some bands go on for too long.

2 good examples of these are The Manics and Pearl Jam.

I used to listen to the Manics constantly. Generation Terrorist, Holy Bible, Gold against the Soul. Then it started to go to pot with the next album (Design for Life) Then it fell apart completely into some corporate fat middle age men rock.

Pearl Jam used to mean something. Now...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

God, so many, in fact probably the majority of bands who keep going beyond their first album or two.

I think the most obvious example is the Rolling Stones. They did some good stuff in the 60s, a smattering of half-decent things in the early 70s, and have been relentlessly dire musical prostitutes ever since.

Originally posted by robbie
some bands go on for too long.

2 good examples of these are The Manics and Pearl Jam.

I used to listen to the Manics constantly. Generation Terrorist, Holy Bible, Gold against the Soul. Then it started to go to pot with the next album (Design for Life) Then it fell apart completely into some corporate fat middle age men rock.


I knew you were a good lad Robbie! :thumbsup:

I was going to say the Manics. My favourite band ever - while Richey was still a member. After that - oh dear. Still better than 99% of bands but not a patch on what they were.

Early 90s Manics were completely untouchable - far beyond any other band, except perhaps The Clash (who they idolised). More than a band - a way of life. I've posted ad nauseam on them before, but they had everything the perfect rock band should have. Looks, charisma, fabulous beyond words live, stage presence to die for, integrity and courage, vast intelligence, great songs, meaningful lyrics, a deep love for rock music, genuine care and concern for their fans, the ability to change people's lives, to really MATTER to people (to be a Manics fan back then was effectively a lifestyle decision) - to me, everything that a truly VITAL rock band must have. And they had it all in spades....

Once Richey was no longer part of the band, the Manics effectively no longer existed. I had nothing against the other 3 carrying on, but they should have changed their name. They were not, could not, be the same band, and they owed it to Richey and the fans to take a new name. Like Joy Division did when Ian Curtis died.

I always refer to the 'apres Richey' band as the Manic Street Preachers - to me, they're not the Manics. Much as I adore Nicky Wire - and I do - it's not the same.

I feel MSP have now diluted a lot of the legacy of the Manics, and feel very disappointed with them for that.

But I still feel that Nicky, Richey, James and Sean together made the greatest band ever, who to me will never be dislodged from their rightful place at the pinnacle of rock.

Stay Beautiful!

StarSparkle

Three from me:



Travis

The Sex Pistols (anyone see the Filthy Lucre tour? - Oh, the shame)

Paul McCartney

Originally posted by StarSparkle

I was going to say the Manics. My favourite band ever - while Richey was still a member. After that - oh dear. Still better than 99% of bands but not a patch on what they were.



I honestly think the MSP's best LP was 'Design For Life'. They always seemed a bit (puts tin hat on and scarpers into bombproof bunker) 'posturing' to me beforehand. However, Richey's lyrics on 'Design For Life' are by far the best on that record. Subsequent albums were simply terrible.

The 'Stones should have packed in after 'Some Girls'. I can't think of any band which made great records well into their career other than Steely Dan ('Aja') and, er, that's it......

Originally posted by robbie
Pearl Jam

I never knew what this meant until a friend told me a week or so ago. Just in case you don't know either, it's a rather poetic term for semen. Sadly, however, the 'it's good for your skin' line is still not going to work with the ladies, whatever you call it.

Originally posted by DanSumption
God, so many, in fact probably the majority of bands who keep going beyond their first album or two.

I think the most obvious example is the Rolling Stones. They did some good stuff in the 60s, a smattering of half-decent things in the early 70s, and have been relentlessly dire musical prostitutes ever since.

I agree that the Stones haven't made a consistently good album for almost 30 years, but it's not strictly true to say that all their 70s albums were only half-decent.

On the contrary, the two finest albums of their career (Sticky Fingers and Exile On Main Street) are from the early 70s.

