Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Kevin

Albums That Should Not have Been Recorded.

Recommended Posts

Some albums that shouldn't have been recorded are any Blue Oyster Cult or Deep Purple album from the eighties. They should have stopped in 1980 or stayed the same as they were in the seventies.

"Perfect Strangers" was the best album Deep Purple ever made. "Knocking At Your Back Door" is the best song Deep Purple ever recorded.

:afro: :afro: :afro: :rockon: :rockon: :rockon:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love "Emotional Rescue"... and my fave Deep Purple song is still "Highway Star"... that guitar is awesome!

But I also love "Donna Summer´s Greatest Hits"! I do!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was wondering what you meant by "disco album"...oh ye of Roxy Music worship. and that other 80's crap....f**kin' Japan...c'mon, Dude. Everything from the 80's was based on disco, especially Roxy Music.

"Some Girls" was one of the best rock albums ever made. It was mixed with hard rock ("When The Whip Comes Down", "Respectable", "Before They Make Me Run"), blues ("Some Girls", "Beast of Burden"), and even some good country music ("Far Away Eyes"). The title track is one of the 50 greatest songs ever. Guitar work, my friend...that's what really makes rock 'n' roll. So, "Miss You" may have had a little disco feel to it, with the heavy bass, but the guitar and saxophone in it are classic rock riffs.

Before you put down the greatest band in rock history, go out and listen to some real rock music, why don't you.

Sammy.

I just didn't buy it. The Rolling Stones sounded better before Some Girls. Had they begun cutting records by developing the Disco sound or altering it, it would be different. Roxy Music was at the forefront of Glam Rock and Pop Rock from 1972 onwards. It probably hadn't entered the Stones' radar then. Roxy Music didn't have to compromise their sound and style because they were deep-rooted in it. It would be funny if Roxy Music and David Bowie both had cut Heavy Metal or Hair Metal records when Metal was at its height in the 80s, but they didn't because they had plenty of their own material to carry them forward, unlike The Stones and KISS which had to beat the same dead horse wreckord after wreckord after wreck-chord afterwards. Now for Japan: they were at the tail end of Glam. They cite Bowie and Ferry as their influences and don't make any beans about it. Still, they MADE the New Romantic sound of the 80s. The only other bands at the time (1978-1979) who could've rivaled them were The Human League and OMD, but their sound was too stilted compared to how smooth Quiet Life sounded like. Shoot, you listen to that and you'd almost think it was Duran Duran's debut (which came a couple of years afterwards). Even then, David Sylvian doesn't wanna recognise their Glam years and called one of their Moroder-produced singles from '79 one of the worst they've ever made ("Life In Tokyo"). This is totally different than the way the Stones (and Rod Stewart) carried on by completely cashing-in on a trend. They didn't do squat with any of the genres they followed. They were such an embarrassment to the scene of Discotheque music that Steve Strange of Visage (who was the doorman of some little rinky-dink club called "Blitz") turned Mick Jagger away. It's quite funny seeing their fans cream themselves over this dismal putrefaction of radio wave disease. What The Stones did was merely piss all over their fans with this musical doggerel. It would be tantamount to The Stones cutting a boy band record because they sell like hot cakes and their fans commenting on the high quality of it. Maybe they'll do a duet with Good Charlotte to show how hip and up to date they are. I wouldn't be surprised if it had crossed their minds. Geez, if there's a band that represents the thought "give it a freakin' rest already!" it would most definitely be them... or Rod Stewart :jester:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JJJ, you think that "Where the boys go", "She´s so cold", "Down in the Hole", to quote my three fave songs of "Emotional Rescue", are not Stonish style? I don´t... As for "Some Girls", I think that "Beast of burden" is very Stones style, though it´s disco pack...

