[Closed] Bands who used to be good?.....

Metallica

Red Hot Chilli Peppers

and of course U2 FTW

Killers

Going back a bit, but Marillion.

Script For A Jester's Tear 1983
Fugazi 1984

They then did a couple of borderline-goodish albums (Misplaced Childhood and Clutching At Straws) and then Fish left.

Everything they did since was awful. Just awful.

Coldplay 🙂

Kings of Leon

EDIT the rot set in after 1 album so I suppose they don't meet the criteria.

Guns n Roses.

Van Halen

311. Peaked at their second album before dramatically nosediving. Their music now resides somewhere near the Titanic.

Jamiroquai. First album good, second album had some good tracks, third album vaguely passable but the nosedive was probably unrecoverable at this point.

Metallica. Everything after ....And Justice For All is - well - a bit pants, quite frankly. Yes, that includes the 'black album'.

Chilis.

Muse
Biffy Clyro
Definitely Kings of Leon, their first couple of albums were great.
Queens of the Stone Age

I have a theory that most bands will either produce a great 1st album, and then go downhill, or peak around album 3.

Alice in chains - but there's a fairly obvious reason for that

Oasis

Iron Maiden

Not a band but Van Morrison - 70s albums are amazing, everything I've heard from 80s onwards is awful.

Something awful happened to Stevie Wonder around the time of ebony and ivory and I just called to say I love you

Michael Jackson - the ultimate descent from genius to utter awfulness

REM just got really boring and samey

To be honest I like it when bands split up - it's very hard to stay good without descending into a lazy parody of yourself

Agree with andeh..

Biffy used to be amazing, first 3 albums were inventive and awesome.. now just a bland Foo Fighters tribute act.

Same with Muse, Origin of Symmetry was amazing, turned into a Queen tribute act recently.

Guns n Roses.

Almost any band after their first few albums really

Which ones remained good is probably a better question

So many recent bands trot out one good album that they spent the first 20 years of their life writing, the angst of first love etc

Then they have 2 years to write a second album whist they have made it potentially. Its never going to be as good is it!

Morrisey even his fans accept he was rubbish. I always.disliked the smiths due to mozza
rolling stones cannot do good covers of their own hits nevermind do a good new lot.

Oh definitely Oasis - they were a breath of fresh air when first came out, then quickly became stale old lad's rock.

Chili Peppers seem to be a different band from the Fight Like a Brave days. Blander than a bland thing.

Very few bands remain good during their rise into popularity IMO.

Radiohead, Arcade Fire and Yeah Yeah Yeahs have all managed it (again IMO)

A lot of bands seem to leave their indie label and sign for a major, then get pushed into producing something with mass appeal.

If Biffy hadn't changed like they did, they'd have probably gone the way of Reuben, Hundred Reasons, Hell is for Heroes etc.

[i]Biffy used to be amazing, first 3 albums were inventive and awesome.. now just a bland Foo Fighters tribute act.[/i]

Cool, from a Nirvana tribute act to a Foo Fighters tribute act. That's progression! 😉

[i]Very few bands remain good during their rise into popularity IMO.

Radiohead, Arcade Fire and Yeah Yeah Yeahs have all managed it[/i]

+ Underworld, Chemical Brothers... Foals 3rd album is a cracker too.

Radiohead, Arcade Fire and Yeah Yeah Yeahs have all managed it

hmmmmmmmmmmm

Nah I wouldn't say Biffy were a Nirvana tribute act (even though Simon has an In Utero tatt).. some of their stuff was a bit grungey, but the majority of their early output didn't really resemble like Nirvana.. asides from being a hairy 3 piece that is..

alex222: what I meant was that those three bands have managed to produce decent music, and evolved with each album, without really selling out IMO

what I meant was that those three bands have managed to produce decent music, and evolved with each album, without really selling out IMO

Okay I will concede to that.

All of those mentioned above, apart from Oasis & Metallica who were both turgid, boring, unimaginative pastiches of far better bands & never any good in the first place.

I think its hard for bands to maintain the youthful angst that produces so many great albums.

Thats no excuse for the decline of Kings of Leon though. Worse with every album 🙂

All of those mentioned above, apart from Oasis & Metallica who were both turgid, boring, unimaginative pastiches of far better bands & never any good in the first place.