Originally posted by LordSnooty
I never knew what this meant until a friend told me a week or so ago. Just in case you don't know either, it's a rather poetic term for semen. Sadly, however, the 'it's good for your skin' line is still not going to work with the ladies, whatever you call it.
Yes, that's been proven untrue (http://www.viceland.com/issues_au/v10n8/htdocs/cum.php).

I'm not sure that actually is the source of the name Pearl Jam though - it was discussed a while back on the "origin of band names" thread, and there are conflicting reports.

I can think of a few bands that made good records well into their careers, but they are few and far between (and usually they're bands that haven't been "tainted" with success).

Every time I listen to U2 and The Joshua Tree I always think what a stunning album that is and that from then on it was a downhill journey (one with ever darker sunglasses). To me, this was and always will be U2 at their best.

Travis should most definitely have left it at The Man Who.

Blur were at the very top with Parklife. Their self-titled album is unlistenable.

And Radiohead, as we all know, turned into something different after OK Computer.

Wait till the Floydies rise from their beds...

Originally posted by Ousetunes
Travis should most definitely have left it at The Man Who.

Blur were at the very top with Parklife. Their self-titled album is unlistenable.

And Radiohead, as we all know, turned into something different after OK Computer.
Have to disagree with you on the latter two - "13" was Blur's best album (Blur was mostly OK too), and "Kid A" contains some of Radiohead's best stuff.

As for Travis - did they ever record anything decent?

I'll maybe be hailed as a charlatan of the first order but I reckon Metallica should've thrown in the towel after Metallica (or the black album). Everything up to and including that album was golden, everything else after sucked a big one.

If nothing else, Millions would have been spared Lars Ulrich's many lengthy, sonorous diatribes at the merest hint of a camera pointing in his direction.

The Prodigy

Most of the stuff after the classic "Experience" ( Charly, Out of Space etc) was rubbish pop-techno IMO.

Surprised nobodys mentioned Oasis yet. I didn't think they could better the first two albums.

How about Stereophonics? I like the current album but didn't really care for the one before that.

have to second Oasis. 2 good albums and the rest is awful.. The stereophonics only ever made one decent album (and that's because I love 10,000 trees)

Radiohead. They used to nbe my favourite band. I loved them. I love Pablo Honey and The Bends. I was very indifferent about OK Computer and never really liked it.

Then they did a disappearing act up their own behinds and produced lots of experimental (read cr*p) music with Thom whining and whining and odd noises.

I'll also add U2 and REM into the mix

For me U2's better albums ended with Achtung Baby with a few decent songs on the later ones. I loved War and Boy.

As for REM. Up to New Adventures they were great. Loved Murmur, Document and Green. Then they just went. now there stuff just sounds like sub par REM covers to me.

several rock bands also overstayed their welcome:

Stone Temple Pilots
Wildhearts
Live
Extreme

Originally posted by Ousetunes
Every time I listen to U2 and The Joshua Tree I always think what a stunning album that is and that from then on it was a downhill journey (one with ever darker sunglasses). To me, this was and always will be U2 at their best.


Sory had to butt in cos' I so think the same.

Every tour and album since the Joshua Tree I have so tried to think it was great but really it's been average. Even the Album covers aren't as good.


Red Hill Mining Town still makes get a tear in my eye.

But Larry Mullen is still sexy so it's not all bad ( I am shallow).

Back to band who should have stopped:
Oasis
Stereophonics
Rolling Stones
Brian Ferry
David Bowie

Can't quite agree with the consensus on the Manics.

True, post-Richey they have become a very different band, and their finest hour was undoubtedly 'The Holy Bible'. A dark, evil, borderline unlistenable but wholly compelling and brilliant album, I really don't think it left the band (as it was then) anywhere to go; if they were going to continue as a band they had to change tack. Which they did, extremely successfully on 'Everything Must Go'.

I'm very much a fan of the early stuff, which is patently the best work they've done, but also count some of their later stuff as being very good indeed. Which other band would dare write a song about Paul Robeson? Who would have imagined they were capable of songs as beautiful as 'The Everlasting', or 'Ocean Spray'? Or as poppy as 'Miss Europa Disco Dancer'?

