Bands that lost you to change

~~MicShazam~~ · 09-05-2016, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lisnaholic

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, 10:37 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, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elphenor

SP but they changed into absolute ****

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

Blank. · 09-05-2016, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord

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

Lol. So true!

The Batlord · 09-05-2016, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elphenor

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

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, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord

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, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elphenor

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

Like the way Limp Bizkit does?

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

Blank. · 09-05-2016, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord

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, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1blankmind

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, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord

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.