Kohllapse wrote: which band are you talking about?

YES

IRON MAIDEN

DREAM THEATER

...there are lots

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).

If you want stuff that sounds like a band used to sound earlier, you can still buy some records by copycat bands. Instead of groaning about Genesis should not have sold out, I rather enjoy the latest Citizen Cane and The Watch CDs.

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...

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.   

maidenrulez wrote: I think that a band will only be able to keep a certain degree of originality in their output for 10 years or so before they get old and used up

Not a bad theory.  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.

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.

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

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.

Well.. I get your main point, but in Tull's case specifically, I wouldn't have minded more albums like their early '70s stuff!  Their output over the last 25 years has not been very good, IMO.

goose wrote: maidenrulez wrote: I think that a band will only be able to keep a certain degree of originality in their output for 10 years or so before they get old and used up *cough* Robert Fripp - maybe changing musicians is the key to immortality.

Fripp does not write alot of his music and Crimson change lineups all the time...

yargh wrote: Well.. I get your main point, but in Tull's case specifically, I wouldn't have minded more albums like their early '70s stuff!  Their output over the last 25 years has not been very good, IMO.

25 years.  Wow! You dismiss a lot of great stuff.

Particularly, I loved "A Little Light Music" (light reworkings of older songs), "Catfish Rising" (bluesy stuff"), and especially "Roots To Branches" (mostly Eastern tinged songs).  Remember, as Anderson often points out, these guys are old.  Ian Anderson can't sing many of the older songs as originally recorded.  The newer music is more tailored to his present abilities.  And to my ears, they are still creating great music.  Not masterpieces of the "Thick As a Brick" caliber, but great music nonetheless.