Signs that a band is becoming stale

[bacardimayne]

To expand on Doom's idea..

When they get Rick Rubin to produce their comeback album, and claim it's a "return to their roots" when in reality it's just stripped down shit that sounds nothing like they actually sounded in their heyday.

Rick Rubin is a stupid dwarf but 13 is a good album

Not sounded like their heyday?

LOL, man

35 years passed since 1978 (and that was not even their heydays)

If you want to their original sound go listen to the classic albums

13 is an awful generic album that sounds nothing like Black Sabbath. Just sterilized shitmetal with decent riffs.

Now sir, you're officialy a fucking tone deaf hipster

Just listen to classic Sabbath songs like NIB and tell me there's anything on 13 that comes close in terms of style.

Complete garbage.

Yeah, it's a shame too that Axl not record an another AFD

the back to the roots thing is just marketing

Lol, I don't like an album that's pretty much universally "meh"'d towards and I'm a hipster. Hokay buddy.

And with Axl it's different because he didn't reunite and make a record that he claimed was a return to the roots. And cd was enjoyable where 13 was garbage.

Edited April 21, 2014 by bacardimayne

[Powerage5]

Genre hopping can be a good thing though. What if the Beatles had remained a bubblegum cover band for their entire careers?

Agreed - I see nothing wrong with genre hopping. If that held true, then Rush would've been washed up in 1982.

There's a lot of points I agree with (And disagree with) in this thread, but that was the only one I'm completely adamantly against.

[Black Sabbath]

Loner sounds like NIB, fwiw

13 is a great album, all Sabbath fanboyism aside. It obviously doesn't sound like Black Sabbath or Master of Reality, but neither do Sabotage or Never Say Die, so...?

Also, I don't think 13 is a fair point. It's a comeback/reunion album in a sense. Not a fair example for "becoming stale"

St. Anger might be a good example, but even with it being shit they were still trying to do different things with their music instead of doing the same shit each album. People bitched so they tried to go back a bit. Say it's not going back to their roots all you want, but Death Magnetic was still a big step in the right direction away from St. Anger.

I didn't listen to the last Aerosmith album so I can't comment on that.

[bran]

Just listen to classic Sabbath songs like NIB and tell me there's anything on 13 that comes close in terms of style.

Complete garbage.

Pretty much.

Age Of Reason and Damaged Soul are OK...that's about it for me...and I'm a big Sabbath and Ozzy fan.

It feels like every song was psycho man with a bit lifted off a classic Sab number tacked on...Ozzy seems to basically be singing the same song over and over again and it's all very tired.

The Devil You Know kicks it's ass.

I'm in the minority, but I really liked Ozzy's Osmosis album and direction- I think that's the kind of music his heart is into instead of doom, gloom, plod, boom...Down To Earth was half decent but everything since then has been utter shit IMO.

i liked ozzmosis as well. 13 was just generic as generic as can be. the devil you know was amazing since it was something fresh on a familiar sound. ozzy only nutlickers always pointed out that dio era sabbath was never "doom enough" so they released their own doom album with extra stuff thrown in.

Edited April 21, 2014 by bran

[moreblack]

Usually when the singer decides he's bigger than the band and goes solo and proceeds to prove the exact opposite, even if initially slightly successful. Looking at you Dickinson, Halford, Roth and Axl.

And of course the bands left behind just don't rebound from that too effectively.

Edited April 21, 2014 by moreblack

[Apollo]

So a band can't go back to its roots, can't change up genres, but can't just keep doing what they've been doing recently, can't experiment, and no cover albums.

[James Bond]

I've seen replies like "releasing one album in twenty years" and "touring the same set list for five years" and whatnot. I've decided I will sum up all this beating around the bush:

A band has become stale when it starts resembling the current state of Guns N' Roses.

So a band can't go back to its roots, can't change up genres, but can't just keep doing what they've been doing recently, can't experiment, and no cover albums.

I feel like I've just entered the DeLorean and run into my future self.

[Apollo]

I've seen replies like "releasing one album in twenty years" and "touring the same set list for five years" and whatnot. I've decided I will sum up all this beating around the bush:

A band has become stale when it starts resembling the current state of Guns N' Roses.

So a band can't go back to its roots, can't change up genres, but can't just keep doing what they've been doing recently, can't experiment, and no cover albums.

I feel like I've just entered the DeLorean and run into my future self.

It is kind of funny if you think about it.

"Ok boys, don't sound like your last couple albums, don't go back to your roots, but don't go off course and try something new. Don't grow as artists, but also don't keep churning out songs that sound like your classic songs." So basically, every band should release three albums and then retire!!!

[Black Sabbath]

very stupid thread. op is hipster hooray for tolerance!

[GivenToFly]

So a band can't go back to its roots, can't change up genres, but can't just keep doing what they've been doing recently, can't experiment, and no cover albums.

