When the music fades

[revolead]

This is probably an issue more common with younger generations than with older ones, but I would like to vent, so here it goes.

 

Does anyone ever notice how you get screwed when you find a band you like and you like them because they are different and not popular? Then, everyone likes them, and you suddenly hate them. Usually this national obsession results in a sellout for the band, and their second album not only is crap, but its lame, wimpy, and lacks anything the first album ever had. This happen to any of you?

 

Some of the bands that come to mind are:

 

Linkin' Park: I never was a huge fan of theirs, but their first CD was well mixed and it meant something to me. I still keep it, but I don't think I've listened to it since 2002. Witness their second album, which is full of cheesey songs similar to "Crawling in My Skin" and "In the End" all because those are the songs that made them big. Out of every guitarist on the planet, I have the least amount of respect for Brad Delson. Sellout.

 

Creed: My Own Prison and Human Clay were both good CDs. Then when "With Arms Wide Open" made it big, it's like the whole band forgot what music is really about. I didn't even want to examine Weathered, but maybe I should. Anyone an Alter Bridge fan now? I'm not, but I'd be interested to hear what's with Mark Tremonti.

 

Metallica post-Black album: Enough said.

 

3 Doors Down: The first album was awesome. It was one of my first CDs (I was 15 when it came out), and I loved it. Now, I haven't listened to it in years, and my sister bought me the new CD; I found it to be pretty lame and without the same energy and vigor the original album contained.

 

So, consider this the unofficial "Bitch about [insert band here] and how they sold out" or feel free to disagree with me about any of the above. I'm open for discussion.

[Mudcat]

I'm a geezer, but I can relate. I was a huge REM fan but have been pretty much disappointed in everything they have done since the Green album.

 

HOWEVER IN STARK CONTRAST TO THIS...

 

I must say that I had a very happy U2 experience Saturday. I am big fan of U2 from Joshua Tree back to their first album. Everything since then has been hit or miss. I thought "Beautiful Day" was the best thing they had done in years, but then I heard their new single "Vertigo" on the radio Saturday...

 

WOW! What a great rock-n-roll tune!

 

Bono is actually singing like he did on the first two or three albums and they're playing like a three piece rock band again.

 

Anyone else heard this yet?

[Lee Flier]

Well, I don't inherently resent bands for becoming successful, nor inherently like them for being "underground." But like you say, a LOT of bands become successful by changing their sound in some way, often not a good way. In that case, it sucks. Not everybody is very flattered by slick production, and that's usually what ruins a record for me, if it's an artist I like. I've had that happen too many times to count.

 

On the other hand some artists seem to make the transition to a major label without watering down what they do best... Nirvana was one, I thought, although sure enough there are some people think they sucked after "Bleach."

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by Mudcat:

I'm a geezer, but I can relate. I was a huge REM fan but have been pretty much disappointed in everything they have done since the Green album.

YEAH. Me too!

 

I must say that I had a very happy U2 experience Saturday. I am big fan of U2 from Joshua Tree back to their first album. Everything since then has been hit or miss.

Ditto!

 

I thought "Beautiful Day" was the best thing they had done in years, but then I heard their new single "Vertigo" on the radio Saturday...

 

WOW! What a great rock-n-roll tune!

 

Bono is actually singing like he did on the first two or three albums and they're playing like a three piece rock band again.

 

Anyone else heard this yet?

No! Will definitely have to give it a listen though. Thanks for the heads up, I'd pretty much given up on them.

[Guitarzan]

i find that the bands i like seem to maintain thier sound and style, and i am faithfull to them because i know what i am buying, i also accept thier experimentation unless it is totally different.

i was never a big metalica fan but i am a big megadeth fan. i like zztop and ac/dc as well. some albums may not be my favorites but i still like em.

i do know what you are saying revolead.

i loved Kiss as a teen and the 80's are a lost cause for the band, peter chris and ace frehley were very important to the sound of the band, ace wrote memorable solos and peter chris was responsible for making some simple songs groove.

all the shredder guitars and boring drummers that came after only made them sound bland.

its only rock and roll but without those two Kiss was a joke.

