|
Post by FreeRider on Oct 26, 2018 11:50:13 GMT -5
]I think of them as a three album band Tim, Pleased and Don't tell a Soul...and of the three DTAS is last...for me Paul peaked with 14 songs Interesting you mentioned peak in the other thread about DTAS. I was just thinking about Paul's peak as a songwriter. Back in September, I just saw Paul Simon on his farewell tour. He says he's giving up touring and maybe he'll still keep songwriting. But while I wasn't so keen on a lot of the work, the ones people went nuts for were his early hits. And I kinda think the same about Paul....we're crazy about the songs he wrote some 30 years ago! So the question is: Has Paul peaked for you as a songwriter? Do you think he still has one great album left in him? Or has he said it all before? Some Paul Simon interviews revealed that he kind of thinks the muse has left him, and there is not much left for him to say anymore. He still has the urge to create and make songs, but he wonders if he's not repeating himself. Is that the case with Paul Westerberg? Could he be going thru that himself? Has he peaked? Or are we not just paying much attention to what little he releases nowadays because we're comparing it to the work he did 25-30 years ago? I thought that "Hands Together" was a really interesting and moving tune, but that was basement stuff he held back for years, it wasn't anything fresh. I still think the guy is creative and enjoy his demos he's held back (the "I Don't Cares" stuff), but I dunno if he's going to have a creative period like the Holy Trinity ones. I am a believer that he has one more great album in him for the fanbase. What do you all think? Is he done? Are his best songs the 30 year old ones? Or is this the normal peaks and valley of an artist's career? Discuss.
|
|
|
Post by anarkissed on Oct 26, 2018 15:01:07 GMT -5
I think the general consensus should be that his "peak", as a songwriter, was in the period from "LIB" through "PTMM". He's a little harder to pin down like this, because of how many songs he's written, how many were thrown away, never heard, rewritten, or hung around for years before anyone else ever heard them. I suspect this is true for most songwriters, but he seems particularly prone to this point of confusion. I thought the collection of songs that made up "Mono/Stereo" was extremely strong, and would certainly mark the high point of most people's careers, if not his. And he's usually had some great moments all along the way. Are we talking just sheer volume? "From 1983-1987, he wrote a hundred brilliant songs. In the next five years, only twenty"..."Crackle and Drag" might be the best thing he's ever done. But do you give less weight to that than the 80's ones? As far as where he stands now, I've pretty much come to the conclusion that it is always a mistake to write anyone off. I lose interest in people and bands. One of the things I like about something like Spotify is it affords me the luxury of, at my leisure, just randomly skimming through the back catalogs of someone like, oh, Neil Young, for example. He puts out albums all the time. I couldn't keep up with him even if I was a hardcore fan. And there'll be a lotta of underwhelming shit in there. But, occasionally, I'll come across some song and be, like: "Holy Fuck! This is the best thing he's ever done!" I'd like to think Paul is at that stage.
|
|
|
Post by Veets on Oct 26, 2018 17:56:34 GMT -5
I think the general consensus should be that his "peak", as a songwriter, was in the period from "LIB" through "PTMM". He's a little harder to pin down like this, because of how many songs he's written, how many were thrown away, never heard, rewritten, or hung around for years before anyone else ever heard them. I suspect this is true for most songwriters, but he seems particularly prone to this point of confusion. I thought the collection of songs that made up "Mono/Stereo" was extremely strong, and would certainly mark the high point of most people's careers, if not his. And he's usually had some great moments all along the way. Are we talking just sheer volume? "From 1983-1987, he wrote a hundred brilliant songs. In the next five years, only twenty"..."Crackle and Drag" might be the best thing he's ever done. But do you give less weight to that than the 80's ones? As far as where he stands now, I've pretty much come to the conclusion that it is always a mistake to write anyone off. I lose interest in people and bands. One of the things I like about something like Spotify is it affords me the luxury of, at my leisure, just randomly skimming through the back catalogs of someone like, oh, Neil Young, for example. He puts out albums all the time. I couldn't keep up with him even if I was a hardcore fan. And there'll be a lotta of underwhelming shit in there. But, occasionally, I'll come across some song and be, like: "Holy Fuck! This is the best thing he's ever done!" I'd like to think Paul is at that stage. Wow. +1 Couldn't have said it better. I hope his peak is 2019 or later.
|
|
|
Post by curmudgeonman on Oct 26, 2018 19:28:57 GMT -5
IMO, his peak as far as SONGS, a partnership of lyrics, melody, song structure, performance, etc was at Pleased To Meet Me. The rest of his output had glimmers of good ones, but let's not kid ourselves. He is no different from the vast majority of musical artists/songwriters in rock history. Take your pick; Lennon/McCartney, Jagger/Richards. Elvis Costello, Page/Plant, Alex Chilton, Joe Jackson, Eddie Van Halen/David Lee Roth, Joni Mitchell, Bob Dylan, Rick Nielsen, Pete Townshend, Ray Davies, Neil Young, Robyn Hitchcock, REM, Donald Fagan, yada, yada, yada. Their strongest material are all in the earlier parts of their careers.
