DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => General Music Discussion => Topic started by: Dream Team on September 18, 2021, 05:56:17 AM
-
I thought of this idea for a thread after posting recent comments in the Iron Maiden and Symphony X threads. Some of my favorite bands HAVE gone back to an older sound, more or less, and generally done ok with it. Metallica and Judas Priest have kind of gone back to a modernized version of their 80s sound for their last 2 albums (the 70s for Priest are unreachable). In particular I really enjoyed Metallica's last 2.
However, with many bands their old "classic" sound is dead and buried. As examples here are 2 of my favorite bands that I already mentioned.
IRON MAIDEN
My favorite period of the band is from '82 to '88. Steve Harris has doubled, tripled, quadrupled, quintupled, and sextupled down that they are never going back to that style. Punchy, up-tempo numbers with clear production have been replaced by muddy, plodding, repetitive "epics" that borrow ideas from each other. Many feature lengthy interchangeable acoustic intros and outros to pad the "epic" length. At least Adrian Smith tries to buck the trend a little. Of course, with any legacy band with talented members they still produce a gem of a song here and there and I have a good list of newer songs that I enjoy.
SYMPHONY X
This band has gone from having a balanced, nuanced sound highlighting melodies and all the instruments with awesome soaring diverse vocals to a one-dimensional crushing guitar-heavy production that buries the keyboards and reduces the very talented singer to mostly one-dimensional harsher vocals. Now, in this case, I KINDA get it. When you have no money you have 2 choices - go softer or go heavier. SX made the opposite choice from Maiden, they went heavier. But there's a price. The critical acclaim and originality has gone out the window, and they're no better for it financially.
I chose these 2 and I could have added Def Leppard I suppose but I really care nothing about them now, so I won't bother. I'd like to invite others to comment on bands they wish, or a large segment of the band's fans wish, would go back to an older "classic" sound. I used bands in the metal realm but feel free to use bands or musicians in any genre.
-
I never wish a band would go back to its older sound. I want to hear them produce the best music they can that reflects where they actually are creatively. If I want to hear the older albums, I have the older albums.
And frankly, and I know we've clashed over this before in the Iron Maiden thread, I personally am bothered by the constant refrain of people calling for a band to go back whenever their new material is discussed. To me, it doesn't add anything interesting to the discussion. And I think it can detract from appreciating what the band is presently doing. Even when I actually prefer the style of the older material, I often do find things to enjoy in the new stuff (e.g., Haken, where I prefer the style of the first three albums, but like a lot of material on the last two).
Aside from the two you mentioned, the paradigm case here is Opeth, who turned in 2011 from heavy prog metal with growls to softer prog rock without harsh vocals. For the last ten years, there's been a huge contingent of people who apparently cannot help but to post how they wish the old Opeth would come back and how they don't like "Slowpeth."
-
I always like seeing bands evolve over time and I think that it's really tough to capture the old sound even if the band wanted to. That said I do have a few that I wish would go back to an earlier sound:
Incubus
I love Incubus, they are one of my favorite bands of all time and had an abolutely killer run up to Light Grenades. When the released If Not Now, When? they called it their contemporary album and I thought "Cool, it's different, not really for me but kudos for trying something different". Since then though they've lost the magic. Their music seems to lack the punch the earlier albums have.
dredg
I know the last album was a collab but if they ever get around to actually releasing the new album please, please go back to the pre-Chuckles sound
Coldplay
The first three albums were killer. Since then they've slowly started adding this synth pop sound that I'm not a fan of.
-
I never wish a band would go back to its older sound. I want to hear them produce the best music they can that reflects where they actually are creatively. If I want to hear the older albums, I have the older albums.
And frankly, and I know we've clashed over this before in the Iron Maiden thread, I personally am bothered by the constant refrain of people calling for a band to go back whenever their new material is discussed. To me, it doesn't add anything interesting to the discussion. And I think it can detract from appreciating what the band is presently doing. Even when I actually prefer the style of the older material, I often do find things to enjoy in the new stuff (e.g., Haken, where I prefer the style of the first three albums, but like a lot of material on the last two).
Aside from the two you mentioned, the paradigm case here is Opeth, who turned in 2011 from heavy prog metal with growls to softer prog rock without harsh vocals. For the last ten years, there's been a huge contingent of people who apparently cannot help but to post how they wish the old Opeth would come back and how they don't like "Slowpeth."
Well said.
Bands move on, but many fans often have difficult doing so and pine for the days of old. I suspect most just want the return in quality, as most bands put out their best material early in their career, so the early sound usually correlates with the best material, so the subconscious thinking is that if they return to that early sound, the quality will return as well, but it rarely works out that way.
-
I know Opeth will be a popular one for this, but I'm quite fine with their current direction. They still have enough uniqueness that they can exist in that 70s vibe while still being their own band. And Mikael's growls live when he does them just aren't there anymore, so combined with his disinterest in extreme metal, their current sound is all for the better.
In Flames has just completely jumped the shark at this point. Someone needs to tell Anders Friden to fire his vocal coach, because the voice lessons didn't work, he never could and still can't sing. Of course, when they do revisit older material like the re-recordings of Clayman songs they prove they don't have a knack for that style anymore anyway, so I guess it's just as well they avoid that material. I really miss those late 90s albums though, nothing else sounded quite like them (although early Nightrage comes close).
Mercenary really had a special mix of genres around the 11 Dreams days. Their sound has evolved to a more simple metalcore-inspired one, and while they're good at it, it's just not the same. They'd have to get the Sandager brothers and Kral back in the mix for it to work though. Shame the Firesoul project that would have revisited that approach never seemed to pan out.
For one where I like pretty much all eras of the band, I do wish The Gathering would have released more material in the vein of Mandylion and Nighttime Birds. Maybe with some of the flavorings of their later more electronic and proggier material, but still keeping the earlier base sound. I think that's still an unexplored niche that they created and very few really ventured into it in the way I want. Most bands inspired by them went the bombastic routes of symphonic metal or beauty and the beast gothic metal. I like plenty of that stuff too, but that poppy but atmospheric, melancholic, kind of proggy rock/metal sound is really intoxicating. Autumn and Kingfisher Sky are my favorites of bands that took that sound and ran with it.
-
I agree with 425's point, but another reason I tend to dislike the "go back to your old sound" comments too, because I feel that it tends to oversimplify what made those classic albums work to begin with.
For example, yeah Master Of Puppets is great, but it's not just because it's a thrash metal album. First of all only about half of its songs can reasonably be called thrash, but more importantly there are thousands if not millions of thrash metal albums out there & most of them don't get much attention. It's not like x genre = instant masterpieces no matter what x genre is, so "go[ing] back to your old sound" isn't likely to get the same results as it did those decades ago, nor does it even guarantee good results.
There's also the cases where the band's old sound isn't clearly defined, either because they frequently experimented changing their sound even back then & just happened to move in a direction the person didn't like in more recent times, or the band didn't really change that much & gradually got stale. In either case, it feels like "they should go back to their old sound" is just code for "I would like it if they released albums I enjoy", which of course is something everyone wants but it's not exactly helpful or insightful.
