PDA

View Full Version : Which Classic Rock act continues to make the most credible music?



binnie
05-02-2007, 03:43 AM
Some ageing bands (like Kiss, Motley Crue and Sabbath with Ozzy) trade on old times, and that's fine I have no problem with that because in my eyes they've earned the right too, and many fans probably don't want anything else.

But others continue to put out new music reguarly, which puts them in an age-old problem: how does a band update or change its sound without losing what they were about in the first place? How do they avoid treading musical water by putting out lesser versions of great albums, and thus sinking into self-parody, and also manage to progress musically whilst retaining the same feel and vibe that made them great in the first place?

Many old bands try and update their sound to remain relevant: Motley Crue on Generation Swine is a good example of one who changed os much they no longer sounded like the same bands - they had lost their sense of self.

But which artist has most successfully managed to go forward whilst retaining those qualities that made us love them in the first place?

Lets take into consideration musical output from 1992, when most of the bands on this list were at least 15-20 years: whose output since then has been the most credible?

binnie
05-02-2007, 03:46 AM
I haven't made my mind up yet....

binnie
05-02-2007, 05:31 AM
Manowar and Helloween didn't even occur to me to be honest.

I must admit that after the late 80s Helloween have never really done a lot for me....

binnie
05-02-2007, 05:37 AM
Ok, for me it was a close choice between Maiden and Cooper.

Maiden have always moved forward as a band, with the possible exceptions of No Prayer and Fear of the Dark, which began to sound like self-parody. Whilst I wasn't a fan of the Blaze-era, I can here parts on those records where they tried new things and experimented.

Bruce's return has been triumphant, and A Matter of Life and Death was a specactualr record, which fits requirements of this poll perfectly: an expanded sound but still vintage Maiden.

However, Brave New World and DOD did have their weak moments, ad at times sounded uninspired.

I had to go with ALice Cooper in the end. In the late 80s/early 90s he certianly sounded like a shadow of his former self (Trash/Hey Stoopid), a comic book villain as opposed to Alice Cooper. But I think his records in the last ten years show a musical evolution that no other band on that poll can compete with. And he's still retained the classic Alice feel.

Records like Brutal Planet showed that ALice could embrace the modern, expand his sound and still keep the magic - it still sounds like a achizophrenic nightmare.

Mr Badguy
05-02-2007, 07:08 AM
Well, I chose Rush although Cooper and Motorhead were close.

The main reason for chosing Rush is because they still progress which is what all progressive bands should do.

binnie
05-02-2007, 07:19 AM
I'll be honest: I didn't think that anyone would vote for Aersomith or Ozzy...

For me, both of their attempts to evolve their sound led to a complete loss of what they were about in the first place...

binnie
05-02-2007, 07:31 AM
Originally posted by Mr Badguy
Well, I chose Rush although Cooper and Motorhead were close.

The main reason for chosing Rush is because they still progress which is what all progressive bands should do.

Would you say that Motorhead's sound has changed that much? If so how?

Shaun Ponsonby
05-02-2007, 08:49 AM
They've started doing acoustic stuff/ballads over the past 10-15 years...thats aboot it. Motorhead CUN'T change their sound now.

I was torn between Motorhead/Rush and Maiden.

I nearly went Maiden, because I thought "Matter of Life And Death" was possibly the best album of 2006...but I ended up going with Rush, for the same reasons as Badguy, but also I've enjoyed just aboot every Rush album...even the late 80s stuff. they've constantly reinvented themselves, but without losing THAT sound (although, admittedly, that could be simply put down to Geddy's voice, which is pretty damn unique, is all that helium good for his health?).

Terry
05-02-2007, 10:58 AM
Rush.

Not even close, really.

I dig most of the other bands, but outside of Motorhead, none of 'em have done much I would call essential since the mid 1980s...hell, since the early 1970s for one of 'em.

binnie
05-02-2007, 11:51 AM
Looks like it's going to be a Rush landslide.

Now, I'm only a casual listener and I don't profess to have heard their entire back catalogue: how has it progresses sound wise?

Is it changing musical genres? Changing arrangments? Changing subject matter?

I'm very curious (might actaully have to give them a serious listen...)

Mr Badguy
05-02-2007, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by binnie
Would you say that Motorhead's sound has changed that much? If so how?

No, but their stuff still has an edge.

They went through a period (1987-92) when they sounded tired and directionless, but since "Bastards" they haven`t looked back.

Shaun Ponsonby
05-02-2007, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by binnie

Is it changing musical genres? Changing arrangments? Changing subject matter?



In the words of DAN

YES YES AND YES.


They've done all of em...and they do it on a regular basis.

binnie
05-02-2007, 02:33 PM
Originally posted by Mr Badguy
No, but their stuff still has an edge.

They went through a period (1987-92) when they sounded tired and directionless, but since "Bastards" they haven`t looked back.

Ok, I'd agree with that but with one exception: I thought that 1916 was a great record....

svrwthr
05-02-2007, 07:40 PM
Rush? Sorry still sounds the same to me. Just go to site and listen. http://www.rush.com
is still Rush sounding the same as Rush has always. You can all say it is credible music but this new stuff is only played on classic rock stations and if you didn't know Rush all that well, you'd think it was an older tune.

Aerosmith, credible? depends if you like the change of music.

Scorpions cannot return to credible. That is like asking Def Leppard to make credible music.

Ozzy, I guess depends on if you like faked vocals.

