|
|
Post by bluecheer on Nov 3, 2010 12:03:48 GMT -5
The sound of their most classic albums?
For example take Nikki Sixx's own words. For the longest time he referred to new albums such as when they released Saints of Los Angeles as going to be an album that sounds like Shout meets Dr. Feelgood.
I don't hear that at all. It doesn't sound like any of those albums.
And yes, even Kiss released an album that Gene refers to being a 70's kiss record. What I heard was just a modern rock record done by Kiss.
Also Ratt, they released a new album recently. I tried listening to it but it wasn't the Ratt I was a fan of.
So my question again is , why is it so hard for bands to recreate the sound that they came out with in the beginning? Maybe its due to the new technology that producers are using in the studio?
|
|
|
|
Post by Speedy on Nov 3, 2010 14:31:50 GMT -5
To use KISS as the example:
In the beginning the band KISS worked together as a UNIT with ONE goal...success. Basically egos were thrown out the door for the GOOD of the whole. Each member contributed to the music their OWN piece of the puzzle. That makes the music a SUM of those FOUR individuals, some MORE than others but still FOUR as ONE....so in order to have the CLASSIC KISS SOUND you need:
GENE SIMMONS
ACE FREHLEY
PAUL STANLEY
PETER CRISS
AND you need them to be on EQUAL footing as far as input and ideas go...with the ATTITUDE that whats BEST will win out. EGOS cannot be part of the equation. You need a strong producer like Eddie Kramer or Bob Ezrin to be the sounding board and final word.
MODERN KISS...even when the band re-united... is Gene and Paul with hired guns. Since 1980 other KISS members have had little or no say in the music. The final say has always been with the OWNERS of the KISS name. The 80's showed that although they could write some good stuff....KISS without the input of the 4 original guys was NOT the same band. Even getting a producer who has enough clout to steer the ship has been impossible. Either they cower in the presence of Stanley/Simmons (most 80's producers) OR they get sabatoged (see Psycho Circus) Once a band gets SUCCESS the members are less inclined to compromise and accept the input of others. It's not as easy as trying to COPY something it's the PEOPLE involved.
KISS is just one example....this has happened a zillion times in popular music.
Lennon and McCartney never made music as good as they did with the Beatles.
Aerosmith hasn't been decent since one guy has all the say.
Nugent never made a great album without Derek St Holmes
The death of Bon Scott had a HUGE effect on the AC/DC sound
Judas Priest without Rob Halford is not Judas Priest.
|
|
Ricky
Club Rocker
Long live Rock and Roll
Posts: 501
|
Post by Ricky on Nov 3, 2010 19:04:45 GMT -5
I think what Speedy said is right..look at Pink Floyd they have never been the same without Waters and Gilmore working together.
|
|
FunkyCanuck
Club Rocker
Just a funkin canuck!
Posts: 868
|
Post by FunkyCanuck on Nov 3, 2010 19:22:23 GMT -5
Really nice input, Speedy. Enjoyed reading what you had to say.
|
|
|
|
Post by spacel0rd on Nov 3, 2010 19:56:23 GMT -5
The songwriting well goes dry. The rock n roll heart can get soft with age. Bands can also try too hard to get the old sound back...and it can make them lose focus. Trying to get new fans while keeping old ones can be very tricky- like making hollandaise sauce...fine line between sauce and scrambed eggs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Speedy on Nov 4, 2010 0:55:19 GMT -5
I think what Speedy said is right..look at Pink Floyd they have never been the same without Waters and Gilmore working together. Perfect example. Especially if you accept DSOTM as their pinnacle. Watch the Classic Album series on that one. Listen how they used each others music, blend them together and make great songs out of them. The band was on the ropes and willing to compromise. After you are a millionaire what point is there to compromise anymore?? At least that's how the human mind works. If a guy can take you to the top...once you are there you feel you don't need him anymore. Happens TOO MANY times in music. |
|
|
|
Post by snakesandladders on Nov 4, 2010 12:01:48 GMT -5
I think the main reason is because in their effort to "go with the latest trends", they sell out on the TRUE music  |
|
|
|
Post by Speedy on Nov 4, 2010 12:59:56 GMT -5
I think the main reason is because in their effort to "go with the latest trends", they sell out on the TRUE music There is truth in that one. As well peoples musical tastes and outlook on life changes making it very hard to return to something they once did. We all think of our favorite bands making music "for their fans" when initially they just did what came natural. As they change what's "natural" is different. It's just natural that a band will change. |
|
|
|
Post by bluecheer on Nov 4, 2010 13:56:15 GMT -5
I think the main reason is because in their effort to "go with the latest trends", they sell out on the TRUE music There is truth in that one. As well peoples musical tastes and outlook on life changes making it very hard to return to something they once did. We all think of our favorite bands making music "for their fans" when initially they just did what came natural. As they change what's "natural" is different. It's just natural that a band will change. Very true. When Shout was written Nikki Sixx was into studying the occult. |
|
|
|
Post by hojam on Nov 4, 2010 23:54:08 GMT -5
Simply put: That was then, this is now. I am now 40 years old and no matter how hard I try, I cannot seem to recreate ANYTHING as it was when I was 20. It is what it is: For the record, I enjoy the latest albums from bands like KISS, Ted Nugent, Heart, Ratt, Ace Frehley, etc, etc, etc.... When I was 20, I never thought any of my favorite bands would still be around when I would be 40. Life is too short. None of us or our favorite bands are getting any younger and I am pleased that so many of them are still around! Besides, if anyone is waiting for a 61 year old Gene Simmons to recreate "Christine Sixteen"....well, that would be creepy  |
