The Right Unpopular Opinions

Necromancer · 03-23-2013, 12:07 PM

And its happened so many times. Aerosmith hit the bottom (persay) during the recording of Get Your Wings for example. Black Sabbath and Never say Die. And some of the albums themselves are actually desent. Get your Wings is my favorite album by Aerosmith next to Rocks and Toys in the Attic.

Unknown Soldier · 03-23-2013, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

I like Perfect Strangers too

Never heard House of Blue Light.

I haven't heard those albums in years but can't say I much cared for either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Hat€monger ?

To answer that I will give you this example

I used to often wonder why so many 70s bands made such awful albums in the 80s.

Then later when I would read about these bands I found out the reason for these awful albums was because of drugs, booze, bands hating each other, bands not bothered any more, bands running out of ideas, different band members recording in different continents, endless line up changes and so on and so on and so on

And when I read all of these things about why these records sucked I was not surprised in the slightest because I knew these albums were nowhere near as good as what had come before.

Back then I knew no reasons why they should be that bad or no reason to expect them to be bad before I heard them. they just were, you could hear it in the music.

And I was a person living alone with a record player on an island

Most of these bands just ran out of creative ideas, I've always advocated that most bands have a creative lifeline before things start to go downhill. There are a number of exceptions but this I think holds true in general.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Necromancer

And its happened so many times. Aerosmith hit the bottom (persay) during the recording of Get Your Wings for example. Black Sabbath and Never say Die. And some of the albums themselves are actually desent. Get your Wings is my favorite album by Aerosmith next to Rocks and Toys in the Attic.

Don't you mean to say Draw the Line? Get Your Wings was their second album and regarded as the album that set them up for Toys and Rocks, it was their first album with Jack Douglas.

Unknown Soldier · 03-23-2013, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Screen13

I have not heard them, but I do remember "Perfect Strangers" being a passable song...although the last time I really heard it was around 1986.

As for 70's bands releasing not-so-strong works in The 80's, I would also have to throw in trying to keep with the times and also spending time to think of their image in an ever increasingly visual world.

A band who's sound was centered on the heavy organs and Moogs possibly had a tough time trying to find a way to fit their signature sounds in the era of the Fairlights just to get back into the commercial swing of things. Plus, there had to be an image re-fit that usually did not work, and the videos would usually be so bad that they would usually get shoved into the 12 in the Morning rotation or on the small-league video shows that would wind up on syndication.

All of that, plus I'm sure pressure from the record companies as things were going well into the big time. Very few bands were used to it, but I'm sure that trying to find THE hit single that would green light an album's release was a bit taxing.

All of that would certainly hit the creativity in the long run.

Apart for the drop in creativity and as you say visual image, other bands just couldn't adapt to the 1980s as they were very much bands of their era such as Camel etc. Other bands regenerated themselves image and music wise such as Yes, Rush and King Crimson. We're saying the 1980s for these bands, but it was really the 1977-1978 period that brought their demise, but admittedly Rush were better adpated than most for surviving into the 1980s.

Screen13 · 03-23-2013, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier

Apart for the drop in creativity and as you say visual image, other bands just couldn't adapt to the 1980s as they were very much bands of their era such as Camel etc. Other bands regenerated themselves image and music wise such as Yes, Rush and King Crimson. We're saying the 1980s for these bands, but it was really the 1977-1978 period that brought their demise, but admittedly Rush were better adpated than most for surviving into the 1980s.

(first a word of thanks...as my original, once deleted, post was quoted I decided to add my original statement to my post about Iggy. I must have thought I wrote something that was not logical...now onward)

All three are good mentions.

Yes had the major help of one-time member and then-major Producer Trevor Horn for their 83 comeback, someone who certainly gave them a major lift. They had the luck to adjust to the times image-wise without looking trying too hard.

King Crimson certainly had the right sound/right time luck, and that was with great music. The Early 80's did have a strong cult of musicians reading the right magazines that consistently featured Robert Fripp, and the continuous mention of Crimson, as well as the band appearing on shows that would have them (Their appearance on Fridays must have wowed the audience who possibly may not have been into their music), added on to the appeal. Musicians interested in the Alternative scene were in the know about the band and with the addition of Adrian Belew and master Bassist Tony Levin, they were a good fit for the music scene at the time. That Discipline and Beat were great albums released when there was some interest in the industry to promote that style was a major help.

Rush usually had futuristic concepts, and they served them very well with the changing of the music scene. I'm not a major fan, but the one thing I can say is that they are one of the rare bands with that timelessness in their sound and approach. Having a great ear for excellent hooks is a plus.