I remember watching a Dylan interview (60 Minutes) and he admitted that he could not come up with a "It's Alright Ma (I'm Only Bleeding)", no way. It was a past magic that happened then, won't happen again.
Like many things in life, youth has its advantages. More recklessness, willing to take more chances, hunger for success.
Most of the time, one has only X amount of ideas in a lifetime.
|
|
|
Post by jimmyrock on Oct 27, 2018 7:49:51 GMT -5
IMO, his peak as far as SONGS, a partnership of lyrics, melody, song structure, performance, etc was at Pleased To Meet Me. PTMM is probably my favorite Replacemnets album but I think a lot of those songs work because they were Replacements songs, if you know what I mean...like "I dont know" isnt a great song but its a great one for that band, Cant Hardly Wait and Skyway are great songs, but IOU is a great MAts songs....I still think I would take 14 songs for the best songs...maybe I am biased becasue the album just sounds so good and they have good drumemrs playing on it...
|
|
|
Post by jimmyrock on Oct 27, 2018 7:55:52 GMT -5
]I think of them as a three album band Tim, Pleased and Don't tell a Soul...and of the three DTAS is last...for me Paul peaked with 14 songs Interesting you mentioned peak in the other thread about DTAS. I was just thinking about Paul's peak as a songwriter. Back in September, I just saw Paul Simon on his farewell tour. He says he's giving up touring and maybe he'll still keep songwriting. But while I wasn't so keen on a lot of the work, the ones people went nuts for were his early hits. And I kinda think the same about Paul....we're crazy about the songs he wrote some 30 years ago! So the question is: Has Paul peaked for you as a songwriter? Do you think he still has one great album left in him? Or has he said it all before? Some Paul Simon interviews revealed that he kind of thinks the muse has left him, and there is not much left for him to say anymore. He still has the urge to create and make songs, but he wonders if he's not repeating himself. Is that the case with Paul Westerberg? Could he be going thru that himself? Has he peaked? Or are we not just paying much attention to what little he releases nowadays because we're comparing it to the work he did 25-30 years ago? I thought that "Hands Together" was a really interesting and moving tune, but that was basement stuff he held back for years, it wasn't anything fresh. I still think the guy is creative and enjoy his demos he's held back (the "I Don't Cares" stuff), but I dunno if he's going to have a creative period like the Holy Trinity ones. I am a believer that he has one more great album in him for the fanbase. What do you all think? Is he done? Are his best songs the 30 year old ones? Or is this the normal peaks and valley of an artist's career? Discuss. I think its poossible he could make another great album but it seems just so unlikely given what he has actually done...if you were to graph all the albums, band and solo, for qaulity of songs (or recording) it would look very close to a bell curve.
|
|
|
Post by jimmyrock on Oct 27, 2018 8:00:03 GMT -5
I thought the collection of songs that made up "Mono/Stereo" was extremely strong, For me Mono had a lot of good songs, Stereo not so much.
|
|
|
Post by jimmyrock on Oct 27, 2018 8:01:02 GMT -5
I'll come across some song and be, like: "Holy Fuck! This is the best thing he's ever done!" I'd like to think Paul is at that stage. right on! now if he would just give a shit enough to do that I would be happy!