It's easy to criticise a band as being too long in the tooth, but a lot of the stuff they've done lately has been sniffed at and overlooked too easily. 'Lifeblood', their latest, is well worth checking out.

Oh, and they're still amazing live! (Especially when they play the old stuff :) )

Originally posted by Greenback
'Everything Must Go'

Er.....yes, that's the album I meant. I can feel my credibility as a 'Manics expert' ebbing away.....they're from Cornwall, right?

Originally posted by LordSnooty
Er.....yes, that's the album I meant. I can feel my credibility as a 'Manics expert' ebbing away.....they're from Cornwall, right?

I'll let you off.

As long as you're not the type of 'fan' who shouts along to the line "we only want to get DRUNK" really loudly at gigs during 'Design for Life', hoisting their weak lager in the air at the same time. Ugh.

But as an honorary peer I imagine for you it's pimms rather than lager? :)

I await getting stoned, and this is only MY humble opinion, but Morrisey should have packed up after the Smiths.

**hides in small corner....

Originally posted by BoroughGal
I await getting stoned
Mmm, niiice :wow:

I'd like to get stoned too.

Originally posted by Greenback
Can't quite agree with the consensus on the Manics.

True, post-Richey they have become a very different band, and their finest hour was undoubtedly 'The Holy Bible'. A dark, evil, borderline unlistenable but wholly compelling and brilliant album, I really don't think it left the band (as it was then) anywhere to go; if they were going to continue as a band they had to change tack. Which they did, extremely successfully on 'Everything Must Go'.

I'm very much a fan of the early stuff, which is patently the best work they've done, but also count some of their later stuff as being very good indeed. Which other band would dare write a song about Paul Robeson? Who would have imagined they were capable of songs as beautiful as 'The Everlasting', or 'Ocean Spray'? Or as poppy as 'Miss Europa Disco Dancer'?

It's easy to criticise a band as being too long in the tooth, but a lot of the stuff they've done lately has been sniffed at and overlooked too easily. 'Lifeblood', their latest, is well worth checking out.

Oh, and they're still amazing live! (Especially when they play the old stuff :) )

I don't think I disagree with you at all Greenback? Our views seem pretty similar, just couched a bit differently?

Maybe it's that I feel very strongly that Nicky, James and Sean should have chosen a new name for themselves after Richey, to make the point that they were now a very different band. I actually love some of the stuff that MSP have done - as I said before, what they've produced as MSP is still better than what 99% of bands come up with. It's just that it compares poorly to the awesomeness of their early material.

Don't get me wrong - without Richey, MSP are still a great rock band who deserve a mention in rock history. They're just not SPECIAL anymore. MSP as they are are not capable of inspiring the love - no, ADORATION - that the Manics did so effortlessly. Manics gigs routinely generated the love and connection between band and audience that I've only ever felt was present at one other gig I've been at - and that was Morrissey.

The first MSP gig I went to after Richey, everything had changed. The magic was gone. The audience was full of 'boot-boys' shouting "we only want to get drunk", the sort of morons who were the antithesis of what the early Manics were all about. The sort of idiots who would have beaten Richey up without a thought 6 months before. These 'fans' were charging to the front, shoving girlies with their feather boas right out of the way. Assassinated beauty all right - the Manics were not 'our' band anymore - it was all over. :(

MSP - a great rock band. The Manics - untouchably special.

StarSparkle

Originally posted by DanSumption
Mmm, niiice :wow:

I'd like to get stoned too.

Oy! You know I meant having small rocks thrown at me from a great distance.... didn't you?

Originally posted by StarSparkle
The first MSP gig I went to after Richey, everything had changed. The magic was gone. The audience was full of 'boot-boys' shouting "we just want to get drunk", and charging to the front, shoving girlies with their feather boas right out of the way. Assassinated beauty all right - the Manics were not 'our' band anymore - it was all over. :(

I know what you mean, but while the baseball cap brigade are missing the point of the song entirely you can stand back smugly and know that at least [i]you[i] appreciate what the Manics are all about. It's also great fun watching some of the faces in the crowd when they play 'Yes', or 'Archives of Pain'.

While there is a pretty clear divide between old and new Manics, I think some people jump to the conclusion that because the new stuff's popular, and not as angry or ambitious (how could it be after all they went through?) it must be rubbish. And to be honest it riles me a bit!

Hmm, I think the Manic Street Preachers fans should have quit while they were ahead :roll:

Originally posted by BoroughGal
I await getting stoned, and this is only MY humble opinion, but Morrisey should have packed up after the Smiths.

**hides in small corner....

I agree anyways.

I thought Oasis should have stopped after 2 albums.

Plus another vote for Metallica.

Originally posted by DanSumption
Hmm, I think the Manic Street Preachers fans should have quit while they were ahead :roll:

Yeah, probably – must be dull as hell for people who don't like 'em! Still, there are surely plenty more mind-numbingly tedious threads around the place.

*cough*didwereallylandonthemoon*cough*

I'll add Suede or now the Tears. They were Suede, started off well, then went downhill. then broke up. years later reformed and changed there name. Now popular with insomniacs:gag:

Originally posted by robbie
I'll add Suede or now the Tears. They were Suede, started off well, then went downhill. then broke up. years later reformed and changed there name. Now popular with insomniacs:gag:

Suede - (potentially) fabulous band who just couldn't quite live up to the promise of their first album. A perfect example of a band where creative brilliance came out of the personality clashes and tensions within it. But then - how do you follow up the sublime masterpiece that was "The Drowners"? Impossible task.

I'm still hoping for something magical to come from Brett and Bernard's new collaberation though..... there's time yet.....

StarSparkle

PS It's strange, isn't it, how Bernards in rock are actually very cool? (Butler, Sumner)

Originally posted by Greenback
Yeah, probably – must be dull as hell for people who don't like 'em! Still, there are surely plenty more mind-numbingly tedious threads around the place.
:) yes, I was only teasing. I like the Manics really. Just not quite that much.

Originally posted by venger
I agree anyways.

I thought Oasis should have stopped after 2 albums.

Plus another vote for Metallica.

ill have to agree with you on metallica they should have called it a day after the s@m album from 99 ended it on a high note instead of dragging it out

Originally posted by panda79
ill have to agree with you on metallica they should have called it a day after the s@m album from 99 ended it on a high note instead of dragging it out

Have To Partially Agree With You On That One.

They Should Stop Recording New Material,But Keep Touring Every Few Years.The Music World Can't Afford To Lose Bands Who Can Still Put On A Fantastic Show And Send The Fans Home More Than Happy.
I've Seen The Boys Many Times And NEVER Been Disappointed.

Anyone Remember Sheffield '88?-Legendary.:headbang:

Originally posted by BoroughGal
I await getting stoned, and this is only MY humble opinion, but Morrisey should have packed up after the Smiths.

**hides in small corner....

No one will stone anyone until I blow this whistle! Even if they do say that Morrisey is rubbish! :hihi:

Definately:

Oasis

Rolling Stones

Radiohead
(from the brilliant OK Computer to Kid A and Amnesiac which are decent albums but nothing on their previous work)

Originally posted by Greenback
I'll let you off.

As long as you're not the type of 'fan' who shouts along to the line "we only want to get DRUNK" really loudly at gigs during 'Design for Life', hoisting their weak lager in the air at the same time. Ugh.

But as an honorary peer I imagine for you it's pimms rather than lager? :)

Yes, I'm definitely a Pimm's man. That or a G&T... I am appalled that boneheads attended Manics gigs and shouted, 'get drunk' during 'Design for Life'. But then, I remember seeing The Smiths in 1983 playing the Student's Union at my university, it was the time of King Kurt and all that 'shove dancing' malarkey. Every time the pace went up the floor filled with cavemen bashing into each other; I felt they were missing the point of the band somewhat. Actually, come to think of it, The Smiths had the good sense to pack in while still - if not at their peak - a long way from decline. Morrisey has indeed failed to match his work while in the band in his solo career, save for the miraculous 'Vauxhall and I', which for some unaccountable reason is superb (and better than the last Smiths studio album).