All three mentioned had a willingness to take their music into different territories, and even if Yes fumbled with Tormato and Drama, they are still mentioned with the words of "at least they tried to move with the times". They were not too over the top (The best of ELP), nor were they Rock and Roll party anthem shouters (Post-Concerto 70's Deep Purple) - their lyrical concerns were humanitarian and just right to get a lot of listeners (OK, Topographic was OTT, but the center of it's meaning certainly was shared by their millions of fans).

Maybe it was not painting themselves into a heavy duty rock and roll Spinal Tap-esque corner or having an over-worked or too-iconic style that helped them move into another era.

One last thing...mention also must be made for The Tubes. They did have what it took to go into The 80's for a brief moment, some thanks to David Foster's production.
One last trivia bit...Rush had a few SCTV connections in a small part of their history while The Tubes appeared on the show. A sense of humor goes a long way, too!

Unknown Soldier · 03-23-2013, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Screen13

(first a word of thanks...as my original, once deleted, post was quoted I decided to add my original statement to my post about Iggy. I must have thought I wrote something that was not logical...now onward)

All three are good mentions.

Yes had the major help of one-time member and then-major Producer Trevor Horn for their 83 comeback, someone who certainly gave them a major lift. They had the luck to adjust to the times image-wise without looking trying too hard.

King Crimson certainly had the right sound/right time luck, and that was with great music. The Early 80's did have a strong cult of musicians reading the right magazines that consistently featured Robert Fripp, and the continuous mention of Crimson, as well as the band appearing on shows that would have them (Their appearance on Fridays must have wowed the audience who possibly may not have been into their music), added on to the appeal. Musicians interested in the Alternative scene were in the know about the band and with the addition of Adrian Belew and master Bassist Tony Levin, they were a good fit for the music scene at the time. That Discipline and Beat were great albums released when there was some interest in the industry to promote that style was a major help.

Rush usually had futuristic concepts, and they served them very well with the changing of the music scene. I'm not a major fan, but the one thing I can say is that they are one of the rare bands with that timelessness in their sound and approach. Having a great ear for excellent hooks is a plus.

All three mentioned had a willingness to take their music into different territories, and even if Yes fumbled with Tormato and Drama, they are still mentioned with the words of "at least they tried to move with the times". They were not too over the top (The best of ELP), nor were they Rock and Roll party anthem shouters (Post-Concerto 70's Deep Purple) - their lyrical concerns were humanitarian and just right to get a lot of listeners (OK, Topographic was OTT, but the center of it's meaning certainly was shared by their millions of fans).

Maybe it was not painting themselves into a heavy duty rock and roll Spinal Tap-esque corner or having a too-iconic style that helped them move into another era.

I picked those bands out for some of the reasons you've mentioned, but I think Trevor Rabin was also a big influence on giving the band their direction in the 1980s. King Crimson have always been an evolving band and might be the truest prog band of them all as they really covered some different musical styles. I always thought their 80s output on the albums you've mentioned was influenced by what Talking Heads were doing. Rush though were a different case. They were a newer band than either KC or Yes by several years and were still at their creative height at the start of the 1980s, so they didn't need to find the creative spark as the other bands did, they just naturally evolved into a more power pop style keeping with the times. The Grace Under Pressure album is one of the finest examples of a 1980s. power pop album.

I saw you added the Tubes at the bottom. In fact they are the perfect example of a 70s band adapting to the 1980s, the band basically changed their sound on Remote Control in 1979 and incorproarted this newer sound into their elaborate stage show where their older material sat with their newer new-wave and rockier output and it all seemed to fit perfectly together.

Urban Hat€monger ? · 03-23-2013, 12:21 PM

I wouldn't say they hit rock bottom during that time. I've never heard anything to suggest that the recording of Get Your Wings was problematic before but I'm willing to accept if you know different.

It's not like it was any great secret they were constantly loaded though the 70s, they didn't get the nickname the Toxic Twins for nothing. But I would say they definitely had more problems in the early 80s than they did in the mid 70s. Both Perry and Tyler have said the reason they split back then was all down to how much drugs they were snorting.

I have a bootleg of a gig from the Rock In a Hard Place tour in 1983 when Tyler was in his worst state. He's constantly stopping & starting songs at random to babble incoherently at the audience, forgetting lyrics, hopelessly out of tune and then after 7 or 8 'songs' or attempts at songs says to the audience 'thank you and goodnight' leaving the crowd chanting 'Bullshit', 'Fuck You' and 'I want my money back'

I don't think it's a coincidence that the following year both he & Perry cleaned up, got back together and began to become a big act again.

Urban Hat€monger ? · 03-23-2013, 12:31 PM

Draw the Line is actually my favourite Aerosmith album.
I know the recordings were problematic but I think the tension in the band contributed them making their rawest most intense album.

But there also comes a point where the tensions and outside influences becomes too much no matter what they might be.

