Jump to content

Very talented rock bands with mediocre music output?


Texas King
 Share

Recommended Posts

The beach boys are a big one.

 

Respect the crap outta these guys (well not Mike Love) but it just really isn't my thing....like at all.

 

Mick

Yes. And their so-called best album is really a Brian Wilson solo album they sang on.

 

They All didn't get that album. All they did was lend their voices and Brian did everything else.

 

I'm iffy onn that record myself, lol

 

Mick

Edited by bluefox4000
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes- from 90125 forward.

Yes- from 90125 forward.

did they actually make albums after 90125?

 

can't think of any I'm missing out on.

 

That's my point, yeah. If you can't remember Big Generator, Union, Talk, Keys to Ascension I and II...those are off the top of my head. Some decent material in places, but they all (including 90125, IMO) pale in comparison to what had come before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's another band that, in my opinion, started off great and then fizzled to mediocrity: The Moody Blues

 

this one too Lorraine. last time i listened to the classic 7 i thought this is super cheesy and really didn't age well.

 

Mick

 

i have to agree, and I idolized them for a very long time. No other band did I ever go to see as many times as i went to see them.

 

Their albums sound dated and didn't age well at all. Most of them at least. Seventh Sojourn isn't too bad; neither is EGBDF. And a couple of good songs on the Hayward and Lodge effort Blue Jays. But I find myself, when listening to the Moodies now, wanting to speed the music up. It just drags and is plodding.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chicago - post Terry Kath.

 

Yes, yes, yes...as much as I don't like feeling this way, they should have packed it in after 1978.

 

Nearly everything in their first 9-10 years was brilliant, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chicago - post Terry Kath.

 

Yes, yes, yes...as much as I don't like feeling this way, they should have packed it in after 1978.

 

Nearly everything in their first 9-10 years was brilliant, though.

Cetera castrated that band's sound with his sappy ballads and annoying vocals.

 

They were all about playing this hits as long as the cocaine kept flowing.

Edited by HemiBeers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't hit me but.....solo John Lennon.

 

i'm a guy who loved his beatles work.......ADORED it. but i was really let down by a majority of his solo work i know the talant was still there. it was just really unfocused during those years, IMO.

 

Mick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Van Halen - from Hagar forward.

Van Halen - pre Hagar.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After the 70s ended, for the talent Deep Purple had, they put out a lot of forgettable albums

 

On a related note, as much as this might sound like guitar blasphemy, The Dregs, and in particular, Steve Morse

 

Deep Purple's "Abandon" w/ Steve is god awful

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quiet Riot managed to somehow suck with Randy Rhoads in the band. They sucked without him too, but they did manage one good album.

The thread was for 'very talented bands'. I don't think QR ever met that description.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose, depending on your opinions, the alternative is that every band retire after their "peak" album. And if this was the case most bands would have hung up their guitars decades ago.

 

some bands you'd miss out........but there is A strong case for it......and i've actually argued for it a good amount.

 

Mick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...