Mosher

A and Under Wraps are very good imo. I tried and tried. :) Actually, it's been a long time and as I get older I like more and more music. So maybe it's time to try them both again. Out of curiosity, if compelled to, what Tull albums do you like least? A lot of people don't like Broadsword at all, but I love that one. You know what, I'm such a Tull fan and it's been so long, I think I'll go listen to those albums right now. I like liking music much more than not liking it. :)

You're not entirely correct on that. Your opinion is certainly important, even if it's wrong (ie - just an opinion). So let's remove mine and your opinions from the discussion. Collideoscope and Chair in the Doorway were commercial failures (Colleoscope didn't even chart, and Chair in the Doorway *barely* charted on release week). That's a severe fall from grace for a platinum selling band. Reviews were mixed. Time since has neither album drawing any attention, in retrospect the albums are basically lost in time due to being bleh. There's no compelling reason for any rock music fan to dig them up/out and listen to them, largely because there's a glut of much better music made before and since. I'm sure you've thought some albums great that were commercial failures. That's not much of a test of anything other than popularity. While it's probable that if more LC fans had liked them they'd have done betters, it's also true that a great many LC fans had no idea they'd released anything at all after Stain, so there's the question of how the record was handled. Regardless, Collideoscope was brilliant and is a must have. :) I'm completely guilty of losing track of LC after the Stain album and hiatus/breakup. I'll have to give their followup albums a listen. I just hope I'm not the only one who loved Collideoscope. Almost starting to wonder about it. :) I don't mean to be disparaging about trying it, but please don't actually BUY it. :P Bought it, loved it, my favorite album by them. I wonder if it's the caustic nature. It has a brutality that none of their other albums really have as much. And it plays a little bit with some industrial touches that people might not like. I loved it though. Even if I am alone. A lot of their really beautiful sounds were removed as well, the sheer beauty of songs like Solace, Nothingness, and such are largely gone except on perhaps the beautiful 'Flying'. So it was a big change. I guess it worked for me and obviously turned others off. Nevertheless, I would never tell anyone to buy music without listening to some of it first, far too subjective. I think it's brilliant. Edit: I did notice on the links offered that it in fact was critically praised. The link agreed that it was a commercial failure, but shared 4 links to positive reviews and stated that it was 'critically praised', so it isn't just me. So maybe someone else out there might love it too. :)

I love all Tull except for much of 'A' and 'Under Wraps', those did less for me. Otherwise the variety and writing is impressive throughout. If you loved Thick go with Passion if you like the long suites. Minstrel is possibly the closest comparison musically, but they really do different things each album> My favorites are Songs From the Wood, Heavy Horses, and War Child.

You're not entirely correct on that. Your opinion is certainly important, even if it's wrong (ie - just an opinion). So let's remove mine and your opinions from the discussion. Collideoscope and Chair in the Doorway were commercial failures (Colleoscope didn't even chart, and Chair in the Doorway *barely* charted on release week). That's a severe fall from grace for a platinum selling band. Reviews were mixed. Time since has neither album drawing any attention, in retrospect the albums are basically lost in time due to being bleh. There's no compelling reason for any rock music fan to dig them up/out and listen to them, largely because there's a glut of much better music made before and since. I'm sure you've thought some albums great that were commercial failures. That's not much of a test of anything other than popularity. While it's probable that if more LC fans had liked them they'd have done betters, it's also true that a great many LC fans had no idea they'd released anything at all after Stain, so there's the question of how the record was handled. Regardless, Collideoscope was brilliant and is a must have. :) I'm completely guilty of losing track of LC after the Stain album and hiatus/breakup. I'll have to give their followup albums a listen. I just hope I'm not the only one who loved Collideoscope. Almost starting to wonder about it. :)

You're not entirely correct on that. Your opinion is certainly important, even if it's wrong (ie - just an opinion). So let's remove mine and your opinions from the discussion. Collideoscope and Chair in the Doorway were commercial failures (Colleoscope didn't even chart, and Chair in the Doorway *barely* charted on release week). That's a severe fall from grace for a platinum selling band. Reviews were mixed. Time since has neither album drawing any attention, in retrospect the albums are basically lost in time due to being bleh. There's no compelling reason for any rock music fan to dig them up/out and listen to them, largely because there's a glut of much better music made before and since. I'm sure you've thought some albums great that were commercial failures. That's not much of a test of anything other than popularity. While it's probable that if more LC fans had liked them they'd have done betters, it's also true that a great many LC fans had no idea they'd released anything at all after Stain, so there's the question of how the record was handled. Regardless, Collideoscope was brilliant and is a must have. :)

You don't see a Living Colour and Fishbone connection despite mentioning yourself that Fishbone has elements of funk and metal in them?! You don't see elements of funk and metal in Living Colour?! How does that make sense? Well, they're both rock bands. Arguably FNM also has all of those elements as well. I understand why other people compare them, I get the idea that they are both experimental outfits that like to blend elements and like I said I love all three of these bands. In fairness you're probably right, in fact, that a big part of why I like all three is that fusion. I guess to me they are doing such different things with those sounds. Obviously Fisbone could easily have done Glamour boys and Living Colour could have done Swim. So maybe I was being obtuse, but it wasn't willful. I always saw Fishbone as comparable to the Bosstones and LC as comparable to 24-7 Spyz, for example. When I think of a band like LC I never think of Fishbone. That's all I was saying.