I don't think it's just a simple case of saying these albums were made under the influence and they're amazing so it's a good thing or these albums were made under the influence and suck so it's a bad thing.

It's a case of how much is too much.

Unknown Soldier · 03-23-2013, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Hat€monger ?

Draw the Line is actually my favourite Aerosmith album.
I know the recordings were problematic but I think the tension in the band contributed them making their rawest most intense album.

But there also comes a point where the tensions and outside influences becomes too much no matter what they might be.

I don't think it's just a simple case of saying these albums were made under the influence and they're amazing so it's a good thing or these albums were made under the influence and suck so it's a bad thing.

It's a case of how much is too much.

The reason why Aerosmith were so great, is that they were boozed and drugged up to the eyeballs from the word go and their vices spurred them on to produce some of the most infectious rock of the decade. By the time of Draw the Line the holes were there and the quality had dropped BUT the album contained two of the best songs they ever put out in "Draw the Line" and "Kings and Queens". The so called slump period after that album had some good stuff as well. Night in the Ruts was good and Done With Mirrors is one of their best ever albums!

Aerosmith are one of the best bands to come out of America and for those that don't know these classic Aersomith albums, get listening as time waits for no man.

Urban Hat€monger ? · 03-23-2013, 12:57 PM

It's interesting that people often talk of Iggy Pop & Bowie doing tons of coke in Berlin & knocking out Lust For Life & The Idiot, but they rarely talk of Iggy & Bowie doing tons of coke & knocking out Solider, which was everything as bad as Idiot & Lust were good.

Unknown Soldier · 03-23-2013, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Hat€monger ?

It's interesting that people often talk of Iggy Pop & Bowie doing tons of coke in Berlin & knocking out Lust For Life & The Idiot, but they rarely talk of Iggy & Bowie doing tons of coke & knocking out Solider, which was everything as bad as Idiot & Lust were good.

All these artists seem to have had good drug days and bad drug days and this reflected on the albums that they were working on at the time. For the record I've not heard Soldier but it seems to get average to good reviews.

03-23-2013, 12:21 PM	#6 (permalink)
Urban Hat€monger ? The Sexual Intellectual Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Somewhere cooler than you Posts: 18,626	I wouldn't say they hit rock bottom during that time. I've never heard anything to suggest that the recording of Get Your Wings was problematic before but I'm willing to accept if you know different. It's not like it was any great secret they were constantly loaded though the 70s, they didn't get the nickname the Toxic Twins for nothing. But I would say they definitely had more problems in the early 80s than they did in the mid 70s. Both Perry and Tyler have said the reason they split back then was all down to how much drugs they were snorting. I have a bootleg of a gig from the Rock In a Hard Place tour in 1983 when Tyler was in his worst state. He's constantly stopping & starting songs at random to babble incoherently at the audience, forgetting lyrics, hopelessly out of tune and then after 7 or 8 'songs' or attempts at songs says to the audience 'thank you and goodnight' leaving the crowd chanting 'Bullshit', 'Fuck You' and 'I want my money back' I don't think it's a coincidence that the following year both he & Perry cleaned up, got back together and began to become a big act again. __________________ Urb's RYM Stuff Most people sell their soul to the devil, but the devil sells his soul to Nick Cave.

03-23-2013, 12:31 PM	#7 (permalink)
Urban Hat€monger ? The Sexual Intellectual Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Somewhere cooler than you Posts: 18,626	Draw the Line is actually my favourite Aerosmith album. I know the recordings were problematic but I think the tension in the band contributed them making their rawest most intense album. But there also comes a point where the tensions and outside influences becomes too much no matter what they might be. I don't think it's just a simple case of saying these albums were made under the influence and they're amazing so it's a good thing or these albums were made under the influence and suck so it's a bad thing. It's a case of how much is too much. __________________ Urb's RYM Stuff Most people sell their soul to the devil, but the devil sells his soul to Nick Cave.

03-23-2013, 12:57 PM	#9 (permalink)
Urban Hat€monger ? The Sexual Intellectual Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Somewhere cooler than you Posts: 18,626	It's interesting that people often talk of Iggy Pop & Bowie doing tons of coke in Berlin & knocking out Lust For Life & The Idiot, but they rarely talk of Iggy & Bowie doing tons of coke & knocking out Solider, which was everything as bad as Idiot & Lust were good. __________________ Urb's RYM Stuff Most people sell their soul to the devil, but the devil sells his soul to Nick Cave.

03-23-2013, 12:07 PM	#1 (permalink)
Necromancer Divination Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 2,655	And its happened so many times. Aerosmith hit the bottom (persay) during the recording of Get Your Wings for example. Black Sabbath and Never say Die. And some of the albums themselves are actually desent. Get your Wings is my favorite album by Aerosmith next to Rocks and Toys in the Attic.