Not bland enough for you molgrips? 😉

Me neither, which is my point – many albums of great material pre 1998, and that was all they picked to play from it…. however, all the near-identical, quiet verse, slightly louder chorus with some “way-ohs” in ones got aired in full. They’ve turned into Aerosmith, that’s what they’ve done.

EDIT: And I don’t mean good, groovy heavy rock 1970s Aerosmith, no, I mean, dull, written for soundtracks, power ballad Aerosmith.

EDIT(2): Can we add Aerosmith to the list? They used to be good. A long time ago. Then they weren’t.

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

Strangely, Melon Collie is in the top 100 most influential albums list. IMO would have been up with the others if it had been reduced from a double.

Not bland enough for you molgrips?

It’s not musical enough!

Er, ok… not musical music. Riiiiight. 😆

Dez, I wasn’t sure about the Cult, but I did like Beyond Good and Evil. They were good live when I saw them at Reading in 2001.

Aerosmith can definitely go on the list.

Stereophonics?
Aged like a pint of milk!

chilli peppers are a funny one. first album was a bit meh. blood sugar sex magic is brilliant. californication has its moments of brilliance but with a few duffers. By the way is an excellent album with venice queen being classic chillis in my opinion. stadium arcadium again has some great song but a lot of duffers. the latest one is just dreadful. the output of the band is in my opinions very dependant on the state of mind/actual presence of john fruscianti.

oasis i never really liked much. although i have most of their albums i was constantly giving them the benefit of the doubt. some great song on all albums but i cannot listen to a single one of their albums from start to finish. i was and still am much more a blur fan. although i am happy to concede that their later stuff isnt all that and a bag of potato chips.apart from ‘under the west way’ which is cracking. oasis are one of the worst live bands ive ever seen. blur conversely are one of the best.

oh and U2. early stuff was great but bono slowly disappeared up his own arse.

It’s not musical enough!

What do you mean by ‘musical’?
Define your terms please.

I should maybe say.. melodious.

I should point out that I am in no way denigrating any other music. I’m happy for you to like early Chilis or indeed anything else, I love the variety of creative output that we have achieved as humans. It’s all good.

But I also like to discuss it amicably, so there you go. I like melodious music. Things like ‘power’, ‘energy’, and ‘rawness’ don’t mean much to me, for some reason, but they are highly spoke of by other music fans it seems.

the output of the band is in my opinions very dependant on the state of mind/actual presence of john fruscianti

“Best”, “worst” et al are of course completely subjective but to my mind One Hot Minute (the one with Dave Navarro on guitar) is the most musically “interesting” album they’ve done.

Cheers for the clarification.
Just no idea what you meant by ‘musical’ in this context:

So, Mozart, not Beethoven?
Supertramp, not the Pistols?
Buddy Holly, not Gene Vincent?

But I also like to discuss it amicably, so there you go.

Music is one of those subjective things where all opinion is equally valid, yet we can have a decent, emphatic discussion without anyone actually falling out.
It’s not like anyone can be wrong.
Or right for that matter. 😀

U2. early stuff was great but bono slowly disappeared up his own arse

IMHO U2 started fairly rubbish on the first couple of albums, then got good, then got both really brave and good (like it or loathe it, you’ve got to admire the balls for ripping up a very, very successful formula after Rattle and Hum and coming back with something completely different for Achtung Baby) and have been sliding inexorably downwards from there.

I can’t think of anyone who has been as successful as them, changed their sound so completely and then been as successful again with their new sound afterwards, other than David Bowie.

I can’t think of anyone who has been as successful as them, changed their sound so completely and then been as successful again with their new sound afterwards, other than David Bowie.

Status Quo?
Pink Floyd?
Slade?
Fleetwood Mac?
Depeche Mode?

Killers, Weezer, Stereophonics and Coldplay all had good debut albums

just embarrassing shadows of their former selves now

Status Quo – one (novelty) hit with their old sound.

Pink Floyd – okay, you may have a slight point, but they still weren’t exactly massive in the Sid Barrett era (not U2 massive anyway)

Slade – No real success at all pre-glam, unless you were referring to their brief resurgence post-glam (one hit).

Fleetwood Mac – Yep, and mentioned them myself earlier in the thread – Doh!

Depeche Mode – Yep, I’ll accept that one too.

So, Mozart, not Beethoven?
Supertramp, not the Pistols?
Buddy Holly, not Gene Vincent?

