FOT Forum

FOT Community => General Discussion => Topic started by: harris on January 02, 2010, 05:50:48 PM

Title: They WERE good, but...
Post by: harris on January 02, 2010, 05:50:48 PM
So in the spirit of my new Beegees fascination I wanted to start a topic about other bands that may have started great and gone bad or started bad and became great.
Also if you could point out which album did the turning.

For instance:

Drive-by Truckers started with some hit or miss albums then Decoration Day made them great for a few albums then Isbell left and everything since Blessing and a Curse is not so hot.
Title: Re: They WERE good, but...
Post by: joe on January 02, 2010, 06:13:20 PM
Weezer is a great example of this for me.  Their first two albums are two of my all-time favorites.  I didn't even buy either of their last two.
Title: Re: They WERE good, but...
Post by: daveB from Oakland on January 02, 2010, 06:15:44 PM
Rod Stewart was SO great on  Jeff Beck's "Truth" album, in his own early solo work, and, of course, with the Faces. But by the end of the 1970s, he was the worst. And continues to be.
Title: Re: They WERE good, but...
Post by: Gilly on January 02, 2010, 06:17:59 PM
Rod Stewart was SO great on  Jeff Beck's "Truth" album, in his own early solo work, and, of course, with the Faces. But by the end of the 1970s, he was the worst. And continues to be.


Ooh, that's a good one. I struggled to think of some, but he has to be near the top of the list.
Title: Re: They WERE good, but...
Post by: harris on January 02, 2010, 06:28:02 PM
Rod Stewart was SO great on  Jeff Beck's "Truth" album, in his own early solo work, and, of course, with the Faces. But by the end of the 1970s, he was the worst. And continues to be.


This was a HUGE one for me a few years ago. His first few solo albums are where it's at. With him and the Beegees do you think that simply the change in culture was all that made them bad? I just don't get how someone who made such dead on great songs just lost it. I want to think it's more complicated. Or Elton John!
Title: Re: They WERE good, but...
Post by: Shaggy 2 Grote on January 02, 2010, 06:33:39 PM
Thanks to Masterofsparks, I learned that Bob Seger and ZZ Top were once really good.  So I'm preemptively stealing his likely suggestion.
Title: Re: They WERE good, but...
Post by: harris on January 02, 2010, 06:37:47 PM
Weezer is a great example of this for me.  Their first two albums are two of my all-time favorites.  I didn't even buy either of their last two.

Weezer is indeed a great example. The arrival of the Green Album was when I first realized that I could think about music in a different way than my friends. I wanted to love it so much because since pinkerton and the blue album this big Weezer fanbase started in my group. Then the green album came out and I was the first to call bullshit and nobody else saw a problem. I can remember listening to it over and over at friends' house while they ate it up and I just started hating Weezer more and more. I did see them live before Maladroit and it wasn't an awful show because they closed with Only in Dreams, which made me a fan again for about a week.
Title: Re: They WERE good, but...
Post by: masterofsparks on January 02, 2010, 07:11:15 PM
Thanks to Masterofsparks, I learned that Bob Seger and ZZ Top were once really good.  So I'm preemptively stealing his likely suggestion.

I would've probably mentioned both of these. Also Rod Stewart and Elton John, who have already been mentioned.

As far as a big, obvious one, how about Aerosmith? First four albums are amazing, next few are not so hot, and starting with Permanent Vacation, everything else is pretty rotten.

As for a band that started not so good and got great, Thin Lizzy is a big one. Their first 3 albums are the sound of a band playing with different ideas, trying (and mostly failing) to find their sound. Once they hit "Whisky in the Jar," they found it and got great and stayed that way till the end.
Title: Re: They WERE good, but...
Post by: erika on January 02, 2010, 08:20:10 PM

Weezer is a great example of this for me.  Their first two albums are two of my all-time favorites.  I didn't even buy either of their last two.

Weezer didn't just lose speed, though. It was the loss of Matt Sharp. Rivers can't handle it without him and the music has been complete shit since Pinkerton.

Also: Everything the Smashing Pumpkins did prior to Melancholy was groundbreakingly good. Everything after was a pile of poo. I blame drugs and Billy being insane.

