Jump to content

Biggest band letdowns


dgb

Recommended Posts

What bands blew you away at first, but then consistantly let you down ever after?

Bands that never recovered from the Sophomore Jinx?

Chicago - First LP was a masterpiece. Excellent jams, some great singles, muscular guitar with some terrific brass. Then, it's steadily downhill until they become perhaps the epitome of skin-crawl inducing "adult contemporary" vomitosis. I think it's all Peter Cetera's fault. Seriously, their first LP is really an all-time great.

Guns and Roses - Appetite for Destruction showed that you could have a lead singer that looked like an ugly girl, and still kick serious ***. After years of terrible glammy, hammy bands like Poison, RATT, Great White, plying their metal ballad dreck. Appetite kicked your *** for a full hour, straight through. Then Axl got the biggest ego this side of Bono and tried to become all introspective and crap. GNR plummeted as quickly as they had risen.

Anywho, this should get you started.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 46
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Stone Temple Pilots: Core rocked the world, steady and fast decline thereafter. Exacerbated by Scott Weiland's H habit.

Guns and Roses: Agree wholeheartedly with the above. It is not recommended that the band leader throw out the guitarist and songwriter, because you then throw out the band....

Boston: They were never as good in later years as the original release.

Pearl Jam: At thier best at first, although PJ still maintained a good level of creativity thereafter. The live shows improved over time as well, but on a songwriting level, Ten hits very hard.

It certainly seems that many bands are "best at first". On a creative level I would think it would be easier to do the first CD than a second following huge success of the first: The pressure to deliver must be immense. It's difficult to maintain an "open channel" artistically following huge and sudden success - many heads get large, and entirely too much external input exists. The bands who get better with age in rock are the true masters - and when you really look at it, are relatively rare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really, I though Don't Look Back was just as good as their first one. Of course after that, it's pretty bad.

----------------

On 6/4/2004 8:20:14 AM mark1101 wrote:

I give a heavy second to BOSTON. But Molly Hatchet wasn't far behind. Molly Hatchet also played terrribly live. I saw them several times. Bad Bad.
----------------

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really liked STP's "Purple", they entered some new territory, although not as wall to wall great as Core. Tiny Music was bad, and I think I have 4, but listened to it only once. What is really sad is "Talk Show", STP without Scott W.

Pearl Jam I can't say has been a let down, I think they have been consistant but can never match the passion and fury of the first couple LPs. They have kind of become like Neil Young or Sonic Youth. They aren't "BIG" anymore but consistantly put out quality alblums year after year. I saw Pearl Jam for the first time last year, and it was a truly fantastic show, over 3 hours long. Eddie connected with the audience so well it was like you were sitting in his living room getting a personal performance. I was never a big Pearl Jam fan as it used to be kind of a Nirvana OR Pearl Jam thing, similar to the Beatles or the Stones. Couldn't really be a huge fan of both, but after seeing a live show, I'm officially a fan.

I'll also add Phil Collins. Face Value is an exception alblum, wall to wall. But "Hello I must Be Going", while having a couple good tunes, kind of set the stage into love song, icky, crooning.

----------------

On 6/4/2004 8:23:04 AM Audible Nectar wrote:

Stone Temple Pilots: Core rocked the world, steady and fast decline thereafter. Exacerbated by Scott Weiland's H habit.

Guns and Roses: Agree wholeheartedly with the above. It is not recommended that the band leader throw out the guitarist and songwriter, because you then throw out the band....

Boston: They were never as good in later years as the original release.

Pearl Jam: At thier best at first, although PJ still maintained a good level of creativity thereafter. The live shows improved over time as well, but on a songwriting level, Ten hits very hard.

It certainly seems that many bands are "best at first". On a creative level I would think it would be easier to do the first CD than a second following huge success of the first: The pressure to deliver must be immense. It's difficult to maintain an "open channel" artistically following huge and sudden success - many heads get large, and entirely too much external input exists. The bands who get better with age in rock are the true masters - and when you really look at it, are relatively rare.
----------------

Link to comment
Share on other sites

----------------

On 6/4/2004 8:59:12 AM dgb wrote:

. . .

