930 Forums

=> GENERAL DISCUSSION => Topic started by: Relaxer on December 13, 2006, 05:56:00 pm

Title: Bands/records that have not aged well
Post by: Relaxer on December 13, 2006, 05:56:00 pm
The discussion on the Pumpkins got me thinking about bands that have gotten less classic as time goes on. What are some others?
 
 I would say Jane's Addiction is up for this. I used to think Dave Navarro was such a great guitar player. Now I listen to those early albums and it sounds like cheesy 80s hair-metal.
Title: Re: Bands/records that have not aged well
Post by: chaz on December 13, 2006, 05:58:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Relaxer:
  The discussion on the Pumpkins got me thinking about bands that have gotten less classic as time goes on. What are some others?
 
 I would say Jane's Addiction is up for this. I used to think Dave Navarro was such a great guitar player. Now I listen to those early albums and it sounds like cheesy 80s hair-metal.
I'm with you.  95% of the the hardcore music I used to think was so cool hasn't aged well.  But there's that 5% that has....
Title: Re: Bands/records that have not aged well
Post by: HoyaSaxa03 on December 13, 2006, 06:07:00 pm
"jane says" and "been caught stealing" still sound perfect, but i haven't listened to their albums in a while
Title: Re: Bands/records that have not aged well
Post by: palahniukkubrick on December 13, 2006, 06:13:00 pm
New Order. I love "Power, Corruption, and Lies," but it just sounds trapped in the eighties. Same with a lot of bands of the era, like PIL and Depeche Mode. I don't fault them for this, but it still gets to me when listening.
 
 And I agree with you on Jane's Addiction. They may have been one of alternative rock's 'breakthrough' bands, but Perry Farrell and Dave Navarro continually tarnish their old band's reputation by being douchebag rock stars.
Title: Re: Bands/records that have not aged well
Post by: HoyaSaxa03 on December 13, 2006, 06:23:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by you be pickup:
  New Order. I love "Power, Corruption, and Lies," but it just sounds trapped in the eighties. Same with a lot of bands of the era, like PIL and Depeche Mode.
come on, i can think of a thousand bands that sound "trapped in the 80s", but new order (even early new order) still sounds fresh and really relevant
Title: Re: Bands/records that have not aged well
Post by: Bombay Chutney on December 13, 2006, 06:28:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by you be pickup:
  New Order. I love "Power, Corruption, and Lies,"
Any other New Order record I might agree with.  Not this one though.  It's still a fantastic record.
Title: Re: Bands/records that have not aged well
Post by: Sir HC on December 13, 2006, 06:40:00 pm
I would say Big Star, and other bands whose production is that big 80s sound with the snappy snare with faux reverb, and super clicky kick for non-metal.  The production just ruins it for me, it is so "period".
 
 But PC&L is still a favorite because it is mostly guitar oriented and those that are not (Your Silent Face) are just amazing.
Title: Re: Bands/records that have not aged well
Post by: on December 13, 2006, 07:19:00 pm
Mary J.Bilge
Title: Re: Bands/records that have not aged well
Post by: smakawhat on December 13, 2006, 07:26:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by SeƱor Carlos:
   
Quote
Originally posted by Relaxer:
  The discussion on the Pumpkins got me thinking about bands that have gotten less classic as time goes on. What are some others?
 
 I would say Jane's Addiction is up for this. I used to think Dave Navarro was such a great guitar player. Now I listen to those early albums and it sounds like cheesy 80s hair-metal.
I'm with you.  95% of the the hardcore music I used to think was so cool hasn't aged well.  But there's that 5% that has.... [/b]
you're drunk... now Dave's solo effort...
 
 
 EEEEeeesh....
Title: Re: Bands/records that have not aged well
Post by: vansmack on December 13, 2006, 09:26:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by smakawhat:
  you're drunk... now Dave's solo effort...
 
 
 EEEEeeesh....
This is a double sma(c)k because I'm with Smakawhat on this one.
 
 One of my favorite compilations this year is Jane's greatest hits.  Blew me away that some tracks on that album were written in the mid 80's.  
 
 "Jane Says" was written over 20 years ago!  It certainly doesn't sound anywhere near that old.  Neither does Whores, Chip Away or Pigs in Zen.  
 
 Now if we move up through Nothing's Shocking and into Ritual, then finally the mess that was Strays, I might tend to agree, but starting with the XXX release and then Nothing's Shocking - they have aged extremely well.
Title: Re: Bands/records that have not aged well
Post by: SPARX on December 13, 2006, 10:54:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Surly Bonds:
 
 
 Also that I WILL SURVIVE song by The Grateful Dead.
I always thought that was Gloria Gaynor
Title: Re: Bands/records that have not aged well
Post by: chaz on December 14, 2006, 12:02:00 am
Quote
Originally posted by vansmack:
   
Quote
Originally posted by smakawhat:
  you're drunk... now Dave's solo effort...
 