So really I think it's more productive & interesting to go in-depth on what traits of the older music you'd like to make a reappearance or what traits of the newer music you don't like, instead of just pointing at the band's older albums (if they have the courtesy to even specify) & saying "be more like this".
-
I think for a lot of bands I tend to be the opposite of a lot of people and enjoy their later styles as much/more as their earlier. Rush and Marillion are the two examples that come to mind. I guess the last few Rush albums I would have preferred if they sounded more like Power Windows or Counterparts production-wise, but stylistically there wasn’t a huge difference between them and Counterparts at least.
I guess I could say Dream Theater, but that would require changing band mates, turning back the clock on James’ voice, and hiring a producer who wants to make an album that sounds like it was made from 1993-1997 so that’s just not gonna happen.
I could say Neal Morse I guess. It’s hard to define what his old, Spock’s Beard sound was as opposed to his post-Spock’s work. I’m not sure it’s a sound or style thing so much as a material thing. I like current Spock’s Beard though, so I wouldn’t necessarily want them to go back to the sound they had with Neal (wouldn’t be opposed to it though!).
Maybe The Flower Kings are a good answer. They had a really weird, unique production style on their early albums that went away around The Rainmaker (which I love) and while the music isn’t so different since then, the production and overall sound is a lot different. Not necessarily worse, more warm and flat whereas the old style was harsher but more dynamic if that makes sense.
-
I'm not interested in Green Day making Dookie part 2 . Especially since I think their best album is Nimrod. I love when they branch out a bit more .
Also I'm not interested in Master Of Puppets Part 2 since Death Magnetic was trying to be exactly that and it wasn't even close.
Bands just need to write - and pick the best songs they come up with.
I couldn't be a fan of AC/DC or Slayer or Motörhead where every album is the same more or less.
-
i'm not interested in bands that have grown going backwards. even if i don't like their current sound. i'd never want them to go back to a sound maybe they feel they've outgrown. if i don't enjoy it. i can always move on.
fans bitching about that just seem so entitled.
-
I think a lot of that depends on when you got into a particular band, and how long they've been around. As an example, I got into Yes and Genesis in the 80's. I was born in 1977, so my first experiences with these two bands was Three Sides Live and 9012Live, respectively, because that's what my Dad was listening to. Invisible Touch and Big Generator are two albums that I rate highly because they came out right as I was starting to develop my own tastes in music that sort of branched out from the foundation my Dad gave me. So, I have no issue with rating those albums right next to albums like Fragile, Close to the Edge, Foxtrot, The Lamb, and so on. For me, seeing the ABWH pay per view show in 1989 or 1990 was the springboard to go back and check out Yes' 70's catalog. So, by 1991, I was listening to CTTE, Relayer, Going for the One, etc. I didn't start getting into the Genesis back catalog until I went off to college. I made up quickly for lost time! But, because I found those bands later in their careers, I find that I like more of their material than some of the fans who were there at the beginning. For bands where I got in on the ground floor with, like Nine Inch Nails, I can appreciate Trent Reznor's journey as an artist. I feel like it would be an incredible disservice to ask him to continue to do things like The Downward Spiral. I've even seen online petitions demanding that Trent get back on drugs so he can make good music again. WTF????
In general, I don't feel like bands need to go back to what some fans define as "their classic/older sound". If you want bands that just churn out the same old shit on every record, go listen to AC/DC or KMFDM.
-
I'm not interested in Green Day making Dookie part 2 . Especially since I think their best album is Nimrod. I love when they branch out a bit more .
Also I'm not interested in Master Of Puppets Part 2 since Death Magnetic was trying to be exactly that and it wasn't even close.
Bands just need to write - and pick the best songs they come up with.
I couldn't be a fan of AC/DC or Slayer or Motörhead where every album is the same more or less.
I wouldn't say Nimrod is my fave Green Day, it's Insomniac, but I prefer it over Dookie. Dookie barely makes my top 5. I am not a fan of the way Green Day's music has gone, post American Idiot though. Their last, oh dear. I barely made it through one listen. It's just been a slow decline over the last 17 years, as far as I'm concerned.
As much as I'm not a particularly big fan of Hardwired, I don't really have a problem with where they've taken their sound. The last time they took a risk, it didn't pay off so we'll :lol
Slayer's albums do not all sound the same :lol
-
This relates to the idea that "Fans" play an entirely different game than the game of the Musicians.
The fans (actually fans of anything, sports, books, films, celebrities, etc..) have their own set of rules within them that they must abide by to be considered a fan of said musician or band.
Fans really take the bands decisions and their music to heart, they take it as fun that is serious. While other fans can recognize the serious in the fun, and therefore can enjoy the flaws within the bands game.
Those that take it heart tend to feel betrayed or forsaken if their bands do something completely different than what made the fan become a fan. Like if a Metal Band were to suddenly drop a Gangsta Rap album.
This fandom has an effect on bands and how they tend to play their game, by being vocal about the bands music, and a drastic change in the music can have a devastating effect on the band. While, the old fans feel forsaken by the bands sacrilegious new album, the band will gain newer fans that found a connection with their new style, the same as those older fans in how and why they developed a connection with the band.
It's a really fascinating topic when you dwell deep into it.
-
I want to bring up the parallel situation. When a band becomes bigger and gains more fans by changing their old style.
Anathema would be one I would consider. How they went from the more darker, gloomy, doom metal to the uplifting, ethereal, metal. And this is the Anathema I enjoy as their older sound is too depressing and gloomy for me. But, I did get into them by hearing Fragile Dreams and I loved the use of the guitar, the arpeggiated chords, that was enhanced later on with We're Here Because We're Here. Also by the lyrics focusing on more optimistic lyrics of hope.
A band that I do prefer their classical/older sound more is The Scorpions. Their 70's stuff is really great stuff and when they busted out the medley of those era songs, they were fantastic live and I said, "Man, why can't they play a couple more of these songs in full. Damn fans of radio and people who only listen to the singles and get upset when the band doesn't play that single." Haha
-
Iron maiden
Thrice
Incubus
Pain of salvation
Smashing pumpkins
Weezer
-
"Bands that many fans wish would go back to their "older" sound"
Hmmmmm, almost all? :lol
If you look for recent material from....I don't know...Dream Theater, Metallica, Nightwish, Angra, Opeth, Iron Maiden, Yes, Deep Purple and even Rush when the band released their last album (among many and many examples) the only constant among these diverse bands is the perennial complaint that these bands aren't what they used to be.
By the way, IMO this is the main reason why discussing music is increasingly tiring... I understand fans who feel annoyed and displeased, but this endless complaint turns what should be entertainment into something boring.
Evidently this is not true for bands whose sound has always been very similar (AC/DC, Motorhead) and for some bands that decide to go back (in some way) to the sound that pleases their fans.
Some bands returned to their sound in a way that I thought natural (Paradise Lost) and others in a forced way, as a fan service (Judas Piest). I don't have respect when I feel that something was meticulously built with the intention of generating a good reception and not something natural (Edu Falaschi new album is an excellent example).
Of course, this is all extremely subjective.
And let's face it, for some bands it's not even that hard to please the fans. Megadeth is a good example. Looking at the reactions to the latest records, you can easily see that:
- if the album is mostly "fast, heavy and with wank solos" = good (United Abominations, Endgame, Dystopia)
- if it run away (even a little) from what described above = not (so) good (Thirteen, Super Collider).
