Best Ever Albums

Re: Do bad albums make good bands less so?

covecove — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 17:43:46 GMT

Author: covecove

Posted: 02/29/2012 22:43

I'd have to say.... No, think about Metallica for example, I used to hate them then I started to actually listen to them and I undestood their legacy and enjoyed them. Now St. Anger has to be among the 3 or 4 worst albums realesed by a great band (or any band for that matter) and yet you don't hear people diminishing their legacy... On the other hand, U2 is a fundamental band and yet there is a lot of people on this site that hate them beacuse of what they have released since 2000!!! So who knows, Pearl Jam was great until Yield, Binaural is aweful and the rest is respectable so I still think that they are a great band...

Re: Do bad albums make good bands less so?

Anonymous — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 16:23:00 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 02/29/2012 21:23

Pearl Jam have rarely released anything that murkies their legacy. Stayed around about decent most the way.

Re: Do bad albums make good bands less so?

pearljammer13 — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 16:16:31 GMT

Author: pearljammer13

Posted: 02/29/2012 21:16

Chemical Smile wrote:

swedenman wrote:

Necharsian wrote:

swedenman wrote:

Necharsian wrote:

swedenman wrote:

I personally just don't listen to the bad albums my favorite bands put out. For example, no matter how much I can't stand Pearl Jam's 2nd through 9th albums, Ten will always be a masterpiece in my eyes, and they will always deserve recognition as a great band for that album alone.

I disagree with all of that. A band puts out 9 albums, 8 of which are crap, yet they are a great band? God no.

A band that only put out 4 albums, but all of them are great, are better than a band that has 4 great albums out of a discography that is 15 albums long. So I answered yes.

Well I think Pearl Jam would've been better had Ten been the only album they released, but why should I discount them as a great band just because they released a bunch of albums I don't like that I don't even have to listen to?

If 90% of a band's songs aren't very good, are they a not-very-good band?
Let's say this, hypothetically: All of the songs that are on Ten were spread out through their discography, so that all of their albums were just slightly better, but still none are great. (Ten no longer exists). So now they have a bunch of mediocre to good albums, with hit and miss songs. Are they still a great band?

Well no, but that's not what they did, so I'm not sure how this is relevant.

pearljammer13 wrote:

swedenman wrote:

🤬

I can't believe that you think Ten is a masterpiece and think that everything else sucks...especially Vs.

Link

Link

Listening to these two songs it's almost impossible for me to tell that it's the same band (Vedder's voice aside, of course). It's just hard for me to believe that a band that could put out a song as beautiful as Black could put out a song as dull as Daughter.

are you people serious??? Ten is a great album with some of the best PJ songs (Alive, Black, Oceans) but i love every one of their following albums. They're one of the few bands that are consistently good. IMO they haven't released one dud album in their entire history - how can you write off such great songs as "Go", "Animal", "Rearviewmirror", "Elderly Woman Behind the Counter in a Small Town", "Leash" (Vs), "Last Exit", "Spin the Black Circle", "Nothingman", "Corduroy", "Better Man" (Vitology), "Who You Are", "In My Tree", "Off He Goes" (No Code), "Faithfull", "Given to Fly", "Wishlist", "MFC", "Low Light", "In Hiding" (Yield), "Light Years", "Nothing as It Seems", "Insignificance", "Of the Girl" (Binaural), "Save You", "I Am Mine", "Thumbing My Way", "You Are" (Riot Act), . "Life Wasted", "World Wide Suicide" (Pearl Jam), "Got Some", "The Fixer", "Just Breathe", "Amongst the Waves" (Backspacer) and that's not counting all the great b-sides - most of which are better songs than most other bands release as singles.

^this. Also, Daughter is my least favorite song on Vs...although I still like it. I've always felt Vs. is a slightly expanded version of Ten. I'm with Chemical Smile, I don't think they've put out a bad album. Either way though we can all agree Ten is a masterpiece.

