other bands' appetite

[action]

this is supposed to be some kind of fun exercise. take any band, and tell which album you think is "their appetite". With that i mean, what is their defining album, their crown juwel, which is a good showcase of the wide spectrum of sounds this band is capable of. Also, an album you never tire of and which feels like a coherent, pleasant experience throughout. trust me, that's not an easy task.

rolling stones: exile. it's a perfect showcase of what this band could do. you have your hard rockers and your life whisdom. it's a basic sound, but all the more powerful because of it. for me, this is "the" stones sound, devoid of stuff like disco, rap, reaggae and other detractions. just a pure rocker front to back.

[Silverburst80]

6 minutes ago, action said:

this is supposed to be some kind of fun exercise. take any band, and tell which album you think is "their appetite". With that i mean, what is their defining album, their crown juwel, which is a good showcase of the wide spectrum of sounds this band is capable of. Also, an album you never tire of and which feels like a coherent, pleasant experience throughout. trust me, that's not an easy task.

rolling stones: exile. it's a perfect showcase of what this band could do. you have your hard rockers and your life whisdom. it's a basic sound, but all the more powerful because of it. for me, this is "the" stones sound, devoid of stuff like disco, rap, reaggae and other detractions. just a pure rocker front to back.

I always thought Sticky Fingers kicked seven shades of shit out of Exile, personal preference i suppose.

[username]

21 minutes ago, action said:

rolling stones: exile. it's a perfect showcase of what this band could do. you have your hard rockers and your life whisdom. it's a basic sound, but all the more powerful because of it. for me, this is "the" stones sound, devoid of stuff like disco, rap, reaggae and other detractions. just a pure rocker front to back.

You're actually wrong. The Stones' defining album is Aftermath. Don't get me wrong, Beggar's Banquet, Let It Bleed, Exile On Main St. and Sticky Fingers are some of the best albums ever made. But Aftermath is the Stones coming into their own. That was their defining record, and everything else is built on it.

[username]

I'm thinking about The Beatles' now. Which seems a lot more difficult. Commercially Sgt Pepper's would be the obvious pick, but in reality I'd say Rubber Soul was a much more defining album for them as a band. But then again, Help was pretty much already a grand reaction to the full beatle-mania. Which was already in full swing by the time of Hard Day's Night and Beatles For Sale. So you could make a case for any of these albums.

Appetite is a peculiar thing. It's the defining GnR album, but it's also their debut. And their break through, the one they blew up with. But it's not their biggest in terms of popularity at the time. I'd say that's still UYI, the band was a much bigger thing then.

The only other album I can think of that shares all these characteristics is probably Pearl Jam's Ten. 

And maybe Oasis' Definitely Maybe.

Edited November 17, 2017 by username

[Bono]

The Joshua Tree is U2's "crown jewel" so to speak amongst the general public and casual fans. It's the album that shot them into super stardom. Having said that Achtung Baby is their "Appetite" for purposes of this thread. It's the album that showed U2 was capable of pretty much whatever they wanted to do. I may be biased but I don't think there has ever been a band who changed their sound and image to such a drastic degree from one(or two if you throw Rattle and Hum in there) album to the next. Not only did they not alienate their fanbase with these changes, they grew it exponentially. It was a massive risk and it paid off huge and they pulled it off with such authenticity it's pretty incredible really. I don't think they get enough credit for that or for the album in general among the casual listeners and general public. Achtung Baby regularly wins polls among hardcore U2 fans as their best album. Joshua Tree is for the public and Achtung Baby is for the fans. 

[Len Cnut]

1 hour ago, action said:

this is supposed to be some kind of fun exercise. take any band, and tell which album you think is "their appetite". With that i mean, what is their defining album, their crown juwel, which is a good showcase of the wide spectrum of sounds this band is capable of. Also, an album you never tire of and which feels like a coherent, pleasant experience throughout. trust me, that's not an easy task.

rolling stones: exile. it's a perfect showcase of what this band could do. you have your hard rockers and your life whisdom. it's a basic sound, but all the more powerful because of it. for me, this is "the" stones sound, devoid of stuff like disco, rap, reaggae and other detractions. just a pure rocker front to back.

How is Exile devoid of ‘other stuff?’  It has gospel, it has country, its a pretty eclectic piece.  Disco actually sticks out less on a Stones album cuz all in means in that 4 beat.  Its far from a pure rocker though.

[action]

4 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

How is Exile devoid of ‘other stuff?’  It has gospel, it has country, its a pretty eclectic piece.  Disco actually sticks out less on a Stones album cuz all in means in that 4 beat.  Its far from a pure rocker though.

Let me make my point clear. Gospel and country do have a place on it. I think that was established when Elvis began his career. disco, rap, reaggae on the other hand, don't. It's ok for an album to be eclectic, but it's eclectic in a good way. Almost every Queen album was eclectic, but that doesnt make something like a hot space a masterpiece.