If Mustaine wants to keep his audience permanently happy, just do anything that's fast, aggressive and with a lot of guitar solos. :lol
-
I’m going to be the one to say the predictable answer in Opeth. Just to be clear, I’m not saying they should go back to their old style, not at all, that’s not my place to say. The question though is what band to you “wish” would go back. That’s Opeth for me. They went from pretty much my favourite band on the planet overnight to a band I have zero interest in. From a band I consider to be one of the greatest metal bands in the history of music to an average 70’s prog band (just my opinion).
I get the argument that he can’t really do the growls like he used to and honestly, that’s not the issue at all for me. He can do all clean vocals and I’d be perfectly happy. I just miss the gorgeous melodies and majestic, titanic riffs. Their music just sounds cold, discordant and detached to me now.
All that being said, this is Mike’s band and he needs to make the music that inspires him and that he wants to make. I assume the band is still successful with the direction they’ve taken so who am I to tell them to do anything different. Just personally, for me, they are a band that I loved and I am not into any of their new music. They might as well have retired after Watershed in my eyes. Many others though continue to enjoy them and that’s great, I’m jealous of you guys, I wish I could get into their new stuff.
-
By the way, IMO this is the main reason why discussing music is increasingly tiring... I understand fans who feel annoyed and displeased, but this endless complaint turns what should be entertainment into something boring.
I very much feel this. Any setting where a substantial portion of the commentary is of the tenor "the new stuff sucks, I wish they'd make stuff like X again" just bores and annoys me. Like, that's not actually a discussion of the new music or, for that matter, the old music. It's just a complaint. Which, let's be honest, is often made from a place of entitlement, like they "owe it to the fans" to keep making music in whatever is the classic style.
I think DTF is generally good about having substantive discussion that isn't like this, though. Like, in the Iron Maiden thread, most of the discussion the last few weeks has been about the new album. It's been mostly well-received here, but even most of the critical posts are pointing to specific parts of the album that they don't like, and clearly approaching the new album from an open and honest perspective. There are a lot of other places where a lot of what you get about the new Maiden album is just "the new stuff sucks" etc. So another reason to be thankful for DTF.
-
Mr. Bungle is going through a unique version of this. They re-recorded and released their first demo, The Raging Wrath of the Easter Bunny, with arguably their oldest music possible (Trey Spruance wrote the intro track, Grizzly Adams, even before Mr. Bungle existed as an entity). In other words, it's very old stuff but also their newest.
And yet, even though it's clear that this is a unique event and lineup (with Dave Lombardo and Scott Ian featuring, no less), there's scores of fans that make it known that they'd much prefer it if Mr. Bungle played things from the three full length albums released on Warner Brothers (the self-titled, Disco Volante, and California). So, they want the "older" Mr. Bungle, but not the oldest :lol
I think that's really silly. Not because it's wrong to enjoy that music they did, but it's not like they're going to scratch all they're doing, send Scott and Dave home, fly Danny Heifetz and Bär McKinnon in from Australia and play a... I don't even know what kind of tour they'd do. The band members have made it clear over the years that were Mr. Bungle to reunite, they'd do something different and not a pure and simple retrospective tour (or at least not without changing things around).
In brief, I think despite the band's alerts, some of their "fans" actually wish they were another, more fan-appeasing entity than they are.
-
I actually don't think Green Day are that bad now. Revolution Radio was a good album. Lots of fans think Father Of All... was a contract filler. And it's not like it was 26 mins of deliberately dreadful
music.
As You were...
If Mustaine wants to keep his audience permanently happy, just do anything that's fast, aggressive and with a lot of guitar solos. :lol
Exactly. I'd never want to be in a band where every album is pretty much the same. But I also wouldn't wanna be radiohead where one day you
just do a massive 180 and never go back.
-
In Flames has just completely jumped the shark at this point. Someone needs to tell Anders Friden to fire his vocal coach, because the voice lessons didn't work, he never could and still can't sing. Of course, when they do revisit older material like the re-recordings of Clayman songs they prove they don't have a knack for that style anymore anyway, so I guess it's just as well they avoid that material. I really miss those late 90s albums though, nothing else sounded quite like them (although early Nightrage comes close).
In Flames was instantly the band that came to mind when I saw this thread. I actually really liked everything up to Siren Charms. The last two have been pretty crap though I must say.
-
I also agree with the take that bands should make whatever music they are passionate about even if it alienates some fans, because bands sticking to their sound without the passion is very noticeable in the result, so I'd rather them do something they want to make.
However with that said, Opeth is a great example of a band I loved and had in my top3 bands at one point and their evolution past Watershed has almost reduced them to a footnote in my listening. They just had such a great sound back in the day and their current take on 70s prog is just not that interesting IMO. It's not bad, it's just kinda boring. Any time they put a new album out I listen to it a few times but I don't revisit those albums at all in the long run, whereas I still listen to all the albums up until (and including) Watershed.
I don't really know with a band like Maiden because I don't know if they're capable of even writing good 'hit songs' anymore. I get the complaint about longer albums, longer songs and how everything blends together more. But they haven't had a great catchy shorter song since Different World imo. Even looking back at songs like Rainmaker, Wildest Dreams or The Wicker Man, while I think all 3 are good songs, we're still not talking 80s Maiden level.
-
We should try and find a band whose overall criticall acclaim went as far as it could before fans started bitching about the "old style" :D
I'd say Blind Guardian are a good example, from their 1989 debut until 2002 or 2006 hardly anyone could complain about them, and their constant evoution....
-
I'm not interested in Green Day making Dookie part 2 . Especially since I think their best album is Nimrod. I love when they branch out a bit more .
Also I'm not interested in Master Of Puppets Part 2 since Death Magnetic was trying to be exactly that and it wasn't even close.
Bands just need to write - and pick the best songs they come up with.
I couldn't be a fan of AC/DC or Slayer or Motörhead where every album is the same more or less.
I try not to crap on things that other people like, but this doesn't really make sense to me. Unless it's just that I'm not fully immersed in their catalogue, which is a fair point, to me, Green Day is a one-trick pony.
-
I never wish a band would go back to its older sound. I want to hear them produce the best music they can that reflects where they actually are creatively. If I want to hear the older albums, I have the older albums.
And frankly, and I know we've clashed over this before in the Iron Maiden thread, I personally am bothered by the constant refrain of people calling for a band to go back whenever their new material is discussed. To me, it doesn't add anything interesting to the discussion. And I think it can detract from appreciating what the band is presently doing. Even when I actually prefer the style of the older material, I often do find things to enjoy in the new stuff (e.g., Haken, where I prefer the style of the first three albums, but like a lot of material on the last two).
I'm in your court here. I agree (and I happen to like the new version of Maiden).
I generally am not a "I wish!" kind of guy, but if I was going to play the game, I would offer:
Scorpions; they had a magic period from '78 through about '85, and then sort of got wrapped up in their own hype (Rockers and Ballads!). Go back to making that more honest, less contrived hard rock.
