|
Post by Kapitan on Jul 10, 2020 13:15:31 GMT
While falling asleep to Paul McCartney's 2001 clunker Driving Rain yesterday due to our friends KDS and B.E. apparently hating me ( ), I was also checking out its Wiki page, reviews, etc., to remember the context (and to keep myself awake). The featured fan review in Allmusic.com said it was Paul's "last attempt at making a young man's album."
That turned my mind to Brian Wilson's contemporaneous work, which would have been ... well, nothing. Imagination in '98, GIOMH in '04. (He was in live-album mode in the earliest 2000s.) But in either case, Brian was not making "young men's albums." Going back further--into the Beach Boys' career--I thought about where I'd put that line.
An older history said they went full-on nostalgia after the release of Endless Summer and with 15BO in the mid-70s, making Holland the last attempt at contemporary music. But I think it's safe to call LA an attempt to make current popular music, so that pushes the date at least five years or so into the future. Is that the last one before they went full oldies?
KTSA doesn't strike me as a modern album by a modern band, but I'm looking with hindsight (having been not-quite-four when it was released). 85 is an odd case, being produced in a then-contemporary way but with most of the material firmly in the oldies camp: it strikes me more as an oldies act putting on shiny new clothes for their set (of oldies).
So my vote for last contemporary album is probably LA. You?
|
|
|
Post by kds on Jul 10, 2020 13:37:48 GMT
That's a tough one. I think the last successful attempt was Holland. I think they tried to be contemporary on the post Endless Summer albums, but like you said about BB85, to me, it sounds more like an oldies act, trying to sound contemporary, but I suppose the effort is still there.
I'm going BB85 though, because to me, that's a very, very mid 80s sounding album. Songs like It's Getting Late, Maybe I Don't Know, and She Believes in Love Again are flat out 80s pop rock tunes. The first two wouldn't sound out of place in a Huey Lewis or later Eddie Money album. The later, sung by Bruce trying to sound like Bryan Adams, sounds like any number of mid 80s prom songs. Even Getcha Back, for all its 50s Hallmarks, sounds more like Billy Joel's 1980's version of doo wop.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Jul 10, 2020 13:51:08 GMT
Either L.A. (Light Album) or The Beach Boys 1985. Just as Bruce's role in 1978 was to clean up the sound and make the group sound contemporary, so it was with Steve Levine. Isn't that why he was hired in the first place? "California Calling", "Getcha Back", and "Male Ego" do add to the stubborn, still-hanging onto retro Beach Boys' feel, at least lyrically, but even those songs have Levine's stamp on them. I have a feeling the Beach Boys didn't add much more to the 1985 album than the songs they submitted and their vocals.
|
|
|
Post by lonelysummer on Jul 12, 2020 20:35:51 GMT
I gotta go with Summer in Paradise. The Beach Boys 1985 fit in very comfortably with what was on the radio at the time; I recall hearing Getcha Back and It's Gettin' Late a lot that summer. It didn't feel out of place next to Culture Club, Tears for Fears, and Tina Turner. Completely different with SIP. It sounded like the band trying to clone Kokomo, but the problem was, that song was already 4 years old, and music had changed a lot in that time. One thing rock and roll artists have always struggled with is growing older. It started out as music for teenagers, so what do you do when you and your audience are no longer teens? The audience may be 40 something, but they still think of you when they want to hear music that reminds them of being in high school. When they want to hear adult music, they don't think of the Beach Boys or the Beatles, they think of...well, i don't know who? Jazz artists? Country music? I'm gonna bring up the Bobster again....i think one of the reasons Dylan's fans are more accepting of his later music is because his popularity was never based on fun in the sun songs, getting his picture in Tiger Beat magazine, he was already a weary old man at 25. Now certainly there were elements of that in the Beach Boys and Beatles music. "Your day breaks, your mind aches, you find that all her words of kindness linger on when she no longer needs you" sure isn't "I Wanna Hold Your Hand". u
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jul 12, 2020 20:46:50 GMT
One thing rock and roll artists have always struggled with is growing older. It started out as music for teenagers, so what do you do when you and your audience are no longer teens? The audience may be 40 something, but they still think of you when they want to hear music that reminds them of being in high school. When they want to hear adult music, they don't think of the Beach Boys or the Beatles, they think of...well, i don't know who? Jazz artists? Country music? This is for me one of the most interesting topics in the world. How audiences mature--or don't--along with the artists they liked in their younger days is endlessly fascinating to me. What people want from their musical heroes is endlessly fascinating to me. How people turn on their favorite musicians is endlessly fascinating to me.