Yet you´re right on this point: I wouldn´t like to hear Eric Burdon sounding like Donna Summer! :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm like one of those music dorks in the back of a record store discussing the purity and integrity of Rock 'N Roll

Yet I agree with you on most of your fave ones... that "avant-garde" music of the early eighties... and I don´t mean the new romantics but the dark side of it. :shades:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Triple-X:

In between your semi-coherent ramblings, I WAS able to grasp your point about "selling out". But if you, for one, minute, believe any one of your favorite bands wouldn't sell their collective soul to the devil in the blink of an eye to make a few million bucks, then you're smoking all too much crack.

Yes, The Stones developed a bass and guitar riff for "Miss You" and then decided that a computerized backbeat could turn it into a disco-like hit. Big f***in' deal....a couple million extra bucks, and a few million extra fans....any band could use that. Any corporation will tell you, "prepare for the future; change as the times change". And the Stones are definitely a multinational corporation. To continue their success, they have to tweek their formula every so often, but still stick to the basic core standards.

The difference with the Stones' slipping in later years was because they had set such a lofty standard with the material they had previously released...something that most bands cannot claim. The Stones' creative decline was more noticeable because of that lofty standard. Even though the music was still good, it wasn't up to the great, great material they released between '65 and '81. In fact, NO band can make that claim for that length of time. And neither can very few multinational corporations. They all eventually go through a downturn, but are able to keep the business going.

I believe it's because they lost Mick Taylor that their music declined somewhat. Mick is an exceptional blues guitarist. Ron Wood fit the Stones' image, but couldn't compare with the technical ability of Mick Taylor.

On the other hand, bands like Roxy Music (just an example), although they have great musicians, could never compare with the songwriting ability of a band like the Stones. Therefore, they never sold the amount of albums or received the amount of recognition. They continued to play their same style of music, but it wasn't that great to begin with. Like I said, Bryan Ferry would sell his soul in the blink of an eye to be able to write music like Mick Jagger. Maybe then he wouldn't lose his women so quickly to a guy like Jagger.

I've seen you make references to Stones' "disco album" in the past, but I figured you meant either "Emotional Rescue" or one of their later ones. To call "Some Girls" a disco album is absolutely insane. One song bordering on disco does not a disco album make. The rest of the album is loaded with top-notch rock 'n' roll.

Nothing personal, Trip-X. You're a good kid. But someone who worships the obscure bands that you do has no right ranking the band that they all wanna be like.

Later, Dude.

:afro: :afro: :afro: :thumbsup: :rockon: :rockon:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe it's because they lost Mick Taylor that their music declined somewhat. Mick is an exceptional blues guitarist. Ron Wood fit the Stones' image, but couldn't compare with the technical ability of Mick Taylor.

Oh, absolutelly!!!!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may be a British thing, but the Stones are not played on the radio here unless it is 1960s stuff, or maybe that MJ and David B 'duet' from the 80s. The last even marginally popular album was the one with 'Miss You' on. I think they sold a few copies of a live album a few years later, but basically they haven't been able to age gracefully (or even disgracefully except BW the cradle-snatcher), so are an irrelevance here and have been for decades. If they went away for 20 years they could possibly have a revival in the manner of The Kinks in terms of cool, or possibly not, IMO.

I find myself agreeing with XXX once more, but no rumours please or my wife will withdraw nocturnal privilages.

Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where've you been, Diggs? Last time I looked, the Stones were still selling out Wembley Stadium two and three days in a row. Very few bands can make that claim, also. Some 200 to 300 thousand Brits can't be wrong. Isn't that like half the population? :laughing:

:afro: :afro: :afro: :jester: :rockon: :rockon:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Half the population between the ages of 55 and 65, bearded and Lib-Dem activists. Oops, sounds like my folks! - except the beard, as my mum doesn't have one yet.

Sure, the Stones have a (diminishing as senility kicks in)following who will probably buy records irrespective, but that doesn't make the band relevant to music today, nor does it encourage them to be the artistic force they once were.

Should records be legal if the creativity isn't there any more? That would shaft the majority of the music industry if 'credibility' became a legal requirement.

Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Half the population between the ages of 55 and 65, bearded and Lib-Dem activists. Oops, sounds like my folks! - except the beard, as my mum doesn't have one yet.

reminds me of when i saw deep purple when i was 16! the most shocking thing was that the "headmaster" was there too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should records be legal if the creativity isn't there any more? That would shaft the majority of the music industry if 'credibility' became a legal requirement.

Exactly. That would eliminate 90 percent of the bands from 1995 on up, and probably about 60 percent of the bands between '85 and '95. Nowadays, every band wants to sound just like the next, so they CAN sell records. Where is the creativity in that?

At least the Stones still sound like the Stones. they don't try to sound like a poor man's Pearl Jam. Their last two albums, "Voodoo Lounge", and especially "Bridges To Babylon" both have a few very good songs on them. Granted, they aren't great from start to finish, but what band can still make that claim? Name one.

Most of these new bands play the same riffs over and over and just change the words....and most of those riffs are amateur bar chords, I might add. They couldn't write a catchy blues-based guitar riff if their life depended on it. The Stones still can. Listen to "Out Of Control", "Saint Of Me", "Flip The Switch", "Love Is Strong", or "Baby Break It Down". These songs are even better when played live. They still play that great funk on songs like "Suck On The Jugular" and a couple more from the 80's (e.g. "Slave", "Worried About You" and "Too Much Blood"). And their ballads are just as good as ever. They never changed their style of music, just altered it a bit.

Even my second favorite band, the Kinks, completely lost it after "State of Confusion". They had one great song after that album - "Hatred". But, as for the Kinks, they were never as consistent as were the Stones over the years.

However, my friends, the Stones never lost it completely; they can still write 'em. And that'll be proven again in a few months, when they release their new album.

:afro: :afro: :afro: :rockon: :rockon: :rockon:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't get me wrong Sammy, I'm not saying their career has been black and white (or good and sh*te), because I'm not remotely qualified to comment on such a lengthy subject. You know their music much better that I do, and fair play to you.

Whilst we are on the subject of dodgy albums, why on earth did Bruce Springsteen record 'Born In The USA'? I bought every one of his albums as a youth, but after spending my wad on that one I stopped.

Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Triple-X:

In between your semi-coherent ramblings, I WAS able to grasp your point about "selling out". But if you, for one, minute, believe any one of your favorite bands wouldn't sell their collective soul to the devil in the blink of an eye to make a few million bucks, then you're smoking all too much crack.

Yes, The Stones developed a bass and guitar riff for "Miss You" and then decided that a computerized backbeat could turn it into a disco-like hit. Big f***in' deal....a couple million extra bucks, and a few million extra fans....any band could use that. Any corporation will tell you, "prepare for the future; change as the times change". And the Stones are definitely a multinational corporation. To continue their success, they have to tweek their formula every so often, but still stick to the basic core standards.

The difference with the Stones' slipping in later years was because they had set such a lofty standard with the material they had previously released...something that most bands cannot claim. The Stones' creative decline was more noticeable because of that lofty standard. Even though the music was still good, it wasn't up to the great, great material they released between '65 and '81. In fact, NO band can make that claim for that length of time. And neither can very few multinational corporations. They all eventually go through a downturn, but are able to keep the business going.

I believe it's because they lost Mick Taylor that their music declined somewhat. Mick is an exceptional blues guitarist. Ron Wood fit the Stones' image, but couldn't compare with the technical ability of Mick Taylor.

On the other hand, bands like Roxy Music (just an example), although they have great musicians, could never compare with the songwriting ability of a band like the Stones. Therefore, they never sold the amount of albums or received the amount of recognition. They continued to play their same style of music, but it wasn't that great to begin with. Like I said, Bryan Ferry would sell his soul in the blink of an eye to be able to write music like Mick Jagger. Maybe then he wouldn't lose his women so quickly to a guy like Jagger.

