Music Banter

Music Banter (https://www.musicbanter.com/)
-   General Music (https://www.musicbanter.com/general-music/)
-   -   Bands that lost you to change (https://www.musicbanter.com/general-music/87261-bands-lost-you-change.html)

MicShazam 09-05-2016 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lisnaholic (Post 1740645)
This is a good question, and it allows me to confess that my interest in David Bowie took a total nosedive after Aladdin Sane.
I agree too that "selling out" is an over-used accusation and in fact I have my own theory about the transitions that bands go through, which is like this:-

First album or two: they are still finding their feet or special sound so their music is a bit confused or generic
Albums #2, #3 or #4: they've worked out how they want to sound and are full of great ideas and enthusiasm. These are their classic albums.
Albums #5, #6 or #7: they've explored all their best ideas, but feel that they should progress in some way so they either change their style or try making their songs more sophisticated. If we are fans of albums 2, 3 and 4, we try to like these later efforts, but deep down inside we are kidding ourselves.
Albums #8 and above: just the upper echelons of the musical pantheon find a new creative high and keep going according to their own individual genius.

For me, Steely Dan, Yes, Neutral Milk Hotel, Paul Young and Bryan Ferry more or less follow this pattern, without quite reaching that new creative high.

There's a lot of good points there. Bryan Ferry lost his mojo around Taxi in my opinion. The album after that, Frantic, had a few good songs, but after this point it's all diminishing returns.

There's several artists that I do feel like managed to catch 2nd or even 3rd winds over a long row of albums. Tori Amos, Prince, Megadeth and Depeche Mode, for example.

Now that I think about it, I tend to disagree with the notion that bands always hit their highest highs early. Many have put out excellent late-career albums that I consider among their best or even their best, flat out.

The Batlord 09-05-2016 09:37 AM

Let's not forget the two types of bands for whom the 1st and 2nd albums are generally the best: the 2nd, 3rd, etc wave bands of a genre who have more enthusiasm than creativity, and the genre founders who may have great albums afterward but never surpassed the inventive purity of their original albums (although the latter groups are often judged on personal taste, since they're generally creative enough to actually evolve with subsequent releases).

The Batlord 09-05-2016 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elphenor (Post 1740664)
SP but they changed into absolute ****

Smashing Pumpkins? But they were always ****.

Blank. 09-05-2016 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord (Post 1740665)
Smashing Pumpkins? But they were always ****.

Lol. So true!

The Batlord 09-05-2016 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elphenor (Post 1740667)
ayyy

So you were talking about Smashing Pumpkins? Nice to know your musical taste is ****. Takes the pressure off of debating with you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1blankmind (Post 1740668)
Lol. So true!

I feel like Smashing Pumpkins is one of those bands who's getting modern backlash. I think they always had a minority of detractors who were trying to get through to everyone else just how ****ty they were, but now a bigger minority of people seem to be listening.

There might just be hope for humanity.

Blank. 09-05-2016 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord (Post 1740670)
I feel like Smashing Pumpkins is one of those bands who's getting modern backlash. I think they always had a minority of detractors who were trying to get through to everyone else just how ****ty they were, but now a bigger minority of people seem to be listening.

There might just be hope for humanity.

Like the way Limp Bizkit does?

The Batlord 09-05-2016 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elphenor (Post 1740671)
Didn't we already go over this

I like some ****ty music too

Also luv me some Muse

Dolly Parton > Smashing Pumpkins

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1blankmind (Post 1740673)
Like the way Limp Bizkit does?

Except Limp Bizkit are obviously ****. Smashing Pumpkins are deceptive in their ****tiness.

Blank. 09-05-2016 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord (Post 1740675)
Except Limp Bizkit are obviously ****. Smashing Pumpkins are deceptive in their ****tiness.

At least Limp Bizkit could put out a fun jammer. Pumpkins were just ****ty alternative crap.

The Batlord 09-05-2016 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1blankmind (Post 1740678)
At least Limp Bizkit could put out a fun jammer. Pumpkins were just ****ty alternative crap.

They both could put out fun singles, but so far as I can tell Smashing Pumpkins at least had the edge in album tracks. And "Zero" is infinitely better than anything Bizkit ever put out.

That should express the extent of my distaste for SP that I only feel the need to defend them when they are compared to Limp Bizkit.

Blank. 09-05-2016 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord (Post 1740683)
They both could put out fun singles, but so far as I can tell Smashing Pumpkins at least had the edge in album tracks. And "Zero" is infinitely better than anything Bizkit ever put out.

That should express the extent of my distaste for SP that I only feel the need to defend them when they are compared to Limp Bizkit.

Lol.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:15 AM.


© 2003-2024 Advameg, Inc.