|
|
|
Post by lonelysummer on Jul 13, 2020 20:56:03 GMT
One thing rock and roll artists have always struggled with is growing older. It started out as music for teenagers, so what do you do when you and your audience are no longer teens? The audience may be 40 something, but they still think of you when they want to hear music that reminds them of being in high school. When they want to hear adult music, they don't think of the Beach Boys or the Beatles, they think of...well, i don't know who? Jazz artists? Country music? This is for me one of the most interesting topics in the world. How audiences mature--or don't--along with the artists they liked in their younger days is endlessly fascinating to me. What people want from their musical heroes is endlessly fascinating to me. How people turn on their favorite musicians is endlessly fascinating to me. It all boils down to "you can't please everyone, so you got to please yourself".
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jul 13, 2020 21:15:13 GMT
Very true. But of course that's easier when you're an established legend whose financial security will never be in doubt! Many musicians don't have the luxury of risking their incomes. (But to play devil's advocate with myself, sometimes it seems that chasing those future incomes and doing what they think is going to be successful is the worst thing you can do, if it seems like a blatant cash-grab.)
|
|
|
Post by lonelysummer on Jul 15, 2020 22:52:06 GMT
Very true. But of course that's easier when you're an established legend whose financial security will never be in doubt! Many musicians don't have the luxury of risking their incomes. (But to play devil's advocate with myself, sometimes it seems that chasing those future incomes and doing what they think is going to be successful is the worst thing you can do, if it seems like a blatant cash-grab.) Either way, you risk losing a good chunk of your audience. If you get too daring, experimental with your music, a lot of the fanbase may think you've "gone 'round the bend", lost it, gotten wierd. But if you just cynically crank out the same old stuff year after year, the fans get tired of hearing the same old stuff endlessly. So really the best option is just to follow your muse, see where it takes you.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Jul 20, 2020 0:28:31 GMT
Very true. But of course that's easier when you're an established legend whose financial security will never be in doubt! Many musicians don't have the luxury of risking their incomes. (But to play devil's advocate with myself, sometimes it seems that chasing those future incomes and doing what they think is going to be successful is the worst thing you can do, if it seems like a blatant cash-grab.) Either way, you risk losing a good chunk of your audience. If you get too daring, experimental with your music, a lot of the fanbase may think you've "gone 'round the bend", lost it, gotten wierd. But if you just cynically crank out the same old stuff year after year, the fans get tired of hearing the same old stuff endlessly. So really the best option is just to follow your muse, see where it takes you. I think that's mostly true. After all, every band has those "they've been shit since (album X) fans" no matter what. Even bands like AC/DC and Motorhead who never strayed from their signature sounds.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jul 20, 2020 12:52:43 GMT
I don't know if I ever really answered the question of this thread. While I think there are plenty of good arguments for different moments, the one I'd pick is KTSA. It's not that there weren't attempts at being current on and after that album; it's that their attempts felt like old people's attempts. They were old.
LA was a much more successful effort, artistically speaking, if not commercially. I think it was a real attempt at making forward-looking (or at least current) music. Its follow-up just felt completely by numbers or backward-facing. I know some here said 85 was a modern effort, but I can't agree with that. To me, it sounds like nothing so much as oldies gussied up with Levine's production, a middle-aged, balding uncle dressed in a teenager's clothes.
So that's my answer. LA to KTSA is the breaking point of (often failing and misguided) contemporary act to oldies act.
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Jul 20, 2020 13:53:49 GMT
What has troubled me about this thread is the reference to "young men's albums". My gut is to agree with the consensus here that LA was the last successful/complete contemporary effort and that BB85 is the failed/incomplete runner up. But, in my ignorance, I wonder if "young men's" and contemporary music are one and the same. I didn't live through it, so I don't know. But, were young people rockin' (or chillin') to yacht rock? Or was that more geared to what may have been considered middle-aged at the time? Say, mid 30s - 50s, as opposed to 15-25 year olds. It also gets tricky because going "full oldies" typically means trying to replicate your successful teen/young adult music. And while it becomes clear in later decades that only your nostalgic, older fans are listening to it, not actual teens/young adults, in the '70s that wouldn't have been so clear. If the BBs could have replicated their mid '60s material in the mid '70s, '70s teens would have ate it up (as the success of Endless Summer, etc, proves). Unsurprisingly, they couldn't. They didn't look or sound the same (as hardly anyone does). With all this in mind, I certainly think that BBs music through Holland qualifies (mirroring the age of the BBs themselves: late 20s - early 30s), and I'd suggest that Love You and POB sufficiently appeal to younger people. I might even consider BW88, as well. What do you think? Am I making any sense or should I have kept quiet?