It's amazing how many people claim to have never liked Oasis...

Kings of Leon is a good shout, but I think they did a storming debut album, and not much else.

This is always going to be the default pattern, songwriters in bands usually seem to have one or two albums worth of great stuff with a maybe a smattering left for the third album. Successful bands have long moved on from the all-living-together-in-a-rehearsal-room camaraderie and are brought to the studio in their separate limos, the coke that made the early tours such fun and fuelled those legendary all-night sessions on the second album is now an obstacle that hampers creativity etc...

Be easier to think of bands who either managed to keep the quality high for a longer period (Beatles, Stones, The Who, Pink Floyd, Kinks, Zepp, arguably New Order) or either started off a bit rubbish and did their best work a few albums in (U2 being the obvious example, maybe Floyd in this category).

That said, my list of the most heinous offenders of the OP's premise would be:

Red Hot Chili Peppers
Jane's Addiction
QOTSA
Metallica

on the basis that it is, in all the above cases, quite hard to listen to their latest albums and hear how much the vibe of their early work, that made them great, has entirely gone.

I wonder what the thoughts are about bands who may not have hit the big time initially, but then did some way down the line, usually with diehard fans complaining that they've "sold out" and that their new stuff isn't a patch on the old stuff. Bands I'm thinking of here include:

Simple Minds - Honestly, their early stuff is, IMHO, a million times better than the "Don't You Forget About Me" era stadium landfill.

Black Keys - Hugely massiver then they have ever been, but I'm not alone in preferring them when they were like the White Stripes with a competent drummer.

Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark - representing the well worn path from artistic, creative iconoclasm on early records to "you know what, some massive hit singles might be nice" pop success.

However, all in all the award for "band formerly most brilliant and now most rubbish having jettisoned everything that made them great" surely can only go to the Chili Peppers?

Interpol

Turn On The Brights Lights was brilliant. Antics was pretty good. Then it all sunk into endless disappointments

Fogarino is an awesome drummer though

It's amazing how many people claim to have never liked Oasis...

Never noticed it myself. 🙂
I've been slagged off on here for the past seven years for saying it, though, which has amused me greatly.
I said from the start that they were awful and history would remember them as a musical lowpoint.

I was right. 😀

Morrisey even his fans accept he was rubbish. I always.disliked the smiths due to mozza

There have always been lots and lots of people hating Oasis.

Me, I'm ambivalent. I can take them as a singles band - if I hear one of their hits on the radio, it's fine, but I've never managed to get through a whole album in one sitting.

Interpol

Okay, I've got a possibly controversial one for the original premise of the thread:

The Clash

Discuss....

Muse... Their albums were always flaky but they used to be an incredible live band, even in massive venues... hard to believe these days 🙁

ransos - Member
All of those mentioned above, apart from Oasis & Metallica who were both turgid, boring, unimaginative pastiches of far better bands & never any good in the first place.
It's amazing how many people claim to have never liked Oasis...

Yeah I think the Clash ran out of ideas and Toppers drug habit did for them. Strummer has said that with out him it wasn't the same.

Cut the Crap is poor in Clash standards but maybe because its predecessors were so brilliant.

Blur seem to come and go a bit (actually applicable for anything Damon Albarn does)

Konabunny see that bit where I say what his fans think before pointing out I never liked the smiths. You must have as you quoted it

QOTSA is a good shout

Rated R and Songs for the Deaf were great albums, everything since has just been meh

Metallica is a pretty obvious one as well - should have definitely given up after the Black album - although you could make an argument they should have given up after Master of Puppets.

Muse probably peaked with Black Holes and Revelations.

Bands tend to fall into two patterns - start of with an amazing debut album and then just produce gradually worse and worse output until they fade away.

Start off a bit crap and unheralded before producing a "breakthrough" album that everyone rushes out to buy - they then become crap and unheralded again when there next album is a bit rubbish.

Its actually difficult to think of many bands who carry on being great album after album.

Radiohead being the first example of a current band that comes to mind

manics

Dave Bowie should have hung up his hat before he produced the Glass Spider stuff. Up to that point he'd successfully reinvented himself a number of times. From Glass Spider onwards, it's been drivel.... As for the new single, it's like I've been transported into the story of The Emperors New Clothes; surely all of these critics can see it for what it is??