You're only good if you die at 27.

[bacardimayne]

very stupid thread. op is hipster hooray for tolerance!

Would you honestly fuck off? Every one of my threads you post the same shit reply. 13 sucked, deal with it.

[bran]

I've seen replies like "releasing one album in twenty years" and "touring the same set list for five years" and whatnot. I've decided I will sum up all this beating around the bush:

A band has become stale when it starts resembling the current state of Guns N' Roses.

So a band can't go back to its roots, can't change up genres, but can't just keep doing what they've been doing recently, can't experiment, and no cover albums.

I feel like I've just entered the DeLorean and run into my future self.

It is kind of funny if you think about it.

"Ok boys, don't sound like your last couple albums, don't go back to your roots, but don't go off course and try something new. Don't grow as artists, but also don't keep churning out songs that sound like your classic songs." So basically, every band should release three albums and then retire!!!

see i disagree. you can do all those things if they are done the right way and done in a way that is either fresh or is done very well. a band like opeth changes their sound from album to album and each one was very good, but a lot of fans felt their last album missed the mark, it just didn't work. going back to your roots and doing it successfully is something so many bands have done and succeeded, just as many have tried and failed, that when a band says they are returning to their roots you just kind of take it with a grain of salt until you hear the album.

this is why an album like the devil you know from black sabbath is praised heavily even though it didn't reinvent the wheel, and why 13 was released to pretty mixed reviews. metallica tried to return to their roots, but what they created in death magnetic had little to nothing do with their roots, yeah the album had a little more speed but you listen to any of the first 4 albums and then death magnetic and shares really nothing with each other, and the parts it does share was executed horribly.

[Johnny Drama]

I just want someone to explain how the thrash stuff on DM doesn't sound like Kill to Justice. I mean I agree with the sentiment. ... But I just want someone to succinctly put it in words.

[Apollo]

I've seen replies like "releasing one album in twenty years" and "touring the same set list for five years" and whatnot. I've decided I will sum up all this beating around the bush:

A band has become stale when it starts resembling the current state of Guns N' Roses.

So a band can't go back to its roots, can't change up genres, but can't just keep doing what they've been doing recently, can't experiment, and no cover albums.

I feel like I've just entered the DeLorean and run into my future self.

It is kind of funny if you think about it.

"Ok boys, don't sound like your last couple albums, don't go back to your roots, but don't go off course and try something new. Don't grow as artists, but also don't keep churning out songs that sound like your classic songs." So basically, every band should release three albums and then retire!!!

see i disagree. you can do all those things if they are done the right way and done in a way that is either fresh or is done very well. a band like opeth changes their sound from album to album and each one was very good, but a lot of fans felt their last album missed the mark, it just didn't work. going back to your roots and doing it successfully is something so many bands have done and succeeded, just as many have tried and failed, that when a band says they are returning to their roots you just kind of take it with a grain of salt until you hear the album.

this is why an album like the devil you know from black sabbath is praised heavily even though it didn't reinvent the wheel, and why 13 was released to pretty mixed reviews. metallica tried to return to their roots, but what they created in death magnetic had little to nothing do with their roots, yeah the album had a little more speed but you listen to any of the first 4 albums and then death magnetic and shares really nothing with each other, and the parts it does share was executed horribly.

So the difference is personal preference, really.

If "you" like the type of album the band made (old school, new sound, etc) then it is cool that they did it.

But if you personally don't like the sound of the album, then the band is tired, failing, etc.

I don't mean you as in YOU personally. Just you as in all of us.

Just because YOU don't think an album sounds like a band returned to their roots, doesn't mean the band doesn't believe that they did.

Like Slang from Def Leppard. Most people hate it, especially die-hard fans of the pop side of them that love songs like Pour Some Sugar on Me.

But the band loves the album and they loved making it.

So who is at fault? Because the album tanked, does that mean the band sucks and is out of ideas or are just trying to be hip and edgy or whatever? Or is it a band taking control of THEIR career and doing the album they wanted to do. That's the point I was trying to make.

I just see a lot of hate or criticism for artists by those of us who are just fans, who really have no idea what is going through that artist's head. Like Taylor Momsen. Look at the comments about her. Fake, produced, manufactured, etc. Or maybe, just maybe, she is a 20 year old girl who loves rock music? Maybe her look isn't an "act" but is the way she wants to look? But because somebody doesn't like her music, we must bash her by saying she isn't "real" to herself, she's a phony, created by a label marketing machine.

Maybe Metallica or any of the other bands people are talking about are completely happy with the albums that you guys think are crap. Maybe they created the album they wanted and they had fun doing it. Did it fail financially? Maybe. But that doesn't mean the band is a failure. Maybe a band wanted to do a different style because they thought it would be fun, and not because they were trying to capitalize on what is popular at the time.

Should the band be true to themselves, or should they only make music that caters to their fan base?

