1. Things you need to know about the new ‘Conversations’ PM system:

    a) DO NOT REPLY TO THE NOTIFICATION EMAIL! I get them, not the intended recipient. I get a lot of them and I do not want them! It is just a notification, log into the site and reply from there.

    b) To delete old conversations use the ‘Leave conversation’ option. This is just delete by another name.
    Dismiss Notice

Bands that should have split earlier in their career

Discussion in 'music' started by Nigel, Oct 28, 2017.

  1. Nigel

    Nigel pfm Member

    Thread inspired by listening to The Endless River. I nominate Pink Floyd. The Gilmour era stuff is just turgid, uninspiring music in my opinion. They should have called it quits after Roger left. The Final Cut and The Wall aren't my favourites but they did contain some worthy moments.

    I guess most groups don't call time up before they are well past their best though, so i suspect a case could be made for a great many bands, probably the majority. Interested to read observations on Gilmour era Floyd and any other bands who should have packed up sooner.
  2. lsinclair

    lsinclair file under 'curmudgeonly'

    I can think of any number of bands who could have made the world a better place by splitting before even their first recording but (a) it would be boring and churlish to list them and (b) I don’t think that’s exactly what you had in mind.
  3. garry71

    garry71 Active Member

    I hate to say this, but The Stones haven't done anything much noteworthy since Some Girls. They went into decline when Taylor left.
    It's nothing to do with Ronnie Wood either, he's a good match for the band, he was just unfortunate enough to join them when they went off the boil. A lot of the type of stuff he did with Rod Stewart and The Faces would have suited The Stones brilliantly, but Mick and Keef have the monopoly on song writing there.
  4. RickyC6

    RickyC6 Infuriate the frog-men

    U2 after Boy.
  5. RickyC6

    RickyC6 Infuriate the frog-men

    Queen before they got in a studio.
  6. lsinclair

    lsinclair file under 'curmudgeonly'

    Oi! I’ve done that one!

    Although Queen do not appear anywhere in my record collection, I’m happy to admit.
  7. Barrymagrec

    Barrymagrec pfm Member

    The Who, after Quadrophenia.
  8. Tony L

    Tony L Administrator

    Given how staggeringly rare a consistently good and long catalogue is it would be far easier to produce a list of bands that should have stayed around as long as they did! I’m actually struggling to think of anyone other than The Beatles, Kraftwerk & The Smiths! There are many truly amazing bands who had a career cut short by a death; Doors, Joy Division etc. Likewise many who just made one or two truly great albums and then imploded, and again they don’t count. I feel solo artists don’t count either, e.g. Miles Davis, David Bowie etc, both of which produced yards of wonderful stuff, but in very different band contexts. I guess the criteria has to be something like more than five great albums from a given band with no bad ones.
  9. darrenyeats

    darrenyeats pfm Member

    I contend that good music is vanishingly rare in the scheme of things, and when an artist manages it it's only the odd song, or at most an album. There are maybe three artists I can think of who have put out more than one good album! And for them it's mostly two albums. Maybe a few more who could put out a good "best of". The idea of "following an artist" is utterly ludicrous and lazy to me, it's a waste of my precious music listening time.

    So my question is which bands shouldn't have split earlier in their career?!
  10. Nigel

    Nigel pfm Member

    darrenyeats, Steely Dan & The Beatles for two. I take your point about the odd song after the band has reached their peak but sometimes those odd songs are wonderful nevertheless.
  11. Whaleblue

    Whaleblue The Mighty Deoxitiser

    Well, you know my answer to that one!
  12. Nigel

    Nigel pfm Member

    I like The Who By Numbers and Who Are You contains some brilliance. Maybe they should have called it a day following Keith's passing?
  13. darrenyeats

    darrenyeats pfm Member

    Ok, just counted them, five: Neil Young, Muse, Mercury Rev, Miles Davis, Beck. Two albums each. Rare.

    Then there's The Beatles, but that's always a separate argument!
  14. Whaleblue

    Whaleblue The Mighty Deoxitiser

    Alt-J = two great albums as you know.

    With Radiohead, on the other hand, possibly two or three of their albums are not ‘great’.
  15. JD68

    JD68 pfm Member

    It's a shame that some great artists carry on and on, especially singers from bands who go solo, when the most of what they release is really weak. They just become an easily marketed product rather than someone making music that is actually good enough to put their name to.

    One of the bands I can think of who didn't outstay their welcome is I am Kloot (who many won't have heard of). Out of six albums they released only number three was below par, the other five were all excellent.
  16. Arkless Electronics

    Arkless Electronics Trade: Arkless

    I thought their last album one of their best....
  17. darrenyeats

    darrenyeats pfm Member

    My opinion on Radiohead: they would have made one great album if they'd put together half of OK Computer and half of The Bends. Sadly half of each I find boring. In Rainbows is their best album even though it doesn't have their best songs.

    Alt-J's Awesome Wave is probably my favourite album. The National's Boxer is probably my third favourite album. Masterpieces. For me, the rest of their albums don't make it into my top 130 - so this isn't about me "not quite appreciating them as much". What is everyone else hearing? Is it me? Don't answer that, ha-ha.

    But music taste is a moving target, you and I might change the specific answers next year? My point is a bit more general i.e. is it reasonable to expect masterpieces to be repeated? I know we see that a bit differently - but I enjoy arguing about it so here we are.
  18. neil

    neil Wish I could re member

    it's all purely subjective. One persons brilliant and worthy is another's meh. Tony's point illustrates this nicely. He clearly likes The Smiths whereas I've never understood why people rave about them.
  19. Whaleblue

    Whaleblue The Mighty Deoxitiser

    Darren, it’s interesting isn’t it? Perhaps the underlying premise is that most artists’ output is similar enough such that one album will have a lot in common with another of theirs. On that basis it’s hard for someone who likes a lot of variety (both of us, I’m sure, and a large proportion of the membership here) to put two albums from the same artist into their top, say, 20.

    However, for me, there are a few artists that fit my core musical needs so well that I do indeed hold several of their albums in that high regard.

    At the moment that includes both Radiohead and The National for sure. Agreed it might be different in a few years time. It certainly was a few years ago.

    Listening to Boxer right now BTW.
  20. najb

    najb pfm Member

    Justin Bieber should have been split before he got started.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice