|
|
Post by Kensterberg on Mar 14, 2007 18:14:31 GMT -5
Oh yeah, why I think of this as "The Clash Rule" ... well, the Clash were only around as a recording act from '77 through '82, and played their last meaningful gigs the next year. The abortive Jonesless Clash of "Cut the Crap" is a reminder of just how quickly things can go wrong for a once great band. But their output in those six years is amazing in both quality and quantity -- don't forget that the Black Market Clash EP was as long as many full-priced LPs of the period, and that London Calling was a double album and Sandinista! a triple, or that almost all their b-sides were originals and not album cuts -- and to my mind serves as the perfect template for a rock and roll band's career: a flurry of activity that never lets up until it's done.
But this could just as easily be "The Beatles Rule" or even "The Rolling Stones Rule" or something like that. The Fabs definitely fit into this, and the Stones are the perfect case study for why it's better to break up early than to hang on too long.
|
|
|
|
Post by KooL on Mar 14, 2007 18:15:16 GMT -5
It's not easy for bands who have had such success to call it a day. Most are in denial when they begin to suck. Or they just carry on milking past glories. Or both.
What you said about the creative lifespan is totally true. I can't think of anyone who's maintained it for over a decade.
|
|
|
|
Post by upinkzeppelin2 on Mar 14, 2007 20:58:21 GMT -5
U2
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Mar 14, 2007 21:01:17 GMT -5
U2 has 7 years at best, 1984-1991.
|
|
|
|
Post by KooL on Mar 14, 2007 21:01:19 GMT -5
No, they haven't. I agree they're still OK at times, and they're still one of my favourite bands of all time, but their last few albums don't even come close to being as good as they were right up until Achtung. |
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Mar 14, 2007 23:14:24 GMT -5
Mission of Burma has been awesome from 1981 through the present.
(yeah, there was a 22 year gap between recordings. not important)
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Mar 15, 2007 8:31:16 GMT -5
Metallica fits right into what I kind of think of as "The Clash Rule." Most rock and roll bands have a very limited creative lifespan -- usually less than ten years. The really great bands only stick around long enough to say what they had to say, and then call it quits. As one critic put it for the Beatles, "They did it all, they did it right, and then they left" (or something like that). And I (quite frankly) can't think of many bands who can sustain a vibrant career for any longer than the Beatles did, particularly when you remember that Paul and John started playing in the same band in the late fifties. Think about it, almost all of the Stones best material is from '68 through '72 (exceptions for the singles from '64-'66 and then Some Girls in '78), Talking Heads had essentially a ten year career, even though they technically didn't break up until the nineties. Even U2 and R.E.M., two bands who I think defy most of the trends when it comes to longevity and quality, sandwiched almost all of their best material into approximately a ten year span (U2's covered from War's release in '83 through Zooropa a decade later; R.E.M. would also span essentially the same decade, from Murmer through Automatic For the People in '92). Think about what Metallica's rep would be like today if they'd called it a day after the Black Album. Most rock and roll bands really would be better to do a bunch of great work in a short span of time and then call it a day. So considering you're a Pearl Jam fan, where do they fit in. I mean, some will say PJ should have called it a day after Vs. and that they were just mailing it in after Vitalogy. Of course you and I know better as PJ has released their best ablums within the last decade (No Code, Binaural, Avocado). However, if PJ would've called it a day after Vitalogy, there impact/legacy would still be intact. They, IMO, are one of the very few bands who have lasted 15+ years and are still good. Bands like the Grateful Dead, and Rolling Stones pretty much sucked after 15 years. Sure each had a few gems here and there, but nothing after 15 years as good as Pearl Jam's latest record. |
|
|
|
Post by Kensterberg on Mar 15, 2007 14:35:03 GMT -5
Pearl Jam have had an exceptionally long creative run. However, and this is a big however, I don't think their first two albums were all that good, nor was Yield. And Riot Act was just bad. So instead of having one consistent stretch, PJ have had a couple of shorter runs separated by some mediocre/bad material.
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Mar 15, 2007 14:52:47 GMT -5
Sonic Youth have released consistently brilliant albums since 1987.
|
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Mar 15, 2007 15:27:05 GMT -5
Sonic Youth have released consistently brilliant albums since 1987. They have an incredibly high rate of success, true, but there have been a couple stinkers mixed in along the way. |
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Mar 15, 2007 15:29:48 GMT -5
Sonic Youth have released consistently brilliant albums since 1987. They have an incredibly high rate of success, true, but there have been a couple stinkers mixed in along the way. A couple not great albums sure but with Daydream Nation (1989) and Sonic Nurse (2004) I still think they are exception to the theory. |
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Mar 15, 2007 15:32:45 GMT -5
This is an easy one.
Now its 6 votes ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by KooL on Mar 15, 2007 15:53:04 GMT -5
Nah, Pearl Jam started 'mailing it in' with everything they did after No Code. That was their last, great album IMO.
No Code, no way, but Binaural and Avocado are the most obvious cases of Pearl Jam 'mailing it in' as you put it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Mar 15, 2007 16:02:12 GMT -5
I can understand people not liking Pearl Jam anymore but I don't you can ever accuse them of "mailing it in" (I think "phoning it in" might the actual phrase but whatever). I think they've honestly believed in every album they've put out and if you need evidence go see them live sometime.
|
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Mar 15, 2007 16:05:12 GMT -5
I agree with DED. Pearl Jam is nothing if not completely sincere.
Also, anyone who thinks that last album was a case of phoning it in is deaf.
|
|