I have to go with Maiden

The rest, HAhaHAhaHAAAA!

This is really one of those polls of IMO's. It all depends on your likes and dislikes. Creates nice little arguements :)

FORD
05-02-2007, 07:49 PM
I definitely prefer early Rush to anything since the mid 80's or so, but they deserve the win here, because they remain true to themselves, don't sell out to any commercialism (hello Aeroshit) have maintained the same lineup since 1974 and have managed to do all of the above with one of the biggest shitheads on the planet as a manager.

Seshmeister
05-02-2007, 09:01 PM
Rush - no brainer

Seshmeister
05-02-2007, 09:04 PM
Originally posted by FORD
I definitely prefer early Rush to anything since the mid 80's or so, but they deserve the win here, because they remain true to themselves, don't sell out to any commercialism (hello Aeroshit) have maintained the same lineup since 1974 and have managed to do all of the above with one of the biggest shitheads on the planet as a manager.

I think I've asked you this before over the years but if Ray Danniels is such a dodgy lying evil cunt why do you think that a sound very intelligent band like Rush never got rid of him?

It's incongrious do you not think?

Cheers!

:gulp:

FORD
05-02-2007, 10:49 PM
Originally posted by Seshmeister
I think I've asked you this before over the years but if Ray Danniels is such a dodgy lying evil cunt why do you think that a sound very intelligent band like Rush never got rid of him?

It's incongrious do you not think?

Cheers!

:gulp:

The typical Danniels pattern is that he worms his way into a band, causes friction between the band members, and at least one of them leaves. Usually it ruins the band as a result.

But if he caused John Rutsey to leave and be replaced by Neil Peart, it would have been the one thing he ever did right.

Maybe they figured out how to keep him on a leash? Who the fuck knows.....

Mr Badguy
05-03-2007, 07:04 AM
Originally posted by binnie
Ok, I'd agree with that but with one exception: I thought that 1916 was a great record....

I remember the hype when it came out and bought it straight away.

I never really warmed to "1916".

The material is too diverse and I don`t like the production, it sounds too much like they`re trying to break America.

"Bastards" was a real...erm, Bastard, maybe because of the injection of pace they got from Mikkey Dee and the realisation that they weren`t going to crack the US market so went back to being heavy as fuck.

binnie
05-03-2007, 07:10 AM
I really liked RAMONES and One to Sing The Blues, as well as the title track.

But Bastards is a killer too. I didn't care for "Sacrifice" all that much, or "On Parole", but the majority of their output has been consistently strong if not spectacular.

I thought "Inferno" was almost as good as their heyday material, but the record released last year didn't carry on the momentum: the lyrics feel rushed, and there's not enough bass in the mix, Motorhead just don't sound right without a concrete-mixer bass!

Mr Badguy
05-03-2007, 07:10 AM
Originally posted by svrwthr
I have to go with Maiden

The rest, HAhaHAhaHAAAA!

This is really one of those polls of IMO's. It all depends on your likes and dislikes. Creates nice little arguements :)

I would have loved to have picked Maiden but I don`t think they`ve come close to realizing their potential yet, good as their three recent albums have been.

It`s a step up from the 90`s stuff but not a patch on the 80`s.

When they did "The Early Years" tour, did anyone say I want to hear "Wildest dreams", "Dream of Mirrors" or "Blood brothers"?

No.

And they won`t when they do the next retrospective tour 1984-88) next year either.

It will be interesting to see what happens when they do a 90`s set.

binnie
05-03-2007, 07:11 AM
Wow, 2 people have voted for Ozzy but haven't justifed themselves.

I personally think anything post "No More tears" is average at best (the last studio record) or downright awful (Ozzmosis)....

Mr Badguy
05-03-2007, 07:14 AM
Originally posted by binnie
I really liked RAMONES and One to Sing The Blues, as well as the title track.

But Bastards is a killer too. I didn't care for "Sacrifice" all that much, or "On Parole", but the majority of their output has been consistently strong if not spectacular.

I thought "Inferno" was almost as good as their heyday material, but the record released last year didn't carry on the momentum: the lyrics feel rushed, and there's not enough bass in the mix, Motorhead just don't sound right without a concrete-mixer bass!

Don`t get me wrong, there`s some good stuff on "1916".

I just don`t enjoy it as a whole album.

"Bastards", "Hammered" and "Inferno" are all classic Motorhead, the others are maybe a bit patchy, but the attitude is there.

Mr Badguy
05-03-2007, 07:16 AM
Originally posted by binnie
Wow, 2 people have voted for Ozzy but haven't justifed themselves.

I personally think anything post "No More tears" is average at best (the last studio record) or downright awful (Ozzmosis)....

I would even go back as far as "The ultimate sin" although the song "No more tears" is fucking ace.

binnie
05-03-2007, 07:23 AM
I actaully think No Rest For the Wicked was a very strong album. Not a classic, as it has clearly aged badly, but a very good record nonetheless.

I really like the song The Ultimate Sin, but the album is weak overall. Not a patch on Bark... as far as his work with Jake E Lee goes...

Shaun Ponsonby
05-03-2007, 07:27 AM
I actually think most of Ozzy's albums are patchy without Randy.

Mr Badguy
05-03-2007, 07:31 AM
Originally posted by binnie
I really like the song The Ultimate Sin, but the album is weak overall. Not a patch on Bark... as far as his work with Jake E Lee goes...

Well, maybe it`s nostalgia as I remember the era vividly and Ozzy was killer at the time.