The Right Unpopular Opinions

Urban Hat€monger ? · 03-23-2013, 01:31 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, 01:48 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, 01:57 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.

Paul Smeenus · 03-23-2013, 02:32 PM

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

Unknown Soldier · 03-23-2013, 02:58 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.

Screen13 · 03-23-2013, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier

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.

I think that the next album, Party, was the real stinker of Iggy's Arista era.

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.

Unknown Soldier · 03-23-2013, 06:53 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.

Black Francis · 03-23-2013, 07:15 PM

well for me is that ppl want the privilege to be as original as possible

ive seen this happen alot, bands that get a little too famous and fans jump ship

there they are disappointed that alot of ppl like them now and say things like "their first cd is the best" or "They USED to be cool"

it's so stupid, so many ppl want to be perceived as an "original" through mass produced products like music and clothes

it's an easy fix for an identity

Screen13 · 03-23-2013, 07:29 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, 07:56 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.

03-23-2013, 01:31 PM	#21 (permalink)
Urban Hat€monger ? The Sexual Intellectual Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Somewhere cooler than you Posts: 18,605	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, 01:57 PM	#23 (permalink)
Urban Hat€monger ? The Sexual Intellectual Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Somewhere cooler than you Posts: 18,605	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, 07:15 PM	#28 (permalink)
Black Francis Out of Place Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: in an abstract house Posts: 4,111	well for me is that ppl want the privilege to be as original as possible ive seen this happen alot, bands that get a little too famous and fans jump ship there they are disappointed that alot of ppl like them now and say things like "their first cd is the best" or "They USED to be cool" it's so stupid, so many ppl want to be perceived as an "original" through mass produced products like music and clothes it's an easy fix for an identity __________________ "Hey Kids you got to meet the MIGHTY PIXIES!" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbRbCtIgW3A