|
|
|
Post by raccoon on Oct 27, 2018 8:32:05 GMT -5
IMO, his peak as far as SONGS, a partnership of lyrics, melody, song structure, performance, etc was at Pleased To Meet Me. The rest of his output had glimmers of good ones, but let's not kid ourselves. He is no different from the vast majority of musical artists/songwriters in rock history. Take your pick; Lennon/McCartney, Jagger/Richards. Elvis Costello, Page/Plant, Alex Chilton, Joe Jackson, Eddie Van Halen/David Lee Roth, Joni Mitchell, Bob Dylan, Rick Nielsen, Pete Townshend, Ray Davies, Neil Young, Robyn Hitchcock, REM, Donald Fagan, yada, yada, yada. Their strongest material are all in the earlier parts of their careers. Most of the basic material a writer works with is acquired before the age of fifteen. – Willa Cather A wounded deer leaps the highest. – Emily Dickinson Great thread! I am always fascinated by the writing process. It does seem like the first works of writers are their best. In most cases, at least. Why is this? I think the 'wounded deer' quote above has something to do with it. When we are young, most of us feel a little damaged and wounded. This grows into angst. This can yield some heartfelt writing. At 25 that stuff is still fresh. At 50? Not so much. Not hungry anymore. Weathered divorces perhaps. Sober and fairly healthy. Not really afraid of anything or even mad. Doesn't leave much to write about. Having said all of that...I DO believe that Paul still has plenty of gas left in the tank. The man is a born poet and writer. (I'd love to see him write a book.) There have been plenty exceptions to the 'early stuff' is best rule. Dylan produced 'Blood on the Tracks' long after his previous masterpieces and then much later he blew us away with 'Time out of Mind.' Hemingway gave us 'The Old Man and the Sea' towards the end of his writing career. The Stones? Their best work was certainly not their earliest. They have had many peaks and valleys. Edgar Allan Poe's last published poem was 'Annabel Lee'.
|
|
|
Post by curmudgeonman on Oct 27, 2018 11:31:29 GMT -5
Great thread! I am always fascinated by the writing process. It does seem like the first works of writers are their best. In most cases, at least. Why is this? I think the 'wounded deer' quote above has something to do with it. When we are young, most of us feel a little damaged and wounded. This grows into angst. This can yield some heartfelt writing. At 25 that stuff is still fresh. At 50? Not so much. Not hungry anymore. Weathered divorces perhaps. Sober and fairly healthy. Not really afraid of anything or even mad. Doesn't leave much to write about. Having said all of that...I DO believe that Paul still has plenty of gas left in the tank. The man is a born poet and writer. (I'd love to see him write a book.) There have been plenty exceptions to the 'early stuff' is best rule. Dylan produced 'Blood on the Tracks' long after his previous masterpieces and then much later he blew us away with 'Time out of Mind.' Hemingway gave us 'The Old Man and the Sea' towards the end of his writing career. The Stones? Their best work was certainly not their earliest. They have had many peaks and valleys. Edgar Allan Poe's last published poem was 'Annabel Lee'. I agree, excellent thread. Because it goes beyond just Westerberg, but touches on the subject on how long top end creativity in rock n roll can last. Bob Dylan was in his 30s when he made Blood on the Tracks. Westerberg is the same age as I, almost 60 yo. Also Time Out of Mind was good, but IMO, not nearly as good as Blood on the Tracks. I earlier referenced a 60 minutes Dylan interview when he was in his mid 60s. He speaks very frankly of his early songwriting. www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WENXCJqpDkI agree, like the Mats, The Stone's early albums took a backseat to their stuff a few years later, starting with Beggars Banquet, then Let it Bleed, Sticky Fingers, and Exile. Also reminds me of an interview with one of the guys in Guns N Roses, stating that the Stones should have been in a plane crash after Some Girls, IMO the last great album from them. For me personally, I highly doubt that Westerberg can come up with an album that can match his earlier output. I think the words and melodies might still be there, but I personally need to see them in songs that are not home made hobby tapes. IMO, he really needs a great producer to keep him focused and to wring out the best in him, something he will likely never do again. Interestingly, Tommy, Bob, and Chris were kind of like producers, in that they kept him within limits, telling him this was shit, that was crap, or this is not rockin' enough. Often, great art needs borders and limitations. Sometimes having limitless artistic freedom and resources does not equal great art or music.
|
|
|
Post by Veets on Oct 27, 2018 11:41:26 GMT -5
Great point about Tommy. IMO, his latest album could be his best. It's a close call with Friday Night... Maybe Tommy has more angst than Paul currently
|
|
|
Post by jimmyrock on Oct 27, 2018 12:33:19 GMT -5
. For me personally, I highly doubt that Westerberg can come up with an album that can match his earlier output. I think the words and melodies might still be there, but I personally need to see them in songs that are not home made hobby tapes. IMO, he really needs a great producer to keep him focused and to wring out the best in him yes, amen to a producer.
|
|
Jer
Beagle Scout
Posts: 1,182
|
Post by Jer on Oct 27, 2018 18:26:46 GMT -5
I think a lot of this talk about the earliest stuff being the best isn't really accurate in most cases. There's usually the early stuff that's got the advantage of spirit because the songwriter and the band are hungry and young, but the songwriting just hasn't matured usually. Then there's the later stuff that's often a little tired, because they're bored and frustrated with each other. The sweet spot is the middle stuff because they've learned how to play together and feed off their strengths, the songwriter is writing for the band, and they're usually as united as they'll ever be on all those levels. It might lack a bit of the mustard that the early stuff had, and they're probably better musicians on those later albums, but it's got the most going for it.
