their new stuff is still good but their old stufff was WAY better........

Aye...the Red Hot Chilli Peppers were excellent way back then,and produced some great well known tunes!!! but im not to keen on there newer stuff today tho...and tragic as it may be...im the same with many other artists!?

yep, totally agree...

mmm i guess it kind of depends on the artist. there are certain bands that i think have better new albums than old ones like the used, taking back sunday and sum 41. but there are other artists that i like their older stuff much better like green day and incubus.

it's probably cuz they work so hard on the first albums to make themselves known and they feel they have something to prove and afterwards when that has been established they don't always try as hard or something of that nature....but it does depend on the band..

There was a time when musicians created and expressed themselves in their music and it became popular on its own merit. Today it seems to me that the music industry and media ram the new stuff down the throats of the youth of the world and convince them that to be popular thay MUST like it.The American & UK pop Idol series is proof of that. No more does a band or artist have to work their way from obscurity to fame. They just need a hook be it exposing the majority of their flesh,exploiting the harshness of inner city impoverished life or appealing to those that feel they do not fit into the mainstream of society.Just SOME of the new music I find quite good, variety is a wonderous thing, but crap is crap,and theres more of it about today...

I tend toward classic rock and the likes of black metal. I enjoy Classical from Mozart and Bach etc.I dont care for the hip hop stuff and the whole Britney and her clone things. I fackin hate rap. Rap is not music! so you could say i hate most modern sh!t!?
I guess you could say that I believe music was better years ago. Look at the longevity of artist's like ,Maiden, The Stones, Aerosmith, The Eagles, Styx, their stuff is timeless,and the era of Hendrix, The Doors, Led Zepplin...will live forever!!! How many of todays music stars will prove to be marketable in 20 years? Only time will tell.
Most producers have ran out of ideas.
Rock is just re runs of old sounds, hip hop is progressing into a sad pop scene and the pop scene itself is a joke to music....

Original/old shit for me.
MOSTLY.
I think bands' first albums relaly show how much effort they've put into it.
The second, third, etc album may not have all of that effort.
Because "it's just a second or third" or "we've got our first one in the gold" so it may not mean as much to them.
Maybe?

Maybe not.

I can see how people could think that the band's older stuff is better because they worked harder on it, but I don't think that is always the case. One thing that hasn't been brought up is that most people start listening to bands on their first few CDs, and like the early sound because its what they are familar with. When a band developes more, people may or may not like it because its not the exact same sound that they are familar with and have grown to love. Some think it is better, some think it is worse. I know for me, there are a couple CDs that I have that I wished the band would sound like that for several CDs, but I know that is highly unrealistic. Change is just something you come to expect.

When you are in a band, you realize how boring it can get playing the same EXACT style over and over again. You want to branch out, get more technical, add more instruments.

A CD is just a snap shot in time of an artist. Its about the particular things the band was dealing with. Since people change, their music changes as well. For better or for worse.

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.

yes, i spose i can agree.... but, for me with the RHCP, i bought californincation then by the way then bssm and i like bssm more sooo yeah... exception i spose....

Well lets face it people...musicianship has become a lost art. Many guitarists in bands today would have trouble telling you the difference between a pentatonic and mixolydian scale!!!
As the years pass us by, these great artists we look up to so dearly...will be with us no more and will be replaced by band's in the likes of 'Linkin Park' :mad:
'Green Day' :mad: 'Sum41' :mad: and...GAAAH! why do i bother...maybe there is no future!? nah...there is really...somewhere!

i can see the future...holy sh!t...its a ferret!!!!

^I wouldnt agree with that... Its just that Linkin Park, Sum 41 and Green Day and all that are more popular now. There's still really good quality music out there you just gotta look out for it.

And as for the older vs newer thang... I dont know, it depends. Youd expect a band to get better over the years, seeing as theyve had more time to work together and can only get better. Normally for me, yeah, I prefer the older stuff.. Mebbe things get corrupted through business and crap...

Prefering olderstuff is hipster cliche, even though it's well founded most the time.... It's true there's a shortage of quality musicians out there, but just look at all the undiscover indie bands, In 30 years no one will remember Good Charollette or Linkin park, but they probably will remeber Modest mouse and Radiohead.

^Aye, yer right Radiohead are very good, i wont complain about that... but out of a very small percentage of music like that other will fall into room 101 and be forgotten forever

yeah, but it's not like we rembered every great band of the 60s and 70s.... theres alot more than just what you hear on classic rock radio.

mmm, its just depending on what you appreciate really, each to there own i say!

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.

Tell it brother!, that's the best post in this thread,

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!
 

Blink 182 is a different case. Their old stuff is just not good. Go and buy Cheshire Cat or something if you dont believe me. Awful stuff... Heh, but funny.

Metallica's older stuff is way better than their more recent music, but this is not the same for all bands.
Music of the 70s and 80s was a lot better in general than music today and there were loads more good bands unlike the **** which seems to dominate the music industry today.

^ Thats just your opinion... If you like those older bands rather than the current offerings, thats fine. However, that doesn't give you the right to criticize today's bands. Or to call them ****...

i love Alkaline Trio and have for like 2 years or more.. and well my favorite albums by them are Goddamnit - 1998 and Maybe I'll Catch fire - 2000.. ST - Alkaline Trio -2000 , From here to Infirmary - 2001 after that there albums are still good.. like there not half bad.. but they kind of got so poppy.. i mean they alwasy had that sound anyways but still they've gone pop.. mind now i still LOVE them and have all of there albums.. i think...but ya i've noticed it..

and with judas priest to.. only one thing.. the lyrics are the same as they were when the band first started... i don't think there lyrics style will ever change..

I'm such a cool indie kid that I know that everything a band does is better older than new. Everything new they do is selling out. They forgot to tell bands they had expirary dates too, go back to deleware you bastards.

Depends on the band.
Finchs newer stuff is better then their older stuff.
BTBAM's older stuff is better then the new.

i agree with that finch thing you said.. but i don't at the same time.. i have all of there albums.. which is only three.. but ya.. Say Hello To Sunshine is a amazing album but my favorite is What It Is To Burn i think that album is the ****.. so yea i agree with that but i don't.. we'll see. i want another new album out by them now.. even tho Say Hello To Sunshine only just came out a few months ago.. haha.. hmmm

What It Is To Burn is a good album, in terms of talent, and diversity it isn't better. Nates vocal work is a million times better on say hello to sunshine as his lyrics, and instrumentally its not just typical pop punk it incorporates hardcore influences that are heard way more clearly. Say Hello To Sunshine is a much better album and EPs are don't really count as an actual album.

agreed completely now!! you said it well.. :thumb:

Elton John hasn't changed.. his music has always been the same.. always.. hmm

Bonjovi.. they completely changed.. but we all new that the hair metal rock band (please so hurt me for calling them a hair metal rock band) went to hardcore pop music that only gets played on the radio.. other then that have they even sold a record sense Crossroads?

ill have to agree, say hello to sunshine is a much better album. *ashamed* you pretty much said everything i was going to say.

older vs. newer does pretty much depend on the band. but in a lot of cases older stuff is much better. a lot of the time its because a band becomes more influenced by the mainstream as they grow more popular, and usually the mainstream means suckage. although in some cases, a bands debut album is decent and people like it, but as they get popular, they become better musicians, their influences change, and their music gets better. overall though, as its been said, it all depends on the band.