I'm listening to Nick Drake. Man, he was of a different level. And he only released 3 official albums before his passing. A true legend. But I can't help but always wonder what other great music he would have, could have made.
And there are others like that who were phenoms and then died before showing us how far they could have gone.
What are some of your examples like this? People who were only making music for a relatively short time and had a small catalog of music that was all great?
Drake's the best example I can think of. Also Hendrix comes to mind. And Biggie. And Randy Rhoades.
I feel there are examples of this in all genres. . . Im just not familiar enough with some, like I'm not famiar enough with the career of J Dilla, but I think he may also be an example.
What are some of your examples like this? People who were only making music for a relatively short time and had a small catalog of music that was all great?
There are a lot. Off the top of my head: Buddy Holly, Eddie Cochran, Richie Valens, Sam Cooke, Otis Redding, Bradley Nowell, D. Boon, Kurt Cobain, Janis Joplin, Clifford Brown, Tim Buckley... and that's only the ones that died. If you count bands that broke up, I could probably think of a lot more. You could even make an argument for the Beatles, considering that the last album they recorded is in the top 10 both for the overall site and the forum regulars. Brian Wilson's self-imposed seclusion was sad too. So much lost potential...
MercuryTurn your back on the pay-you-back last callProfile St. Louis
Yes, this one very much. I love Grace, but I think he would've had a long way to go from there. And the most tragic part of it all is that most people who knew him say his death was probably an accident 🙁
If you count bands that broke up, I could probably think of a lot more. You could even make an argument for the Beatles, considering that the last album they recorded is in the top 10 both for the overall site and the forum regulars.
I think The Beatles don't fit at all. They were drifting further and further apart, and the songwriting hadn't crashed yet, but the signs were there. Lennon still had some strength, but McCartney had already started writing just fragments of songs and was trying to put them together rather than finish the job. His solo career speaks volumes about how much he really had left in the tank...not much. He had occasional flashes, but for the most part, he had lost the spark. It happens to everyone...it's just a matter of when. Dylan took longer. Lennon took a little longer (he had one great album in him). Jagger & Richards were out of gas by 1977. I think The Beatles would have run out of steam as early as 1971-72 had they not split up. Not surprising...they released 13 albums in just 8 years, an incredible pace (especially considering that now bands are prolific if they put out one every 3 years). Which, I believe, is partly why they have the legacy they have today. They ended at just the exact right moment in time. _________________ I'm leaning on the threshold
Of her mystery
And crashing through the walls
Of dying history
I think The Beatles don't fit at all. They were drifting further and further apart, and the songwriting hadn't crashed yet, but the signs were there. Lennon still had some strength, but McCartney had already started writing just fragments of songs and was trying to put them together rather than finish the job. His solo career speaks volumes about how much he really had left in the tank...not much. He had occasional flashes, but for the most part, he had lost the spark. It happens to everyone...it's just a matter of when. Dylan took longer. Lennon took a little longer (he had one great album in him). Jagger & Richards were out of gas by 1977. I think The Beatles would have run out of steam as early as 1971-72 had they not split up. Not surprising...they released 13 albums in just 8 years, an incredible pace (especially considering that now bands are prolific if they put out one every 3 years). Which, I believe, is partly why they have the legacy they have today. They ended at just the exact right moment in time.
I know what you're saying, but I look at the early solo albums (Plastic Ono, McCartney, All Things Must Pass) and imagine the kind of thing they could have put together as a band... still pretty awesome.
As for the 13 albums in 8 years, it sounds a lot more intense than it probably was. The Beatlemania years were crazy, of course, but they stopped touring in 1966. After that it was one album a year with no touring... doesn't sound all that bad when you consider that they shared the songwriting duties. I'm not saying that they would have been producing gold into the '80s, but even one more record approaching the quality of Abbey Road or the White Album would have been a treasure to future generations.
Personally, I would have preferred they went into the mid-70s, at least. After that, I agree that the likely decline in quality wouldn't have been much to mourn.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Mercury
MrFrogger
benpaco
Romanelli