Arctic Monkeys are yet another example. Can't abide their more recent stuff which just sounds like some bored blokes on a tour bus between two anonymous towns.

Good shout for the latest Foals album, marvellous stuff and +1 for the consistancy of Radiohead.

It's amazing how many people claim to have never liked Oasis...

What about Richard Thompson for consistency over 40 years?

Leonard Cohen? Some iffy patches but still producing good stuff?

Ditto Tom Waits & Nick Cave.

Manic street preachers was my first thought, generation terrorists, gold against the soul and the holy bible are all really good albums, everything after is a bit hit and miss in my opinion.

+1 Nick Cave. Maturing like a fine wine.

I never got Oasis. Wonderwall is a great song, but apart from that I was genuinely baffled by their success

Let's just say there are a lot of people who claim to never have liked them, who in 1994 were singing to Live Forever along with everyone else...

Richard Thompson... Tom Waits... Leonard Cohen... Nick Cave

All individuals, all excluded from discussion here - it's about bands and surely part of that all-falls-apart-after-a-couple-of-albums thing is the ruination of relationships that seems accompany the cocaine and limos lifestyle.

Easier to keep your game up when you don't need to worry about whether the drummer is now more into drugs than music or the bass player is shagging the keyboardist's wife etc..

EDIT: I know Nick Cave has worked with the same musicians in many cases for a lot of years, but it's still not the same, he's not dependent on them in the same way as members of proper "bands" are.

Let's just say there are a lot of people who claim to never have liked them, who in 1994 were singing to Live Forever along with everyone else...

I can sing along to a number of their singles. I still don't like them as a band and never have. Bought one album, can't listen to it in one go, although individually the songs are okay. Seen 'em live and the same thing - bored after about four songs.

In fact there are plenty of songs I can sing along to by artists that I don't like.

Shine bright like a diamond

QOTSA is a good shout

Rated R and Songs for the Deaf were great albums, everything since has just been meh

Nah, Lullabies to paralise is a great album and Era vulgaris isn't too bad.

I hope Muse are still good live as i wanted to see them for years and finally got round to getting tickets for this years tour. 😕

I used to love Oasis but they really did go rapidly down hill after they released Masterplan. They should have kept all the b sides for an official album!!

Foo fighters are still doing well for me though, tamed a bit but still making good music.

nasher - Member
manics

Good one. We'll make one good album and quit! Fantastic live band back when Richie was in the group. Then, a mixture of bland and completely bloody awful. (Not that I've bothered listening to any of their later output.)

Smashing pumpkins: Gish and Siamese Dreams are fantastic album, Mellon Collie was shit and they've ( he's) been shit ever since

Queen!
2 of their members left but the other 2, lets call them blondey and curly, carry on flooging a dead freddie, oh er sorry I mean horse.

The Chillis

Kasabian

Kings of Leon

Muse

The trouble is ,if you are hearing them for the first time ,you may think the latest stuff is really good.

Did anyone catch the Abbey road thing on Friday night?

What was Ian Brodie trying to do with that tune ? 🙄
At least the Steriophonics made a good effort .

Muse for me, Showbiz and Origin of Symmetry are two of my favourite albums, Absolution's not bad but they gone way downhill since then (though Knights of Cydonia is a great track).

Kings of Leon, only have one good album.

Kasabian are another one, good first album, not bad second and then downhill.

Not sure I agree on QOTSA, their first three albums are three up way up in my list of favourites (richmtb missed their self titled debut), the last two, though not as good, I still like a lot.

richmtb - Member

Bands tend to fall into two patterns - start of with an amazing debut album and then just produce gradually worse and worse output until they fade away.

Start off a bit crap and unheralded before producing a "breakthrough" album that everyone rushes out to buy - they then become crap and unheralded again when there next album is a bit rubbish.

Not sure you can really count Queen as they did about 17 good albums over twenty years (okay, 16 good albums and Hot Space, and even that had a couple of good tracks on) before they became a bad tribute act.