Ozzy; I don't need Blizzard of Ozz and Diary again, but the last two with Kevin Churko have sort of gotten away from that hard rock that he did so well from '81 through say, '95. That industrial-ish under-pinning is just not what I want to hear from Ozzy, especially at 70.
-
People saying Maiden in this thread are really confusing to me. Their older sound is not that much different than their current sound at all.
-
People saying Maiden in this thread are really confusing to me. Their older sound is not that much different than their current sound at all.
just the productions a little worse and the songs are longer.
saying that i still love them to death.
-
People saying Maiden in this thread are really confusing to me. Their older sound is not that much different than their current sound at all.
I think that's more the change in approach to the music by the band than a stylistic change. For example The Number of the Beast is half the length of Senjutsu despite only having 1 song less and I think there's definitely been a change in the band on that front. Classic Maiden for the most part had a few longer epics but half the albums (or more) were still a bit shorter, to-the-point and either singles or had a strong melody to remember. I would say AMOLAD onwards those songs seemed to become more of a minority and the longer songs were starting to take over.
-
Volbeat
I love everything up to Outlaw Gentlemen & Shady Ladies (that's the perfect style for them!) but they went full-on radio band afterwards, and they lost me. The heavy rockabilly thing was really unique and suited them well.
-
all bands and musicians should go back to their roots of being toddlers mashing on toy instruments they don't understand how to play. that's the only place "real music" comes from
-
Metallica sold out when they LEARNED how to play when they were 15. :hat
-
While it only spans two albums, I haven't overly enjoyed the last ten years of Pearl Jam - those two albums (Lightning Bolt & Gigaton) have felt too loose, lacking direction. I don't need them to produce another Ten or VS - just something a bit more focused like most of their albums used to be.
-
Agreed. I loved Pearl Jam up until and including Yield. Self-Titled was just ok. But after that it's just nah.
Of course because i'm a weirdo I love Vitalogy and No Code the most.
I remember being told that Lightning Bolt was their best album and a return to form and it just wasn't at all.
I just put on Gigaton on Spotify and the riff on the first song is almost Not For You from Vitalogy and sounds like The Hives more than Pearl Jam...
-
Agreed. I loved Pearl Jam up until and including Yield. Self-Titled was just ok. But after that it's just nah.
Of course because i'm a weirdo I love Vitalogy and No Code the most.
I remember being told that Lightning Bolt was their best album and a return to form and it just wasn't at all.
I just put on Gigaton on Spotify and the riff on the first song is almost Not For You from Vitalogy and sounds like The Hives more than Pearl Jam...
I'm pretty much on board with all of this. No Code is my fav too.
Riot Act was their last good album for me.
-
I like the Stone Gossard/Jeff Ament Pearl Jam, not the Eddie Vedder Pearl Jam. I'd be fine with going back to the Stone and Jeff years.
-
I like the Stone Gossard/Jeff Ament Pearl Jam, not the Eddie Vedder Pearl Jam. I'd be fine with going back to the Stone and Jeff years.
As someone who is more of a Pearl Jam newbie and have just started diving deeper (I was familiar with Ten but in last few weeks have moved onto Vs, and now Vitalogy) I'm kinda curious if you could expand on this, as I thought Gossard/Ament have been there for the whole ride as well as Vedder? :p
-
I think everything upto and including Backspacer is really good, infact I love the directness of Backspacer - as I said after that I haven't overly enjoyed the most recent two releases. I feel they are a collection of individuals who just come together and record whatever they have - they don't seem together as a band much thesedays and that's fair enough they've survived longer than most other 'grunge' acts.
-
Backspacer is a really fun album. I didn’t care for the self titled or Riot Act, and only about half of Binaural is interesting. I like Yield and No Code, and Vitology is up there with Vs for my favorite PJ album probably. Ten is probably one I listen to the least, even though I do think it’s a great record.
-
I like the Stone Gossard/Jeff Ament Pearl Jam, not the Eddie Vedder Pearl Jam. I'd be fine with going back to the Stone and Jeff years.
As someone who is more of a Pearl Jam newbie and have just started diving deeper (I was familiar with Ten but in last few weeks have moved onto Vs, and now Vitalogy) I'm kinda curious if you could expand on this, as I thought Gossard/Ament have been there for the whole ride as well as Vedder? :p
Well, you know (or many you don't) that Pearl Jam started from the ashes of Mother Love Bone, a band that Stone and Jeff were in with Andrew Wood, Bruce Fairweather and Greg Gilmore. Wood (a close friend of Chris Cornell) died of a heroin overdose. Cornell (and Matt Cameron) joined up with Stone and Jeff to put together an album called "Temple Of The Dog". They got a new guitar player, Mike McCready. On the side, Ament, Gossard, McCready and a guy named Dave Kruzen (it might have been Jack Irons then, don't quote me on this) put together some demos and sent them out, including to a guy recommended to them by Jack Irons, a guy named Eddie Vedder. Vedder even came up to Seattle and made his recorded debut (at least major label) on "Hunger Strike" from TOTD.
So Vedder wrote lyrics to the rest of the material, and that was the Ten album. Basically Stone and Jeff's music with Eddie's lyrics. Vs. was more of the same, generally, with Stone and Jeff basically as band leaders. There's a really poignant scene in the "20" documentary - a MUST SEE if you're a fan of the band, by the way - where Stone recounts being really unhappy around the time of No Code and he and Jeff had to make a decision: do they implode Pearl Jam and go off and continue their specific vision, or do they acknowledge that this isn't their band anymore, it's Eddie's, and they can cede that leadership in exchange for a global stage for their creative outlet. They obviously made the decision to stay in Eddie's band.
Watch the doc; Stone is really candid about it, and not without a little sadness if you ask me (though I don't know the man, and never asked him about it.)
-
I like the Stone Gossard/Jeff Ament Pearl Jam, not the Eddie Vedder Pearl Jam. I'd be fine with going back to the Stone and Jeff years.
As someone who is more of a Pearl Jam newbie and have just started diving deeper (I was familiar with Ten but in last few weeks have moved onto Vs, and now Vitalogy) I'm kinda curious if you could expand on this, as I thought Gossard/Ament have been there for the whole ride as well as Vedder? :p
Well, you know (or many you don't) that Pearl Jam started from the ashes of Mother Love Bone, a band that Stone and Jeff were in with Andrew Wood, Bruce Fairweather and Greg Gilmore. Wood (a close friend of Chris Cornell) died of a heroin overdose. Cornell (and Matt Cameron) joined up with Stone and Jeff to put together an album called "Temple Of The Dog". They got a new guitar player, Mike McCready. On the side, Ament, Gossard, McCready and a guy named Dave Kruzen (it might have been Jack Irons then, don't quote me on this) put together some demos and sent them out, including to a guy recommended to them by Jack Irons, a guy named Eddie Vedder. Vedder even came up to Seattle and made his recorded debut (at least major label) on "Hunger Strike" from TOTD.
So Vedder wrote lyrics to the rest of the material, and that was the Ten album. Basically Stone and Jeff's music with Eddie's lyrics. Vs. was more of the same, generally, with Stone and Jeff basically as band leaders. There's a really poignant scene in the "20" documentary - a MUST SEE if you're a fan of the band, by the way - where Stone recounts being really unhappy around the time of No Code and he and Jeff had to make a decision: do they implode Pearl Jam and go off and continue their specific vision, or do they acknowledge that this isn't their band anymore, it's Eddie's, and they can cede that leadership in exchange for a global stage for their creative outlet. They obviously made the decision to stay in Eddie's band.
Watch the doc; Stone is really candid about it, and not without a little sadness if you ask me (though I don't know the man, and never asked him about it.)
The thing is after VS and Vitalogy (which were heavy Vedder) No Code, Yield, Binaural and Riot Act had far more contributions from the other members, including the lyrics for the first time ever. From the Self Titled album things have swung back more towards Vedder - but most of the other members now have their own creative outputs either with solo or small bands.
-
I like the Stone Gossard/Jeff Ament Pearl Jam, not the Eddie Vedder Pearl Jam. I'd be fine with going back to the Stone and Jeff years.
As someone who is more of a Pearl Jam newbie and have just started diving deeper (I was familiar with Ten but in last few weeks have moved onto Vs, and now Vitalogy) I'm kinda curious if you could expand on this, as I thought Gossard/Ament have been there for the whole ride as well as Vedder? :p
Well, you know (or many you don't) that Pearl Jam started from the ashes of Mother Love Bone, a band that Stone and Jeff were in with Andrew Wood, Bruce Fairweather and Greg Gilmore. Wood (a close friend of Chris Cornell) died of a heroin overdose. Cornell (and Matt Cameron) joined up with Stone and Jeff to put together an album called "Temple Of The Dog". They got a new guitar player, Mike McCready. On the side, Ament, Gossard, McCready and a guy named Dave Kruzen (it might have been Jack Irons then, don't quote me on this) put together some demos and sent them out, including to a guy recommended to them by Jack Irons, a guy named Eddie Vedder. Vedder even came up to Seattle and made his recorded debut (at least major label) on "Hunger Strike" from TOTD.
So Vedder wrote lyrics to the rest of the material, and that was the Ten album. Basically Stone and Jeff's music with Eddie's lyrics. Vs. was more of the same, generally, with Stone and Jeff basically as band leaders. There's a really poignant scene in the "20" documentary - a MUST SEE if you're a fan of the band, by the way - where Stone recounts being really unhappy around the time of No Code and he and Jeff had to make a decision: do they implode Pearl Jam and go off and continue their specific vision, or do they acknowledge that this isn't their band anymore, it's Eddie's, and they can cede that leadership in exchange for a global stage for their creative outlet. They obviously made the decision to stay in Eddie's band.
Watch the doc; Stone is really candid about it, and not without a little sadness if you ask me (though I don't know the man, and never asked him about it.)
The thing is after VS and Vitalogy (which were heavy Vedder) No Code, Yield, Binaural and Riot Act had far more contributions from the other members, including the lyrics for the first time ever. From the Self Titled album things have swung back more towards Vedder - but most of the other members now have their own creative outputs either with solo or small bands.
All true; I think, though, it was a mindset. The Ticketmaster thing. Some of the politics around the band. Stone was clear, it's not like they were doing something they didn't want to do, but there was a clear delineation of leadership in the band, and the axis shifted from "Stone/Jeff" to "Eddie". Whether that was benevolent or not we can only guess. But there's one clear difference: the knock on Stone and Jeff (particularly Jeff) is that they wanted to be ROCK STARS. That was the beef with Mark Arm and Steve Turner in Green River, that was one of the things they LOVED about Andy Wood is that he did too, and that was a knock about the early Pearl Jam as compared to Soundgarden and some of the other Seattle bands.
-
Devin townsend is so diverse that its hard to identify old/new sound, but I just prefer his older work such as Ocean Machine, Terria and Accelerated evolution.
-
Sonata Arctica. This is the big one for me. Once my favorite band with tons of great melodies and a strong Queen energy to everything. Creating albums like Winter heart, Reckoning Night and UNIA plus many other great albums they just lost it. The production is TERRIBLE and the melodies just left planet earth. I can't understand what happened. Every other band in my list at least found a new direction that is interesting but maybe just not for me, but this one just sounds uninspiring.
Opeth. Still think it's the right move for them since this is what inspires them, it just felt like they moved away from having one of the most unique quality sounds to some 70s prog rock that I have a hard time even getting through one spin. Mikael's growl was one of the best in the industry and jumping between that and clean vocals really gave the music a dimension few bands could match. Even mellow songs was fantastic at this point, something I sadly don't think they are anymore.
Leprous I think is one of these band now as well. Their sound was soooo good on Biliteral and Coal but I have a hard time getting into their new sound.
Nightwish. Floor is the best metal singer. Period. Sadly she joined the band in a time where they started doing big dramatic and quite pretentious pieces without the same melodic focus and catchy songs. Once and Dark Passion Play just hits perfectly for me but everything after is kind of meh.
-
I like the Stone Gossard/Jeff Ament Pearl Jam, not the Eddie Vedder Pearl Jam. I'd be fine with going back to the Stone and Jeff years.
As someone who is more of a Pearl Jam newbie and have just started diving deeper (I was familiar with Ten but in last few weeks have moved onto Vs, and now Vitalogy) I'm kinda curious if you could expand on this, as I thought Gossard/Ament have been there for the whole ride as well as Vedder? :p
Well, you know (or many you don't) that Pearl Jam started from the ashes of Mother Love Bone, a band that Stone and Jeff were in with Andrew Wood, Bruce Fairweather and Greg Gilmore. Wood (a close friend of Chris Cornell) died of a heroin overdose. Cornell (and Matt Cameron) joined up with Stone and Jeff to put together an album called "Temple Of The Dog". They got a new guitar player, Mike McCready. On the side, Ament, Gossard, McCready and a guy named Dave Kruzen (it might have been Jack Irons then, don't quote me on this) put together some demos and sent them out, including to a guy recommended to them by Jack Irons, a guy named Eddie Vedder. Vedder even came up to Seattle and made his recorded debut (at least major label) on "Hunger Strike" from TOTD.
So Vedder wrote lyrics to the rest of the material, and that was the Ten album. Basically Stone and Jeff's music with Eddie's lyrics. Vs. was more of the same, generally, with Stone and Jeff basically as band leaders. There's a really poignant scene in the "20" documentary - a MUST SEE if you're a fan of the band, by the way - where Stone recounts being really unhappy around the time of No Code and he and Jeff had to make a decision: do they implode Pearl Jam and go off and continue their specific vision, or do they acknowledge that this isn't their band anymore, it's Eddie's, and they can cede that leadership in exchange for a global stage for their creative outlet. They obviously made the decision to stay in Eddie's band.
Watch the doc; Stone is really candid about it, and not without a little sadness if you ask me (though I don't know the man, and never asked him about it.)
The thing is after VS and Vitalogy (which were heavy Vedder) No Code, Yield, Binaural and Riot Act had far more contributions from the other members, including the lyrics for the first time ever. From the Self Titled album things have swung back more towards Vedder - but most of the other members now have their own creative outputs either with solo or small bands.