Title: Re: They WERE good, but...
Post by: buffcoat on January 02, 2010, 08:30:46 PM
I think there's a thread on a certain 70s band along these lines.
Title: Re: They WERE good, but...
Post by: yesno on January 02, 2010, 08:31:10 PM
The Pink Floyd.   Even though I've slightly warmed to some prog rock, I still think everything post-Barrett is pretty wretched.

Ministry.

Butthole Surfers.

µ-ziq.  I know there are not too many techno fans on this board, but Tango 'n' Vectif, Bluff Limbo, The Auteurs v. µ-ziq, and Spatula Freak are just so good.  And then he went down the laptop-driven drill and bass route which ruined electronic music for a decade.
Title: Re: They WERE good, but...
Post by: yesno on January 02, 2010, 08:37:54 PM
There's this band called the Rolling Stones.

And for good to bad to good again, how about 4AD Records?  The decent new Flaming Lips album may put them into that category, as well. (I didn't care for The Soft Bulletin and its successors but I love their more rocking stuff.)
Title: Re: They WERE good, but...
Post by: Martin on January 02, 2010, 09:04:20 PM
Scott Herren aka Prefuse 73. Dude influenced my music in the 00's as much if not more as MF Doom, Kerri Chandler and Theo Parrish, but man did he flame out quick. After the second album he fell in love with guitars and "got back to his Spanish roots", which basically meant he disappeared in a cloud of herbal smoke in Barcelona. Though I suppose given that the first stuff he did was so much of the day back in 2001-2003 it's stupid to wish for more of the same.
Title: Re: They WERE good, but...
Post by: harris on January 02, 2010, 09:05:47 PM
The decent new Flaming Lips album may put them into that category, as well. (I didn't care for The Soft Bulletin and its successors but I love their more rocking stuff.)


I think they were great and are now too over the top. It's like every song on the new record had to be this loud boisterous mess. (And not the 'good' loud)
Title: Re: They WERE good, but...
Post by: nec13 on January 02, 2010, 09:10:59 PM
The Pink Floyd.   Even though I've slightly warmed to some prog rock, I still think everything post-Barrett is pretty wretched.

I agree. I think Animals is a pretty good album, though.

Also:

Pere Ubu, most everything post-Dub Housing
Brian Eno, everything post-Before and After Science
The Kinks, after Muswell Hillbillies
Title: Re: They WERE good, but...
Post by: erika on January 02, 2010, 09:15:46 PM
How can you not like Meddle?? I am disowning this thread. It WAS good, but...
Title: Re: They WERE good, but...
Post by: NJL on January 02, 2010, 09:52:47 PM
The Kinks, after before Muswell Hillbillies


Edit: Oh wait, are you saying that the stuff after Muswell Hillbillies is bad, if so I agree with you.
Title: Re: They WERE good, but...
Post by: masterofsparks on January 02, 2010, 09:58:42 PM
The Pink Floyd.   Even though I've slightly warmed to some prog rock, I still think everything post-Barrett The Wall is pretty wretched.
Title: Re: They WERE good, but...
Post by: harris on January 02, 2010, 10:03:24 PM
The Pink Floyd.   Even though I've slightly warmed to some prog rock, I still think everything post-Barrett The Wall is pretty wretched.
Title: Re: They WERE good, but...
Post by: dave from knoxville on January 02, 2010, 10:06:38 PM
Queen's first three albums are 6000 miles ahead of everything else that followed.

Title: Re: They WERE good, but...
Post by: Christina on January 02, 2010, 10:38:56 PM
There's this band called the Rolling Stones.


'Kay, just as an academic exercise, where do you put the good/bad line? An album?

I tend to group the Stones output by guitarist, so there's Brian Jones era, Mick Taylor era, etc etc.
Title: Re: They WERE good, but...
Post by: Christina on January 02, 2010, 10:40:06 PM

Butthole Surfers.


Buh, I hate to admit this or see it typed out like this but you're right.
Title: Re: They WERE good, but...
Post by: Christina on January 02, 2010, 10:41:45 PM
I would also add most of the Seattle "grunge" "bands".
Title: Re: They WERE good, but...
Post by: harris on January 02, 2010, 10:49:42 PM
There's this band called the Rolling Stones.