Originally posted by StarSparkle


PS It's strange, isn't it, how Bernards in rock are actually very cool? (Butler, Sumner) Manning = Blackpool Rock?

Originally posted by LordSnooty
it was the time of King Kurt and all that 'shove dancing' malarkey. Every time the pace went up the floor filled with cavemen bashing into each other; I felt they were missing the point of the band somewhat.
If you've never been a caveman bashing into each other then you've never lived (it's actually a much more co-operative and gentle sport than it looks from the outside). I never got to see King Kurt, but I did help my friend clean an awful lot of flour and egg off his leather jacket, enough to make a pretty decent cake.

(Supporting King Kurt were a great little band called the Pogue Mahones - now they should have quit while they were ahead).

Spice Girls

Duran Duran

Buzzcocks

Originally posted by DanSumption
If you've never been a caveman bashing into each other then you've never lived (it's actually a much more co-operative and gentle sport than it looks from the outside). I never got to see King Kurt, but I did help my friend clean an awful lot of flour and egg off his leather jacket, enough to make a pretty decent cake.

(Supporting King Kurt were a great little band called the Pogue Mahones - now they should have quit while they were ahead).

I remember having a go at it during a Higsons gig (as in Charlie Higson!), but it didn't quite do it for me. But hey ho, it's a free country! I was rather more into 'exhibitionist' dancing, which required a certain amount of space in which to 'express onself'. I was heavily into P Wyndham Lewis at the time and was much impressed by his writings concerning 'the mob', which boiled down to something like (I'm paraphrasing, of course), 'nice posh people follow gentile pursuits such as painting and poetry, horrid common people crowd together and cause trouble'. It seemed to make some kind of sense to my former foppish self. Even though I was common really............

A few years later a friend and I found ourselves in the thick of a 'Thatcher unwelcoming committee' outside the Cutler's Hall. (by accident - we were on our way back from visiting my Grandma at Commonside, Walkey). I had no love for Thatcher at all, but felt perfectly ridiculous in the midst of 'the mob', all of whom were shouting rotten things at her and frightening the police horses.

Er....what's this thread about again? Apols for rambling - I am simply trying to avoid installing a new lavatory and cistern. No, I must get on with it........oh yeah, Roxy Music should have definitely called it a day after 'Siren' (and that was only redeemed by the excellent 'Love Is The Drug', and the cover).

oasis (dull repeats of previous hits)

rolling stones (and your last good song was .....?)

thunder (love them...but its not really rock anymore..just cockney bar room jokey lyrics)

guns n roses (my fave band...not sure if they count....they ARE still a bad in name only....but axl's voice cant sing the songs as well as he used to...brilliant live still..but mtv performance not too long ago was awful)

morrisey (actually i wish he'd never started)

paul mccartney (did he ever write good songs? im starting to wonder if he did write any of the beatles songs coz he cant seem to pull out a good song to save his life nowadays...maybe its all just a lie and john lennon wrote them all on his own)

metallica (dull, sell outs, have become what they set out to destroy)

manic street preachers (1st album is class.....i personally find most of there lyrics pompus and after everything must go i can barely listen to a single track off the following albums)

Originally posted by LordSnooty
I remember having a go at it during a Higsons gig (as in Charlie Higson!), but it didn't quite do it for me.
Who wrote the Bible? Did you write the Bible?

I used to love that band, in fact I love pretty much everything Charlie has done (music, TV, books...)

I think the whole "mob" thing did vary a lot from gig to gig - I went to see the Cramps in the mid-80s and the mosh-pit was very violent and not a lot of fun, but at most gigs it was the best place to be (except that I got through about a dozen pairs of glasses that way)

Oh yeah, we're wandering off topic again, aren't we? But I reckon we can get away with a couple of posts, after all that twittering about the Manics earlier :)

Originally posted by IanMitchell


Radiohead
(from the brilliant OK Computer to Kid A and Amnesiac which are decent albums but nothing on their previous work)

Kid A is the superior LP by far. The project was to kill the 'stadium giants' image that would have surely finished them off and go in an entirely new direction.
You hear the tracks on Kid A Live and you totally understand it. It was awesome in the way that OK Computer wasn't with that queen-esqe/rock-a-billy style, the only saving grace being the track Let Down.