I was never a big Pearl Jam fan as it used to be kind of a Nirvana OR Pearl Jam thing, similar to the Beatles or the Stones. . .

----------------

Gee, I always thought it was the Beatles OR the Dave Clark Five!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/4/2004 8:04:35 AM dgb wrote:

"What bands blew you away at first, but then consistantly let you down ever after?

Bands that never recovered from the Sophomore Jinx?

Chicago - First LP was a masterpiece. Excellent jams, some great singles, muscular guitar with some terrific brass. Then, it's steadily downhill until they become perhaps the epitome of skin-crawl inducing "adult contemporary" vomitosis. I think it's all Peter Cetera's fault. Seriously, their first LP is really an all-time great."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree. The first Chicago LP I remember was silver/blue and was titled "Chicago". It was a two record album and sometime after it was released, my wife and I saw them live. They were very disapointing but we went to see them again only to be disapointed a second time. Never bought another Chicago LP or CD but we still listen to the first one every once in a while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chigago's first was "Chicago Transit Authority", shortened thereafter to plain ol' Chicago.

My personal favs were 1, 2, and 5, and maybe 7 in a pinch, but the earlier recordings are awful. After that, they seemed to start their slow decline into fat, balding middle age, and getting married and raising brats. That's enough to make anyone lose their creative "edge".

But, I would guess that they are one of the top few bands that have stayed relatively intact all of these years cranking out a boatload of albums, none of which are very good IMO. Something to be said for that alone...

Steely Dan's latest release pretty much SUCKED; I have always LOVED all of their previous stuff, and was disappointed for the first time with that one... Is their no hope, does every one get old and lazy?!

DM2.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was Chicago II. Their first LP was "Chicago Transit Authority". Has a black cover with blue "Chicago Transit Authority" "wood sign" on the front. Also a double LP, as were most of their early releases. II and III were still decent LPs, but no where near as good as CTA, IMO.

I agree. The first Chicago LP I remember was silver/blue and was titled "Chicago". It was a two record album and sometime after it was released, my wife and I saw them live. They were very disapointing but we went to see them again only to be disapointed a second time. Never bought another Chicago LP or CD but we still listen to the first one every once in a while.
----------------

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two guys that I think have really stayed the course and consistantly produced work as good as their early stuff are Neil Young and Tom Petty.

Steely Dan's latest release pretty much SUCKED; I have always LOVED all of their previous stuff, and was disappointed for the first time with that one... Is their no hope, does every one get old and lazy?!

DM
2.gif
----------------

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Smashing Pumpkins

Their first two records, Gish and Siamese Dream, were blistering psychedelic/grunge masterpieces. Then with Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness (you can already tell by the pompous title that things are not going in the right direction), there were a few great tracks, but they had started the descent down a slippery slope. Saw them live during this tour and they were simply awful. Billy Corgan's ego had gotten the best of him. It was all over after that. The Corgan follow-up project, Zwan, was an uninspired Pumpkins Lite that went nowhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I LOVE Mellon Collie...! There was seriously heavy s**t on that CD, and some really beautiful songs as well. It was a little long, the second disk petered out about half way through. Adore on the other hand was pathetic. I saw them twice on the Mellon Collie.. tour and thought they were great. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Fugs. 1st record had CocaCola ****** and Up Against the Wall Motherf****r. After that their sense of anarchy went downhill.

It's a Beautiful Day. Never even new they put out two more that's how bad it was. Splat!

Wings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

----------------

On 6/4/2004 11:58:12 AM dgb wrote:

That was Chicago II. Their first LP was "Chicago Transit Authority". Has a black cover with blue "Chicago Transit Authority" "wood sign" on the front. Also a double LP, as were most of their early releases. II and III were still decent LPs, but no where near as good as CTA, IMO.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

You're right! I went back through all the old LPs and there it was. I guess I bought the first two Chicago LPs.

Did any of those guys play with Buffalo Springfield? I always heard that but never had it confirmed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...