|
|
|
Post by kds on Jul 20, 2020 15:45:47 GMT
What has troubled me about this thread is the reference to "young men's albums". My gut is to agree with the consensus here that LA was the last successful/complete contemporary effort and that BB85 is the failed/incomplete runner up. But, in my ignorance, I wonder if "young men's" and contemporary music are one and the same. I didn't live through it, so I don't know. But, were young people rockin' (or chillin') to yacht rock? Or was that more geared to what may have been considered middle-aged at the time? Say, mid 30s - 50s, as opposed to 15-25 year olds. It also gets tricky because going "full oldies" typically means trying to replicate your successful teen/young adult music. And while it becomes clear in later decades that only your nostalgic, older fans are listening to it, not actual teens/young adults, in the '70s that wouldn't have been so clear. If the BBs could have replicated their mid '60s material in the mid '70s, '70s teens would have ate it up (as the success of Endless Summer, etc, proves). Unsurprisingly, they couldn't. They didn't look or sound the same (as hardly anyone does). With all this in mind, I certainly think that BBs music through Holland qualifies (mirroring the age of the BBs themselves: late 20s - early 30s), and I'd suggest that Love You and POB sufficiently appeal to younger people. I might even consider BW88, as well. What do you think? Am I making any sense or should I have kept quiet? You might even be able to make a case for NPP, with a guest roster including Sebu, Kacey Musgraves, and Nate Ruess, not to mention Frank Ocean and Lana Del Rey, who were set to appear on the album.
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Jul 20, 2020 16:11:56 GMT
Yeah, a case could be made. I'd still probably end up filing it alongside BB85, though. It's a mixed bag in regard to being contemporary and appealing to younger audiences, as it's also ultra adult contemporary and nostalgic.
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Jul 20, 2020 17:26:23 GMT
… It all boils down to "you can't please everyone, so you got to please yourself". … So really the best option is just to follow your muse, see where it takes you. I agree with both sentiments entirely. It's inevitable that artists will lose fans over time. There's nothing they can do about it. If they don't follow their inspiration(s), they'll eventually stop creating altogether. For an artist, that's the true end - not dwindling sales. As I see it, the problem is fans and critics deciding when an artist is or isn't "following their muse". Unless the artist tells us (and are being entirely truthful), we can't really know. All artists are different. Some might only have a passion for "the same old same old". Some might be obsessed with change (i.e. never repeating themselves). Most are more fickle. Sometimes they want to experiment. Sometimes they want to follow the trends. Sometimes they want to get back to their roots. And, most don't ever have interest in straying too far from their roots, which makes perfect sense. So, who's to say when an artist has gone astray? We either like a project or we don't. As a fan, I say keep 'em coming! The more inspired the artist is, the better it'll probably be.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jul 20, 2020 18:15:29 GMT
As I see it, the problem is fans and critics deciding when an artist is or isn't "following their muse". Unless the artist tells us (and are being entirely truthful), we can't really know. All artists are different. Some might only have a passion for "the same old same old". Some might be obsessed with change (i.e. never repeating themselves). Most are more fickle. Sometimes they want to experiment. Sometimes they want to follow the trends. Sometimes they want to get back to their roots. And, most don't ever have interest in straying too far from their roots, which makes perfect sense. So, who's to say when an artist has gone astray? We either like a project or we don't. As a fan, I say keep 'em coming! The more inspired the artist is, the better it'll probably be. This, exactly.
There can't be perfect unanimity between artists and fans: artists aren't always inspired, have bills to pay, and frankly sometimes do terrible work; and fans are (just as artists) growing and changing over time in different, individual/unique ways. What appeals to X annoys Y.
So as much as possible, the best course of action is just for everyone to do what he does. For artists, that means making art in whatever fashion they deem best. For fans, it means listening to what they like. That will inevitably lead to "disloyalty" that is in reality no such thing. And in the end, history can work it all out.
(I want to talk about B.E.'s references to "young man's albums" too, but haven't totally thought it through yet.)
|
|