Mozart yes, Beethoven yes.
Supertramp – dunno, only know that one song, Sex Pistols.. prob not, not that familiar.
Buddy Holly yes, Gene Vincent – not familiar, didn’t he sing Bee Bop Alulah? If so, never cared for that one.

I think my definition of non-musical music starts with punk, when bands started to be loved for things other than the actual music they were playing.

A punk band can cover most other tunes, but can you imagine a quiet acoustic version of Anarchy in the UK? It would be pretty daft. Because bands like that are all about the performance, delivery, context, attitude, and other qualities other than the actual music itself.

At some point during the 60s bands started to become merged with their own music. Before, there were tunes and there were people performing them – people shared music all the time. Someone like say, the Doors – both the music and the personalities are part of the same.. opus, I suppose.

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 wasn’t and that’s a fact.

So, Mozart, not Beethoven?
Supertramp, not the Pistols?
Buddy Holly, not Gene Vincent?

Beethoven, Pistols, and Supertramp’s Crime Of The Century, Buddy Holly, and some Gene Vincent.
I love melodic music, but I can appreciate an unholy racket: Shawn Colvin and Mogwai, Elbow and My Bloody Valentine, Turin Brakes and Rage Against The Machine… 😀

The one thing I like about Oasis- when we wandered over to see them at Reading, they were so incredibly bad that we legged it after about 6 minutes, meaning that when we went over to the tent to see whoever was playing there, we still managed to get in. Turned out to be Muse.

So, cheers Oasis!

At some point during the 60s bands started to become merged with their own music. Before, there were tunes and there were people performing them – people shared music all the time. Someone like say, the Doors – both the music and the personalities are part of the same.. opus, I suppose.

Yes and no. Yes, artists were increasingly associated with their writing and performing output (although had ever been thus) but Lennon / McCartney, and Jagger / Richards were more than happy for royalties to pour in from other people’s versions of their songs. How many hits has Prince written for other people? Plenty of different versions of Doors songs out there too, come to think of it.

And plenty of people paid to see, for instance, Gershwin perform his own toons in a previous era. And your big band artists, and your Louis Armstrongs of this world (the L Armstrong that you’re still allowed to mention, hopefully). Plenty of arguments in the classical world too, about arrangements being / not being “as the composer intended” and premium credit granted for recordings of orchestras performing pieces arranged and / or conducted by the composer.

And there’s still more than plenty of pop music that isn’t written by the performers, as there was back in the sixties and will always be. And not just your Simon Cowell type rubbish, plenty of rock bands get professional songwriting help…

Yeah, there’s a certain “integrity” conferred on performers who write their own songs, and an “authenticity” credited to the voice singing being the voice of the writer, but that’s not a new thing, nor is it universal. Personally, I find cover versions of well known songs interesting for that reason, hearing how a different person interprets the same material.

Ok, you are quite right, but there seemed to be more significant hits that were well-known tunes performed by lots of people, or not written by the band, in the early 60s and before. And maybe less later on, apart from the big pop numbers. Then again, now mass produced pop probably represents a somewhat smaller proportion of the whole than it used to..? The wide variety of distribution channels makes it easier for us to hear small bands that haven’t been picked up and looked after by a big label.

Anyway I was rambling, but my point was that with punk and forms influenced by punk, it’s not just about the music, it’s about the whole deal. The music is in many ways a vehicle for the band’s personalities and statements. And in many cases the music (ie the actual notes) is quite crude because of this – it takes a back seat.

My brain seems to focus more on the melodies than the lyrics or who’s singing or playing. I’ve discussed this with my wife – she is not musical and focuses on the lyrics a great deal. She’ll remember the lyrics to a song before the tune, with me it’s the other way round.

I think my definition of non-musical music starts with punk, when bands started to be loved for things other than the actual music they were playing.

Nah, same thing with Sinatra – the prototype for all modern music stars.

A punk band can cover most other tunes, but can you imagine a quiet acoustic version of Anarchy in the UK? It would be pretty daft. Because bands like that are all about the performance, delivery, context, attitude, and other qualities other than the actual music itself.

There’s loads of acoustic covers of punk songs:
Most punk is just speeded up blues or rock ‘n’ roll.
It actually suits a quiet acoustic arrangement very well.

At some point during the 60s bands started to become merged with their own music. Before, there were tunes and there were people performing them – people shared music all the time. Someone like say, the Doors – both the music and the personalities are part of the same.. opus, I suppose.