Another band this thread makes me think of is Incubus. I'm a huge fan of their early albums, but their last couple have been pretty horrible. Early Incubus will always be great, but I can't help but like them a little less with their last couple of shitty albums.

Re: Do bad albums make good bands less so?

Anonymous — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 16:06:24 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 02/29/2012 21:06

Necharsian wrote:

swedenman wrote:

Necharsian wrote:

swedenman wrote:

Necharsian wrote:

swedenman wrote:

Well no, but that's not what they did, so I'm not sure how this is relevant.

Same amount of great songs; same amount of bad songs.

Right, but I don't think that's how a band is defined. A band can put out a million great songs without a single great album, and in that situation I wouldn't think they deserve credit as a great band.

Re: Do bad albums make good bands less so?

Chemical Smile — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 15:52:37 GMT

Author: Chemical Smile

Posted: 02/29/2012 20:52

swedenman wrote:

Necharsian wrote:

swedenman wrote:

Necharsian wrote:

swedenman wrote:

Well no, but that's not what they did, so I'm not sure how this is relevant.

pearljammer13 wrote:

swedenman wrote:

🤬

I can't believe that you think Ten is a masterpiece and think that everything else sucks...especially Vs.

Re: Do bad albums make good bands less so?

Necharsian — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 15:26:54 GMT

Author: Necharsian

Posted: 02/29/2012 20:26

swedenman wrote:

Necharsian wrote:

swedenman wrote:

Necharsian wrote:

swedenman wrote:

Well no, but that's not what they did, so I'm not sure how this is relevant.

Same amount of great songs; same amount of bad songs.

Re: Do bad albums make good bands less so?

Anonymous — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 15:11:25 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 02/29/2012 20:11

Necharsian wrote:

swedenman wrote:

Necharsian wrote:

swedenman wrote:

Well no, but that's not what they did, so I'm not sure how this is relevant.

pearljammer13 wrote:

swedenman wrote:

🤬

I can't believe that you think Ten is a masterpiece and think that everything else sucks...especially Vs.

Re: Do bad albums make good bands less so?

alelsupreme — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 14:44:17 GMT

Author: alelsupreme

Posted: 02/29/2012 19:44

Without him The Beach Boys would probably be as well known as, ooh I don't know, Jan & Dean?

Re: Do bad albums make good bands less so?

ShaneSpear — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 14:28:09 GMT

Author: ShaneSpear

Posted: 02/29/2012 19:28

itsit wrote:

The Beach boys are still very highly acclaimed despite the fact that they put out some real shit.

Well, really it's Brian Wilson that is still highly acclaimed. It's a fair play to him that these shows they're putting on now aren't labeled as The Beach Boys (FEATURING BRIAN WILSON!!!).

Re: Do bad albums make good bands less so?

alelsupreme — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 13:15:30 GMT

Author: alelsupreme

Posted: 02/29/2012 18:15

No one holds the numerous terrible albums by 50's rock artists against them. The Beach boys are still very highly acclaimed despite the fact that they put out some real shit. Why would this not be ture of The Beatles, especially one missing one of the main creative focres?

Re: Do bad albums make good bands less so?

pearljammer13 — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 13:07:33 GMT

Author: pearljammer13

Posted: 02/29/2012 18:07

swedenman wrote:

🤬

I can't believe that you think Ten is a masterpiece and think that everything else sucks...especially Vs.

As for the topic though, I do think that putting out a bad album takes a way from a bands greatness at least a tiny bit. Of course it will never change how great a former album is, but it just knocks the band as a whole down a peg if they've put out shitty albums. For example, I really liked a couple of the early Chili Peppers albums, but I hate their newer music so much that I have trouble even listening to the old stuff now. The old albums are still the same, but I can't help thinking how shitty they became, and it somehow changes the listening experience.