There is not a single poor track on Kid A although it is more difficult to listen to than the blander Bends and OK Computer. They used influences from 'warp record' artists to create a whole new sound. Challenging and inspiring at the same time.

You cannot judge Amnesiac in the same breath, as it is Kid A's Satellite LP. It would be like comparing Com Lag to Hail to the Thief. Or My Iron Lung to the Bends. These records were merely spin offs including different versions of LP tracks - B-sides and session tracks that never got on to the CD list. The Pyramid song being an example of a track that never made it on to Kid A. So it ended up on Amnesiac probably because it had such a **** name, the song itself is outstanding.

To return to the theme of the thread. I believe that Radiohead by not following the formula have improved over time and are still relevant and have something to say.
:)

Originally posted by miniminch
To return to the theme of the thread. I believe that Radiohead by not following the formula have improved over time and are still relevant and have something to say.
:)
I'm with you there, Radiohead are one of the few bands which has realised the dead-end they could wind up in, and has taken steps to void it. As opposed to, say, Oasis, who seem quite happy (in as much as Oasis are ever happy) stuck in their ersatz Beatles rut.

Originally posted by DanSumption
Who wrote the Bible? Did you write the Bible?

I used to love that band, in fact I love pretty much everything Charlie has done (music, TV, books...)

I think the whole "mob" thing did vary a lot from gig to gig - I went to see the Cramps in the mid-80s and the mosh-pit was very violent and not a lot of fun, but at most gigs it was the best place to be (except that I got through about a dozen pairs of glasses that way)

Oh yeah, we're wandering off topic again, aren't we? But I reckon we can get away with a couple of posts, after all that twittering about the Manics earlier :)

At least "all that twittering about the Manics" was on topic :)

StarSparkle

Originally posted by StarSparkle
At least "all that twittering about the Manics" was on topic :)
So was the bit about the Higsons - Charlie quit while he was ahead, and just look at him now, taking up Ian Fleming's mantle!

I also prefer the darker punky feel to the early manics, the later albums sound over produced to me.
Did any of you get to see them before they brought out an album?
I only got into them from 'motorcycle emptyness' onwards but i gather they already had a huge following by then.
Totaly opposite to the original thread but one band who did quit while they were ahead... MANSUN much missed.

Originally posted by desy
Spice Girls

Duran Duran

Buzzcocks

Two of those three should never have been formed in the first place (and I don't mean the Buzzcocks).

A lot of solo artists would have been better throwing in the towel eg Dylan and Van Morrison would have been better off jacking it in circa 1975.

Originally posted by 40summat
I also prefer the darker punky feel to the early manics, the later albums sound over produced to me.
Did any of you get to see them before they brought out an album?

Yes, quite a few times! :)

Sorry to say it, 40summat, but you really missed something!

First gig of theirs I went to, most of the audience HATED them - and of course it brought out the best in them. Took the **** out of the audience mercilessly, and gave their all in providing a wild, out-of-control, passionate performance that's what rock 'n roll's supposed to be all about.

In those days, "You Love Us" finished their set with two fingers firmly up to all those who hated them. In later days, when the audience did love them, the irony kind of got lost!

Fabulous days. Sigh.

StarSparkle :thumbsup:

I would have loved to have seen them play with that attitude starsparkle,
i'm assuming they were supporting someone with a totaly different style, hence the partisan audience.
I do remember some of the early interviews were a bit mad and feeling a bit uncomfortable for liking a band when some of the fans were copying richie with the self mutilation thing.
But they say it's a fine line between madness and genius, and i still hope he's somewhere and sorted.
Any way cheers for sharing that memory:thumbsup:

Originally posted by samc
Sory had to butt in cos' I so think the same.

