Them good old days eh?

Why do so many that claim themselves fans of a band whine on about that they want the band to sound exactly like they did on their first 3-4 albums? Do they want really want another band wich shows the same stagnatin as ac/dc...Its silly people...get over it

Yep the change should always come naturally and not be a change that is made to make the music for "accesible" for other people

which band are you talking about?  

maidenrulez wrote: Why do so many that claim themselves fans of a band whine on about that they want the band to sound exactly like they did on their first 3-4 albums? Do they want really want another band wich shows the same stagnatin as ac/dc...Its silly people...get over it

 

Never wanted my favourite bands to sound exactly like they do on album (in packed out small auditoria because of both the uncomfort and the band largely being invisible*, there was an attitude:the performance  better be different than the album or else I might as well stayed home , saved money and play the album. In the good old days Yes would often  rearrange tunes on albums for different instruments in live performance - that's how they did The Yes Album Tour! Soft Machine at the POP proms, played familiar tunes in unfamiliar arrangements - compare Soft Machine Volume 2 and Soft Machine At Paradiso recorded 20 days aparts, and using the same tunes. Pretty Things trying to do perfect renditions of S.F.Sorrow on stage  - e.g. using tapes - were often booed.

 

*I "saw" Led Zeppelin on their first UK tour, as I did King Crimson on their first, at Tolworth Toby Jug. But I never caught a glimse of Crimson, and I only saw the top of Plant's long curly hair when he shook his mane about (nobody else).

This can be used as a cop-out argument.  Most fans bemoan late '70-through-'80s albums by their favorite prog artists because the albums obviously are turns for the worse.  The albums often aren't as appealing because they are less prog, less creative, and more motivated by artistic compromise -- not because the bands changed per se.  In another forum, I saw someone get chastised for not liking Jethro Tull's Broadsword and the Beast and Under Wraps, under this exact same argument.  Not liking those albums has nothing to do with insisting that Jethro Tull keep making Thick as a Brick, and everything for having a low tolerance for bad ideas.     

maidenrulez wrote: yargh wrote: This can be used as a cop-out argument.  Most fans bemoan late '70-through-'80s albums by their favorite prog artists because the albums obviously are turns for the worse.  The albums often aren't as appealing because they are less prog, less creative, and more motivated by artistic compromise -- not because the bands changed per se.  In another forum, I saw someone get chastised for not liking Jethro Tull's Broadsword and the Beast and Under Wraps, under this exact same argument.  Not liking those albums has nothing to do with insisting that Jethro Tull keep making Thick as a Brick, and everything for having a low tolerance for bad ideas.      Ah its fine that they dont like them....HOWEVER i am a bit tired about someone that says that oh well they should go back and make a album that sounded like that album...

A lot of older prog bands used the mid/late '90s and '00s to make "career summation" albums, where they stopped trying to stay current and made albums that evoked their "primes," so to speak.  Unfortuntely, a lot of these albums are good arguments that most of these bands couldn't go back and make a great album in their "classic" style even if they wanted to.   

As a band progresses from point a to point b they pick up fans at various points along the way - as long as the creative process is still valid then listeners are free to jump on and off as they please


Its called ..... growing old

The good old days are good........because they´re gone !!!! 

I recently read a Peter Hammill interview in which he said that,in the early days when the band were writing songs they didn't listen to other contemporary bands because they were really into what they were doing and thus kept their sound original and fresh up until their split after releasing Pawn Hearts, their 4th album.Taking a break for 3 years paid-off,Godbluff and Still life,although similar in mood,had a more structured and cleaner feel to them IMHO.

Edited by Man Erg

Bob Greece wrote: yargh wrote:   In Bob Dylan's TV interview eariler this year, he confessed that he had no idea how he wrote those classic '60s songs and said he definitely wasn't capable of doing stuff on that level any more.  At least he was honest. In a 1999 interview, which is a bonus track on the latest Aqualung CD, Ian Anderson of Jethro Tull said that the 1987 song Budapest was more complex than stuff on the Aqualung album and that he wouldn't have been capable of playing that kind of song in the early 70's. So it's a good thing Jethro Tull don't keep pumping out albums like those early 70's ones. That would be really boring.

Yea Aqualung is not even prog but the song Budapest is not anywhere as complex as thick as a brick or A passion play