All my personal preference, of course.

[Len Cnut]

4 minutes ago, action said:

Let me make my point clear. Gospel and country do have a place on it. I think that was established when Elvis began his career. disco, rap, reaggae on the other hand, don't. It's ok for an album to be eclectic, but it's eclectic in a good way. Almost every Queen album was eclectic, but that doesnt make something like a hot space a masterpiece.

All my personal preference, of course.

Ah, i see.  Fair play boss.  One of the things I like about The Stones is that like...they do this stuff and it doesn't seem like a massive departure and i think the reason for that is because they cottoned onto the idea that, really, its all the same with very minor differences.  Like for instance right, musically speaking here, whats the substantial difference between say...OK, Sam Cooke and James Brown?  Or Chuck Berry to Sam Cooke?  In terms of the music I mean?  Otis Redding did Satisfaction and Richards said it was how he envisioned it.  Otis Redding is a great example too,  And then like...from some of the blues crooner ladies like Aretha Franklin to like...Donna Summer doin' some Disco?  There really isn't, it's all really minor things.  Charlie Watts gets this better than anybody, its usually just a minor tweaking of the beat.  And thats the power of The Stones I think, they really got that, a lot of the old 60s bands did if you looked at their early material, and The Stones throughout their catalogue.  They could have like soul and funk and rnb and blues all on the same album and you kinda understand how there really isn't much difference in all this stuff. 

All of the best of the aforementioned genres are pulled off by like, basically 8 piece rhythm and blues bands.  And thats what The Stones were.  But as you say, its all personal preference.

[action]

36 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Ah, i see.  Fair play boss.  One of the things I like about The Stones is that like...they do this stuff and it doesn't seem like a massive departure and i think the reason for that is because they cottoned onto the idea that, really, its all the same with very minor differences.  Like for instance right, musically speaking here, whats the substantial difference between say...OK, Sam Cooke and James Brown?  Or Chuck Berry to Sam Cooke?  In terms of the music I mean?  Otis Redding did Satisfaction and Richards said it was how he envisioned it.  Otis Redding is a great example too,  And then like...from some of the blues crooner ladies like Aretha Franklin to like...Donna Summer doin' some Disco?  There really isn't, it's all really minor things.  Charlie Watts gets this better than anybody, its usually just a minor tweaking of the beat.  And thats the power of The Stones I think, they really got that, a lot of the old 60s bands did if you looked at their early material, and The Stones throughout their catalogue.  They could have like soul and funk and rnb and blues all on the same album and you kinda understand how there really isn't much difference in all this stuff. 

All of the best of the aforementioned genres are pulled off by like, basically 8 piece rhythm and blues bands.  And thats what The Stones were.  But as you say, its all personal preference.

i just want to add that, it's no secret that, within the band, Mick was musically the most eccentric. Keith was more blues oriented. it's really an Axl-Slash situation i guess. Take a song like "continental drift" for example. it is so out of place on that album that i erased it from my tracklist (that's one of the wonders of modern technology: you can erase and add songs as you like), and that song is all Mick's doing (am i right?). with voodoo lounghe, they had to scrap all kinds of crazy out of place material that Mick wanted on it, in order to make it sound more "like a stones album". 

[DieselDaisy]

Just about every Stones album was career defining until the mid '70s they were that good.

[Len Cnut]

2 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Just about every Stones album was career defining until the mid '70s they were that good.

At the ripe old age of 34 I’m starting to realise this, before now they were just a band who i’d given listened lots to Exile, a bit of Sticky Fingers and a lot to their debut album, the rest of the albums up to Goats Head only had the one or two run throughs.  For the last 6 months though they are about all i listen to.  Let it Bleed, I just cant get over how brilliant it is, I havent been stuck on a single album like this since I was a kid, dont understand why it didnt make such an impactful impression on me on first listen.  Oh, i should add everything on 40 Licks I listened to to death since it came out.  

[action]

1 minute ago, Len Cnut said:

At the ripe old age of 34 I’m starting to realise this, before now they were just a band who i’d given listened lots to Exile, a bit of Sticky Fingers and a lot to their debut album, the rest of the albums up to Goats Head only had the one or two run throughs.  For the last 6 months though they are about all i listen to.  Let it Bleed, I just cant get over how brilliant it is, I havent been stuck on a single album like this since I was a kid, dont understand why it didnt make such an impactful impression on me on first listen.  Oh, i should add everything on 40 Licks I listened to to death since it came out.  

i'm not too sure about their modern work though. it has a high "grandpa rock" feel to it and they're trying too much to show they're contemporary and interesting. the ballads on the latest albums are godawful, i can't name one for the moment but i know them when i hear them. also, mick is shouting too much these days or being overly emotional. streets of love for example, ugh. 