[Billster]

Geez, why does everyone beat on Metallica post-black album?

 

Lee's right of course, big production is not for every act or performer, but the record companies love that stuff...just as often an artist will sound better naked.

 

How about acts that you never thought twice about who record something new that really catches your attention?

 

Al DiMeola's early albums are somewhat cliche ridden. He's obviously talented, but prone to cliche and technical overkill. His later work, is more mature, and more listenable outside the guitar geek realm, and bears repeated listening.

 

I'm not a huge Yardbirds fan, but I love the first Jeff Beck album, which he did immediately after he split from the Yardbirds. Same with Clapton splitting the Yardbirds and doing Mayall's Blues Breakers.

 

The Who was not as big a success between "My Generation" and "Tommy" - their fifth album! Townshend considered a lot of those three albums failures, despite the great effort put in.

 

Thing is, now an act has no chance to improve. If the record company can't push you out the door with a "platinum debut!!!", they don't want a second album. See the recently referenced Steve Albini " The Problem With Music " article. God forbid they pay the talent.

[pauldil]

OK, I see the basic problem here. You guys seem to think of music as some sort of art form

 

Paul

[Mudcat]

Originally posted by pauldil:

OK, I see the basic problem here. You guys seem to think of music as some sort of art form

 

Paul

I thought it was a competition.

[Adamixoye]

Revolead, to your original post...

 

I like Linkin Park, and I think Meteora has plenty of good songs that are not in the mold you describe. JMO, I'm not sure if I can defend it any further than that.

 

Also, I've never been a big Metallica fan, but when it comes to post-"Black" songs I like "No-Leaf Clover" and that song they did on the "M:I-2" soundtrack ("I Disappear"?). I even (*gasp*) like some of the thought behind the singles off of "St. Anger", even if the execution is subpar. Okay, I'm just going to let those undoubtedly unpopular statements stand. I'm not going to defend or criticize Metallica one way or another, I'm just saying that I like at least a few songs they did from the period where they are typically criticized.

 

Your criticisms of 3 Doors Down and Creed I can definitely agree with.

 

I would complain about bands I like, but they have all changed for supposedly artistic reasons, as none of them have really hit the big time the way the artists you mentioned have. Lots of supposedly-Christian rock bands. A few names: Bleach, Plankeye, Stavesacre, and Newsboys. All went from some sort of rock sound I could get on board with to something weaker and lamer.

[guitar god lol]

although jason is a good bass player, metallica was never metallica after cliff died. plus they went downhill after they went mtv.

[revolead]

Well, I don't inherently resent bands for becoming successful, nor inherently like them for being "underground."

I'm sorry if I lead you to believe this conclusion. Mostly, I just hate it when they alter their sound because one song they did makes it big. That's what I hate. There's plenty of big name bands I like okay, but mostly I find myself coming back to the same guys that never made it HUGE, but did get some money and make it pretty big. On that list I would put Breaking Benjamin, Papa Roach, Dream Theater, Eric Johnson, Joe Satriani.

[revolead]

Originally posted by Adamixoye:

Revolead, to your original post...

I like Linkin Park, and I think Meteora has plenty of good songs that are not in the mold you describe. JMO, I'm not sure if I can defend it any further than that.

 

Also, I've never been a big Metallica fan, but when it comes to post-"Black" songs I like "No-Leaf Clover" and that song they did on the "M:I-2" soundtrack ("I Disappear"?). I even (*gasp*) like some of the thought behind the singles off of "St. Anger", even if the execution is subpar. Okay, I'm just going to let those undoubtedly unpopular statements stand. I'm not going to defend or criticize Metallica one way or another, I'm just saying that I like at least a few songs they did from the period where they are typically criticized.

 

Your criticisms of 3 Doors Down and Creed I can definitely agree with.

Okay, I have friends that like Meteora, but I'll tell you why I never liked it. Not because they made it successful or anything, but because they never had it in the first place. To be honest, I'm not sure what I liked about the first album, other than it was different. It was techno-metal, which is hugely popular with the nerd crowd at my school. Kids could relate to the lyrics, and if it made a sound like the latest video game, then that was it. You had their attention.

