Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
_jr_

The Second Coming...

Recommended Posts

I was thinking about this on the way to work this morning, and thought it might generate some discussion.

I was listening to Aerosmith's 'Get Your Wings' cd, (their best, IMO), and it occured to me that, during their 30+ years, Aerosmith has been two different bands.

For us older generation, the first 5-6 albums are Aerosmith. Rocks, Draw The Line, Toys in the Attic, etc. That's what we grew up with. It was gritty, raunchy, flat out mean.

Then, Aerosmith went through some personel changes, got sober, got back together, and re-emerged as a completely different band.

Gone was 'Big Ten Inch Record, Seasons of Wither, Lick and A Promise, Uncle Salty, and Movin' Out'

In was 'Livin' on the Edge, Amazing, Love in an Elevator, Crazy, and Cryin'

They're ok songs, I guess, but not what I was used to from the Bad Boys from Beantown.

so anyway, it dawned on me, that the reason all that newer stuff was so popular, is because Aerosmith tapped into the next generation. The MTVers. All the old school fans were shut out, but they was a whole new generation of 14-19 year olds that dug their stuff. It wasn't nearly as crunchy and dirty and insolent as Aerosmith's first time around, but it was what the next generation got, and they bought it.

So, in essence, I guess, Aerosmith had two 'primes'. Are there any other bands you can think of like that? Bands that changed, but captured a new audience with their new sound?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think New Order tried with "crystal" a couple of years ago, but i'm not sure it was that succesful. same with duran duran and the album they released this year.

Although the time-span is not similar, greenday have done the same. They were at their first peak with "dookie" when i was a teenager about 10 years ago, and now "american idiot" which introduces them to my sister's generation

note the comment she made ( i think i have mentioned this before) when i told her i liked greenday when i was her age "what? they are that old?"

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's exactly my point. They were immensely popular....to a completely different audience. The old schoolers like us think, "Wow, what is that?? That's not what I grew up with!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chicago, for the worse.

Doobie Brothers, for the worse.

Van Halen, for the worse.

Damn you, Cetera, McDonald and Hagar. Damn you to hell.

Das, those are exactly the same bands I thought of!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The old schoolers like us think, "Wow, what is that?? That's not what I grew up with!"

See, I'm kind of backwards. The versions of these groups I grew up with were the crappy "newer" ones. Except for Van Halen, but Sammy Hagar just plain sucks. Luckily I found the earlier versions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jefferson Airplane...who went to Jefferson Starship...then Starship...ahhhh...there is only one Jefferson Airplane!!

How could I forget them? I still can't fathom how the same band who did "White Rabbit" also did "We Built This City". Well, I guess they weren't really the same band anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How could I forget them? I still can't fathom how the same band who did "White Rabbit" also did "We Built This City". Well, I guess they weren't really the same band anymore.

Jefferson Airplane had an evolution similar to other bands... they maybe went more poppish in some ways (Marty Balin reminds me of Steve Winwood in their evolutions too) but they also enhanced their sound with Pappa John Creach or Craig Chaquico... they went more heavy or psychedelic and less "avant-garde". the members of the band changed constantly, leaving and coming back, etc...

Well, I´m a JA/JS fan and I love most of what they do anyways...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if that is a valid example, then another case is joy division and new order. the sound is quite different. not exactly the same band though

I think that after Ian Curtis´suicide the band became less depressive... in any case they always choose some weird names...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of those bands were merely guilty of going from making music (art) to making money.

You´re right. In the case of Slick, Kantner, Balin, they loved to be superstars and have a public private life...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what about blondie? they made a brief comeback with "no exit" (the one that has "maria") which introduced them to my generation, a few years ago. "maria" was very mainstream, so I don't know how it compares to their early stuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What an uproar in the mid '60s when Dylan went electric and freaked out the folk purists.

Fleetwood Mac was blues from '68 - '70

and fluff after that.

:jester:

and the Beatles had two different phases with before and after Sgt. Pepper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bands, singer-songwriters, and performers change over time, if they don't stare down the barrel of a shotgun, crash in small airplanes, overdose on drugs, or convert to Islam. (Sorry Stephen Giorgiou, I preferred "Cat Stevens.") A local singer-singwriter commented on an early morning news show that he didn't want to do material from 30 years ago forever. (This was Gerald Santos, half of "Olomana," a close haromony duo who came to prominence during the 1970's "Hawaiian music renaissance.") Elvis Presley went this way, then that, ssettling on the "Las Vegas Elvis" after ditching the 1968 "Comeback Elvis," and becoming a parody of himself. Fleetwood Mac was a Blues band before personnel changes took them on Pop road to gold and fame. Then there's Antonio Benedetto, who appeals to young and old alike; remember "Tony Bennett: Unplugged"? If an artist can span the generations without a big head or doing Heavy Metal covers, that's fine with me. (Pat Boone, what were you thinking about?) Change is interesting, no matter what the old fans say/think. (I wonder if that 100 year-old my sister's group this month is honoring likes Rap?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Genesis is another example of a rock group reinventing itself (for better or worse) in the middle of its long career.

In their early years with Peter Gabriel on lead vocals, Genesis was a progressive/English-folk rock band in roughly the same vein as Jethro Tull (and like Tull's lead singer Ian Anderson, Gabriel even played the flute). After he left in 1975 and drummer Phil Collins took over the lead vocals, Genesis began to slowly metamorphosize into what could best be described as progressive power pop - a process accelerated by the departure of guitarist Steve Hackett, and which was more or less complete by the end of that decade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What an uproar in the mid '60s when Dylan went electric and freaked out the folk purists.

Fleetwood Mac was blues from '68 - '70

and fluff after that.

:jester:

and the Beatles had two different phases with before and after Sgt. Pepper

Very incisive John - except for Fleetwood Lack. My son-in-law has all their old blues stuff. (I have "Albatross" and "Man Of The World").

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

except for Fleetwood Lack. My son-in-law has all their old blues stuff. (I have "Albatross" and "Man Of The World").

I enjoyed some of their later songs, but I liked their first few blues albums more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You and my son-in-law would get along famously.

I'll have to see if I can get him to join Songfacts.

I like what you said about the Beatles. I've always thought they had two distinct eras; the early "innocent" one(for want of a better word) and the "LSD" one which commenced with Sgt. Pepper.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A local singer-singwriter commented on an early morning news show that he didn't want to do material from 30 years ago forever. Change is interesting, no matter what the old fans say/think.

You made me think of Jagger's famous/infamous quote ~ '69 , that he " didn't want to be singing 'Satisfaction' in 25 years or so ..." . Biggest grossing tour ever this year - and you know that it's mostly oldies , at least that's what the crowds want . :elvis: :laughing: :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He´ll be 64 next June... and I´m certain he´ll do something about that... an album, a song, a tour... or just a new remastered Sgt Peppers...

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...