but yes, you're absolutely spot on in your post. their 60's and 70's work is like gold dust

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, Len Cnut said:

At the ripe old age of 34 I’m starting to realise this, before now they were just a band who i’d given listened lots to Exile, a bit of Sticky Fingers and a lot to their debut album, the rest of the albums up to Goats Head only had the one or two run throughs.  For the last 6 months though they are about all i listen to.  Let it Bleed, I just cant get over how brilliant it is, I havent been stuck on a single album like this since I was a kid, dont understand why it didnt make such an impactful impression on me on first listen.  Oh, i should add everything on 40 Licks I listened to to death since it came out.  

When you've exhausted everything you'll have to listen to the rarities and bootleg stuffs. Try Metamorphosis,

[Len Cnut]

3 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

When you've exhausted everything you'll have to listen to the rarities and bootleg stuffs. Try Metamorphosis,

Its gonna take a bastard long time to get over Let It Bleed, its absolutely gorgeous.  

6 minutes ago, action said:

i'm not too sure about their modern work though. it has a high "grandpa rock" feel to it and they're trying too much to show they're contemporary and interesting. the ballads on the latest albums are godawful, i can't name one for the moment but i know them when i hear them. also, mick is shouting too much these days or being overly emotional. streets of love for example, ugh. 

but yes, you're absolutely spot on in your post. their 60's and 70's work is like gold dust

I’ve not really heard anything past i think Tattoo You except Blue & Lonesome.  

[DieselDaisy]

The problem with comparing Guns with Stones and Beatles is Guns are a bit of an 'one album' band whereas the Stones and Beatles had lots of defining albums. Take The Beatles. Please Please Me, 'Beatlemania'; the rest of those Beatlemania albums were big albums for them which expanded their songwriting considerably then you arrive at Rubber Soul which pushed them into lyrical introspection and eclecticism. Revolver was another huge leap which saw them dabble in studio technology then you arrive at Pepper which became the defining cultural statement of the entire 1960s! Even the White Album with its stripped down acoustic aesthetics and playfulness and the sophisticated Abbey Road were influential masterpieces. The Stones had more false pathways than The Beatles but they released all these early albums which brought forth the hard-edged American rhythm and blues sound. Their songwriting also expanded; there is a world of difference from 'Tell Me' and 'Satisfaction'. 

With Guns it rather goes, superb debut album, short little acoustic thing, iffy doubly album, shite covers album - then they buggered off into the vacuum of history. 

[Len Cnut]

52 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

The problem with comparing Guns with Stones and Beatles is Guns are a bit of an 'one album' band whereas the Stones and Beatles had lots of defining albums. Take The Beatles. Please Please Me, 'Beatlemania'; the rest of those Beatlemania albums were big albums for them which expanded their songwriting considerably then you arrive at Rubber Soul which pushed them into lyrical introspection and eclecticism. Revolver was another huge leap which saw them dabble in studio technology then you arrive at Pepper which became the defining cultural statement of the entire 1960s! Even the White Album with its stripped down acoustic aesthetics and playfulness and the sophisticated Abbey Road were influential masterpieces. The Stones had more false pathways than The Beatles but they released all these early albums which brought forth the hard-edged American rhythm and blues sound. Their songwriting also expanded; there is a world of difference from 'Tell Me' and 'Satisfaction'. 

With Guns it rather goes, superb debut album, short little acoustic thing, iffy doubly album, shite covers album - then they buggered off into the vacuum of history. 

Basically there ain't no comparison.  As you say lots of defining albums compared to...what, one?  Thats not reflection of class, thats reflection of potential.  So basically then what you're doing is comparing Muhammad Ali to Audley Harrison, Ali wins olympic gold at heavyweight and goes on to be one of the greatest if not the greatest of all time, thats The Stones and The Beatles, Audley Harrison, also wins olympic gold then turns pro, strings together 10 wins and then gets knocked the fuck out everytime he tries to step up to even domestic title level  

Edited November 17, 2017 by Len Cnut

[DieselDaisy]

2 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

Basically there ain't no comparison.  As you say lots of defining albums compared to...what, one?  Thats not reflection of class, thats reflection of potential.  So basically then what you're doing is comparing Muhammad Ali to Audley Harrison, Ali wins olympic gold at heavyweight and goes on to be one of the greatest if not the greatest of all time, thats The Stones and The Beatles, Audley Harrison, also wins olympic gold then turns pro, strings together 10 wins and then gets knocked the fuck out everytime he tries to step up to even domestic title level  

And I thought you were an Ali student?

[Len Cnut]

3 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

And I thought you were an Ali student?

Alright alright, anyone can make a mistake yknow!

