- Bands who wouldn’t be famous if they weren’t already famous
Which bands do you think wouldn’t be given the time of day if they weren’t successful already? Who, without an established fan base would be nothing?
My vote is U2. Their recent stuff, and by recent I mean the last ten years, is dire. If they were a new band and had released it, they would (rightly) have gone nowhere.Posted 9 years agomastiles_fanylionMember
Sorry? So a band becomes ‘famous’ for writing decent music, then the output declines so they are not worthy of being ‘famous’.
That question could be levelled at almost any band ever – I think the more pertinent question would be ‘which bands have improved the quality of their music with every release?’Posted 9 years ago
So a band becomes ‘famous’ for writing decent music, then the output declines so they are not worthy of being ‘famous’.
Yes, that is exactly the question. Some bands maintain the quality of their output, give or take, throughout their careers. Some, few, continously improve. Others, probably rightly, achieve enormous fame through quality output but then just churn out sheer averageness that is lapped up by the press/fans simply because it was produced by that band, rather than because of it’s intrinsic quality. U2 are a case in point.Posted 9 years ago
Rock stars should make 3/4 amazing albums and then die in a pool of their own vomit at 34 with large amounts of highly addictive drugs spread around, at least eight “gas cookers” in attendance and the last unpublished first song of the never to be published 5th album on top of a piano …………..oh and a 1976 rolls royce bobbing in the swiming pool.
Pop stars today have not got a clue……………Posted 9 years agoBimblerMember
I don’t know much about U2 – they’ve always been a bit meh in my book but I actually liked one of their new tracks played on last night’s Zane Lowe show – seem to have gone in a bit of a post-rock direction (I was a bit drunk however, so my critical faculties weren’t set to maximum).
How about the Rolling Stones?Posted 9 years agoOllyMember
U2, Coldplay and the Kaiser Chuffs
Always have been, and always will be utter utter arse.Posted 9 years ago
i realise i dont have to listen to them, and i can happily ignore most crap music.
but those three bands offend me by thier existance, and i would be positivley happier if they didnt existChrisLSubscriber
Radiohead wouldn’t make it big if any of their recent albums were their first releases. Nothing to do with the quality of their current work, but if it wasn’t for the broader appeal of early stuff like Creep and songs from The Bends they’d probably be an obscure band with a fanatical following rather than a band that can do big open air concerts.Posted 9 years ago
Radiohead wouldn’t make it big if any of their recent albums were their first releases. Nothing to do with the quality of their current work, but if it wasn’t for the broader appeal of early stuff like Creep and songs from The Bends they’d probably be an obscure band with a fanatical following rather than a band that can do big open air concerts.
Every album’s improved on the last but it’s fair to say that the more recent stuff will have alienated a lot of fans expecting a re-hash of Creep.
And Kid A and Amnesiac were bizarrely the albums that really got them noticed in the US. OK Computer only reached 21 in the US charts whereas Kid A went straight into number 1 over there and Amnesiac, although it didn’t reach number one, outsold Kid A in it’s first week on sale.
In Rainbows is on near constant repeat on my iPod at the moment 8)Posted 9 years agoCaptainMainwaringMember
Another vote for U2 and Coldplay. And how about Eric Clapton? I am a devoted fan but he is still playing/recording and recent stuff is just lift music.
Joke (I think this was from Luis whatsit the talent show judge)Posted 9 years ago
Q – what’s the difference between God and Bono
A – God doesn’t walk down Merrion St thinking he’s BonoCountZeroMember
I think Coldplay wish they were Elbow at the moment. One Day Like This is better than Coldplay’s entire catalogue. I am somewhat biased, mind. The Foos? The Nirvana connection helped to start with, but they’re an infinitely better band, with songs that actually have melody lines and aren’t just repetetive dirges. Tori Amos did a stunning version of …Teen Spirit, and was slagged off by the fans. Curt Cobain dead? Never mind. I love the Foos, great rock songs that work just as an acoustic solo as well.Posted 9 years agoconkermanMember
We like bands when they are young and full of energy, angst and white lightning 🙂 Once they get a bit older and have been successful, the youthful exuberance is gone, and that my internet friends is what Rock is all about 🙂
In no particular order.
U2. War was a good album. Thats been about it.
Radiohead, utter, utter shash!
Arctic Monkeys, Kooks, Keane etc.
Perversely I quite like the first couple of Coldplay albums. Pulpy music has its place X&Y and the new one are crap though. Propbably more to do with the time rather than admiring the music.
I think Beck is getting better with age, but then the albums are all so different, thats the trick I reckon.
Queens of the Stone Age have been knocking out good albums for the last 10 years or so. Foo Fighters peaked at one by one.
Soundgarden quit at the right time.
Surprisingly, the latest Rush album is remarkably good…
Oh, and Bono is a ****. I’m sure Paul is a decent enough bloke.
ConksPosted 9 years ago
The topic ‘Bands who wouldn’t be famous if they weren’t already famous’ is closed to new replies.