All true; I think, though, it was a mindset. The Ticketmaster thing. Some of the politics around the band. Stone was clear, it's not like they were doing something they didn't want to do, but there was a clear delineation of leadership in the band, and the axis shifted from "Stone/Jeff" to "Eddie". Whether that was benevolent or not we can only guess. But there's one clear difference: the knock on Stone and Jeff (particularly Jeff) is that they wanted to be ROCK STARS. That was the beef with Mark Arm and Steve Turner in Green River, that was one of the things they LOVED about Andy Wood is that he did too, and that was a knock about the early Pearl Jam as compared to Soundgarden and some of the other Seattle bands.
Been ages since I saw PJ & 20 I don't remember the scene your are refering to so I'd need a rewatch. I do remember Mike saying Eddie could be an intense character though. I'm not sure I'd agree about the rockstar part - I mean they were/are rockstars, maybe the biggest band in the States (maybe world) around the VS era. Cobain's suicide changed the band's outlook on fame, and yes there was a deliberate scaling back after that, not sure that was a pure Vedder decision though.
Even though the record quality may have dropped that still remain a top tier live experience, one of the few who change their setlist every date.
-
Sonata Arctica. This is the big one for me. Once my favorite band with tons of great melodies and a strong Queen energy to everything. Creating albums like Winter heart, Reckoning Night and UNIA plus many other great albums they just lost it. The production is TERRIBLE and the melodies just left planet earth. I can't understand what happened. Every other band in my list at least found a new direction that is interesting but maybe just not for me, but this one just sounds uninspiring.
Nightwish. Floor is the best metal singer. Period. Sadly she joined the band in a time where they started doing big dramatic and quite pretentious pieces without the same melodic focus and catchy songs. Once and Dark Passion Play just hits perfectly for me but everything after is kind of meh.
Interesting that you mention Unia. To me that's the album they lost me on, and I've never really gotten back onboard with any of their new material since then. Those first four albums are still magical though.
Wishmaster to me was NW's peak, and I wish they could combine Floor's vocals with that era stylistically. You get a glimpse at it with Floor's rendition of "She Is My Sin" on the live album which is killer.
-
Radiohead. To me it sounds like they've been making the same album since Amnesiac. Plug in a distortion pedal!!!
-
Radiohead. To me it sounds like they've been making the same album since Amnesiac. Plug in a distortion pedal!!!
As much as I love The Bends and OK Computer, I would argue there's less variety across the first 3 albums before Kid A than in the albums after it. :P
-
Sonata Arctica. This is the big one for me. Once my favorite band with tons of great melodies and a strong Queen energy to everything. Creating albums like Winter heart, Reckoning Night and UNIA plus many other great albums they just lost it. The production is TERRIBLE and the melodies just left planet earth. I can't understand what happened. Every other band in my list at least found a new direction that is interesting but maybe just not for me, but this one just sounds uninspiring.
Nightwish. Floor is the best metal singer. Period. Sadly she joined the band in a time where they started doing big dramatic and quite pretentious pieces without the same melodic focus and catchy songs. Once and Dark Passion Play just hits perfectly for me but everything after is kind of meh.
Interesting that you mention Unia. To me that's the album they lost me on, and I've never really gotten back onboard with any of their new material since then. Those first four albums are still magical though.
Unia is my favorite Sonata Arctica album. I love how completely batshit insane and all over the place is. They never made an album as good since then.
-
Sonata Arctica. This is the big one for me. Once my favorite band with tons of great melodies and a strong Queen energy to everything. Creating albums like Winter heart, Reckoning Night and UNIA plus many other great albums they just lost it. The production is TERRIBLE and the melodies just left planet earth. I can't understand what happened. Every other band in my list at least found a new direction that is interesting but maybe just not for me, but this one just sounds uninspiring.
Nightwish. Floor is the best metal singer. Period. Sadly she joined the band in a time where they started doing big dramatic and quite pretentious pieces without the same melodic focus and catchy songs. Once and Dark Passion Play just hits perfectly for me but everything after is kind of meh.
Interesting that you mention Unia. To me that's the album they lost me on, and I've never really gotten back onboard with any of their new material since then. Those first four albums are still magical though.
Unia is my favorite Sonata Arctica album. I love how completely batshit insane and all over the place is. They never made an album as good since then.
Agree. It's easily my fav too. They lost me with the next one.
-
Radiohead. To me it sounds like they've been making the same album since Amnesiac. Plug in a distortion pedal!!!
As much as I love The Bends and OK Computer, I would argue there's less variety across the first 3 albums before Kid A than in the albums after it. :P
Totally agree. The Bends and OK Computer are both stellar, but there has been a lot more variety in their music since Kid A.
-
Opeth. I like Pale Communion and In Cauda Venenum, but Sorceress and specially Heritage were misses imo. They don't even have to return to their 90's sound, I'll settle for Ghost Reveries and Watershed. This'll probably never happen since Mikael has said he's not coming back to growling vocals, though.
Coldplay. I actually liked their last album and am looking forward to their next one (LOVED "Coloratura"), and I can safely say I love at least a pair of songs of every album they've released, but I want something more intimate, less overproduced, more like Parachutes and Rush of Blood to the Head, even Ghost Stories which was a great album. Do it for one album and you guys can go back to do songs with whatever band is popular right now.
Mutemath. Vitals was a cure for insomnia. Play Dead and Voice in the Silence were better I guess, but come on. I want that raw power that the Self titled, Armistice and Odd Soul gave me. Seeing that it's more a Paul project nowadays I doubt that's gonna happen.
-
Mutemath. Vitals was a cure for insomnia. Play Dead and Voice in the Silence were better I guess, but come on. I want that raw power that the Self titled, Armistice and Odd Soul gave me. Seeing that it's more a Paul project nowadays I doubt that's gonna happen.
I know a lot of fans that feel this way. I enjoy Vitals, and actually really love Play Dead (my AOTY for 2017, at the time).
But at the same time, I can follow why fans want that older sound.
I made a video on YouTube recently (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pVEcPXEF_Q) talking about all the Mutemath Albums, showing my collection, and I get into that a bit.Sadly, dunno if/when it'll happen given it is more or less a Paul Meany's project now and Darren and the others aren't involved at this point.
-
Opeth- but not specifically for death metal/growls- but they’re missing the dark atmosphere. I know some people love Watershed and all that but frankly I thought they started slipping after Blackwater Park; it’s pretty easy to see why Mikael was getting burnt out on the metal thing. Most fans hated Heritage but I consider it their last great album (Mikael also seems to hold it in high regard)- it’s proggy, unique, yet still retains a sense of “darkness” for lack of a better word- I wish he would have explored more of that. In Cauda came close but not quite hitting the spot.
I’d like the see Ulver do one more modern metal album. Doesn’t necessarily need to be black metal but something heavy. I know the band prides themselves by being unpredictable and different and at this point doing a metal album would be the most unpredictable move for them.
-
Bon Jovi. 'nuff said.
-
Bon Jovi. 'nuff said.
I'm amazed at how fucked his voice is now.
-
I'll put a vote in for Opeth. BP, GR, Deliverance, just incredible. The new stuff just doesn't compete with those albums on any level.
-
Bon Jovi. 'nuff said.
I'm amazed at how fucked his voice is now.
It was rough back in 2000 when Crush came out.
-
:o I heard a new bon jovi song recently and I was like who is singing this one ? It sounded NOTHING like Jon.
His voice is GONE.