'Kay, just as an academic exercise, where do you put the good/bad line? An album?

I tend to group the Stones output by guitarist, so there's Brian Jones era, Mick Taylor era, etc etc.

I'd say stop after Goats Head Soup.
Title: Re: They WERE good, but...
Post by: Christina on January 02, 2010, 10:52:46 PM

I'd say stop after Goats Head Soup.

Yabbut the first handful of Ron Wood era albums aren't too shabby. Black and Blue, Some Girls (a fave), Emotional Rescue ... I even like Tattoo You still cause it was the new album when I figured out who the Stones were.

Title: Re: They WERE good, but...
Post by: buffcoat on January 02, 2010, 11:00:29 PM
My long-awaited thoughts on Pink Floyd.  I think the Syd Barrett stuff is overrated in general.  Some great stuff but some awful stuff as well.  

Atom Heart Mother and the non-live stuff on Ummagumma are terrible.  Terr...ibul.

More is ok, I actually like a lot of the stuff on Obscured by Clouds, but they get pretty cool with Meddle.  I like the over-the-top self-indulgent prog stuff, which is basically Wish You Were Here, Animals and the Wall.  Then the Final Cut sort of becomes Roger Waters as Adult Contemporary.

One of the things I've thought about in the last year is a reassessment of A Momentary Lapse of Reason.  I think it's a really good record, it's just not the same as Roger Waters-era Pink Floyd.

Unfortunately, Dave Gilmour and Bob Ezrin (of Destroyer fame - not the Kinks one) only had one album in them, because The Division Bell is by far the worst Pink Floyd record.




EDIT: I was trying to remember which one I left out.  I think it was a minor Floyd record called The Dark Side of the Moon
Title: Re: They WERE good, but...
Post by: nec13 on January 02, 2010, 11:12:36 PM
I think there's a thread on a certain 70s band along these lines.

Does the band name begin with the letter K, by chance?
Title: Re: They WERE good, but...
Post by: Christina on January 02, 2010, 11:13:57 PM
My long-awaited thoughts on Pink Floyd.  

More is ok, I actually like a lot of the stuff on Obscured by Clouds, but they get pretty cool with Meddle.  I like the over-the-top self-indulgent prog stuff, which is basically Wish You Were Here, Animals and the Wall.  Then the Final Cut sort of becomes Roger Waters as Adult Contemporary.

One of the things I've thought about in the last year is a reassessment of A Momentary Lapse of Reason.  I think it's a really good record, it's just not the same as Roger Waters-era Pink Floyd.


I think Final Cut and Momentary Lapse are kinda Waters' and Gilmour solo albums, one after the other, even though they're filed under "P".

I have no use/need for Wish You Were Here and The Wall, but I always always always have a copy of Animals. The early stuff post Barrett is uneven; I like some of it and currently have a copy of Meddle. Not gonna go out of my way to get the others, probably, unless I find one in a used record store for cheaps.
Title: Re: They WERE good, but...
Post by: buffcoat on January 02, 2010, 11:16:49 PM
I think there's a thread on a certain 70s band along these lines.

Does the band name begin with the letter K, by chance?


If you mean Greg Kihn, then yes.
Title: Re: They WERE good, but...
Post by: thom on January 02, 2010, 11:21:37 PM
I do not wish to "derail" this thread as they say, but it's much easier with directors:

Scorsese.

See?
Title: Re: They WERE good, but...
Post by: harris on January 02, 2010, 11:29:18 PM
I do not wish to "derail" this thread as they say, but it's much easier with directors:

Scorsese.

See?

Definitely qualifies as subtopic, thanks thom.

He got it at Taxi Driver and lost it after Casino.

Tim Burton?
Title: Re: They WERE good, but...
Post by: yesno on January 02, 2010, 11:31:25 PM
I agree that the Syd Barrett Pink Floyd stuff is uneven.  But I cannot agree that Syd Barrett's solo work or career in general is overrated.  Even after years of rock critic adulation, I think those few songs are still underrated.  I will give Meddle a chance.

The turning point with the Stones is Exile on Main Street.  Goat's Head was good but they were clearly on a downward trajectory.  There are flashes of greatness after, of course.

