|
Post by anarkissed on Mar 2, 2011 9:41:23 GMT -5
When is the right time for a band to break up? Which bands broke up before having a chance to really realize their potential, and which ones stayed together only to tarnish their reputation? How many quit at just the right time? Did the Replacements stay together too long? I was a post-Bob fan, but I know there are those who argue they should have quit instead of carrying on without him...I can also imagine some positing that they'd have maintained a kind of cooler cult feel if they'd broken up after LIB,and never went through the major label period. I'd have to argue against that, because whatever you think of Bob, or major labels, or the production values, the songs on Tim and PTMM are clearly among the best Paul has ever written. I actually liked both DTAS and ASD, but I would have been comfortable with hearing those songs as PW solo work.
As for those who got it right: I think the Sex Pistols were dead on...A few incendiary singles, one great album, and a shambolic tour that imploded before it was supposed to...That's punk rock...The New York Dolls almost right, if they hadn't done that Malcolm McClaren thing...I think Cream quit at the right time.
I wish Led Zeppelin had broken up after Presence, because In Through The Out Door was just a really down way to go out...Though I suppose it's feasible that if Bonham had sobered up, Page had gotten clean, and Plant found a way to sing effectively in a lower register, they might have been able to reinvent themselves later on. I guess most everybody thinks the Stones and the Who should have quit a couple of decades ago. I used to think that R.E.M. should have retired when Bill Berry did, and for a while I thought I was right, but I've become more comfortable with their latter day career. I kinda felt like The Ramones made more albums than they should have.
Oddly, one band I've always wished had stayed together longer was the Beatles...McCartney, Lennon, and Harrison still seemed to be writing pretty well (Yeah, I know, you can cite a slew of crappy Wings songs that prove Paul was slipping...) and I've always thought that what they really should have done was just take a couple of years off to make their solo albums and get out of each other's hair for a while. Plus, I think they missed the chance to take advantage of the gigantic advances that were beginning to be made in sound technology and see what it was like to play live over decent P.A.'s and actually be able to hear yourself...
|
|
|
Post by brianlux on Mar 2, 2011 12:28:39 GMT -5
Good question and comments, anarkissed. It's difficult for us as music fans to separate our external wishes and opinions from the reality inside a band such that a band members perspective and ours probably differs quite a bit much of the time. If a band seems to have passed its zenith and stays together anyway, what is their motive- nostalgia, need for continued income, greed, dedication to fans, contract obligations, just pure ego or any combination of these factors? Personally, I'm all in favor of a band sticking together if they sound like they're still having fun doing it and trying to come up with fresh ideas. Your comments on REM fit that well. As for The Replacements, to me they stuck around just about the right amount of time. It seems inevitable that Paul was going to move into a solo career anyway and the transitions seemed about right. But with any band, of course, the bottom line is that it will be what it will be.
|
|
|
Post by willr on Mar 2, 2011 14:44:22 GMT -5
Bad Religion should have thown in the towel awhile ago. The Grey Race was really good but that was really the only decent thing they have put out since Brett left, even with his return its still meh.
I think the Replacements did it right, end when you know its coming apart at the seems. The pixies fit this too, Frank's first few solo albums still had the Pixies thing going, but i dont think it would have been the pixies without kim and those two werent getting along. so instead of a kimless pixies, just go solo.
Still on Frank Black i always thought his work with the Catholics was his best, and dont understand why he dropped them. He's done more alternative stuff since then, but i really think he hit something special with the Catholics and trying to recapture the pixies days doesnt do much for me.
|
|
|
Post by Philip Garcia on Mar 2, 2011 20:13:54 GMT -5
I don't really think it's up to the fans to have a say in when a band should break up. Let them continue doing what they're doing. I think Dave Pirner once said something along the lines of "Soul Asylum will break up once it stops being fun". He went on to say that there was a period of a few years in the late 90s early 00s where it wasn't as much fun, and the band was sort of on hiatus during that time. As long as the band likes what they're doing, let them keep it up. It might tarnish their legacy or whatever, but it's their choice. If you don't like it, stop buying their albums and stop going to their shows.