 

My biggest criticism now is their overproduction and use of scratchpads and synths to compromise for real guitar playing. Seeing Brad Delson in a PRS advertisement made me give up on Linkin' Park and on PRS.

 

As for Metallica, I don't hate everything post-Black album. I do like some of Load and other albums. I think "Turn the Page" is a great cover. And S&M kicked ass too. But I think a lot of that has to do with going back and playing their original stuff. My favorite songs are still pre-Black album. After that, I do think they sold out to Bob Rock, who in turn sold out to America. What a shame.

[J J]

Originally posted by Mudcat:

Originally posted by pauldil:

OK, I see the basic problem here. You guys seem to think of music as some sort of art form

 

Paul

I thought it was a competition.

you guys are WAY off

everyone knows it's all about the appearance

[ihategarybettman]

revoled, I don't think this issue is more common with younger generations than with older ones. You can find examples of it throughout rock's history; here are just a few off the top of my head:

 

The Stones haven't released a truly good album since "Tatoo You" (and arguably haven't made a great one since "Exile").

 

I'm a huge Springsteen fan, but his peak period was early in his career, with the "Wild, the Innocent, and the E-Street Shuffle/Born to Run/Darkness" trio of albums; ditto with Tom Petty's "Damn The Torpedoes/Hard Promises/Long After Dark" triumverate.

 

I loved Little Steven and the Disciples of Soul's first album ("Men Without Women"), but have liked each successive album less and less.

 

I've been lukewarm toward most of U2's output since "War."

 

The only Guns and Roses I can listen to is "Appetite for Destruction" and about half of "Lies."

 

In my opinion, Pearl Jam also peaked with their first record.

 

This is just a sampling, but I think it proves my point. Also, as far as Metallica goes, I know that I'm in the minority in that I liked "Load" as much as anything they released before it (however, I too am not so crazy about their releases since).

[revolead]

revolead, I don't think this issue is more common with younger generations than with older ones. You can find examples of it throughout rock's history; here are just a few off the top of my head:

Thanks for affirming that. I wasn't generalizing, that's why I said it is probably more common with younger generations. I'm glad you shared your opinion though.

 

How come you don't like Use Your Illusion? I think UYI II is GNR's best album.

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

As a songwriter as well as a guitar player, I have a theory about this.

 

A new band hits the scene. The writers in that band have had 20 years of output from which to choose the songs for their first release.

 

They have a couple of months of writing from which to choose the followup recording.

 

Now, add to that, people change as their circumstances change. So they aren't going to have the same influernces from which to draw fo rhteir writing.

 

And finally, the listeners change, too. They grow, their tastes change.

 

So there are three logical reasons why you might not like an artist's subsequent releases, though you enjoyed the earlier ones.

 

Springsteen is my prime example. Those first few albums were filled with great tales of a young romantic kid from the suburbs, itching to get out and on his own. In love with the romance of the city as viewed through the eyes of someone who doesn't live there.

 

As one of my friends said back when Bruce came out..."...sounds like one of those suburban kids that we used to beat up then they came into the city and take their money...." True enough. But the songs and stories really reached me.

 

On the other hand, the followup stories... (What I call the "I'm a 'Murican, Yur a 'Murican" songs) ...stories about sad people from depressed American suburbs... a truth that has occured since the loss of the steel and heavy manufacturing industries that provided such a great standard of living for most Americans..... I don't enjoy those stories. Large portions of my family live those stories every day, while Bruce lives in a mansion in the sun. Though he still comes around, supports food banks, etc etc, I'd still rather he was writing songs like New York City Serenade or Wild Billy's Circus or Thunder Road; than stories about Glory Days. Doesn't make the later songs less good or valid, just less meaningful to me. Meanwhile, -these- are the songs that made him a superstar, not obscure jems like Saint in the City.

 

Bill

[coyote]

The problem is with the stuff you chose to like. Man, none of those bands are gonna stand the test of time. Even Metallica will be gone as soon as they're gone; none of those bands are producing material that will "hold up" over the decades like, say:

Pink Floyd

Beatles

Nirvana

White Stripes (just kidding)

Jimi Hendrix

 

The bands you mentioned are the Motley Crues and REO Speedwagons of their age.

Originally posted by revolead:

This is probably an issue more common with younger generations than with older ones, but I would like to vent, so here it goes.

I'm open for discussion.

[Billster]

Originally posted by bpark@prorec.com:

As a songwriter as well as a guitar player, I have a theory about this.

 

A new band hits the scene. The writers in that band have had 20 years of output from which to choose the songs for their first release.

 

They have a couple of months of writing from which to choose the followup recording.

 

I have said that previously, and agree wholeheartedly.

 

All of your other points are valid as well, particularly that time does not pass in a vacuum - the performer and the listener both change.

 

For instance, the early Sprigsteen you cite; when you first heard it, it impacted you a certain way. Now, when you hear those same songs, you can't help but feel a bit of nostalgia for your own self as you were when you first heard it.

 

Have you ever read the book "The Mansion on the Hill"? It views the arc of Bruce Springsteen's career, including a section that refers to "Born in the USA" as a great merketing experience!

[revolead]

The problem is with the stuff you chose to like. Man, none of those bands are gonna stand the test of time.

Of course, I expect that from some of them, but you'd think they'd be able to stick around for longer than one album. I know plenty of bands who seemed to have changed in the eyes of the one-hit wonder crowd, but remain time-tested to devoted fans. A good example?

 

Papa Roach. You may all remember when their first single, "Lat Resort," hit the charts in the top ten. They way they combined hip hop and rock was very appealing to all kinds of audiences. I was wearing their shirt at a party, and some kid came up to me and said, "Are the still kicking it?" I wanted to hit the kid. They are as much alive now as ever. However, they have changed. They rock more and hip hop less, and now, having three albums, the last album has no hip hop at all. They lost the audience of MTV, but they haven't lost diehard fans. My best friends and I all believe they rock now more than ever. Their newest CD came out on August 31; I've had it in my player at least once a day since then.

[ihategarybettman]

Revo-man, I didn't care for GnR's "Illusion" records because they sounded too slick for my taste. To me, "Appetite" was much more raw, vital, and rock 'n' roll. Also, the band swung more when Izzy Stradlin and Steven Adler were in the band. I think Matt Sorum is a good drummer (his work with the Cult and Velvet Revolver is great), but to my ears he dragged the tempo in Guns and Roses, and there was a better groove with Adler at the drumkit. Without Izzy, the band lost its Keith Richards-like swagger and feel and turned into just another metal band.

[revolead]

Pink Floyd

Beatles

Nirvana

White Stripes (just kidding)

Jimi Hendrix

I would argue against a lot of those.

 

Hendrix is time-tested with guitarists and potheads, but no one else. My dad never liked Hendrix. I can find several other people who never cared for Hendrix. I respect Hendrix, I appreciate him, and I own his albums, but he's not my guitar hero. I'd take a lesson with Kirk Hammett over a lesson with Hendrix any day of the week.

 

Pink Floyd - I will give you them.

 

The Beatles are well-known, but the reason they are remembered is for their popularity in their day, not because we should all bend on knee to their talent. Feel free to disagree with any of these statements, but to me the Beatles were in their day what the Backstreet Boys, Britney Spears, and Dave Mathews are today. Of course they have more talent than those guys, but their songs all sound about the same. I only liked a handful of the Beatles stuff I heard. I'll await the flames from everyone about this. Just remember, we are all entitled to an opinion about music.

 

Nirvana went to crap went Cobain started using drugs heavily. Sure, he always used them, but I never thought anything of them after Nevermind and In Utero. They are time-tested, but even they tended to lose it.