-
Sure with his voice but the writing dynamics changed too when Richie was let go.
-
I wonder which 80s rock/metal belter's voice has aged the best. My first thought is Michael Sweet, but there could be an even better example. A lot of them can barely sing at all now, much less hit the notes they used to be able to or sometimes even sound at all like themselves anymore.
-
I wonder which 80s rock/metal belter's voice has aged the best. My first thought is Michael Sweet, but there could be an even better example. A lot of them can barely sing at all now, much less hit the notes they used to be able to or sometimes even sound at all like themselves anymore.
Kip Winger without a doubt.
-
The last winger album is 7.5 years ago. Has he done anything else since then?
-
The last winger album is 7.5 years ago. Has he done anything else since then?
I saw him last year two years ago solo acoustic and he still brings it. This was from earlier this year:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xGeIX5BiXsw
I’m sure he’s not hitting all the high notes from earlier in his career, and to be fair he hasn’t been around as long or touring as heavily as someone like JBJ, but he is 60 and he’s taken great care of his voice through the years.
-
Hetfield on a good day still sounds really good. But it's hit and miss.
-
The last winger album is 7.5 years ago. Has he done anything else since then?
I saw him last year two years ago solo acoustic and he still brings it. This was from earlier this year:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xGeIX5BiXsw
I’m sure he’s not hitting all the high notes from earlier in his career, and to be fair he hasn’t been around as long or touring as heavily as someone like JBJ, but he is 60 and he’s taken great care of his voice through the years.
Still a sexy man at 60 too. :heart
-
:o I heard a new bon jovi song recently and I was like who is singing this one ? It sounded NOTHING like Jon.
His voice is GONE.
Bon Jovi, sadly, spiralled down in music and voice quality, it's a free fall and he's not even halfway there to the bottom.
He was my first musical love, he's the one with whom I started to listen to foreign and somehow heavy music, and I never saw him live... but that ship has sailed, now I wouldn't go seeing him live even if I could. No Ritchie and a poor performance? that's not the memory I want to have of my first musical passion as a teen, should have seen him 15 years ago.
-
Within Temptation’s last couple of albums have been largely forgettable. The only song I remember from Hydra was the rapping one, and that’s only because I was surprised to hear the word “fuck” in a WT song. I listened to Resist once and haven’t spun it again. And for the love of Pete, stop it with the constant guest vocalists.
I also listen to a fair amount of Christian rock. Something I’ve noticed the past few years is that a fair number of these artists who previously used the guitar to push the songs are now shifting away from this and moving toward using keys/synths/programming as their fundamental driver. I’m not against this in principle if they’re doing something unique and interesting with it, but they just seem to play chords and put some Jesus vocals over them and that’s it. Seriously boring and feels very phoned in.
-
The last Within Temptation album I really loved was The Unforgiving. I miss the Enter/The Dance period even more though, they had a really interesting sound at that point unlike anyone else. They started stripping out the progressive and gothic elements and went full-blown symphonic, which they're good at, but became an overly saturated scene.
The Christian music industry always chases secular trends and takes a few years to catch on to the mainstream zeitgeist, so the dance-pop trend that started in the late 00s and became huge in the earlier 10s had a lag for them and didn't take off until a bit later.
-
^^ So what, we are going to see Christian EDM or something?
-
Hillsong Young & Free, some of Elevation Worship's stuff, various others pretty much are. Probably a lot more, I don't really follow the scene very closely.
-
For me, the only band that really falls into this category is Aerosmith. And, it's not so much that I wish they would go back to it now because, I think, they're just about done at this point. I wish it would've happened after Get A Grip. It had a good song or two. But, with the release of the 3 Alicia Silverstone video tunes, they were definitely at their poppiest. I would've loved for them to get back some of their rawness. They became way too polished and way too formulaic. And, it only got worse from there. Every song required an outside co-writer and every song got more watered down than the one before.
-
For me, the only band that really falls into this category is Aerosmith. And, it's not so much that I wish they would go back to it now because, I think, they're just about done at this point. I wish it would've happened after Get A Grip. It had a good song or two. But, with the release of the 3 Alicia Silverstone video tunes, they were definitely at their poppiest. I would've loved for them to get back some of their rawness. They became way too polished and way too formulaic. And, it only got worse from there. Every song required an outside co-writer and every song got more watered down than the one before.
John Kalodner was both the best thing and worst thing to happen to that band. I'm a sort of Aerosmith die hard - the run from Get Your Wings through Pump is about as good as it gets for any band - but for me, they're the epitome of corporate rock machine at this point. They're just so GOOD (meaning, singing and playing) that they've sort of been able to transcend that; but any lesser band would have been written off a long time ago.
-
Not everyone agrees with me, but I think Honkin’ on Bobo was an honest attempt to do exactly that, and I really wish they would have used that to springboard their writing as they moved forward. But alas, they went right back to writing “hits”.
But Honkin’ on Bobo was a really fun “getting back to basics” exercise, and I felt it was successful. YMMV
-
I much prefer bands who contain Christian members like U2 to bands who are out and out Christian Rock like Stryper or Delirious.
I'd love to listen to more "Christian" rock - but most of it sounds like worship music.
-
Good lord +1 to those whoever mentioned Within Temptation. Nothing really came to my mind when first considering the topic, other than Symphony X, but when I saw WT mentioned, I couldn't believe I had forgotten them.
-
I'd love to listen to more "Christian" rock - but most of it sounds like worship music.
I don’t know how much you’ve checked out or how much you’ve been exposed to, but my favorites have been Skillet (probably the most popular of those I’m going to mention), Red, and Decyfer Down. Other possibilities I’m familiar with would be Fireflight, Colton Dixon’s first couple albums, and a few Casting Crowns records (their last two have definitely been more on the worshippy side of things and all but abandoned their guitar-driven sound of their earlier albums). Third Day has a good southern rock style (other than their last album which feels to me more like attending a Baptist church), but can also delve a fair bit into the worship side of things.
That should be enough to get you started.
-
I much prefer bands who contain Christian members like U2 to bands who are out and out Christian Rock like Stryper or Delirious.
I'd love to listen to more "Christian" rock - but most of it sounds like worship music.
Check out El Grito ('The Scream'), by Descendencia ('Offspring'):
https://www.youtube.com/descendiente1
https://open.spotify.com/album/313tN0alqhcTD7AM4bRhaj
It's a five-piece from Argentina; El Grito (released last year) is their third album. Their songs are pretty diverse: some U2-vibes (such as "Buscarte"), but also some hard-rock ("Escombros") and even a few proggy moments ("Pan").
-
I much prefer bands who contain Christian members like U2 to bands who are out and out Christian Rock like Stryper or Delirious.
I'd love to listen to more "Christian" rock - but most of it sounds like worship music.
It depends on what exactly you're looking for. This was my sort of thing in my early teens, and some of it has stuck with me over the years, some of it hasn't. Some I still listen to more regularly are hard rock/AOR groups like Whiteheart and Idle Cure, progressive grunge like Grammatrain (I think their more recent material isn't even Christian anymore since the vocalist/guitarist doesn't consider himself one any longer), some of Phil Keaggy's albums, Jars of Clay's first few acoustic rock albums, just to name a few.
