Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[miles]

So I'd like to hear thoughts on the subject of the wide gaps between the best and worst work of a musician, or any artist I suppose.

I believe the Rolling Stones probably have about as wide a gap as you can imagine.  I mean, Paint it Black and Gimme Shelter, all of Exile and Beggar's Banquet, Wild hosss and the rest of Sticky Fingers--just brilliant.  But their work in the late 70s, 80s, and 90s has been consistently bad, at least in my opinion.  Oh, and I think consistency counts.  One hit wonders don't count, and artists that are consistently good with relatively few screw-ups don't either, unless they fuck up really really bad.

David Bowie is another artist with a very wide gap.

[jough]

I don't know - when Bowie's bad he's pretty bad, but he's kept up to date with current trends (often predating those trends by about 20 years - I mean, the mid-90s bands all sounded like they were influenced by early 70s Bowie).

I also disagree with your assessment that all of the Rolling Stones's albums since 1969 have been bad.  Tattoo You is one of their best, and that came out when, 1981?

I notice more bands that have really great first albums and then lousy second albums.  The Black Crowes come immediately to mind, although I'm sure I could cite other examples.  The Stone Roses.  

Of course, bands usually have years to work on songs for their first album, and then a year or two after that are expected to crank out another one, while in the meantime they've done nothing but tour playing songs from the first album.

Then again, there are a number of bands whose second albums were better than the first - Neil Young, Dylan, Pearl Jam, Fiona Apple, Ben Folds Five, Soul Coughing, Morphine - and then those who seemed to just get better and better before some ill-fated collapse - The Beatles, Nirvana, The Who, Led Zeppelin...

The only band that used to be good and now is awful that I can think of off the top of my head is Counting Crows.   The past two R.E.M. albums have been pretty bad, but they're so prolific that two albums almost doesn't represent a trend.  I'm like the kid whose parents got divorced, thinkng that Bill Berry will come back and they'll make one final album together as a band and it will be their best album ever.

[Nabubrush]

Stevie Wonder
Aerosmith
Black Sabbath (ok, multiple crap lead singers, but still)
Rush
AC/DC
Actually, most metal

To be fair, Miles said the Stones in the late 70s, not the 70s in general. I'd say "Tattoo You" is the last good Stones album, and it is great. After that, though, it drops rapidly. In the 90s, they're just more of the same.

[V-Adore]

To chime in on R.E.M., I too hold out hope that eventually they'll fall into a more functional groove. Even so, I think it's notable that even their lesser albums tend to have some decent and even good material -- I know the consensus on Reveal is that it has about three good songs, although nobody can agree on which songs are the "good" ones. Nonetheless, one must hope.

They Might Be Giants may be the reigning king of inconsistent bands, but it's a sort of intra-album inconsistency -- I can't think of a single album of theirs that doesn't have at least one fabulously good song and at least one really awful one. Tonally, of course, they vary a great deal, but I enjoy all of their ideas.

[arkabee]

Rush

i think that when i got "roll the bones" and enthusiastically unwrapped the tape from the cellophane and put in in my walkman, that i cried.

[miles]

Stevie Wonder
Aerosmith
Black Sabbath (ok, multiple crap lead singers, but still)
Rush
AC/DC
Actually, most metal

To be fair, Miles said the Stones in the late 70s, not the 70s in general. I'd say "Tattoo You" is the last good Stones album, and it is great. After that, though, it drops rapidly. In the 90s, they're just more of the same.

It's true.  I don't really like Some Girls or Tattoo You, but I wouldn't call either crap.

AC/DC is another good example.  With Bon Scott they didn't misstep once, but after Back in Black...

[miles]

I don't know - when Bowie's bad he's pretty bad, but he's kept up to date with current trends (often predating those trends by about 20 years - I mean, the mid-90s bands all sounded like they were influenced by early 70s Bowie).

I also disagree with your assessment that all of the Rolling Stones's albums since 1969 have been bad.  Tattoo You is one of their best, and that came out when, 1981?

It's not like David Bowie has been consistently bad, but you're right, when he's bad, he's bad.  I haven't loved much since Scary Monsters, but he's had a few really good things, and some decent things, but a lot of shit.  Most recently, in my opinion, he's been consistently OK.

I realize a lot of music fans will disagree with my assessment of the Stones, but I don't think they died in 69.  I think Exile is possibly their best, and that was 71 or 72 I think.  A lot of stuff from the late 70s is still OK to me, but not great.

[Nabubrush]

If you like Metallica, they certainly fit - but many people here do not like Metallica and never have.

[jough]

Yeah, I liked Metallica up until "...And Justice For All" - I tuned out after that - so I'd say they haven't been good since 1989.

[Nabubrush]

I concur exactly.

[Limmo]

Metallica: Justice is a good album ruined by bad production choices.  The black album is brilliantly produced; too bad about the songs.   Lost interest since then:

The Rolling Stones: despite the ass-kicking show they gave on Halloween 2002, they haven't put out a good album in over 25 years.  Tattoo You doesn't count because it was patched together from sessions for previous albums dating back to 1974.

R.E.M.: Loved Up, three good songs on Reveal, new album horribly boring.

Aerosmith: haven't put out an amazing album since 1976, though Permanent Vacation came close.  Now they don't write songs so much as soundtracks for sleazy rock videos.

I agree with most of Nabu's other choices.  Sabbath's last great album was Mob Rules.  

Who else?  The Smashing Pumpkins certainly took a swan-dive into the potty with Adore.  Not a big admirer of the Beastie Boys these days.  

And I know I'm alone in this, but I've hated everything Radiohead's done since OK Computer.  Except for "Everything In Its Right Place."

[slink]

And I know I'm alone in this, but I've hated everything Radiohead's done since OK Computer.  Except for "Everything In Its Right Place."

Not at all alone. In fact, that is pretty much exactly how I feel about them. Only I rarely listen to anything by them anymore.

[Nabubrush]

I only like Pablo Honey.




Or is that Pablo Cruise?

[jough]

I wasn't the biggest fan of Kid A or Amnesiac, but Hail to the Thief was a return to form as far as I'm concerned.

And even when they're not at their best Radiohead is still *interesting*.  There are songs I still listen to regularly from all of those albums, but you're right, OK Computer was about the perfect album, once you make a copy that cuts out Fitter Happier and Electioneering like I did.

[miles]

I wasn't the biggest fan of Kid A or Amnesiac, but Hail to the Thief was a return to form as far as I'm concerned.

And even when they're not at their best Radiohead is still *interesting*.  There are songs I still listen to regularly from all of those albums, but you're right, OK Computer was about the perfect album, once you make a copy that cuts out Fitter Happier and Electioneering like I did.

I like Kid A but not Amnesiac.  Hail to the Thief is OK too.

Now what's this that everyone has against Electioneering?  First time I heard about it was on one of Pitchfork's year end lists.  It's not their best, but I've never felt the urge to edit it out.

Bob Dylan has some shitty stuff, but I like him way too much to actually admit it.  I just like to forget about, well, 1975-1989 and 1989 to roughly 1997.

Also the Grateful Dead, but then again I don't really l ike anything besides American Beauty, Workingman's Dead and Touch of Grey, so my opinion probably doesn't count.