I've seen you make references to Stones' "disco album" in the past, but I figured you meant either "Emotional Rescue" or one of their later ones. To call "Some Girls" a disco album is absolutely insane. One song bordering on disco does not a disco album make. The rest of the album is loaded with top-notch rock 'n' roll.

Nothing personal, Trip-X. You're a good kid. But someone who worships the obscure bands that you do has no right ranking the band that they all wanna be like.

Later, Dude.

:afro: :afro: :afro: :thumbsup: :rockon: :rockon:

Whoa there. See what happens when you leave the crockpot to stew for too long

One, I never said there is anything wrong with selling out. Everyone does it. I've already discussed this at length with other members. Fact is, The Stones started to become hacks at it right at the point I mentioned. When their goal wasn't to make a good album with some originality, some personal touch, but instead focused on the bottom line, that's the point where one can hear a steady decline into mediocrity. Sorry to burst your bubble, but that's how they sound like, Ken. If you listened to their albums from cover to cover you can clearly hear the rotting decay of a once-great Rock 'n Roll band. I wouldn't even give Voodoo Lounge a complete spin. I know it to be a complete waste of time whereby I could be listening to Steely Dan (who are in top form after all these years). As for songwriting ability, Roxy Music's and Bryan Ferry's style was far more avant garde (and in this sense, very good avant garde). They shaped the way music would sound on the dance floors for the next twenty years (only predecessors like The Velvet Underground and Kraftwerk could make a bigger claim). Their transition into ballads was timely - right at the peak of their career. Then, they disbanded and went their separate ways (the same thing happened to Japan). It's funny that you should mention "setting standards." Whereas The Stones became pure wankery from Some Girls on, Bryan Ferry's and David Sylvian's sound evolved to different things and aspects of music. Just like I mentioned listening to The Stones from cover to cover, try listening to Roxy Music and Japan from cover to cover and you'll hear how radically different and great they sound from their beginning to their end. They are a proper chapter with a beginning and an end in music history. I'm talking music here. Who gives a ____ about album sales when you're an internationally-renown band?! I could see it if The Stones were this tiny garage band in need of an audience who would compromise their style, get their kneepads on in order to get a record deal, but this instance is shenanigans and I call them on it to get my money back and learn to stick to the albums from when they used to be good. If sales was the leading factor of telling how great a band is, then that makes The Spice Girls and Las Ketchup a divine gift to music! If you can tolerate those old tossers now, I'm sure they'd be right up your alley on album sales alone.

edited for spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said that album sales is a way to judge a band. In fact, I think exactly the opposite. Who gives a sh*t if they sell albums. The Stones never sold as many albums as a lot of bands, good and bad. The fact is that the Stones keep on selling them because they're good albums - not because they had one or two hit songs off an album five or ten years ago. If they weren't any good, they would have stopped selling records and broken up, just like the Spice Girls or Japan or Roxy Music or Europe or Loverboy or The Who or The Kinks or Triumph...or about a half a million other bands you can name.

Those bands packed it in because they felt their album sales went way down, so they must have not been making good enough music. The Stones still make good music and can still play it on stage...why quit? At this point, it has very little to do with money...they're f***in' billionaires, man! They like playing it, and they can still please their millions of fans.

Obviously, the quality of their albums isn't quite on the same level as what they put out from '68 to '78....but then again, no band's is.

Thank you for listening. And don't do crack....anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Roxy Music broke up because Bryan Ferry wanted to work solo. The last albums of the band were a sign of this. It wasn't a lack of album sales or lack of talent. Avalon was their last album, so stop bogarting the crack pipe.

2. Japan broke up because of personal differences between Mick Karn and David Sylvian. Their last album, Tin Drum, was a breakthrough album for them with a hit single. What are you babbling about not making good music?

Maybe it's too early to be posting. Go get youself a pot of cawfee and rethink what you post

Quality? Try Steely Dan and Rush, for starters. They leave The Stones in the dust in terms of quality PLUS they kept their traditional sound. Don't accept substitutes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...