-
KANSAS.
-
Bon Jovi. 'nuff said.
I'm amazed at how fucked his voice is now.
It was rough back in 2000 when Crush came out.
It was on the way down by that point yes but I saw them on the Lost Highway tour around 2007/8 and Jon still put on a hell of a show. The strain was in his voice but he was still going for it. I haven’t seen them since in the flesh as I think Richie went missing on the tour for The Circle album and then bailed altogether after the following album. To me it’s not Bon Jovi without Sambora and I wouldn’t buy a ticket to see them. I have seen some live footage though since (actual pro shot footage, not cellphone stuff) and Jon sounds horrible. Just an awful nasal whine and not going for any big notes at all. They’re a pale shadow of what used to be a killer live band.
-
I wonder which 80s rock/metal belter's voice has aged the best. My first thought is Michael Sweet, but there could be an even better example. A lot of them can barely sing at all now, much less hit the notes they used to be able to or sometimes even sound at all like themselves anymore.
Michael Sweet is a GREAT example. Yeah, he's lost some range (who wouldn't after so much time). But he still retains a LOT of what he had, and I think the timbre of his voice has sounded much better in the 2000s than in the '80s and '90s (he agrees and has said the same).
-
For me, the only band that really falls into this category is Aerosmith. And, it's not so much that I wish they would go back to it now because, I think, they're just about done at this point. I wish it would've happened after Get A Grip. It had a good song or two. But, with the release of the 3 Alicia Silverstone video tunes, they were definitely at their poppiest. I would've loved for them to get back some of their rawness. They became way too polished and way too formulaic. And, it only got worse from there. Every song required an outside co-writer and every song got more watered down than the one before.
John Kalodner was both the best thing and worst thing to happen to that band. I'm a sort of Aerosmith die hard - the run from Get Your Wings through Pump is about as good as it gets for any band - but for me, they're the epitome of corporate rock machine at this point. They're just so GOOD (meaning, singing and playing) that they've sort of been able to transcend that; but any lesser band would have been written off a long time ago.
What was John Kalodner’s role in bands? Unless I’m misremembering, I seem to recollect seeing his name on a bunch of albums and he appeared on the credits as John Kalodner : John Kalodner. I kind of took that to mean he did something so unique that there was no name for it, he John Kalodner’d the album! Then I thought I heard him referred to as an A&R guy but I never knew exactly what that was, I just thought it was some go between for the artist and label execs.
-
not necessarily "many fans," but myself:
Tangled Thoughts of Leaving
Klimt 1918
St. Vincent
Margot & the Nuclear So & So's
Murder By Death
-
I wonder which 80s rock/metal belter's voice has aged the best. My first thought is Michael Sweet, but there could be an even better example. A lot of them can barely sing at all now, much less hit the notes they used to be able to or sometimes even sound at all like themselves anymore.
Michael Sweet is a GREAT example. Yeah, he's lost some range (who wouldn't after so much time). But he still retains a LOT of what he had, and I think the timbre of his voice has sounded much better in the 2000s than in the '80s and '90s (he agrees and has said the same).
I haven't listened to their recent albums in enough depth to recall what the highest note he can still hit is, but for sure there was at least one Ab5 at the end of "Do Unto Others", which is in a range even most guys in their 20s can't touch. I know there was at least one C6 at the end of "In God We Trust" in the 80s, I can't remember if that was the top of his range then.
-
What was John Kalodner’s role in bands? Unless I’m misremembering, I seem to recollect seeing his name on a bunch of albums and he appeared on the credits as John Kalodner : John Kalodner. I kind of took that to mean he did something so unique that there was no name for it, he John Kalodner’d the album! Then I thought I heard him referred to as an A&R guy but I never knew exactly what that was, I just thought it was some go between for the artist and studio execs.
Seeing that on albums always cracked me up. I used to know what it was he did, but it’s been so long since I’ve thought about it that I’d have to look it up again.
Ah yeah, so he was an A&R guy, but it looks like he was also involved in the creation of some albums, at least in the case of Aerosmith’s Get a Grip. Probably more that he was the kind of guy who could make your songs a hit so to speak.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kalodner
-
I wonder which 80s rock/metal belter's voice has aged the best. My first thought is Michael Sweet, but there could be an even better example. A lot of them can barely sing at all now, much less hit the notes they used to be able to or sometimes even sound at all like themselves anymore.
Michael Sweet is a GREAT example. Yeah, he's lost some range (who wouldn't after so much time). But he still retains a LOT of what he had, and I think the timbre of his voice has sounded much better in the 2000s than in the '80s and '90s (he agrees and has said the same).
Michael Kiske is another GREAT example.
-
What was John Kalodner’s role in bands? Unless I’m misremembering, I seem to recollect seeing his name on a bunch of albums and he appeared on the credits as John Kalodner : John Kalodner. I kind of took that to mean he did something so unique that there was no name for it, he John Kalodner’d the album! Then I thought I heard him referred to as an A&R guy but I never knew exactly what that was, I just thought it was some go between for the artist and studio execs.
Seeing that on albums always cracked me up. I used to know what it was he did, but it’s been so long since I’ve thought about it that I’d have to look it up again.
Ah yeah, so he was an A&R guy, but it looks like he was also involved in the creation of some albums, at least in the case of Aerosmith’s Get a Grip. Probably more that he was the kind of guy who could make your songs a hit so to speak.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kalodner
From what I can reckon, he was somewhere in between "A&R guy", "Producer" and "Advisor". Cut that part out, make those lyrics better, etc. I mean, it's hard to argue with success, and he HAS been successful, but it's almost like Mutt Lange; when your voice is all over these disparate artists' records, the artists themselves lose a bit of their identity. I like the Aerosmith that sounds like the wheels are about to fall off, not the "lighter in the air, oh this is the one song my girlfriend likes" Aerosmith.
-
What was John Kalodner’s role in bands? Unless I’m misremembering, I seem to recollect seeing his name on a bunch of albums and he appeared on the credits as John Kalodner : John Kalodner. I kind of took that to mean he did something so unique that there was no name for it, he John Kalodner’d the album! Then I thought I heard him referred to as an A&R guy but I never knew exactly what that was, I just thought it was some go between for the artist and studio execs.
Seeing that on albums always cracked me up. I used to know what it was he did, but it’s been so long since I’ve thought about it that I’d have to look it up again.
Ah yeah, so he was an A&R guy, but it looks like he was also involved in the creation of some albums, at least in the case of Aerosmith’s Get a Grip. Probably more that he was the kind of guy who could make your songs a hit so to speak.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kalodner
From what I can reckon, he was somewhere in between "A&R guy", "Producer" and "Advisor". Cut that part out, make those lyrics better, etc. I mean, it's hard to argue with success, and he HAS been successful, but it's almost like Mutt Lange; when your voice is all over these disparate artists' records, the artists themselves lose a bit of their identity. I like the Aerosmith that sounds like the wheels are about to fall off, not the "lighter in the air, oh this is the one song my girlfriend likes" Aerosmith.
I'm currently rereading Steve Gorman's book on his time with The Black Crowes. He dedicates a few pages to when they met and worked with Kalodner while making 'By Your Side'. His description of him is pretty amusing.