Best Ever Albums

Re: Would bands who ended early be regarded as highly?

PurpleHazel — Tue, 6 Mar 2018 04:26:44 GMT

Author: PurpleHazel

Posted: 03/06/2018 09:26

Lachapelle wrote:

I truly believe if Nas died when Biggie and Pac did, or at least stopped making music after his first couple of albums he would be in the same conversation as those two.

There are cultural differences in this case. Biggie and Tupac didn't just die, they were murdered. Didn't hurt that Life After Death dropped 16 days after Biggie was killed. The murders six months apart, the rivalry, the earlier shooting of Tupac and the way they resonated with the rappers' images and lyrics blew up their legends. If Biggie died of heart disease and Tupac died a non-violent death two years later, it wouldn't have had the same effect.

Are you talking popularity? Because Nas and Illmatic seem to get more respect among serious music fans nowadays than the other two. FWIW, Nas and Illmatic rank a lot higher here.

Re: Would bands who ended early be regarded as highly?

Tha1ChiefRocka — Mon, 5 Mar 2018 22:18:39 GMT

Author: Tha1ChiefRocka

Posted: 03/06/2018 03:18

Quote:

J Dilla t-shirts about Madlib and they don't even know the guy..

I wasn't aware that there was artist t-shirt problems with J Dilla. That conversation would end pretty quickly. They made so much stuff together too. The Jaylib albums obviously.

Re: Would bands who ended early be regarded as highly?

Lachapelle — Mon, 5 Mar 2018 22:11:12 GMT

Author: Lachapelle

Posted: 03/06/2018 03:11

I truly believe if Nas died when Biggie and Pac did, or at least stopped making music after his first couple of albums he would be in the same conversation as those two.

I actually do like the majority of his discography, however I won't pretend his later stuff is as good as his first two albums. Unfortunate that these artists don't seem to get the recognition they deserve until they pass, especially with Hip Hop.

Another one that comes to mind is Madlib. Him and J Dilla should be in the exact same train of thought.. It pains me when I ask people wearing J Dilla t-shirts about Madlib and they don't even know the guy..

Re: Would bands who ended early be regarded as highly?

RoundTheBend — Mon, 5 Mar 2018 18:49:32 GMT

Author: RoundTheBend

Posted: 03/05/2018 23:49

Michael1981 wrote:

sethmadsen wrote:

I won't remove that from my top 10 just because they have since become garbage. But I totally could see how someone would.

Also what's maybe top 3 reasons for you conjecture of why they dropped from that 11th place holder?

Good question 🤡 I see they are in 15th now so haven't plummeted so much. I think the status of their big scorers Achtung Baby and Joshua Tree may have gone down a bit relative to the competition. Maybe the optimism and triumphant quality to U2s music isn't resonating quite so much with people at the moment? Seems like a lot of folks opting for darker and more introspective music during these interesting times.

Also, some musics reputation seems to get better with time and other music doesn't. Maybe U2s big albums are aging a bit because they were very of their time.

Could be a phase of course. People might come back to them more again.

Great points.

We nearly forgot the fact they are a fad and maybe just suck? hahaha.

What's funny is there was a time when U2 was dark enough... but yes, not anymore. Even when they dealt with dark subject matter - they did it with hope. So I agree.

Re: Would bands who ended early be regarded as highly?

Anonymous — Mon, 5 Mar 2018 17:37:29 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 03/05/2018 22:37

sethmadsen wrote:

Re: Would bands who ended early be regarded as highly?

RoundTheBend — Mon, 5 Mar 2018 16:58:45 GMT

Author: RoundTheBend

Posted: 03/05/2018 21:58

Michael1981 wrote:

sethmadsen wrote:

I think so too. Also I missed you.

Furthermore, when I joined this site, U2 was ranked 11th. Probably 20 different reasons for the change, but I have to think it's because of the recent crap releases and negative publicity. The more suave users couldn't possibly still like something they liked because a band did something possibly stupid (just turn off auto-downloads of course couldn't be an option).