[revolead]

Originally posted by ihategarybettman:

Revo-man, I didn't care for GnR's "Illusion" records because they sounded too slick for my taste. To me, "Appetite" was much more raw, vital, and rock 'n' roll. Also, the band swung more when Izzy Stradlin and Steven Adler were in the band. I think Matt Sorum is a good drummer (his work with the Cult and Velvet Revolver is great), but to my ears he dragged the tempo in Guns and Roses, and there was a better groove with Adler at the drumkit. Without Izzy, the band lost its Keith Richards-like swagger and feel and turned into just another metal band.

I'd disagree. They sound very different to me. Almost a folk-country/metal hybrid. Slash has a very soulful appraoch to playing also, something not seen much in metal outside of Jimmy Page and some of Petrucci and a handful of others.

 

Also, Izzy was playing rhythm in UYI. I don't know where you got it that he wasn't.

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

Originally posted by revolead:

... Slash has a very soulful appraoch to playing also, something not seen much in metal outside of Jimmy Page ....

In my view, Slash brought guitarists out of the dark days of 1980s sound-alike buzzsaw-distortion pointy-headstock guitars and back into the arena of tone, touch, and taste, embodied in good amps, quality guitars, and decent effects.

 

Bill

[revolead]

Originally posted by bpark@prorec.com:

Originally posted by revolead:

... Slash has a very soulful appraoch to playing also, something not seen much in metal outside of Jimmy Page ....

In my view, Slash brought guitarists out of the dark days of 1980s sound-alike buzzsaw-distortion pointy-headstock guitars and back into the arena of tone, touch, and taste, embodied in good amps, quality guitars, and decent effects.

 

Bill

That's why he's such a huge influence on me. Slash and Eric Johnson taught me metal doesn't have to mean high-gain amps, but I still like my pointy-headstocked Jackson. However, I think if you played my Jackson, you'd like it. It's a metalheads guitar with the tone of anything you want. I modded it that way.

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

I've owned 2 Jacksons. Owned, being past tense. As I've said elsewhere, I've come to regret selling off certain guitars. Maybe some day I'll regret selling the Jacksons. Both played very nicely and sounded good. But they did not have unique and individual sounds, they were basically single coil Fender sound-alikes.

 

Bill

[revolead]

Mine is sort of custom. It's a Korean model, but I gave it a nice redo last summer, so it's got SD pickups and a very smooth fretboard. I love the finish on it too. It seems to have a unique character because it is sort of in the halfway point between a Strat and a Les Paul. Double humbuckers, but sweet, smooth tone derived from alder with a maple top. Not very heavy and it's very versatile.

[Big Red 67]

The biggest defining album of the sort for me is "Under the Table and Dreaming". This is a great album and I hated it at one time. It is the only album of Dave's that I really like now. Another, The white zombie album that was the first big one. Hated it for a while. It sounds so great! The production on these two albums is awesome. I beleive that it was due to the person(s) that produced, mixed, and mastered the albums. I think that the producers rained these players into the achievements for these recordings. Success does not make you smarter, or better at doing someone elses job. If you have success pass it on and bring those that got you there with. Even if you hate them. It may be the difference between a one hit wonder and a career.

[ihategarybettman]

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by revolead:

Izzy was playing rhythm in UYI. I don't know where you got it that he wasn't. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

By the time UYI was being recorded, the band was becoming dominated by Axl's ego and Izzy was becoming disillusioned by the diminished role the whole band was having in the writing and arranging process, not to mention Axl's increasingly erratic behavior. So, while he may have played on the record, his role in the group dynamic was not what it was in the early days. It's no coincidence that he quit the band soon after the record's release.

[Blue Strat]

Sometimes a band puts out great material right from the start, but then they get watered down over time. Sometimes they put out one good CD and then the rest sucks. Sometimes their material sucks at first and then becomes great on the next CD.

 

There's music that you like and music that you hate. I'm sure everyone here has bought a CD with one good song on it and was then disappointed with the rest of the album. I know I've done that.

[revolead]

Too many, bluestrat, too many. However, I will say I've bought some of my favorite bands for only one song, and I love the whole album. It goes both ways. I find most of the music I randomly pick ends up being decent.