(Bran - I respect your opinion, especially on music. So when I'm saying "you" in here, I don't necessarily mean you personally, but just fans in general).

I think people are putting their own personal preference about a song or album or band ahead of what the band probably is doing or did.

[bran]

I just want someone to explain how the thrash stuff on DM doesn't sound like Kill to Justice. I mean I agree with the sentiment. ... But I just want someone to succinctly put it in words.

it lacks aggression.

[bran]

i think that is what it boils down to i guess groghan, it is really up to the listener and the fan's interpretation of the music. when i hear death magnetic i don't hear what made metallica great. the album feels too clean and forced to me, missing any signs of aggression which was a trademark of metallica and that style of music.

as for who an artist should please. that is always tricky i think an artist should do what they want and when they want, but at the same time you have to please your fans, the ones that buy your albums and go to your concerts. metallica(i like using metallica because they fit into almost every category of this conversation) with the black album alienated a large portion of thrash and metal fans but found mainstream success with rock and hard rock fans, then with the load albums alienating more metal fans but gaining alt rock and rock fans.

now i know it worked for them financially and that is good for them, it was their choice. at the same time when you chase trends like this, are you doing it for the music or chasing the money? some fans will like the style change but others may feel the switch was hollow with no real artistic value. metallica themselves made fun of the load albums in the movie some kind of monster. then when thrash became popular again, all of a sudden metallica wanted to go back to their roots.

[bacardimayne]

RTL and MOP sound like they were recorded in hell. The production has this dark, ambient quality to it. DM just sounds like a typical Rick Rubin production.

[bran]

RTL and MOP sound like they were recorded in hell. The production has this dark, ambient quality to it. DM just sounds like a typical Rick Rubin production.

sterile beyond belief.

[Anguyen92]

Groghan. I'm giving you big ups to your post.

I mean, for all intents and purposes, Load and Reload are not that bad albums. Do they suffer from having filler tracks? Probably, I still need to listen to Reload, but I had those issues from Load. I didn't had any issues with it not being thrash/heavy metal. I think Metallica did what they felt like doing at the time and they succeeded albeit at the risk of alienating fans, but it's a risk they wanted to take to see what sort of surface they can unveil which resulted in some decent songs (Wasting My Hate, Ain't My Bitch, King Nothing, Until It Sleeps, etc.).

Also, Bran. I get what you mean. Metallica pretty much fits a lot of examples when dealing with topics like these and they sometimes unfortunately get chastised for some of the decisions that they made in the last 20 years or so. It's like they can't win in that sense no matter what they do. However, they are winning since they pretty much did everything that can be done in terms of the albums they made or the tours they've done, and when something like happens, what's next? It's something I'm sure it's something present-day Metallica is thinking.

Edited April 21, 2014 by Anguyen92

[bran]

Groghan. I'm giving you big ups to your post.

I mean, for all intents and purposes, Load and Reload are not that bad albums. Do they suffer from having filler tracks? Probably, I still need to listen to Reload, but I had those issues from Load. I didn't had any issues with it not being thrash/heavy metal. I think Metallica did what they felt like doing at the time and they succeeded albeit at the risk of alienating fans, but it's a risk they wanted to take to see what sort of surface they can unveil which resulted in some decent songs (Wasting My Hate, Ain't My Bitch, King Nothing, Until It Sleeps, etc.).

Also, Bran. I get what you mean. Metallica pretty much fits a lot of examples when dealing with topics like these and they sometimes unfortunately get chastised for some of the decisions that they made in the last 20 years or so. It's like they can't win in that sense no matter what they do.

i know a lot of fans are like that and kind of just accepted that, but at the same time if death magnetic(to me) was great i would be first in line to praise it. the same goes with the new black sabbath album. it sucks when you have to say one of (in sabbath's case my favorite) band made a bad album and half assed album(to me). in the sabbath case i just think the magic of ozzy era sabbath is gone creatively.

[Broskirose]

Reading (some of) this thread, I can't believe people actually got through listening to 13 and A Different Kind of Truth. I listened to like half of 13 and two songs from ADKOT. Generic shit.

[bran]

Reading (some of) this thread, I can't believe people actually got through listening to 13 and A Different Kind of Truth. I listened to like half of 13 and two songs from ADKOT. Generic shit.

i didn't like ADKOT at all, but me and you are probably in the minority

[Zeppelin]

ADKOT is awesome. It's 13 that blows. At least you know Van Halen brought in some old demos in to rework them. Black Sabbath essentially just rewrote older songs and presented them as brand new. Again, why The Devil You Know is, and always will be, the better reunion album for those guys.

[Black Sabbath]

very stupid thread. op is hipster hooray for tolerance!

Would you honestly fuck off? Every one of my threads you post the same shit reply. 13 sucked, deal with it.

Okay now I'm not going to fuck off just because of your little bitch response.

[bacardimayne]

Lol