So yes, I agree, I think U2 would be in higher regards, had they not stayed together so long. When that cut off is seems to be different for lots of music lovers, but the discerning ones like yourselves, I'd have to agree - post-punk U2, ain't nobody dissing that (although I did when I first heard it, but then understood it and now love it). New Wave or Americana or electronic U2 - haters gonna hate.

But I don't think U2s reputation has diminished all that much. I don't think they were ever the muso’s number one band in the first place and most of their catalogue is still well-regarded. Their reputation has survived Bono's ego and even the i-tunes foolishness.

No, like I said before. A band's reputation largely remains in tact through the long haul. No matter how many Kokomos hehe.

hehehe.

Yeah - I agree.

I think what I also agree with is that a lot of people disowned u2 over the years at different stages of their career. And I think that's true too. And I think each time it happend, it did take them down a notch.

At the same time I have a Coldplay album in my top 10 (barf)... so I totally agree with what you are saying. I just love how that album deals with death (conceptually) and what it does musically (likely thanks to Eno).

I won't remove that from my top 10 just because they have since become garbage. But I totally could see how someone would.

Also what's maybe top 3 reasons for you conjecture of why they dropped from that 11th place holder?

Re: Would bands who ended early be regarded as highly?

glynspsa — Mon, 5 Mar 2018 14:46:48 GMT

Author: glynspsa

Posted: 03/05/2018 19:46

dividesbyzero wrote:

if U2 had broken up just after War, I can guarantee they would be a household name for the very same kind of music nerds (such as me heh) that routinely shit on U2

I agree with this though honestly i only love their output through Achtung Baby. after that i think there are some stinkers. there are some decent records as well, but i do feel they have fallen off since Achtung Baby.

Re: Would bands who ended early be regarded as highly?

Anonymous — Mon, 5 Mar 2018 14:10:37 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 03/05/2018 19:10

sethmadsen wrote:

Re: Would bands who ended early be regarded as highly?

RoundTheBend — Mon, 5 Mar 2018 12:59:01 GMT

Author: RoundTheBend

Posted: 03/05/2018 17:59

dividesbyzero wrote:

if U2 had broken up just after War, I can guarantee they would be a household name for the very same kind of music nerds (such as me heh) that routinely shit on U2

Re: Would bands who ended early be regarded as highly?

Anonymous — Mon, 5 Mar 2018 07:24:52 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 03/05/2018 12:24

There is a passion, a momentum between a band/artist and the audience, the times, and it rarely last more than a decade, often less.
These years are when the band have what we could call an “artistic tension”: high focus, spot-on production, solid songwriting, inventiveness, maximum charisma, etc

The Beatles split before all this ended, so I suppose they could have had a few more golden years (as long as George Martin and a firm manager were on board)

Re: Would bands who ended early be regarded as highly?

Anonymous — Mon, 5 Mar 2018 02:00:48 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 03/05/2018 07:00

if U2 had broken up just after War, I can guarantee they would be a household name for the very same kind of music nerds (such as me heh) that routinely shit on U2

Re: Would bands who ended early be regarded as highly?

PurpleHazel — Mon, 5 Mar 2018 01:57:33 GMT

Author: PurpleHazel

Posted: 03/05/2018 06:57

It's possible that with some specific artists, breaking up early or dying young might've had a slight effect, but overall, I don't think a long career tarnishes early great work.

Artists who bear this out include Dylan, as indieshins pointed out. Not only did he have a late career resurgence with Time Out of Mind, Love and Theft and Modern Times, but he put out Blood on the Tracks and Desire more than a decade after he first became a superstar in the folk world. And the critical acclaim for his 1965-1969 work has never diminished. Neil Young's longevity also doesn't seem to have affected the status of his early albums, and Rust Never Sleeps came out a decade after Everybody Knows This is Nowhere.

Re: Would bands who ended early be regarded as highly?

indieshins — Sun, 4 Mar 2018 16:49:07 GMT

Author: indieshins

Posted: 03/04/2018 21:49

I think that artists with a short discography (The Smiths, VU etc.) are overrated, not in the quality of the work, but in the fantasy of a perfect discography. Those two bands certainly couldn't have gone on the way they were - the interpersonal relationships were soured. But, in the minds of a lot of fans, I think there exists a feeling of what could have been, which strengthens the legacy. With other bands, we know what could have been, because it was.