Every tour and album since the Joshua Tree I have so tried to think it was great but really it's been average. Even the Album covers aren't as good.


Red Hill Mining Town still makes get a tear in my eye.

But Larry Mullen is still sexy so it's not all bad ( I am shallow).

Back to band who should have stopped:
Oasis
Stereophonics
Rolling Stones
Brian Ferry
David Bowie


Are you mad?????

You take that back about David Bowie you *******


Ferry is the ****ing master!

Oasis, Stones, Phonics ALL GREAT

Originally posted by Mod2
You take that back about David Bowie you *******


Ferry is the ****ing master!

Oasis, Stones, Phonics ALL GREAT
Bowie has got a lot better of let, but as for the other four... nah, you're having a laugh! All well past their prime (although again I'm not sure that the Stereophonics ever had a prime).

Some ones I definitely agree with here and some I don't but for me it's got to be Robbie Williams. Never a fan of his stuff although you can forgive his first two albums almost, the most recent offerings have just been garbage.
What really pees me off is the girlfriend likes him and subjects me to the torture of listening to it far too frequently :help:

Originally posted by DanSumption
Bowie has got a lot better of let, but as for the other four... nah, you're having a laugh! All well past their prime (although again I'm not sure that the Stereophonics ever had a prime).


His earlier stuff was better,despite what i just said.

Ferry was and is always cool in my eyes

Stereophonics and Oasis are one of the few decent bands out today

The Stones are legends, Leave them!

Originally posted by Mod2
The Stones are legends, Leave them!
:) "Legends" are usually things which happened thousands of years ago. Ditto the Stones. They were good in the 60s, and occasionally in the early 70s, but as per the subject of the thread they should have quit while they were ahead, instead of all those stadium tours to boost their offshore accounts.

There are plenty of decent bands around today, although you may have to dig a bit to find them.

Originally posted by DanSumption
:) "Legends" are usually things which happened thousands of years ago. Ditto the Stones. They were good in the 60s, and occasionally in the early 70s, but as per the subject of the thread they should have quit while they were ahead, instead of all those stadium tours to boost their offshore accounts.


So true :hihi: :hihi:

Conversely, how about bands who timed their exit perfectly? As usual the Beatles did it best. They split up in 1970 with a number one album and single (Let It Be). Their 8 year recording career produced an unparalleled legacy of perfect pop music which will probably never be equalled, let alone excelled.

Originally posted by DanSumption
:) "Legends" are usually things which happened thousands of years ago. Ditto the Stones. They were good in the 60s, and occasionally in the early 70s, but as per the subject of the thread they should have quit while they were ahead, instead of all those stadium tours to boost their offshore accounts.

There are plenty of decent bands around today, although you may have to dig a bit to find them.

So you don't think the stones are legends??

Originally posted by Mod2
So you don't think the stones are legends??
Erm... did you read my post?

Originally posted by Saifa
The Prodigy

Most of the stuff after the classic "Experience" ( Charly, Out of Space etc) was rubbish pop-techno IMO.

Not quite sure how you came to this conclusion Saifa, The Prodigy are one of the most 'origional' bands this country has ever produced. Each album is different from the last one which eliminates any possibility of them going 'stale' and repetitive. The Fat of the Land went to the number one slot in over 50 countries in its first week of release, couple this with the fact that 3 of the Prodigys tracks from that album Always feature in the 'top 100 songs' programms on TV surely goes some away to proving that there music aint 'rubbish pop-techno'.

Dare I say it "The Arctic Monkeys".

Just think of all the psychotherapy costs they'll save if the press decide they don't live up to all the hype!

I used to love that band, in fact I love pretty much everything Charlie has done (music, TV, books...)

Watcha Dan - I remember the Higsons gig very clearly. They were really aggressive! Like a funk version of the Sex Pistols. They were obviously right to pack it in early though; my own favourite 'Charlie moment' is the sketch in the Fast Show involving the straight gardener and the gay toff, in particular the one where the joke reached it's zenith and the pair of them tried, but failed, to utter a single word to each other - brilliant! Sadly, I found Randall and Hopkirk very weak by comparison, but nobody's perfect, I suppose.