[Pishy]

The strangest things I learned on this forum is that there are people who only like appetite and maybe tolerate UYI 1&2, and then others that are into the rotating circus and CD.  

The first camp is almost worse because the second don't know any better, very young and it all works for them. But how does a grown adult get so into a band over 1 album only ? 5 certainly is not enough snd the 5th was just ok, 3-4 great covers and it would have been fine had other material been forthcoming but what a blooper to end on

everyone loves appetite but I have no idea how that is considered the only work by GnR a person likes . Had UYI 1&2 not come out, they couldn't sell a ticket these days. Those albums put them on top . There are masterpieces on them every bit as good as appetite , the sound is different but still GnR in every way , put those 3 together along with Lies, and the totality of the work is what defines GnR. 

Majority of the casual fans did stop after appetite though . Just surprised when I see so much of it here or people saying to take Coma off the set list which is a major highlight of the shows .

[action]

43 minutes ago, Pishy said:

The strangest things I learned on this forum is that there are people who only like appetite and maybe tolerate UYI 1&2, and then others that are into the rotating circus and CD.  

The first camp is almost worse because the second don't know any better, very young and it all works for them. But how does a grown adult get so into a band over 1 album only ? 5 certainly is not enough snd the 5th was just ok, 3-4 great covers and it would have been fine had other material been forthcoming but what a blooper to end on

everyone loves appetite but I have no idea how that is considered the only work by GnR a person likes . Had UYI 1&2 not come out, they couldn't sell a ticket these days. Those albums put them on top . There are masterpieces on them every bit as good as appetite , the sound is different but still GnR in every way , put those 3 together along with Lies, and the totality of the work is what defines GnR. 

Majority of the casual fans did stop after appetite though . Just surprised when I see so much of it here or people saying to take Coma off the set list which is a major highlight of the shows .

appetite is just a stunningly great album. it swings and rocks, thanks in a large part to steven and izzy.

the UYI's are good enough, but kicking steven out and letting dizzy in, must be the dumbest decision in rock history. hence, the dramatic drop in quality.

Edited November 17, 2017 by action

[soon]

Pink Floyd - Dark Side of the Moon

Jeff Beck - Blow by Blow

Ozzy Osbourne - Blizzard of Oz

Tom Petty - Wildflowers (this ones awkward because its not a Heart Breakers album, but the Heart Breakers play as the core session band for the entire album.  Campbell co-preduced album and co-wrote 2 tracks.  It was in fact the introduction of Steve Ferrone on drums)

NIN - The Downward Spiral

Grateful Dead - Shakedown Street (barely edging out Terrapin Station, or possibly even Live/Dead imo)

 

 

Edited November 17, 2017 by soon

[Zeppelin]

I love Appetite, but I'd much rather listen to songs like Civil War, Coma, Locomotive, 14 Years, etc. these days. Appetite is a great time stamp, but I find the UYI era much more refreshing and expressive.

[Pishy]

46 minutes ago, action said:

appetite is just a stunningly great album. it swings and rocks, thanks in a large part to steven and izzy.

the UYI's are good enough, but kicking steven out and letting dizzy in, must be the dumbest decision in rock history. hence, the dramatic drop in quality.

I'm 100% with you on Adler. Had he been on UYI, they would be out of this world . That was indeed the dumbest move in rock hx. Matt is lightyears better than frank but not comparable to Adler. For such a "perfectionist", Axl having to hear frank every night just demonstrates how petty he is . 

I think for some , they don't like anything past appetite nor do they care about Adler 

[papashaun]

Just for artists that quickly come to mind:

Metallica: Master of Puppets

Pink Floyd: Dark Side of the Moon

Motley Crue: Shout at the Devil

Led Zeppelin: Led Zeppelin II   (Most will say IV, but I prefer II top to bottom)

Black Sabbath: Paranoid

Iron Maiden: The Number of the Beast

Soundgarden: Superunknown

Alice in Chains: Dirt

Pearl Jam: Ten

Fleetwood Mac: Rumors

AC/DC: Which is it???:  Highway to Hell or Black in Black??? (Too close to call)

Van Halen: Fair Warning (Nobody else will agree with me on this one)

Dio: Holy Diver

 

 

 

[action]

nirvana: nevermind. still think its their most cohesive record, it's almost like a greatest hits in its own right

doors: LA woman. finally a hard blues record, just like jim always wanted. the greatest send off in history. bam, what an album

Queen: the game. for me, their best representation as a band. not a dud on it and it rocks and swings like never before. some really, really underrated tracks on this one.

led zeppelin III. it has the crunchy, hard rockers and also some acoustic tracks. its as close to the stones as they would ever get. the definition of a grower

aerosmith: rocks.

elvis: elvis. i prefer his second album over his first one. feels more polished and has some of his best songs.