Author Topic: They WERE good, but...  (Read 8487 times)

erika

  • Space Champion!
  • Posts: 2412
Re: They WERE good, but...
« Reply #15 on: January 02, 2010, 09:15:46 PM »
How can you not like Meddle?? I am disowning this thread. It WAS good, but...
from the land of pleasant living

NJL

  • Tarsel tunnel syndrome
  • Posts: 349
Re: They WERE good, but...
« Reply #16 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.

masterofsparks

  • Space Champion!
  • Posts: 3323
Re: They WERE good, but...
« Reply #17 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.
I'll probably go into the wee hours.

harris

  • Guest
Re: They WERE good, but...
« Reply #18 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.

dave from knoxville

  • Space Champion!
  • Posts: 5108
Re: They WERE good, but...
« Reply #19 on: January 02, 2010, 10:06:38 PM »
Queen's first three albums are 6000 miles ahead of everything else that followed.


Christina

  • Administrator
  • Space Champion!
  • Posts: 2387
Re: They WERE good, but...
« Reply #20 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.
Remember how he couldn't stop his leg?

Christina

  • Administrator
  • Space Champion!
  • Posts: 2387
Re: They WERE good, but...
« Reply #21 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.
Remember how he couldn't stop his leg?

Christina

  • Administrator
  • Space Champion!
  • Posts: 2387
Re: They WERE good, but...
« Reply #22 on: January 02, 2010, 10:41:45 PM »
I would also add most of the Seattle "grunge" "bands".
Remember how he couldn't stop his leg?

harris

  • Guest
Re: They WERE good, but...
« Reply #23 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.

Christina

  • Administrator
  • Space Champion!
  • Posts: 2387
Re: They WERE good, but...
« Reply #24 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.

Remember how he couldn't stop his leg?

buffcoat

  • Space Champion!
  • Posts: 6214
Re: They WERE good, but...
« Reply #25 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
I really don't appreciate your sarcastic, anti-comedy tone, Bro!

nec13

  • Space Champion!
  • Posts: 2397
Re: They WERE good, but...
« Reply #26 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?
Nobody ever lends money to a man with a sense of humor.

Christina

  • Administrator
  • Space Champion!
  • Posts: 2387
Re: They WERE good, but...
« Reply #27 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.
Remember how he couldn't stop his leg?

buffcoat

  • Space Champion!
  • Posts: 6214
Re: They WERE good, but...
« Reply #28 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.
I really don't appreciate your sarcastic, anti-comedy tone, Bro!

thom

  • Achilles bursitis
  • Posts: 238
Re: They WERE good, but...
« Reply #29 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?