Oh, right....bands who should have quit while ahead. I loved The Stranglers up to 'Feline' (a highly underrated record), but really feel they should have packed up and gone home immediately afterwards. I wouldn't tell that to JJB, however, even from a safe distance....

Originally posted by LordSnooty
Oh, right....bands who should have quit while ahead. I loved The Stranglers up to 'Feline' (a highly underrated record), but really feel they should have packed up and gone home immediately afterwards. I wouldn't tell that to JJB, however, even from a safe distance....
You're right (on both counts), though I wouldn't have minded if they had packed it in after Black & White, or perhaps The Raven. In fact, like most bands, their first two albums far outshone everything after, but the next two were good enough that I'd have been happy for them to stick together long enough to make those as well.

Originally posted by Mod2
His earlier stuff was better,despite what i just said.

Ferry was and is always cool in my eyes

Stereophonics and Oasis are one of the few decent bands out today

The Stones are legends, Leave them!

Stereophonics and Oasis are just plain god awful nowardays...

Originally posted by robbie
Stereophonics and Oasis are just plain god awful nowardays...

Radiohead are still good, despite people not liking the new stuff, because its not the same as the old stuff, they are still prepared to try new things, new instruments, and play about.

The phonics have lost it, i loved the first 3 albums, the other 2 were naff. Oasis are still prone to bashing out a good anthem, but they are getting fewer by the album.

Joel

Originally posted by DanSumption
Erm... did you read my post?

Obviously did

Anyway, U2


****

Id have to say status quo should have quit years ago; they went from being a decent heavy rock band in the early 70s to total carbage since. Playing covers of beach boy records not exactly "rock and roll" is it.:heyhey:

My two pennorth: Motorhead once Fast Eddie and Philthy Animal left; Judas Priest who went from great heavy rock band to football chants when they did United; Queensryche after Operation Mindcrime or failing that after Empire; Incredible String Band in the early 70s; and so on. Actually very few bands manage to sustain a long long career and still come up with something that's as good now as their early stuff was, so really you can put almost anybody in this thread who got beyond about half a dozen albums.

Originally posted by brooksy
Id have to say status quo should have quit years ago; they went from being a decent heavy rock band in the early 70s to total carbage since. Playing covers of beach boy records not exactly "rock and roll" is it.:heyhey:

Neither are U2

:gag:

Originally posted by metalman
Incredible String Band in the early 70s;
Very, very true. Once they found Scientology they went right down the pan.

Originally posted by LordSnooty
Oh, right....bands who should have quit while ahead. I loved The Stranglers up to 'Feline' (a highly underrated record), but really feel they should have packed up and gone home immediately afterwards. I wouldn't tell that to JJB, however, even from a safe distance....

I have to disagree slightly, Dreamtime was a superb album and they came up with Norfolk Coast last year which has them back to their best. :thumbsup:
If you get a chance to see them live, they are still an awsome stage act. :wow:

Originally posted by metalman
Incredible String Band in the early 70s

The Incredible String Band were even better in the late 60s for their first three albums. When the two girls joined (Rose and Liquorice) it all got a bit self-conscious and introspective and the later albums were heavy going.

Strange but true: former ISB member Rose Simpson became Lady Mayoress of Aberystwyth in 1994

Metallica should have canned it after Garage inc..

/me passes round the Cadbury Roses

Now don't loose the tin, Lars wants it back soon..

Joel

Originally posted by Swan_Vesta
I'll maybe be hailed as a charlatan of the first order but I reckon Metallica should've thrown in the towel after Metallica (or the black album). Everything up to and including that album was golden, everything else after sucked a big one.

If nothing else, Millions would have been spared Lars Ulrich's many lengthy, sonorous diatribes at the merest hint of a camera pointing in his direction.


Ditto...nuff said! (man of few words today)