Print

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

[KeithHernandez]

We have done this before.  The freewheelin, times are a changing, another side of, bringing it all back home, highway 61, and blonde on blonde.  Highway 61 prob my least fav, bringing it all back home or another side of fav followed by blonde on blonde.  If not for last 2 songs on highway 61 Dylan would have 5 classic records.  I also listen to John westley Harding, Nashville skyline and the one with if dogs run free and the man in me, but those ain't classics.  Sorry about shorthand and for doing this again.  On phone, when home from work will take this in a dif way.

So it seems to me there are two (well probably 5 or 6, but these two are generally the best) types of great bands.  The first type live fast, die young (sometimes- if we are lucky), and make a few classic records.  Those would be, like The Beta Band, Modern Lovers, The Flatlanders, The Vaselines, The Stooges, The Monks, The Velvet Underground (not really but), early REM, early Camper Van Beethoven, Clinic, Stone Roses, Pavement (please, for all of us, don't listen to anything past Crooked Rain Crooked Rain) etc. etc.  These bands make a few classic records, or one, then quit or put out trash (coughREMcough minus New Adventures in HiFi), but basically they start off with some groundbreaking shit, then just get worse their whole careers.  The next type start pretty tame/average, etc., then progress into the GREATEST BAND EVER.  Here you've got Dylan (kinda weak, Bootleg Collection Volume 1 proves that, but his self titled album fits the mold), Radiohead, Super Furry Animals, Supergrass, Flaming Lips, the Minutemen, The Replacements, etc., etc. 

So like, obviously, this is kinda generalized, but usually my favorite bands will come from one of these groups.  But if someone said you have to have one favorite I would almost always say a band in the second group.  The second group usually has a longer peak (usually 2-3 albums instead of 1-2 for the first), and puts out one album as good or better than the first groups one good album.  Usually, for me, this album is their transition from one thing to another.  With Dylan, it is Bringing it All Back Home.  The Beatles- Revolver.  The Minutemen- Double Nickels on the Dime.  Radiohead- Bends or Ok Computer.  Supergrass- In It for the Money.  SFA- Radiator.  The Replacements- Hootenanny.  The Flaming Lips- well they switched a few times but lets say Clouds Taste Metallic and Soft Bulletin- strong case for In a Priest Driven Ambulance too. 

So basically these transitions records are the best.  They are the best records.

I will try to think of some more examples so everyone can see what I am talking about:

Springsteen- Born in the USA- from wannabe Dylan to American Observer
Talking Heads- Fear of Music- New Wave rock to, uh?
Wilco- Summerteeth (though I prefer AM)- country to rock
Black Lips- Good, Bad, Not Evil- flower punk to a crap shoot.

This might have made my point even more muddled.

[KeithHernandez]

There are obviously many different types of classic bands, just this one type of album make up almost all of my favorite albums if I made a list.

Also, got to watch out for the bands in group 1 pretending to be in group 2.  The Yo La Tengos of the world.

[pmcd9]

Without getting into specifics because we'll not agree exactly on which album fits where; I'll say I agree with what you are getting at.  It's an interesting concept that I've not thought too much about.

Which would you say is Radiohead's transition album, OK Computer?  Because it bridges the gap between the guitar driven pop of their first two albums and the avant garde Kid A/Amnesiac period?

BTW, on almost completely unrelated note, Phil Selway has put out an exquisite new solo album, Familial.  They are streaming it over at NPR.

[KeithHernandez]

Yeah, OK computer. 

I think Beatles and Dylan (and I'm sure more) have two.  Rubber Soul and Revolver, Another Side of and Bringing it ...

[littlefallsmets]

The idea that Springsteen at some point stopped being a cheap Dylan wannabe, this idea intrigues me.

[KeithHernandez]

That was bad phrasing.  I don't really think he was ever a cheap dylan, his first three records are tops.  But lyrically he changes from talking about hipster stuff to like criminal americana.  Both of those are on Born to Run.  It would be sick if the music sounded more like the first springsteen album.  Mary Queen of Arkansas- that actually is cheap Dylan rip off, but the rest of that album holds up fairly well.