On the basis of formerly-successful-but-should-have-hung-it-up-when-the-main-attraction-left/died I offer you:

The Doors post LA Woman
Thin Lizzy post Phil Lynott
INXS post Hutchence
The Pogues sans Shane McGowan

honourable mention for even thinking that it could work:

The Glitter Band sans Gary

And in contrast honourable mentions for - bloody hell we've lost the main man, what do we do? I'll tell you what we'll do, we'll re-group and be even more successful than we were previously:

Pink Floyd
Fleetwood Mac

And in contrast honourable mentions for - bloody hell we've lost the main man, what do we do? I'll tell you what we'll do, we'll re-group and be even more successful than we were previously:

Pink Floyd
Fleetwood Mac

More successful, yes, but the earlier stuff was far more interesting in both cases.

Edlong you can add the stones post 75 to that list as well. When they became a sort of "not the best Rolling Stones tribute band"

+1 for The Doors, I bought their 2 studio post jim albums and then sold them again the same year. Although some of the stuff on there wasn't completely horrendous.

@ ransos - I picked my words carefully for that reason! Definitely agree re. the Mac, I think Floyd is more open to debate...

Well, I liked By the Way and Californication much more than the earlier stuff, that I've heard of course.

1D - a great debut followed by selling out to fame and fortune. A real shame as they had something pretty raw about them when they started out.

Well, I liked By the Way and Californication much more than the earlier stuff, that I've heard of course.

Nothing wrong with that, if that's how you came to them. I imagine they sound different to those that were into their older albums prior.

Bit like the Black Keys - I'll concede their new album is well crafted and good, but I hate it because I mourn the passing of the "old" Black Keys of whom I was a massive fan.

I prefer Rumours/Tusk fleet wood mac to Peter green era. California/ cocaine insanity/ inter band affairs and divorce is far more interesting than PGFM which is just stodgy pub rock really

grievoustim

Well, it's all subjective, innit?

That said, you are just so, so, so wrong.....

I'm more concerned about musicality than 'rawness' or 'truth' or other words that reviewers use to describe fresh young bands.

1 more vote for this Chilli's , saw them live on tour when they were pushing the'Mothers Milk' album and they were brilliant last saw them about 6 years ago and came away seriously unimpressed.

I didn't like the most recent Chilis album though, that really was boring as hell.

Arctic monkeys - I'd only go see them again if they promised to only play their first two albums.

Kaiser chiefs as well, they've gone a bit wayward!

It's tough because if bands churn out the same stuff for years they get accused of being dull. Personally I still like ''Tallica. Even Load had its moments. St Anger is the weakest of the new stuff though.

Another vote for the Chilli's from me too...I lost interest after Californication.

I'd also chuck in Korn, Deftones are getting a bit poo, Sepultura (I must be the only person who thinks Roots is a bit rubbish), Pantera lost their way, Pearl Jam have put out some right crap too but then again Ten was always going to be a tough one to follow. The Cult went off the boil too.

Always hated Oasis, but I've always listened to heavier stuff.

Biffy Clyro used to be good, with albums like blackened sky, vertigo of bliss and infinity land. I heard their latest album the other day and it was ****ing terrible pop shit.

[i]The Cult went off the boil too.[/i]

Have you heard "Cult"? Probably their best album (their 6th). Yeah they've done stuff since then, but only for sad old gits who can't move on 😉 (Blimey, they released an album [i]last year![/i])

U2 should have retired after Zooropa at the latest.

I mean, anybody that pretends to be a rockstar when they're over 40 has got to be having a laugh.

'Cool' is not an adjective becoming of any dignified soul over 30.

1 more vote for this Chilli's , saw them live on tour when they were pushing the'Mothers Milk' album and they were brilliant last saw them about 6 years ago and came away seriously unimpressed.

Sums it up for me, seen them live three times, once around Mothers Milk, once with Dave Navarro (mid '90s) and then I took the missus, who had never seen them, to their massive concert in Hyde Park a few years back (2005ish?). Sooooooooo boring! I think they only did Give It Away and Under the Bridge from pre-Californication albums. Wish we'd left after the support act (James Brown, worth the ticket price for him to be fair even though he was hardly in his prime!)

I think it's only neccessary for anyone to own only one Chilli's song.
Just as an example of what to avoid... 😈

Give It Away

See, I really don't like that song.