To answer the question more fully, though, there are peaks and valleys in a lot of artists careers. Some completely fall off - The Rolling Stones, for example - while others have a resurgence. Bob Dylan post Desire had a very fallow period, by most accounts almost 20 years. But then he is thought to have come back strong with Time Out of Mind and subsequent albums. Now it seems he may have run out of steam again. But he's still regarded by many as the greatest lyricist of all time, and his 80's albums don't weaken that.

On a personal note, I wanted to mention (as I always must) Elvis Costello. If he'd stopped after Imperial Bedroom, his legacy would have been perfect. But then we wouldn't have gotten some of his best work. While it never possessed the unique "classic" energy of that initial run, much of his later work is brilliant. He's released whole albums since his heyday that I would call at least "solid." He's also released some stuff I don't care for. So what? It's what being a music fan is about sometimes - sticking with an artist as they search, sometimes fruitlessly, for a new direction.

Re: Would bands who ended early be regarded as highly?

LedZep — Sun, 4 Mar 2018 16:21:40 GMT

Author: LedZep

Posted: 03/04/2018 21:21

Really depends. There are some bands that I love and think are (were) still writing excellent music after years and years of existence. Iron Maiden, Rush, David Bowie, Leonard Cohen, Judas Priest, Wu-Tang... I mean their newer stuff certainly isn't groudbreaking but it's highly enjoyable, some albums even comparable to their respective classics. Of course there are many who disagree because they aren't fans or just prefer the earlier sound of a certain band. But in all reality if Rush wrote Clockwork Angels in 1978, it would've been a classic imo. Same with Blackstar, The Book of Souls, You Want It Darker... Those living legends still attract new fans and I'm not sure if that'd be the case if they imploded while in their early years. At least not the same number of fans. That's definitely a reason to keep the band going.
Disbanding a band at the peak of creativity or especially untimely deaths may raise a band to "cult" or "legend" status, but there are other ways to achieve this status. I think that, for example, Kurt Cobain could've written at least one more classic album, but we'll never know...
Also, exactly how many examples of this are there? Nirvana, The Beatles, The Doors, Led Zeppelin and several others. And then there are tons of bands that were very creative and disbanded on top of their game, but no one knows them now. And maybe if they kept going, you'd hear about their new album (good or bad, no matter) and listened to all the great albums they'd written.

Re: Would bands who ended early be regarded as highly?

TheHutts — Sun, 4 Mar 2018 16:18:25 GMT

Author: TheHutts

Posted: 03/04/2018 21:18

I think most pop/rock artists do their best work in their 20s and 30s - which is quite different from jazz and classical.

There are exceptions of course - Sparks is a good call, they've never been an absolute favourite, but their 21st century material is arguably as good as their 1970s stuff. I think Paul Simon's generally made good albums in his 60s and 70s - he takes five years between releases, and each has its own distinct flavour. I don't think they're quite his best work, but his last three albums are all worth hearing.

Re: Would bands who ended early be regarded as highly?

Fischman — Sun, 4 Mar 2018 14:16:50 GMT

Author: Fischman

Posted: 03/04/2018 19:16

Most of the groups I love that stuck around definitely faded. My most dramatic example is The Moody Blues. Their last half dozen albums were throwaways, but everything up through Long Distance Voyager was spectacular.

Now even for artists who face over time, sometimes they have a resurgence--a single album that approaches the best of what they produced during their heyday. While they may not be able to recapture the magic on a consistent basis, they can still have a temporary spike in performance. Some examples:

Rush: Clockwork Angels is generally regarded their best in at least a couple decades.

Joe Walsh: Analog Man is as consistent as anything in his catalog

Asia: XXX is badly overlooked and while it may not have the acclaim of a great comeback album, I am quite steadfast that it is by far their best effort ever, surpassing everything before it, including their debut.