All of the pre war big bands had their own signature tunes. 🙂
I’d say it was the increased popularity of radio that cemented the links between certain tunes and performers.

It actually suits a quiet acoustic arrangement very well.

Some does, but then again the definition of punk varies, doesn’t it?

All of the pre war big bands had their own signature tunes.

That’s not quite what I am talking about.

All of the pre war big bands had their own signature tunes.

Is that the First Gulf War or the second or are we talking Afghanistan?

Which foray into Afghanistan were you thinking of Nick?

the damned
Sisters of mercy
The Cure (anything after disintegration was cack)
Metallica after master of puppets
Slayer after season in the abyss
Prodigy
five star
ABC
take that

+1 for the chillis & the cult too.
My first ever, no parent ,gig – 15 years old for the Love tour!

Inxs also +1.
REM & Showaddywaddy both came out blazing.

One Direction.

Liked their early hardcore stuff but for me they’ve sold out.

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfPu5FQgFIU[/video]

😥

Bryan Adams.

Awesome until “that” song, then disappeared up his own arse making power ballads for movie soundtracks and middle-aged mums.

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

Genesis?

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.)

Sorry, No.

I had the complete misfortune to catch Manic Street Preachers as a support act for The Levellers way back in the very early 90’s in Manchester. They were abysmal, really really poor. Couldn’t play a note and the ‘singer’ couldn’t carry a tune in a bucket.
I honestly thought they were some scagged-up locals who’d been dragged off the street to make up the bill.
A couple of years later they became this huge rock act that continues to mystify me to this day.
They were so bad that if i’d been a member of that group i’d have thrown myself off a bridge as well.

Oh yeah, another one here who thought Oasis were terrible.

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.

You and me both!

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

Fleetwood Mac without Peter Green = totally pointless

+1 Sisters Of Mercy. but not putting out any new recordings for 20 years (because they don’t have any new tunes) doesn’t help.
IMO they peaked with FALAA. Floodland was good, Vision Thing pants.

The Cult were at their best when they were Death Cult. Southern Death Cult before that was a totally different band, same singer, with maybe 3-4 good songs. Love was the last good album from them IMO

The Clash – where do we start? Everything up to London Calling – ace; Sandinista – maybe 4 good songs from a triple album; Combat Rock – surprisingly good, reinvented; Cut The Crap – dunno, never heard it.

And as for Oasis… never bought a single track.

Killing Joke went off the boil for a while, latest one is ok but not as good as Pandemonium

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npnGTnupBX0&list=PLA4AFE26F5A3AAC5F&index=2[/video]

And I still like Oasis, the Noel side of it anyhow.

Chili’s – After One Hot Minute,which is the only album I still play of theirs….Frusciante called the shots far too much when he came back & they turned into some shitty mainstream pop group,a very rich one at that….Should have kept Navarro,would have loved to hear another album made with him in the band….

That said I flogged quite a few bootlegs & stuff on eBay a few years back,made a nice amount of money off them, more than I paid in the first place.Got 40 quid for Plasma Shaft !

The Clash – where do we start? Everything up to London Calling – ace; Sandinista – maybe 4 good songs from a triple album; Combat Rock – surprisingly good, reinvented; Cut The Crap – dunno, never heard it.

Sandanista! has a hell of a lot more than four good tracks!
The first four sides are bloody marvellous.

Cut The Crap?
Awful, apart from This Is England, which is a cracking song.

Sorry, No

Yeah, base your whole opinion on 1 gig? As someone who’d go to see The Levellers live, your opinion is not one I’d ever respect 😆

Black Eyed Peas? Their first 2 albums had a pretty good daisy age hip hop vibe, then elephunk came along & they went stratospheric.

Cypress Hill the first album & Black Sunday were ace, Eminem’s first 2 records also good but then just didn’t evolve, nor did Snoop Dogg.. (although those last 2 examples aren’t bands/groups)

Blur & Supergrass are a bands who’ve impressed me with each album having a generally different sound/style to their other albums, which I always think is a good thing & where Oasis didn’t change or evolve just kept recording the same old thing.

Someone mentioned the Cult’s 6th album. Sorry but no. “Dreamtime” and “Love” were awesome albums (“Bad Medicine Waltz” is an act of utter genius and one of my favourite songs ever) but after that they turned into a bad heavy metal parody.

“Electric” has the honour of being the only album I’ve bought to go from shop to bin in one very disappointed listening.

As someone who’d go to see The Levellers live, your opinion is not one I’d ever respect 😀

😀