[arkabee]

Clutch's Elephant Riders.

[Limmo]

Van Halen – 1984.  The synthesizer-driven pop songs and shitty, over-processed guitar tone presaged the dawn of Van Hagar.

AC/DC – For Those About To Rock.  The transition to a band who you never wanted to hear any new songs from.  See also: The Rolling Stones, Some Girls.

Beastie Boys – Ill Communication.  The first record that wasn’t a complete about-face from what they had done previously, and thus the transition into being a band I didn’t give a shit about.  See also: Prince’s Batman soundtrack.

[pmcd9]

Who dug up Limmo's corpse?

[miles]

AC/DC – For Those About To Rock.  The transition to a band who you never wanted to hear any new songs from.

It's funny that you mention this because AC/DC was the first band that popped into my mind after I read Keith's post. I know it doesn't really get to what he was talking about, because he said those transition albums are the best and generally separate the early, mediocre phase of the band's career from the awesome phase, and here we are going the opposite direction. But I would argue that Back in Black is the one. Now, I like that album. It's not my favorite by a long shot (well, it's my favorite Brian Johnson album), but it's good. There is, however, a noticeable shift from what they were doing before, and it's not just the new vocalist, although that's big. Bon Scott is one of the best rock vocalists ever and I think Brian Johnson is just OK (though I know many disagree). It's just different. I've heard Bon Scott was something of a contributor to the album, not sure to what extent, but I think they basically redid everything. It's the songwriting, the style, the instrumentation and the production. In fact, I've heard some argue that the shift really came with Highway to Hell, the first album that Lange produced. But yeah. My take on that. Oh, and I like some of AC/DC's stuff after Bon Scott's reign, but I don't love much of it, and it's an entirely different thing.

I'll have to think some more on transition albums. The other guy that I thought of was Neil Young. But it seems like he's kind of all over the place throughout his career. Everybody Knows This Is Nowhere maybe? I don't know.

Oh, and Tom Waits. Swordgiraffetrombones, right?

[Doc]

Swordgiraffetrombones, right?

It would have been even better if that was the title.

[KeithHernandez]

I know it doesn't really get to what he was talking about, because he said those transition albums are the best and generally separate the early, mediocre phase of the band's career from the awesome phase

See I find the "awesome" phase of a band boring.  This album is fresh and probably the only true artistic statement most bands make.  That's bullshit, the most unique?  I just assumed all AC/DC sucked so I don't really know about this AC/DC talk.

[Drygioni]

The idea that Springsteen at some point stopped being a cheap Dylan wannabe, this idea intrigues me.

Jesus christ mate, if somebody mentions one of your many pet hates do you have a switch in your brain which forces you to make a disparaging comment? Everybody knows you hate Springsteen, next time you see his name just pretend it doesn't exist. Same with football unless you have something useful to add or ask. No need to wave around how much you dislike something like it's a badge of honour or something

I think you make a good point Keith, the best bands take a while to find their feet and come out the better for it. Possibly down to what a band represents.

Many of the bands who rise and fall so quickly have similar attributes. Stooges were incredibly fresh and incendiary for the time, the Stone Roses epitomised the best side of Madchester, the Velvet Underground the band most famous for mixing aspects of avant-garde and rock into cohesive wholes back in the '60s. The bands which make their slow rise are generally ones which aren't wholly subjective to a 'scene' or movement. Often, the first incarnation is poor as it is derivative of a current trend (The Beatles to an extent, Super Furry Animals and Blur were a good but not great Britpop outfit, Radiohead were a shit Britpop outfit) and then on said 'transition' album bring in elements of their own creativity to the existing formula, often getting further away from their original intention.

Bands wholly indebted to their scene never break away, but the fact they owed so much to it often means they are brilliant, epitomising an entire movement of music even if they can never quite escape into new sounds, hence the break-ups and inevitable decline.

[littlefallsmets]

Sometimes I'm just being snarky for its own sake, Jude.

[pmcd9]

It's alright.  Go on, tell us how awesome Axl Rose is.