Re: Do bad albums make good bands less so?

kidamnesiac — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 12:56:33 GMT

Author: kidamnesiac

Posted: 02/29/2012 17:56

somebody posted the 13 minute version in the what song are you listening to thread

Re: Do bad albums make good bands less so?

ShaneSpear — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 12:42:36 GMT

Author: ShaneSpear

Posted: 02/29/2012 17:42

Hey, here's a good litmus test. Take five minutes and watch this new Gorillaz video.

Link

I did, and I'm never going to again for fear that it will ruin them and Demon Days for me forever. 😕

Re: Do bad albums make good bands less so?

Necharsian — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 00:53:24 GMT

Author: Necharsian

Posted: 02/29/2012 05:53

swedenman wrote:

Necharsian wrote:

swedenman wrote:

Re: Do bad albums make good bands less so?

RoundTheBend — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 22:04:00 GMT

Author: RoundTheBend

Posted: 02/29/2012 03:04

I would agree that part, albeit a small part, of the Beatles "legacy" is they stopped while they were ahead.

We have access to "modern" music by Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, and to a somewhat lesser extent John Lennon and George Harrison. Some of that music was Beatle level music, but a lot of it wasn't for obvious reasons. I think had they stuck it together they may have continued to challenge each other, and therefore continue to be amazing artists. BUT I do think that had they never broken up and were still a band, they probably would've lost their hype starting in early 80s and by now would be as interesting as Ringo and Paul are today. Not bad, but definitely not the Beatles as we know them.

As far as changing members- that's always tricky. I think for a band like the Beatles they maybe could only switch out Ringo, but if you took out either Lennon or McCartney from the Beatle equation and you don't have the Beatles anymore.

On another note Nirvana almost became the Foo Fighters. Krist was very much interested in writing music with Dave, but it was too awkward to carry on. I think if they had 4 members, maybe that'd be different (well I guess they had Pat, but he only really toured with Nirvana and maybe did a little on In Utero, but he wasn't a solid member of Nirvana before they disbanded). I wonder what the band would be like today if it was Dave as lead, Pat, Krist, and Taylor Hawkins staying as drummer- and kept the Nirvana band "alive"? Would it suck and we would look back to Nevermind not as the masterpiece that we see it as today. Foo Fighters are not Nirvana- they are missing the unstableness (not in a negative way, for me that is what makes Nirvana Nirvana- psychosis) of Kurt, but what would be different had they never called it quits as Nirvana?

Re: Do bad albums make good bands less so?

Bork — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 20:26:03 GMT

Author: Bork

Posted: 02/29/2012 01:26

gussteivi wrote:

Necharsian wrote:

swedenman wrote:

I think some people have misunderstood the options in the poll. "Yeppers" means you agree they're still as good a band even though they've made bad albums.

Or am I the one who's misunderstood things? :-k

The question is "Still the greatest?" (implying that they released all that shite after their streak of greatness)
The answers: "Yeppers" means Yes still as great, "Hell No" means No not as great now.

You got it right Gus although reviewing how I titled the thread it's easy to see how it could have been turned around.

Re: Do bad albums make good bands less so?

Anonymous — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 17:45:20 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 02/28/2012 22:45

Necharsian wrote:

swedenman wrote:

Re: Do bad albums make good bands less so?

gussteivi — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 16:44:25 GMT

Author: gussteivi

Posted: 02/28/2012 21:44

Necharsian wrote:

swedenman wrote:

Re: Do bad albums make good bands less so?

Necharsian — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 15:28:44 GMT

Author: Necharsian

Posted: 02/28/2012 20:28

swedenman wrote:

Re: Do bad albums make good bands less so?

Anonymous — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 12:47:32 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 02/28/2012 17:47

Something would have left the legacy. Not that they had 100% output to begin with but it dilutes the taste and people would have tasted that. Although that said the mistakes and bumps in an artists time add clarity to them. It can't all be perfect I think, some inperfection is needed 😜 Aiming for mediocrity is far worst though. Much rather see someone completely miss the mark