Phil
|
|
|
Post by anarkissed on Mar 3, 2011 0:38:48 GMT -5
>>I don't really think it's up to the fans to have a say in when a band should break up.<< No, I want complete control over every aspect of their career, and, what the hell, their personal lives as well...I want to be able to move them around like little game pieces on my personal Game of Life board...
|
|
Squaw
Star Scout
You're the only one that you are screwin' when you put down what you don't understand~ Kristofferson
Posts: 544
|
Post by Squaw on Mar 3, 2011 1:15:05 GMT -5
>>I don't really think it's up to the fans to have a say in when a band should break up.<< No, I want complete control over every aspect of their career, and, what the hell, their personal lives as well...I want to be able to move them around like little game pieces on my personal Game of Life board... anarkissed, you're one hell of a guy! Best post in a long long time.
|
|
|
Post by Philip Garcia on Mar 3, 2011 2:47:40 GMT -5
>>I don't really think it's up to the fans to have a say in when a band should break up.<< No, I want complete control over every aspect of their career, and, what the hell, their personal lives as well...I want to be able to move them around like little game pieces on my personal Game of Life board... God, this post would go great on the jayhawks fan page... We have one guy over there...... Phil
|
|
|
Post by dee on Mar 3, 2011 5:36:31 GMT -5
I'm just coming to terms with the fact that nothing lasts forever,but I wish all the bands I like would never break up.I'd say ten years is a good run though.Dinosaur Jr. is a great success story to me.They just are what they are and I really like that.I'm not usually a new release album buyer,but lately I have been.I think I'm ready for something of the moment to blow me away.Seeing GBV was amazing last year.I sort of miss magazine interviews and posters and videos and release dates.There is something about the internet that takes the fresh air out of being a music fan.It's sort of my fault,but there is alot less music in music stores these days.Whaat was the question?
|
|
|
Post by brianlux on Mar 3, 2011 10:37:11 GMT -5
I'm just coming to terms with the fact that nothing lasts forever,but I wish all the bands I like would never break up.I'd say ten years is a good run though.Dinosaur Jr. is a great success story to me.They just are what they are and I really like that.I'm not usually a new release album buyer,but lately I have been.I think I'm ready for something of the moment to blow me away.Seeing GBV was amazing last year.I sort of miss magazine interviews and posters and videos and release dates.There is something about the internet that takes the fresh air out of being a music fan.It's sort of my fault,but there is alot less music in music stores these days.Whaat was the question? Yes, dee, less music and fewer music stores. The nearest music store to where I live is 27 miles away. I find that very frustrating.
|
|
|
Post by Philip Garcia on Mar 3, 2011 21:17:31 GMT -5
I'm just coming to terms with the fact that nothing lasts forever,but I wish all the bands I like would never break up. I think this post took on a new meaning reading it while listening to Bruce's Atlantic City... Perfect timing I suppose. "Everything dies, baby that's a fact, maybe everything that dies someday comes back" Phil
|
|
|
Post by dee on Mar 4, 2011 12:39:10 GMT -5
Is a band really the same band after like seven years? Don't all the cells in the body die and regenerate so that people really aren't the same physical beings that they were?Could this have an effect?Could it alter chemistry? Really how far fetched do you think that theory is?Reason for breakup...Irreconcilable synapses!
|
|
daveb
First Class Scout
Posts: 136
|
Post by daveb on Mar 4, 2011 14:16:12 GMT -5
I think just about every band stays together too long. The creative process is usually undone by having one dominant leader who runs out of enthusiasm for working in an overly familiar format (Townshend, and yes, Westerberg), or a collaborative effort that splinters because of personalities (Jagger/Richards).
And also, there are just so many great musical ideas that any person or finite group of people can execute. REM gave us at least 8 or 9 albums of brilliance. The Replacements from Hootenany through Pleased To Meet Me were untouchable. Shouldn't that be enough? I'm happy when I hear a new REM song I like, but I'm ok when I'm not bowled over by a complete album of there's anymore. They've given the world so much already.
I think it's easier for a solo artist to stay current and reinvent themself. Neil Young, Elvis Costello, Springsteen, Dylan, Prince have all had extended periods of amazingly diverse and high standard creativity. But even they have had creative peaks and valleys, and in the case of Dylan, it's been years since he's been revelent musically. But his past accomplishments have earned him the right to do whatever he damn pleases, whether it connects with others or not.
|
|
|
Post by raccoon on Mar 4, 2011 15:12:21 GMT -5
Broke up too soon : Velvet Underground The Eagles (though many will say they should have never formed ! ) The Dead Boys The Mats Soundgarden Led Zeppelin
Didn't (or haven't) broken up soon enough: Lynyrd Skynyrd Motley Crue Social Distortion Pearl Jam Metallica Guns n' Roses (we need this to happen soon for obvious reasons) Justin Bieber !!
