Would bands who ended early be regarded as highly? - Music

RoundTheBend · 2018-03-04T12:04:40-05:00

I've always wondered if bands like Nirvana, The Doors or any other group who is highly rated, but has lower output for studio albums would (maybe Velvet Underground?) be similarly highly regarded if they continued on like The Rolling Stones or Pearl Jam or what have you. It's like they didn't have as much time to make a mistake (except for Squeeze, but by that time the original members weren't there anymore). Post Beatles for example - There's some good to great stuff, but I don't think nearly anything they did afterwards was as good (except for maybe John lyrically?). And then for bands carrying on for like 30 years like U2 and R.E.M. - I personally have fanboi goggles on likely, but I feel like even their worst work is above average. Make sense? IDK -random thoughts.

undefined

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

Yann

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)

Last edited by Yann on 03/05/2018 19:45; edited 1 time in total

RoundTheBend I miss the comfort in being sad Profile
Ground Control

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 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.

theblueboy

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.

glynspsa Profile

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.

RoundTheBend I miss the comfort in being sad Profile
Ground Control

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?

Last edited by RoundTheBend on 03/05/2018 22:00; edited 1 time in total

theblueboy

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.

RoundTheBend I miss the comfort in being sad Profile
Ground Control

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.

Lachapelle Profile

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..

Tha1ChiefRocka Scank Stinatra Profile
Ohio

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.