The melodious thonk of Thelonious Monk!

I don't see much comparison with Fishbone, but then I don't see much between LC or FNM either. I will say that Fishbone has always been my favorite of the ska bands, whichever wave you want to put them in. The funk/metal/2nd/3rd wave ska. I think Fishbone had a bigger drop off than the other two, though. But Psychotic Friends Nuttwerx was an amazing return. It's the obvious choice but I like Truth and Soul the best from their catalogue. But Psychotic I put over Reality. Reality had the best songs, but also had a few clunkers. Everytime ska of any kind is brought up I see a horrific omission of Fishbone, so it was cool to see them brought up at all. They put on a great show.

Priest definitely had the stronger career, and in an odd surprise move I also happen to prefer them. If I'd been asked when I was in my 20's or teens I'd have said Kansas. Kiss isn't an important band to me at all, with all credit deserved given them for inspiring so many bands I really love. They obviously are a very important band to me, indirectly. But other than Detroit Rock City and possibly a handful of other tunes they just don't do anything for me.

I love the variety on III, but Houses and Physical are always in contention.

I can save everyone time... do NOT buy those albums. :P No really, one or two good tracks on each and the rest very forgettable. Sad really, many other bands resurrect their careers and sound great (Big Wreck, Soundgarden, AIC, Rush(?)). So incorrect. It's not "incorrect" if that's how he feels; same as you're correct if you believe those albums are great. I haven't heard anything past Stain but I can say that even Stain wasn't too great of an album IMHO. It was just okay. I'd give Vivid an easy 5 stars and Time's Up barely squeaking out 4 stars. I'm not judging the correctness of his post, I was honestly just trying to be lighthearted about the whole deal. Music is inherently subjective and I don't think that there is such a thing as 'good' taste or 'bad' taste and I never have. He said I was wrong, I said he was wrong back. Why is it ok for him to say I was wrong? but not ok for me to say his was wrong? Because he said why? Since I didn't think it mattered I don't actually have an argument against him. For my ears, Vivid is the weakest Living Colour album. The order goes (for me) Collideoscope Stain Time's Up The Chair in the Doorway Vivid Collideoscope's first half is better than any other half album they put out. I don't see the part where he said you were wrong. That's weird. Because he quoted me saying that those albums are essential, in order to tell everyone that they are terrible. Regardless, it's not a big deal. He said I was wrong, I said he was wrong. I'm fairly certain neither of us actually believe that either of our opinions on something like music is terribly important. I certainly didn't mean anything serious. I said they're great. He said they're not. I said he's incorrect. I figured the only response I'd receive would be him saying, 'no, you're wrong'. Because it isn't very important.

I can save everyone time... do NOT buy those albums. :P No really, one or two good tracks on each and the rest very forgettable. Sad really, many other bands resurrect their careers and sound great (Big Wreck, Soundgarden, AIC, Rush(?)). So incorrect. It's not "incorrect" if that's how he feels; same as you're correct if you believe those albums are great. I haven't heard anything past Stain but I can say that even Stain wasn't too great of an album IMHO. It was just okay. I'd give Vivid an easy 5 stars and Time's Up barely squeaking out 4 stars. I'm not judging the correctness of his post, I was honestly just trying to be lighthearted about the whole deal. Music is inherently subjective and I don't think that there is such a thing as 'good' taste or 'bad' taste and I never have. He said I was wrong, I said he was wrong back. Why is it ok for him to say I was wrong? but not ok for me to say his was wrong? Because he said why? Since I didn't think it mattered I don't actually have an argument against him. For my ears, Vivid is the weakest Living Colour album. The order goes (for me) Collideoscope Stain Time's Up The Chair in the Doorway Vivid Collideoscope's first half is better than any other half album they put out.

I can save everyone time... do NOT buy those albums. :P No really, one or two good tracks on each and the rest very forgettable. Sad really, many other bands resurrect their careers and sound great (Big Wreck, Soundgarden, AIC, Rush(?)). So incorrect.

The Talking Heads album I'd put up is Fear of Music, against Devo's Are We Not Men. Still think Talking Heads made better overall albums. But when Devo were great they were phenomenal. Cleveland could easily stack up against New York back then.