Glen Campbell: Ghost on the Canvas is a stellar, cohesive, pseudo-concept album that holds together from beginning to end as easily his most poignant release.

Re: Would bands who ended early be regarded as highly?

Anonymous — Sun, 4 Mar 2018 13:28:33 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 03/04/2018 18:28

Well I think the answer to the original question is "yes". If the Sex Pistols kept trudging on making the same album again and again they would still be as highly regarded. That's what Ramones did and they are still seen as a seminal group.

Yes, when great musicians keep plugging away there is almost always going to be a dip. But no matter how many "I just called to say I love you's" it does nothing to diminish their reputation as great musicians. People just look back to the good stuff.

Re: Would bands who ended early be regarded as highly?

Liedzeit — Sun, 4 Mar 2018 13:10:08 GMT

Author: Liedzeit

Posted: 03/04/2018 18:10

Okay, I can’t resist. The one exception are the Sparks. They made their first Album in 1971. And their last release from last year sounds as fresh to me as anything they ever did. And it did reach no. 7 in the Album charts (although that does not mean much these days). Of course, it helped that they changed their style a couple of times.
They are not in a league with the Beatles or Stones or Dylan, but they still make records I like to listen to. To give a negative example. I am a big Bowie fan. And I was happy that he had a critical success with his last record. And it is not a bad one. But do I listen to it? Well, twice. And probably never again.

Listen to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_j2CJN8rmBE

Re: Would bands who ended early be regarded as highly?

Romanelli — Sun, 4 Mar 2018 12:42:27 GMT

Author: Romanelli

Posted: 03/04/2018 17:42

Songwriting.

I believe that songwriters have a point where the magic runs out. Every single one of them. From a guy who writes one crazy incredible song but everything else he does is average and unremarkable, to Bob Dylan. Everyone has a limit. And unless they die, pretty much everyone reaches that limit. The artist may not realize it, but they do.

The Beatles are a perfect example. Even though George Harrison was exploding as a songwriter at the end, it seemed like the songwriting of both Lennon and McCartney was running out of steam. They weren't there yet, but it was coming. Their solo careers bear that out (you can argue that they weren't writing together any more...but the truth is they never really did that a lot anyway). Partly because each member suddenly had the responsibility of writing a full albums worth of material instead of just half. But both Lennon and McCartney began to fizzle out as great songwriters quickly in the early 70's. Harrison too.

I believe that a big part of why The Beatles are as big as they are today is that they stopped when they did. And I think that they were fortunate to have ended the band before the songs dried up.

The Stones are a perfect example of not knowing when to stop. It has long been my personal opinion that had The Rolling Stones hung it up after recording Some Girls that their legacy would have been much greater. And that their classic albums would be held in much higher regard today. But Jagger & Richards ran out of songs. They tried for years after to recreate the magic, but they just didn't have it. Eventually, they just pretty much stopped trying and made their living as a glorified tribute band. Great for the bank account...but, I think anyway, not so much for the legacy...as far as serious music heads are concerned.

And I believe that some bands don't just run out of great material at once, but gradually over time. U2 can still put out a good album...but The Joshua Tree is out of their reach today. And some simply stop. And then there's Peter Gabriel. When Gabriel went solo, he released 5 albums in less than a decade. But after So...it was 6 years before Us, and then a full decade before Up. It's been 16 years now since he's released an album of original material. Is it because he's simply run out of songs?

Ultimately, everyone runs out of great material. Even Dylan. It may take one song...it may take 40 years. But everyone, I believe, has a limit. A point where the tank runs dry.

Re: Would bands who ended early be regarded as highly?

Liedzeit — Sun, 4 Mar 2018 12:31:12 GMT

Author: Liedzeit

Posted: 03/04/2018 17:31

sethmadsen wrote:

Make sense?

Absolutely. Although I think even the best of U2 is below average. 😉

Most bands would do themselves a favour if they split after the third album. Prime example for me: Talking Heads. Very few artists have made more than 5 albums that are worth getting. Maybe none. Even if they make consistently good records like The Fall they are getting repetitive.