Deep Purple is another 70s band that went downhill.  Probably because of the influence of posters in this thread, I got into them in the last few years.  It is unbelievable how good In Rock through Machine Head are.  Perhaps buffcoat would like to come in and defend Perfect Strangers but I don't think there's much controversy on this one.  (Or the Monkees.)
Title: Re: They WERE good, but...
Post by: masterofsparks on January 02, 2010, 11:41:51 PM
I agree that the Syd Barrett Pink Floyd stuff is uneven.  But I cannot agree that Syd Barrett's solo work or career in general is overrated.  Even after years of rock critic adulation, I think those few songs are still underrated.  I will give Meddle a chance.

The turning point with the Stones is Exile on Main Street.  Goat's Head was good but they were clearly on a downward trajectory.  There are flashes of greatness after, of course.

Deep Purple is another 70s band that went downhill.  Probably because of the influence of posters in this thread, I got into them in the last few years.  It is unbelievable how good In Rock through Machine Head are.  Perhaps buffcoat would like to come in and defend Perfect Strangers but I don't think there's much controversy on this one.  (Or the Monkees.)

I like the same Deep Purple stuff you mention though I'd go further than Machine Head - I also think Who Do We Think We Are and even Burn (the first DP album with David Coverdale singing) are strong. In Rock is my favorite.

As for Pink Floyd, Meddle is great, though I think the best work they did is the Live at Pompeii DVD (the audio of which does not exist on a legitimate CD, for some reason). If you get a chance, watch that movie (if you're unaware, it's a concert film of the circa-Dark Side lineup setting up and playing among the Pompeii ruins). It's fairly mindblowing stuff.

I will also add Joe Walsh to this list. His work on the first three James Gang LPs (and even the first Barnstorm) is terrific, but once he did stuff like go solo and join the Eagles, things got bad for those unfortunate enough to be around when his stuff was playing.
Title: Re: They WERE good, but...
Post by: yesno on January 02, 2010, 11:46:23 PM
The decent new Flaming Lips album may put them into that category, as well. (I didn't care for The Soft Bulletin and its successors but I love their more rocking stuff.)


I think they were great and are now too over the top. It's like every song on the new record had to be this loud boisterous mess. (And not the 'good' loud)

You've got to put your cards on the table with this band.  I think their best album was Clouds Taste Metallic, then the other 90s albums, then the new one, then the 2000s albums (Soft Bulletin counts as one of these), then the 80s albums.  I think their experiments with electronic sounds make them sound bad, not because I don't like electronic music (I love it), but because they're not good at it.  They remind me of Perry Farrell's jungle album.
Title: Re: They WERE good, but...
Post by: masterofsparks on January 02, 2010, 11:49:46 PM
One more I thought of is Little Feat. Most of their stuff is unspeakably awful, but their debut album is a lost classic in the vein of Mick Taylor Stones/Flying Burrito Brothers bluesy/slidey country rock, and their second album, while a step down, features one of the greatest songs ever written, Willin'. After that, you can pretty much forget it. That debut is really something special though.
Title: Re: They WERE good, but...
Post by: dave from knoxville on January 03, 2010, 12:35:50 AM
I do not wish to "derail" this thread as they say, but it's much easier with directors:

Scorsese.

See?

Definitely qualifies as subtopic, thanks thom.

He got it at Taxi Driver and lost it after Casino.

Tim Burton?

I am working on best directors of the oughties; so far Tim Burton is #1 (I am going alphabetically).
Title: Re: They WERE good, but...
Post by: Dan B on January 03, 2010, 12:42:08 AM
up through side 1 of My War
Title: Re: They WERE good, but...
Post by: Pat on January 03, 2010, 12:44:22 AM
up through side 1 of My War
I'm in the minority when it comes to liking the second half and a good portion of their discography after that.  :-\
Title: Re: They WERE good, but...
Post by: Christina on January 03, 2010, 09:45:00 AM

Tim Burton?

I am working on best directors of the oughties; so far Tim Burton is #1 (I am going alphabetically).

