The ones that went out on top and too soon... - Music

Mercury
Turn your back on the pay-you-back last call

Gender: Male
Location: St. Louis

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.

Guest

Kurt Cobain and Ian Curtis are two more obvious ones.

MrFrogger
Where am I

Gender: Male
Age: 28
Location: Oakland

Elliot Smith and Dilla, completely. John Coltrane's another one.

EDIT: Oh, and Jeff Buckley

sp4cetiger

Mercurydylan89 wrote:

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...

Mercury
Turn your back on the pay-you-back last call

Gender: Male
Location: St. Louis

Awesome examples so far.

I mean Nick Drake between 69-72 - 3 LPs, all practically universally loved.

Kurt Cobain 89-94 - I think 4 albums, all pretty awesome in their own ways

Ian Curtiss 79-what, 80 or 81, 2 LPs and some other recordings, all pretty much adored.

Robert Johnson - 36-39 - 2 main rexording periods and made a couple dozen of the greatest and most influential records ever.

Elliott Smith's career went substantially longer and didn't end on a high note so much as the others.

I personally don't like Jeff Buckley at all. But if I had he would be another excellent example.

Jimi Hendrix! - 67-70 - 4 LPs, all pretty fantastic. And all worshipped by many.

These people were awesome!

And all those you named sp4ceyiger are awesome too! Love the inclusion of D. Boon
_________________
-Ryan

ONLY 4% of people can understand this chart! Come try!

My Fave Metal - you won't believe #5!!!

Guest

MrFrogger wrote:

Oh, and Jeff Buckley

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 Sad

benpaco
Who's gonna watch you die?

Age: 27
Location: California

In addition to the ones mentioned, I don't think anyone's said the following:

Bradley Nowell
Mark Sandman
Gregg Alexander
Stu Sutcliffe

I'll probably think of more ... I had a bunch when I saw this, typed out those four and went "Uh ........"
_________________

. . . 2016 . . . 2015 . . .

Things I Make

Mercury
Turn your back on the pay-you-back last call

Gender: Male
Location: St. Louis

Who's brad nowell?
Sandman is the guy from Morphine right?
_________________
-Ryan

ONLY 4% of people can understand this chart! Come try!

My Fave Metal - you won't believe #5!!!

Romanelli
Bone Swah

Gender: Male
Location: Broomfield, Colorado

Moderator

sp4cetiger wrote:

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.
_________________
May we all get to heaven
'Fore the devil knows we're dead...

sp4cetiger

Romanelli wrote:

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.