That new Replacements book was pretty great, but he weirdly never addressed the understanding I always had of their career-- they made a couple of amazing albums and then got more and more boring. I thought this was the standard storyline, it certainly was among my college friends. Hootenanny, Let it Be, and Tim were full of great songs that combined the energy of punk with some of the pop craft and complexity of classic rock. They also had a smattering of annoying noisy numbers and clunkers. Then they got further and further from that blend, with more and more boring songs that didn't have the same special spark. There was more support from their label, more of a push to get them on radio and MTV, etc... but it was too late, their best albums were behind them. In the book there's this idea that Paul Westerberg was getting better and better at writing songs, and the band was somehow holding him back. If that's true, why weren't his solo albums big smash hits? Because there are lots of singer-songwriter dudes strumming guitars, but only one Replacements.
Separately, I think sometimes about how there are a few bands in this category-- if you tell me a band "sounds like the Replacements" it makes me want to listen to them less, not more. I also feel this way about Neil Young, off the top of my head. I need to think about that part more.
Author
Topic: What are you listening to? (Read 380986 times)