I generally don't like his movies 'cause I cannot stand that twee horror shit, but looking on the IMDB, I did like a few of his movies more than I expected to, like Sleepy Hollow. I don't remember it very well but I remember being amused at what a coward Johnny Depp was. Also really dug Mars Attacks and Ed Wood. And Pee Wee of course.
Title: Re: They WERE good, but...
Post by: erika on January 03, 2010, 11:41:42 AM
Beetlejuice!!

But yes, he definitely falls into that category.
Title: Re: They WERE good, but...
Post by: Christina on January 03, 2010, 11:43:17 AM
Beetlejuice!!

But yes, he definitely falls into that category.

Yeah, forgot that one too! It's weird how his stinky movies have sorta obliterated the good ones.
Title: Re: They WERE good, but...
Post by: NJL on January 03, 2010, 02:48:35 PM
I am working on best directors of the oughties; so far Tim Burton is #1 (I am going alphabetically).

No P.T. Anderson?  Others might suggest Wes Anderson or Darron Aronofsky or something, I don't know.
Title: Re: They WERE good, but...
Post by: cutout on January 03, 2010, 03:05:17 PM
Then there's Chris Cornell. Was he ever good? My brief teenage like of Soungarden is not to be trusted.
Title: Re: They WERE good, but...
Post by: masterofsparks on January 03, 2010, 03:50:05 PM
I like almost everything Soundgarden did, but I'd suspect I'm in the minority here.
Title: Re: They WERE good, but...
Post by: dave from knoxville on January 03, 2010, 04:22:24 PM
I am working on best directors of the oughties; so far Tim Burton is #1 (I am going alphabetically).

No P.T. Anderson?  Others might suggest Wes Anderson or Darron Aronofsky or something, I don't know.

Here's where I stand at the moment. Flame on!

1) Tim Burton
2) Danny Boyle
3) Brad Bird
4) Pedro Almodovar
5) Darren Aronofsky
6) Wes Anderson
7) Robert Altman
8) Steve Buscemi!!!
9) Andrew Adamson
10) PT Anderson
Title: Re: They WERE good, but...
Post by: thom on January 03, 2010, 04:47:09 PM
Here's where I stand at the moment. Flame on!

1) Tim Burton
2) Danny Boyle
3) Brad Bird
4) Pedro Almodovar
5) Darren Aronofsky
6) Wes Anderson
7) Robert Altman
8) Steve Buscemi!!!
9) Andrew Adamson
10) PT Anderson
I can't wait til you get to the C's.
Title: Re: They WERE good, but...
Post by: buffcoat on January 03, 2010, 05:44:42 PM
Sorry guys, but "Machine Head" is a song by the group Bush. 


And now, for the second straight post, I've mentioned a member of the Rossdale-Stefani family.  Best Show Coincidence.
Title: Re: They WERE good, but...
Post by: dave from knoxville on January 03, 2010, 05:52:00 PM
Here's where I stand at the moment. Flame on!

1) Tim Burton
2) Danny Boyle
3) Brad Bird
4) Pedro Almodovar
5) Darren Aronofsky
6) Wes Anderson
7) Robert Altman
8) Steve Buscemi!!!
9) Andrew Adamson
10) PT Anderson
I can't wait til you get to the C's.

2017
Title: Re: They WERE good, but...
Post by: Andy on January 03, 2010, 06:50:19 PM
loved hugman 1.0
hate hugman 2.0
Title: Re: They WERE good, but...
Post by: Steve of Bloomington on January 03, 2010, 07:12:15 PM

µ-ziq.  I know there are not too many techno fans on this board, but Tango 'n' Vectif, Bluff Limbo, The Auteurs v. µ-ziq, and Spatula Freak are just so good.  And then he went down the laptop-driven drill and bass route which ruined electronic music for a decade.

I really liked 'Lunatic Harness' and 'Royal Astronomy' even more so. Royal Astronomy was rather accessible and not drilly at all, I thought (although that track Mentim almost makes me physically ill. Other than that, one of my favorites).
Title: Re: They WERE good, but...
Post by: Martin on January 03, 2010, 07:16:53 PM

µ-ziq.  I know there are not too many techno fans on this board, but Tango 'n' Vectif, Bluff Limbo, The Auteurs v. µ-ziq, and Spatula Freak are just so good.  And then he went down the laptop-driven drill and bass route which ruined electronic music for a decade.