 
 EEEEeeesh....
This is a double sma(c)k because I'm with Smakawhat on this one.
 
 One of my favorite compilations this year is Jane's greatest hits.  Blew me away that some tracks on that album were written in the mid 80's.  
 
 "Jane Says" was written over 20 years ago!  It certainly doesn't sound anywhere near that old.  Neither does Whores, Chip Away or Pigs in Zen.  
 
 Now if we move up through Nothing's Shocking and into Ritual, then finally the mess that was Strays, I might tend to agree, but starting with the XXX release and then Nothing's Shocking - they have aged extremely well. [/b]
OK....Jane's is tricky for me just because their first two albums held so much promise of what could have been great things to come.  So in many ways, I feel more "ripped off" by them than just about any band I can think of.  Especially when you consider what a complete cheez dick Dave Navarro turned out to be and what a wanna-be svengali / pt barnum or whatever it was Perry Ferrell tried to become.
 
 Smackie, you mention some great songs, especially the ones on the live record.  Whores, 1%, even the sap that is "I Would for You".
 
 But when they tried to get funky like on "Been caught stealing" and much of the last album, yeah to me that stuff sounds dated and cheezy now. I do like the trippier stuff from the last album though.
Title: Re: Bands/records that have not aged well
Post by: Mobius on December 15, 2006, 01:45:00 am
I still love every song and Achtung Baby and the sum is greater than the parts.  And seeing the ZooTV show in a light rain at RFK in summer 92 was one of the great concert experiences of my life . . . but I flipped on the ZooTV live in Sydney (or somewhere in Australia) on VH1 classic the other day and jesus christ did it look retarded.
Title: Re: Bands/records that have not aged well
Post by: Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer on December 15, 2006, 08:09:00 am
Nothing's Shocking still stands up as an all time favorite for me.
 
 Their other albums no llonger do itfor me.
Title: Re: Bands/records that have not aged well
Post by: TheREALHunter on December 15, 2006, 08:56:00 am
The Violent Femmes
Title: Re: Bands/records that have not aged well
Post by: yinzer on December 15, 2006, 09:46:00 am
Quote
Originally posted by vansmack:
 
 quote:
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Originally posted by smakawhat:
 you're drunk... now Dave's solo effort...
 
 
 EEEEeeesh....
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 This is a double sma(c)k because I'm with Smakawhat on this one.
 
 One of my favorite compilations this year is Jane's greatest hits. Blew me away that some tracks on that album were written in the mid 80's.
 
 "Jane Says" was written over 20 years ago! It certainly doesn't sound anywhere near that old. Neither does Whores, Chip Away or Pigs in Zen.
 
 Now if we move up through Nothing's Shocking and into Ritual, then finally the mess that was Strays, I might tend to agree, but starting with the XXX release and then Nothing's Shocking - they have aged extremely well.
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 OK....Jane's is tricky for me just because their first two albums held so much promise of what could have been great things to come. So in many ways, I feel more "ripped off" by them than just about any band I can think of. Especially when you consider what a complete cheez dick Dave Navarro turned out to be and what a wanna-be svengali / pt barnum or whatever it was Perry Ferrell tried to become.
 
 Smackie, you mention some great songs, especially the ones on the live record. Whores, 1%, even the sap that is "I Would for You".
 
 But when they tried to get funky like on "Been caught stealing" and much of the last album, yeah to me that stuff sounds dated and cheezy now. I do like the trippier stuff from the last album though.  
i have to say that the 2nd side of ritual is still titanic.  the first 2 albums are pretty much great front to back.  strays is just dumb.  jane's was actually my first concert a long, long time ago.  where did all of my gorgeous 17 year old hair go.  damn.
 
 as for its members.  they're fucking dorks now, but i don't really see how that is of much relevance.  aging rocker is a tough thing to pull off well.  they have failed in that regard.
 
 PiL has aged badly.  a friend told me that cassette/compact disc has been re-released without all of the muddled sound in its original form.
Title: Re: Bands/records that have not aged well
Post by: Bombay Chutney on December 15, 2006, 10:12:00 am
Quote
Originally posted by yinzer:
 PiL has aged badly.  
I've been saying that since 1987.
Title: Re: Bands/records that have not aged well
Post by: Sir HC on December 15, 2006, 11:07:00 am
Second Edition and Flowers of Romance are still brilliant, the rest was not that great then, and less so now (well first album is 1/2 good and Blue Water is funny).
Title: Re: Bands/records that have not aged well
Post by: Bombay Chutney on December 15, 2006, 11:11:00 am
Yeah - I meant to imply that the earlier stuff is still good, but everything from the late 80's-onward pretty much blew - even back then.  First Issue is still my favorite though.
Title: Re: Bands/records that have not aged well
Post by: Relaxer on December 15, 2006, 11:42:00 am
There was quite a bit of hype this year around early Oasis, with the re-issue of Definitely Maybe and the best-of compilation. And back in the mid-90s, I really loved Definitely. So I gave it another spin and... it's not aging well. The drums are exactly the same -- and lame -- in every song, and the whole thing just sort of plods along at mid-tempo.
Title: Re: Bands/records that have not aged well
Post by: Sir HC on December 15, 2006, 11:56:00 am
Quote
Originally posted by Bombay Chutney:
  Yeah - I meant to imply that the earlier stuff is still good, but everything from the late 80's-onward pretty much blew - even back then.  First Issue is still my favorite though.
I tried to see them at the Ontario Theater in 1985 (?) but I was a youngin' and had to leave before they came on (or anyone showed up).  Then saw them with the Beastie Boys opening for them and it was a shell of their former selves.  
 
