Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Kevin

Albums That Should Not have Been Recorded.

Recommended Posts

Ah-ha...finally. I'm back in. I just sent you a PM explaining my plight. Anyway, I had a long, marvelous rebuttal written up, but the server ate it when I tried to post it.

The skinny of it was that both Rush and Steely Dan have not had a great album for many years either. I'm a big fan of both bands, but Rush's last great album was "Moving Pictures" (1981, I believe), and Steely Dan's last great one was "Aja" (1977). Coincidentally, Aja was one of my favorite porn stars from the late 80's. Anyway, if you're gonna try to convince people that "Test For Echo" and "Vapor Trails" are better albums than "Bridges to Babylon" and "Steel Wheels", then, my triple-crossed friend, either you've never heard all four albums, or you truly are hopped up on the crack.

As for "selling out" and not deviating from the original formula, Steely Dan's music, beginning with "Gaucho" and continuing through a couple of Fagan's solo albums, was an absolute attempt at cashing in on that new wave, techno-pop sound that was developing at the time...as did Rush on "Signals" and "Grace Under Pressure". Come on, Neal, we've heard enough about the inevitable nuclear holocaust...give it a break!

And what was that last album Rush released?....an album with only cover tunes!? If that's not "selling out", I don't know what is. Maybe you can tell me?

I like both these bands. They are great musicians, but they, too, were never able to consistently write great tunes like the Stones. Just like every other great band, they had their ups and downs. Sorry, pal, that's how I feel and "That's all I have to say about that", Gump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah-ha...finally. I'm back in. I just sent you a PM explaining my plight. Anyway, I had a long, marvelous rebuttal written up, but the server ate it when I tried to post it.

The skinny of it was that both Rush and Steely Dan have not had a great album for many years either. I'm a big fan of both bands, but Rush's last great album was "Moving Pictures" (1981, I believe), and Steely Dan's last great one was "Aja" (1977). Coincidentally, Aja was one of my favorite porn stars from the late 80's. Anyway, if you're gonna try to convince people that "Test For Echo" and "Vapor Trails" are better albums than "Bridges to Babylon" and "Steel Wheels", then, my triple-crossed friend, either you've never heard all four albums, or you truly are hopped up on the crack.

As for "selling out" and not deviating from the original formula, Steely Dan's music, beginning with "Gaucho" and continuing through a couple of Fagan's solo albums, was an absolute attempt at cashing in on that new wave, techno-pop sound that was developing at the time...as did Rush on "Signals" and "Grace Under Pressure". Come on, Neal, we've heard enough about the inevitable nuclear holocaust...give it a break!

And what was that last album Rush released?....an album with only cover tunes!? If that's not "selling out", I don't know what is. Maybe you can tell me?

I like both these bands. They are great musicians, but they, too, were never able to consistently write great tunes like the Stones. Just like every other great band, they had their ups and downs. Sorry, pal, that's how I feel and "That's all I have to say about that", Gump.

Always copy your stuff onto Word before posting. I learned that the hard way 'cause the same thing happened to me

First things last, the last albums Steely Dan recorded were Two Against Nature and Everything Must Go. Believe me, the newest Stones material cannot match either of them in quality. Gaucho was alright. I might need to take that one out again for a complete listen, but it did not sound to me in any way like a New Wave or New Romantic attempt. Same thing with Rush. Any New Waver will laugh at the pairing of Rush with the likes of The Buzzcocks, Ultravox!, Joy Division, and such. Rush = ProgRock... like The Alan Parsons Project, Marillion, Yes, ELP, and other contemporaries. That they used keyboards does not automatically make a band New Wave. It's how the equipment is used. I'm hallucinating again. When I mentioned the "current quality" of Rush I was thinking their last live album, Rush In Rio, and not the one with covers. Now, doing covers doesn't make one a sell-out either. All kinds of bands do them. This is the first time in their careers - 30 YEARS - that they've recorded cover tunes. Sheesh. If that isn't a sign that they've always had material of their own to support them before, then I don't know what is. Hell! Even Chris Isaak released an album full of covers, but that doesn't detract from the fact the man can belt out some great Rockabilly tunes Covering and sampling are not necessarily a bad thing if the right artist is behind the studio. For example, Duran Duran released an album full of covers in the late 90s, Thank You, which was an atrocious attempt at honoring their influences. It sounded horrible. I like it because I'm a hardcore D2 fan, but it's not something I'd recommend to casual music fans. On the other hand, Bryan Ferry released an album of vintage song covers in 2000 (I think) called As Times Goes By and I'd most def recommend it to fans and n00bs alike. The guy is clearly made for the lounge act as much as he is for the packed stadiums.