I really liked 'Lunatic Harness' and 'Royal Astronomy' even more so. Royal Astronomy was rather accessible and not drilly at all, I thought (although that track Mentim almost makes me physically ill. Other than that, one of my favorites).

I recently got the µ-ziq vs Auteurs album on vinyl. Very pleased with that purchase. Floor filler!
Title: Re: They WERE good, but...
Post by: AaronC on January 03, 2010, 08:02:31 PM
Ramones and hundreds of other bands/artists. 

I think the challenge is finding a band/artist that was GOOD then BAD then GOOD again.  Johnny Cash?
Title: Re: They WERE good, but...
Post by: JonFromMaplewood on January 04, 2010, 02:44:38 PM

I think the challenge is finding a band/artist that was GOOD then BAD then GOOD again.  Johnny Cash?

Talking Heads put out "True Stories" which sucks by any standard imaginable (may have been "on purpose" in some way but I still find no excuse for it). Then they came back with "Naked" which is a lovely album.

Neil Young falls into this camp as well.

Mountain Goats: Not a fan of their first two 4AD releases, Tallahassee and We Shall All Be Healed. But the stuff before and after is amazing.
Title: Re: They WERE good, but...
Post by: Steve of Bloomington on January 04, 2010, 02:45:26 PM
I liked the early Super Furry Animals, but around Love Kraft my interest began to die off.
Title: Re: They WERE good, but...
Post by: jbissell on January 04, 2010, 03:08:43 PM
Mountain Goats: Not a fan of their first two 4AD releases, Tallahassee and We Shall All Be Healed. But the stuff before and after is amazing.

Tallahassee is great.
Title: Re: They WERE good, but...
Post by: nec13 on January 04, 2010, 10:41:50 PM
I think the challenge is finding a band/artist that was GOOD then BAD then GOOD again.  Johnny Cash?

Bob Dylan is the only artist I can think of, off hand.
Title: Re: They WERE good, but...
Post by: samir on January 04, 2010, 10:54:38 PM
I liked the early Super Furry Animals, but around Love Kraft my interest began to die off.

You lasted longer than I did.
Title: Re: They WERE good, but...
Post by: JonFromMaplewood on January 05, 2010, 01:22:48 PM
Mountain Goats: Not a fan of their first two 4AD releases, Tallahassee and We Shall All Be Healed. But the stuff before and after is amazing.

Tallahassee is great.

I guess.  Maybe I was just put off by the initial switch to hi-fi and needed some time to warm to it.
Title: Re: They WERE good, but...
Post by: jbissell on January 05, 2010, 01:59:26 PM
Mountain Goats: Not a fan of their first two 4AD releases, Tallahassee and We Shall All Be Healed. But the stuff before and after is amazing.

Tallahassee is great.

I guess.  Maybe I was just put off by the initial switch to hi-fi and needed some time to warm to it.

From everything I've read, I'm probably in the minority on really liking it and a lot of that has to do with hearing certain songs from it live, not necessarily the record itself.  Seems like most people warmed up to the switch around [i[The Sunset Tree[/i].
Title: Re: They WERE good, but...
Post by: Steve of Bloomington on January 05, 2010, 04:13:48 PM
I liked the early Super Furry Animals, but around Love Kraft my interest began to die off.

You lasted longer than I did.

Phantom Power was a really great album, I thought. Where was your jumping off point?
Title: Re: They WERE good, but...
Post by: yesno on January 17, 2010, 12:31:58 PM
Ok. Meddle is really good.  Fearless is a pretty great song.
Title: Re: They WERE good, but...
Post by: Ike on January 17, 2010, 12:51:37 PM
I like almost everything Soundgarden did, but I'd suspect I'm in the minority here.

I am 100% with you ont his one.  I loved this band. 

Absoutely no idea why, as on paper this should be my least favorite band of all time.  But there you have it. 

I would vote for Pavement.  They were great, then they turned to a turd. 

Here's a super, super unpopular opinion:  I really thought Yo La Tengo lost it with Summer Sun.  I just did not like that album, at all. 


THEN the last two records, which I didn't rush out and buy the day they were released, blew my mind again. 

So they're excluded from the list. 

TRAGICALLY HIP is my answer here.