Good Then, Bad Now

kiki chunt · 05-02-2005, 01:14 PM

God, lots of bands spring to mind that this happened to, but rather than list them, here's my thoughts on WHY this happens.

When a lot of acts start out, they have a lot more energy and enthusiasm than actual technical ability. This is often what really engages their first audience - their rawness: any originality they have is as likely to be dictated by what they can achieve together, and by repeating happy accidents that worked, than any measure of real innovative brilliance - but that doesn't matter if they just happen to be in the right place at the right time, making the right noise.

Now given a couple of years of live gigs, some time with decent production staff in studios, the actual technical ability of the musicians grows substantially, and before long they are approaching the point at which they can probably begin to make music properly in the style that always inspired them in the first place.

Y'see, Jimmy the bass player didn't really want to be in a rawk outfit in the first place, he wanted to learn slap-bass and play jazz funk; and Tom the lead singer has become enough of a singer to think he can carry off some of the folk-rock melodies that inspired him, and Tony the drummer - well, his girlfriend is a dancer, and he wants to get into producing fruity loops for house music beats now, and lead guitarist jenny want's to learn the sitar - in India . . . add to that the tensions that will grow grow when you spend so much time with the same people anyway, especially among performers with their traditional big ego's & low self esteem issues . . . that 'difficult 2nd (3rd) album' is a cliche with more than a small element of truth in it.

And if they've been doing well anyway, they've probably got more time in the studio, much better budgets, access to top quality producers and session musicians, and everything that goes with it. Including the pressure from their record company to produce succesful commercial product, aiming for mass consumption - and this often means making lighter more radio-friendly tunes that are nothing like the stuff that helped them create their initial fanbase.

Usually this is followed by a sea of painted leather jackets pins and T shirts being burned by former hardcore fans, disgusted that their idols have 'sold out', while if the product IS any good, a whole new fan base is established. This leads to the ever familiar conversation about this-or-that band that "used to be good before, but . . ."

Personally, I take it all on a track to track basis - I like the music of some bands more after they've lost their initial fanbase, some when they were still clueless but had some raw energy about them - but there are a few bands who've managed to grow, evolve and change quite substantially without losing any of their credibility.

My favourite example of this would be The Stranglers - at least until Hugh Cornwell left in the 90s. In the 70s, they made utterly shocking dark growling mysoginistic punk/new wave noise, but chances are if you've heard anything by them at all it's most likely to be their utterly beautiful 80s hit 'Golden Brown' (a love song to heroin). In the years after that success they made a lot of increasingly mellow music, culminating in the 'Dreamtime' album, which was incredibly smooth, had astonishing orchestral and brass arrangements, and is so laid back in places it nearly falls over - you really wouldn't believe it was the same scary men-in-black that had produced 'Rattus Norvegicus' 20 odd years earlier. But it was ALL brilliant imo, and they were never enough of a mainstream success, or even ever tried to be, to do anything you could possibly consider to be a sell out.

And that I guess is all you can hope for - that the musicians you find yourself liking when they start out will still be true to themselves and hopefully making music you enjoy when the have been playing the fame-game for an album or two.

God. Apologies for length. And general smartass-ery.
blah blah blah

KingJen · 05-05-2005, 10:29 AM

Uh... Another way of looking at the good then bad now theme... Franz Ferdinand. They were good when they first hit the radio... But due to over playing and commercialisation I can't listen to there album anymore. When it first came out, it was fresh, something new. But then everyone had it, everyone was playing it, everyone was singing it, every new band that came out sounded like them. And now due to Franz Ferdinand and the new wave indie fad, A whole new army of fashion victims has arisen from the depths of hell.

Jen xx

Sneer · 05-05-2005, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hookers with machineguns

Download "Hellbound" and I think you'll realize how much more versatile and creative he was then, compared to now.

brilliant song.

05-02-2005, 01:14 PM	#11 (permalink)
kiki chunt Music Addict Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: darkest scotland Posts: 53	Why 'good' bands go 'bad' God, lots of bands spring to mind that this happened to, but rather than list them, here's my thoughts on WHY this happens. When a lot of acts start out, they have a lot more energy and enthusiasm than actual technical ability. This is often what really engages their first audience - their rawness: any originality they have is as likely to be dictated by what they can achieve together, and by repeating happy accidents that worked, than any measure of real innovative brilliance - but that doesn't matter if they just happen to be in the right place at the right time, making the right noise. Now given a couple of years of live gigs, some time with decent production staff in studios, the actual technical ability of the musicians grows substantially, and before long they are approaching the point at which they can probably begin to make music properly in the style that always inspired them in the first place. Y'see, Jimmy the bass player didn't really want to be in a rawk outfit in the first place, he wanted to learn slap-bass and play jazz funk; and Tom the lead singer has become enough of a singer to think he can carry off some of the folk-rock melodies that inspired him, and Tony the drummer - well, his girlfriend is a dancer, and he wants to get into producing fruity loops for house music beats now, and lead guitarist jenny want's to learn the sitar - in India . . . add to that the tensions that will grow grow when you spend so much time with the same people anyway, especially among performers with their traditional big ego's & low self esteem issues . . . that 'difficult 2nd (3rd) album' is a cliche with more than a small element of truth in it. And if they've been doing well anyway, they've probably got more time in the studio, much better budgets, access to top quality producers and session musicians, and everything that goes with it. Including the pressure from their record company to produce succesful commercial product, aiming for mass consumption - and this often means making lighter more radio-friendly tunes that are nothing like the stuff that helped them create their initial fanbase. Usually this is followed by a sea of painted leather jackets pins and T shirts being burned by former hardcore fans, disgusted that their idols have 'sold out', while if the product IS any good, a whole new fan base is established. This leads to the ever familiar conversation about this-or-that band that "used to be good before, but . . ." Personally, I take it all on a track to track basis - I like the music of some bands more after they've lost their initial fanbase, some when they were still clueless but had some raw energy about them - but there are a few bands who've managed to grow, evolve and change quite substantially without losing any of their credibility. My favourite example of this would be The Stranglers - at least until Hugh Cornwell left in the 90s. In the 70s, they made utterly shocking dark growling mysoginistic punk/new wave noise, but chances are if you've heard anything by them at all it's most likely to be their utterly beautiful 80s hit 'Golden Brown' (a love song to heroin). In the years after that success they made a lot of increasingly mellow music, culminating in the 'Dreamtime' album, which was incredibly smooth, had astonishing orchestral and brass arrangements, and is so laid back in places it nearly falls over - you really wouldn't believe it was the same scary men-in-black that had produced 'Rattus Norvegicus' 20 odd years earlier. But it was ALL brilliant imo, and they were never enough of a mainstream success, or even ever tried to be, to do anything you could possibly consider to be a sell out. And that I guess is all you can hope for - that the musicians you find yourself liking when they start out will still be true to themselves and hopefully making music you enjoy when the have been playing the fame-game for an album or two. God. Apologies for length. And general smartass-ery. blah blah blah

05-05-2005, 10:29 AM	#12 (permalink)
KingJen Cute as a Button Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Eek... Posts: 33	Uh... Another way of looking at the good then bad now theme... Franz Ferdinand. They were good when they first hit the radio... But due to over playing and commercialisation I can't listen to there album anymore. When it first came out, it was fresh, something new. But then everyone had it, everyone was playing it, everyone was singing it, every new band that came out sounded like them. And now due to Franz Ferdinand and the new wave indie fad, A whole new army of fashion victims has arisen from the depths of hell. Jen xx __________________ ...Brush the cobwebs from the sky...