This holds true for The Replacements just as it did for The Stones, The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, The Who, and so many other bands. Let It Be > PTMM were the peak, just like Rubber Soul > Sgt Pepper, Let It Bleed > Exile On Main Street, Zen Arcade > Flip Your Wig, etc etc. It's not always the case, and you might like Abbey Road more than Revolver, but I find that arc is pretty consistent. Even current bands like DBT and The Hold Steady are struggling to keep the magic that they had on their 3rd, 4th, 5th records. Not that they suck now, or there's not good stuff coming out, but it's not quite at the level it was before.
For my money, Paul was at his songwriting peak with Tim, even though I think LIB was their high point as a band. The songs on Tim were so honest and even the silly stuff had real merit. After Tim, he started to do things that I felt were pandering to his bandmates and the fans. Songs like I Don't Know, I Won't, Someone Take The Wheel, they all just felt like he was trying to keep the spirit alive rather than just take the music where he really wanted it to go, which was songs more like Achin' To Be, Nobody, One Wink at a Time. I wasn't thrilled with the mellower stuff back then, but looking at it over time it just feels so much more natural and convincing, and less forced than the "we're a rowdy, drunk band" songs.
I think that trend continued into his solo career, and to me, Eventually felt the most natural of all that stuff. 14 Songs had it's moments, but the songs to me felt mostly like he was working too hard to make it be something special. Eventually feels lazy at times, but it just feels to me like he made the album he wanted to make for the most part. It feels finished and comfortable. By the time Suicaine came out, I found myself cringing at over half of it, though there are a couple tunes on that that I think were his best post-Replacements work. We've had that argument on other threads, but as a songwriter, I think a lot of that record was his low peak, some really terrible, cliche, self-indulgent lyrics and music. Stereo and Mono were cool, some great stuff, and certainly better songs than most of Suicaine, but those songs weren't finished for the most part. You may like them for that reason, and there's something to be said for that approach, but a songwriter the caliber of Paul is wasting his gift if his delivery method is to edit nothing and throw it out there before it's been worked up to it's potential. It's like looking at a sketch that Rembrandt did before a painting - it's cool, and it's fun, but that painting is what gives you that emotional reaction. We haven't had that from Paul since Open Season or the two Glen Campbell songs, where he's had the courage/ability/interest/motivation to be the great songwriter that he's capable of and really work to craft good stuff beyond the first take.
|
|
|
Post by anarkissed on Oct 27, 2018 19:10:17 GMT -5
The earlier work being better than later...I think there may be something there similar to how many bands have a great first album, and a not as good second album. On the first album, they've carefully chosen their very best from among whatever they've accumulated to that point, maybe over several years. Then, they might spend a year making the second one, forcing songs to meet a deadline, or using things that didn't make the cut the first time around.
|
|
|
Post by 405z06 on Oct 27, 2018 20:18:57 GMT -5
The only songwriter that I personally love who didn't peak in their mid-20's- IMO - is Stephen Malkmus. His post-Pavement work kept getting better and better until a few years ago, and a lot of that had to do with his growth as a ridiculous guitarist. J Mascis has also remained a really strong songwriter, not far off his peak. Most, though, like Paul and Jay Farrar (two of my all-time favs) clearly hit their creative peak and were on the downward slide by the late 20's. Just my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by FreeRider on Oct 27, 2018 21:20:20 GMT -5
Great comments and thoughts by all here!
I'm just struck by those who long for the early work, the so called hits, or the peak of the artist's career. I remember seeing Neil Young and Crazy Horse on the "Greendale" tour, his concept album. I dug it even though it was different. And yet a bunch of drunken aging baby boomer frat boys seated next to me kept screaming for him to "play something good! Cinnamon Girl, man!!!" And there you have it, they wanted to reduce Neil to an oldies act without even giving the newer material chance.
Like I said, that Paul Simon concert was interesting in that there is no doubt Simon is a real musician and artist. It's not just 3 chord rock he's doing. But he's followed his muse, like a lot of others, and it has led to some failures and some rejuvenated times in his career.
But there is no doubt that his current stuff is competing with his early Simon and Garfunkel material and his early solo works. Even Simon said that his forays into the South African rhythms stuff led to an unexpected hit, "Call Me Al", a song he said he didn't particularly think was that good.
Yet, he said that he knew "Bridge Over Troubled Water" was different because it came so quickly to him. And he said after he got done with it, he felt, "Hmmm, that's something better than I usually do." And even Westy has said the good ones come quickly to him.