|
|
|
Post by willr on Mar 4, 2011 17:42:26 GMT -5
Didn't (or haven't) broken up soon enough: Pearl Jam I need to hear your reasons for PJ, since they are probably my favorite band I'd be interested to hear why...
|
|
|
Post by brianlux on Mar 4, 2011 19:32:40 GMT -5
Didn't (or haven't) broken up soon enough: Pearl Jam I need to hear your reasons for PJ, since they are probably my favorite band I'd be interested to hear why... I'm curious as well. Eddie Vedder once said of Pearl Jam: "You know, people say it's like a marriage, but it's not, I don't think we are married. I think we come back because we want to and... um... and we can go other places if we want. Someone could walk in and say, 'Look, I'm going to take a year off' and what would we do?" 3/4/11 Also new from P.J. Jeff Ament's trio, Tres Mts. www.spin.com/articles/exclusive-pearl-jams-ament-debuts-tres-mtsThat ability to remain flexible and the fact that the various members have other side projects including Brad and solo touring probably has done a lot to keep this band coming back. Personally, I hope Pearl Jam never breaks up but if they do I'm guessing it will be for the right reasons. Besides, as long as the energy is still there and people are loving it (I know I do), why should they break up?
|
|
|
Post by anarkissed on Mar 4, 2011 20:58:18 GMT -5
I think just about every band stays together too long. The creative process is usually undone by having one dominant leader who runs out of enthusiasm for working in an overly familiar format (Townshend, and yes, Westerberg), or a collaborative effort that splinters because of personalities (Jagger/Richards). And also, there are just so many great musical ideas that any person or finite group of people can execute. REM gave us at least 8 or 9 albums of brilliance. The Replacements from Hootenany through Pleased To Meet Me were untouchable. Shouldn't that be enough? I'm happy when I hear a new REM song I like, but I'm ok when I'm not bowled over by a complete album of there's anymore. They've given the world so much already. I think it's easier for a solo artist to stay current and reinvent themself. Neil Young, Elvis Costello, Springsteen, Dylan, Prince have all had extended periods of amazingly diverse and high standard creativity. But even they have had creative peaks and valleys, and in the case of Dylan, it's been years since he's been revelent musically. But his past accomplishments have earned him the right to do whatever he damn pleases, whether it connects with others or not. I think these observations are right on the money. The Westerberg/Townshend case: Yeah, this seems to be where one person, usually the front man and/or principal songwriter, has been responsible for most of the sound and/or look of a successful band...The rest of the band is sort of like "Why don't you just do what you've always done?" and the principal is like "Because I'm tired of it..." As for those bands that break up due to personality conflicts or the old standby "creative differences", I'm often irritated by those, because they usually go onto separate careers that are obviously not as artistically interesting as their collaborative efforts. (Beatles, anyone?) And certainly any artist, solo or band, can realistically be expected to have only a limited peak creative period. And I don't mind if they continue to work after that. I would never expect to feel that same mind-blowing excitement I experienced during R.E.M.'s 80's run, for example, but they continually surprise me by doing things I'm still interested in...
|
|
|
Post by dee on Mar 5, 2011 0:56:29 GMT -5
Dylan has been creating at a pretty high level.I wouldn't say he is irrelevent.His albums still chart pretty well I think.
It's all about narrative.If you can hold onto it,you can last.
|
|
|
Post by brianlux on Mar 5, 2011 1:14:03 GMT -5
Dylan has been creating at a pretty high level.I wouldn't say he is irrelevent.His albums still chart pretty well I think. It's all about narrative.If you can hold onto it,you can last. Yes, well said, Dee. I think for many of us, Dylan will always be relevant.
|
|
|
Post by hudson99 on Mar 5, 2011 12:55:22 GMT -5
Dylan has been creating at a pretty high level.I wouldn't say he is irrelevent.His albums still chart pretty well I think. It's all about narrative.If you can hold onto it,you can last. I agree. He did have more number one albums this past decade than he did during the 60's...and his shows these days span every age group. Granted, he's lost his voice, but he's learned how to make use of that gravelly whine.
|
|
glgbill
Dances With Posts
Posts: 58
|
Post by glgbill on Mar 5, 2011 16:08:13 GMT -5
When talented artists are new their work emerges as utterly brilliant, as we have nothing to compare it to. But the more they create, they more they get compared to their own damn brilliant selves.
That's a tough load to carry. Perceived decline is inevitable.
Oh, and that aging thing too.
Plus the new cells every seven years...
|
|