Oddly my 12 year old and I were discussing the Damned, and as always through a lot of convolutions of musical talk with any of my kids, several tangents were hit. One was Thin Lizzy. I don't remember how or why, but we discussed Phil. I had no idea his birthday was coming up. Weird.

I love Devo, but Devo by their very nature was hit and miss. So pretty much any Talking Head album beats any Devo album, but a Devo 'best of' might beat a Talking Head 'best of'. Although they both have an awful lot of fantastic to put onto any 'best of'.

Bone Machine is a great album, but it isn't an 80's album. Any album by Tom is a legitimate contender.

This isn't possible. I will point out, however, that Goose listed what was my favorite band for years, Business as Usual. And then ended the list with my favorite band at the end of the 80's, Midnight Oil. That was pretty awesome.

Interesting - thats almost exactly my thoughts. For me, Piece of Mind is hurt by its side B - it has a lot of filler. But side A - wow!! If side B had been as good as side A it would jump Powerslave in my rankings. On the other hand, if side A had been as weak as side B then it would drop out of my top 3 and below Number of the Beast & Live After Death (which come in at #'s 4 & 5 for me). Live after Death is very good but (IMO) they recorded the wrong show. The DVD of it has their show from the original Rock in Rio. That show was far better than what they recorded for Live after Death. Only problem is the set may not be as long as they were not headlining (Queen was) and I believe not the entire show was recorded. Still, the Rio show is better (IMO). That's funny, because I love side 2. :) I had read Dune not long before so I could listen to To Tame A Land over and over. But yes, side one is so very perfect. Also as a fair point- I might look like I don't have enough love for the first two efforts, but I love those albums. They didn't make my top three, but I REALLY love Maiden, so it's no slight. Interesting point - To Tame A Land is what I mean by filler. Then again, The Dune books did nothing for me. Not even the original. That may explain why we approach the album in a different way. That may be why side 2 is a ho-hum side for me. As for the 1st 2 efforts, my reaction is that their are some ok songs but no Bruce. With Bruce everything gets so much better. Thats why the 1 & 2 are the bottom of this barrel. Apparently they wanted to call the song 'Dune' but Herbert hated metal and said no. I loved the first book, the sequels didn't do much for me. Always thought I'd revisit, but never have. I like Maiden better with Bruce, but I thought Paul sounded great, too. Blaze never worked for me at all. Although I really like the Clansman even with Blaze.

Interesting - thats almost exactly my thoughts. For me, Piece of Mind is hurt by its side B - it has a lot of filler. But side A - wow!! If side B had been as good as side A it would jump Powerslave in my rankings. On the other hand, if side A had been as weak as side B then it would drop out of my top 3 and below Number of the Beast & Live After Death (which come in at #'s 4 & 5 for me). Live after Death is very good but (IMO) they recorded the wrong show. The DVD of it has their show from the original Rock in Rio. That show was far better than what they recorded for Live after Death. Only problem is the set may not be as long as they were not headlining (Queen was) and I believe not the entire show was recorded. Still, the Rio show is better (IMO). That's funny, because I love side 2. :) I had read Dune not long before so I could listen to To Tame A Land over and over. But yes, side one is so very perfect. Also as a fair point- I might look like I don't have enough love for the first two efforts, but I love those albums. They didn't make my top three, but I REALLY love Maiden, so it's no slight.

None of the Sex Pistols attended.

1. Powerslave, absolute number one. Then it gets closer. Still, at number 2. Piece of Mind. And then it gets much harder. 3. SSoaSS or Somewhere? Today, for now, Somewhere in Time. Tough call. I love every Maiden album, save for the Blaze efforts, but some have more missed marks than others. I'd put Number below either of the Paul albums.

Attending for the honor doesn't really make sense, it only has meaning because the public assumes the recognition is from people whose opinion is particularly noteworthy (like fellow musicians). Couple that with the loss of Squire and the meaning is even less. I'd say do it for the fans, but the fans will be fine. I'm glad Rush is in, but ultimately it didn't matter.

And because I haven't talked enough yet, Here's Corey fronting Bad Brains, doing Reignition.

Awesome What was that uds song. Deeper shade of soul? Burning Vernon Reid! He played pn public enemys first record. I saw lc mid 2000s. Sick show. UDS was the opening band- after they finished their set the club played FNM's album, before LC took the stage. UDS was so much heavier live, they were incredibly good. Living Colour did Should I Stay or Should I Go, though. As a huge Clash fan, that was nice. In fact LC does a lot of great covers. Bad Brains White Stripes Talking Heads Hendrix Cream ACDC Al Green Tracey Chapman Beatles Probably others I forget. They always add something/switch something, which I like. I never understood doing a cover and doing nothing different. Nice. I remember the talking heads cover and a hendrix cover disc by various artists. Seems they played cross town traffic? Bad brains by them must be crazy good. They used to do Sailin' On all the time. There's a video of them doing it at (I think) CBGB's. Scott Ian is in the front row. edit: found it!