But Simon also said before that he wonders if the muse eventually will leave him and it's tough when you no longer have anything to say. And his current stuff is always competing with his past high marks.
Is Westy in that mode yet? Does he still have anything to say? Are we always going to compare his current work to his songs he did 30 years ago? Does anything of his post Mats career hold up well to his fabled past material?
I listen to his stuff current stuff and marvel at how he can get still find an irresistable groove like "Come Hither" yet I wonder am I being too harsh to compare to his early work? Should I be viewing his output much like how life unfolds? With all the ups and downs life brings to us?
Each bit of work is a chapter in the life of the artist and we're on the ride to see where it takes us. I have no idea how it's gonna end---retiring from touring for good? No more releases or new material, just recording for himself now? Or will he have one last great fully realized release that does his songs justice (Michael Bland or Josh Freese doing the drumming, real production values) and gets the best out of him if he is saying good bye to us all?
|
|
|
Post by anarkissed on Oct 27, 2018 23:45:07 GMT -5
I don't know...I feel like I'm more generous and patient than most people (at least those who bother to comment) about artists and their work after their "peak"...I'm not expecting them to always top themselves...I'm thrilled when they do something that's even just "pretty good", because they're still working, and because, well, it's still "pretty good"...I mentioned Neil Young...Those last two R.E.M. albums, done long after I'd kinda stop following them, and without a seminal founding member, were actually some of the best things they'd ever done...That they could still pull that off, at that stage of their career, and compared against everything else they'd ever done, was pretty incredible to me. The Stones released a couple of singles a few years ago to complement some big box set. For a bunch of 70-year-old guys, they were pretty badass...I'll give you a real out-of-left-field one...I saw that the old 70's warhorse Nazareth had a couple of new songs on Spotify...I looked around and saw that there was actually only one guy who had been in the band in their heyday still in there, or active, or even alive...The fucking bass player, for Christ's sake...I'll be damned if at least one of those songs wasn't as good as anything they'd ever done, and didn't sound urgent, and full of life, and as hardcore as fuck...I've been playing it most every morning when I get up...But, then again, if I was 19 and full of despair, I guess I'd say everybody else has lost it, too...
|
|
|
Post by FreeRider on Oct 28, 2018 12:13:24 GMT -5
I think he's still got something left in him. Sure, he may not be writing about the stuff we felt and identified with in our youths, but maybe now he can write about things from a perspective that grabs us all as we are all aging along with him... ("Gun Shy" anyone? facing middle age and I'm pacing in my cage tonight ...) I think he still has something to say, unlike Paul Simon who kind of thinks that maybe he's repeating himself and has nothing more to say.
I won't write Westy off just yet, where as with Neil Young, I'm of the feeling that his best stuff has already been done. I don't know what more Neil can do to be as compelling or relevant. He's so prolific that he doesn't quite have the bull shit detector. In interviews, he firmly believes in his muse and trusts it---no matter what.
Paul might suffer from the same thing, in that there's no one to tell him his songs might be better if he refined it some more rather than the usual "first take is the best, we're done". Or maybe we're wrong about how meticulous he is---I dunno.
But I'm curious what others think are the songs that hold up just as well to his most lauded earlier work? Where do we rank "Devil Raised A Good Boy"? "Gun Shy", "Crackle and Drag", etc....? If he can still move us with anything in his post Mats days, then I feel he's still got something going for himself as a songwriter. The past is gone and Paul hasn't stayed frozen in time, so I won't pine for the early days, but will wait to see what else he can come up with.
|
|
|
Post by worldclassfad on Oct 28, 2018 16:51:54 GMT -5
I know for a fact that Paul still has it in him to make the record everyone expects from him, but I think one of the reasons we wont see it is just that: we expect it from him. He's made the money, played the game, toured the world, made the records, done it all. He knows if he releases that perfectly polished solo album full of solid songs with a professional drummer, people are just going to say "would have been better as a Replacements album".
|
|
|
Post by jimmyrock on Oct 28, 2018 19:40:58 GMT -5
I know for a fact that Paul still has it in him to make the record everyone expects from him, but I think one of the reasons we wont see it is just that: we expect it from him. He's made the money, played the game, toured the world, made the records, done it all. He knows if he releases that perfectly polished solo album full of solid songs with a professional drummer, people are just going to say "would have been better as a Replacements album". thats just ridiculous...that he isnt making a good album because some small group of mats only fans would critique it in that fashion, i mean c'mon am I the only one that sees it that way???......
|
|