 I have to relisten to Compact Disc for "Seattle" is supposedly a bash at the city because Mudhoney trashed their dressing room.
Title: Re: Bands/records that have not aged well
Post by: Relaxer on December 15, 2006, 12:06:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Sir HC:
   
Quote
Originally posted by Bombay Chutney:
  Yeah - I meant to imply that the earlier stuff is still good, but everything from the late 80's-onward pretty much blew - even back then.  First Issue is still my favorite though.
I tried to see them at the Ontario Theater in 1985 (?) but I was a youngin' and had to leave before they came on (or anyone showed up).  Then saw them with the Beastie Boys opening for them and it was a shell of their former selves.  
 
 I have to relisten to Compact Disc for "Seattle" is supposedly a bash at the city because Mudhoney trashed their dressing room. [/b]
Seattle is on the Happy? album
Title: Re: Bands/records that have not aged well
Post by: on December 15, 2006, 12:38:00 pm
Mary J.Bilge
Title: Re: Bands/records that have not aged well
Post by: Sir HC on December 15, 2006, 01:18:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Relaxer:
   
Quote
Originally posted by Sir HC:
   
Quote
Originally posted by Bombay Chutney:
  Yeah - I meant to imply that the earlier stuff is still good, but everything from the late 80's-onward pretty much blew - even back then.  First Issue is still my favorite though.
I tried to see them at the Ontario Theater in 1985 (?) but I was a youngin' and had to leave before they came on (or anyone showed up).  Then saw them with the Beastie Boys opening for them and it was a shell of their former selves.  
 
 I have to relisten to Compact Disc for "Seattle" is supposedly a bash at the city because Mudhoney trashed their dressing room. [/b]
Seattle is on the Happy? album [/b]
Shows you how long it has been since I played any of those...
 
 This is 2nd edition weather though.
Title: Re: Bands/records that have not aged well
Post by: Jaguar on December 15, 2006, 02:31:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Relaxer:
  There was quite a bit of hype this year around early Oasis, with the re-issue of Definitely Maybe and the best-of compilation. And back in the mid-90s, I really loved Definitely. So I gave it another spin and... it's not aging well. The drums are exactly the same -- and lame -- in every song, and the whole thing just sort of plods along at mid-tempo.
I pretty much agree with this but have a little bit different take on them.
 
 To me, Oasis are a band that had several really great songs early on. They sounded a bit different than a lot of the crap that was getting airplay back then. (You have to first understand that I've never liked most Grunge nor most of the music that got the airplay around here at that time.) Oasis had that sound that I liked. When I'd play their CDs, the filler helped to hold me over between the songs I liked the most. Not bad songs at all but not their best, which is true for just about any CD by anyone.
 
 After a bit of time goes by, you can only keep playing those same songs over and over again without wanting, or needing, something more. As a listener, I'm sick of them. As musicians, they got very boring and dropped the great songs and just keep on replaying and revising (barely) those same few songs which left me, among many others, off the Oasis bandwagon chasing other sounds.
Title: Re: Bands/records that have not aged well
Post by: on December 15, 2006, 04:53:00 pm
Mary J.Bilge
Title: Re: Bands/records that have not aged well
Post by: Herr Professor Doktor Doom on December 15, 2006, 07:23:00 pm
I agree on Oasis.   How would you all say Nirvana's "Nevermind" has aged?  I used to love it, and it is widely considered a classic, but these days it just doesn't appeal to me... when I do hanker for Nirvana, it's more likely to be something off In Utero.
 
 There is always the possibility when considering these things that it is us who have aged (or to put a better light on it, grown), rather than the music...
 
 http://dcalex.blogspot.com (http://dcalex.blogspot.com)
Title: Re: Bands/records that have not aged well
Post by: Mobius on December 15, 2006, 08:22:00 pm
If I'm at a bar and any song off Definitely Maybe comes on, I'm excited.
Title: Re: Bands/records that have not aged well
Post by: thingsfallapart on December 15, 2006, 08:59:00 pm
<img src="http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/5702/rundmcraisinghell2or.jpg" alt=" - " />