|
|
|
Post by snakesandladders on Nov 5, 2010 12:53:49 GMT -5
Very few bands can be TRUE to themselves and their fans.....like Foghat, Bob Seger, Tom Petty and others |
|
|
|
Post by Speedy on Nov 5, 2010 14:55:54 GMT -5
It is what it is: For the record, I enjoy the latest albums of Ace Frehley I really like Anomaly and it MAY be his best...IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by Jesse on Nov 6, 2010 10:57:53 GMT -5
I could write a book about this subject. I'll try to be concise, but there are so many things to factor into the equation. 1-Everything is better when you are younger. Not sure why, but nothing today is quite as good as what we heard when we were younger. I have a couple theories. First is perspective. Kiss had some fine albums in the 80's and '90's, but if you grew up listening to "Alive", "Destroyer" and "Love Gun", well, the albums don't compare. But, I submit, that if "Creatures Of THe Night", "Lick It Up" or "Revenge" were the first albums you ever heard from Kiss, they would be regarded higher and it wouldn't even cross your mind that they don't "recreate" the earlier Kiss sound. Another reason might be time. Speaking only on my experience, I had a ton of more time to listen to albums when I was younger than I do now. As you listen to an album over and over, an ok album will become good, a good album will become great, and a great album will become classic! (Notice I didn't say anything about bad albums. A bad album is bad no matter how many times you listen to it  ). With more time to listen, the music has a better chance of growing on you. Case in point for me is Molly Hatchet. I listent to everything from their first album up to 2001's "Kingdom Of XII" over and over and over. Their last 2 albums, I just haven't had the time for. They are both really good, but they don't seem to have that "it" factor to 'em. It's really hard for me to say whether it is a flaw in their songwriting/performance or my growing lack of an attention span. 2-As the old saying goes: "You have your whole life to write your first record and 6 months to write your next one". Artists go from writing songs in their leisure time as they come to them naturally to trying to force out a cool riff or meaningful lyrics. And, yes, the well does run dry. That's why by the 80's many of the classic artists of the 70's were using outside songwriters. Alice Cooper, Heart, and Aerosmith come to mind. And when the artist is no longer writing their own songs, yes, it gets tough to sound like they used to. 3-Influences/trends. Why did every band have to start adding keyboards in the 80's? Why did every band seem to get "heavier" in the 90's. They're only human and it's easy to get influenced by current trends' Especially if one is under the gun to write a new record that is going to sell well. Jump on Ted Nugent all you want for making shitty records in the 80's, but it was a different time and no way would "Cat Scratch Fever" be as big of a hit in the 80's as it was in the 70's. He HAD to change his sound. Another thing is that any album is like a snapshot photo of the artist at that point. No matter how much wieght I lose or hair dye I use, I'm never again going to look like I did when I was 18 or 21 or whatever. Same with the music. No matter how hard an artist tries, they will never write the same way they did when they were younger. Never play the same way, record the same way. And all that is assuming one can keep the same musicians, producers, engineers etc as the earlier material. Everything is changing, the people, the personalities, the skill levels, the technology. In some cases, why go back? The sound quality on Lynyrd Skynyrd albums of recent years is light years better than the sound quality on their "classic" albums. The playing is better and I submit to you that the songwritting is just as good, albeit almost totally different......but then again, the band is totally different. I could go on and on, but I'd probably go off topic (as if I haven't already  ). Plus, you all can probably see how many factors there really are in play here. And I didn't even elaborate on some of the spot on points made by Speedy and Hojam. |
|
|
|
Post by kim on Nov 6, 2010 11:04:34 GMT -5
I like your "book" idea Jesse!  You're on a roll! Keep er coming! Thanks Kim |
|
|
|
Post by IRON BALLS on Nov 6, 2010 11:16:53 GMT -5
Speedy and Jesse said it all for me. |
|
|
|
Post by hojam on Nov 6, 2010 17:37:15 GMT -5
Jesse: |
|
|
|
Post by Frank on Nov 7, 2010 14:07:01 GMT -5
Heres my two cents worth....
Many of the bands that we all love from the 70's & 80's you have to realize were writing & recording albums on an album tour album tour cycle. Back then the magic seemed to happen because the bands were hungry to get better & we were all the benifactors of many classic albums. Nowadays many of our heroes don't put out new music very often if not at all. The mind set in those days was different then it is now towards recording. And great albums were the norm.
|
|
|
|
Post by rtbuck on Nov 8, 2010 7:42:49 GMT -5
Speedy and Jesse said it all for me. I couldn't agree more!  |
|
|
|
Post by bluecheer on Nov 8, 2010 14:41:21 GMT -5
I must have been on drugs when I said Ratt's new album didn't sound like their old stuff. It does!
|
|
|
|
Post by Trexx on Nov 10, 2010 13:06:34 GMT -5
Great thread. Thanks, guys.
|
|
). With more time to listen, the music has a better chance of growing on you. Case in point for me is Molly Hatchet. I listent to everything from their first album up to 2001's "Kingdom Of XII" over and over and over. Their last 2 albums, I just haven't had the time for. They are both really good, but they don't seem to have that "it" factor to 'em. It's really hard for me to say whether it is a flaw in their songwriting/performance or my growing lack of an attention span. 
). Plus, you all can probably see how many factors there really are in play here. And I didn't even elaborate on some of the spot on points made by Speedy and Hojam. 