Back to my original point, it WOULD be different if Roxy Music, Rush, Steely Dan, or whatever other reputable band we've been discussing had done a full-on Punk song when Punk was at its height in the late 70s. Wouldn't anyone think it funny if Rush had made a Disco song? Or Led Zep? Come on. The idea that Foreigner would be prancing about on stage singing ABBA-esque songs doesn't tickle your funny bone? Shoot. If there was a main reason why there was a Disco backlash it's because it seemed almost everyone was jumping the bandwagon by making their own little Disco songs: from the debutantes to the mainstays like The Stones, Rod Stewart, and KISS (hell! Even Punks were aghast to hear Blondie go at it too!). It seemed there was no way to stop the lack of talent and lack of ideas from swallowing the smallest to the biggest acts of the time. Thankfully, it was just a few and not the whole lot of them. Led Zep kept on rockin, Boston kept on rockin', Journey kept on rockin', Foreigner kept on rockin', etc.

We definitely disagree on how quality has changed over a band's time. To me, most - if not all - bands cannot get past the ten year mark without showing some major wear and tear, whether they stay together or not. The Stones are not an exception. Their golden years were 1964-1976. They have not made anything which comes in par since then... probably 'cause they couldn't and cannnot anymore. A recent example of this would be U2. They look like they're gonna be the next Stones if they keep going this way

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To me, most - if not all - bands cannot get past the ten year mark without showing some major wear and tear, whether they stay together or not.
Tell that to Pink Floyd. Now the thirteen year mark, that's a different sotry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the list, except for two entries, those being Vitalogy and Be Here Now.

i have to disagree with the vitalogy part (which i already mentioned) pearl jam is capable of MUCH better. i mean much much MUCH MUCH much much MUCH better. vitalogy drones. no code hums. riot act speaks. ten... well, ten is simply... ten is.... its a breakthrough that's all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i know this is mostly a rock list but imagine this:

britney is never born, backstreet boys are never assembled, their albums are not out! we'd be still hearing mostly rock songs on mtv ! imagine that! bleh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i know this is mostly a rock list but imagine this:

britney is never born, backstreet boys are never assembled, their albums are not out! we'd be still hearing mostly rock songs on mtv ! imagine that! bleh

Heh heh one can always dream...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i know this is mostly a rock list but imagine this:

britney is never born, backstreet boys are never assembled, their albums are not out! we'd be still hearing mostly rock songs on mtv ! imagine that! bleh

if that were true though, we would be like everyone else, we wouldn't feel superior to the masses who listen to mainstream music! (or is that just me?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that 'Astronomy' by Blue Oyster Cult is a great song, and that was recorded in 1988 I think.

nope, it was on their 1974 album, though I forget the name. I think the name had the word "Mutation" in it.

I do not like "Burnin for you"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i dont understand why people think that rock legends like the stones shouldn't change their style...these guys have been around for like ever, and you gotta give them credit for doing so...they did some disco like tunes, only because it's not the 60's any more...they adapted their music to go through the decades, and i think that's great...ok just my opinion here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yes Edna. I saw it on VH1-When Disco ruled the world.

BTW, I have always wanted to know just where did those vandals take those handles?

OMG, she was 70 when she released that album... I just checked... Well, at least she was brave!

RyCosGirl, I wish I knew where the handle is...

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...