|
Post by kds on Oct 26, 2020 12:37:10 GMT
I've been going through Alice Cooper's catalog, listening to many albums that I haven't listened to in a very long time. And, I'm finding there's a reason for that.
Once you get past the original AC band and the amazing solo debut Welcome to My Nightmare, the albums all vary in quality. Good songs, but really nothing that stands out as terrible (even some of the early 80s "blackout" albums), but wow, a lot of paint by numbers stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Oct 26, 2020 12:59:41 GMT
I think that's how most deep dives end up: with the realization (or reminder) that most of the time, hits are hits for a reason, while forgotten albums and deep cuts often deserve their fates as well.
There are exceptions, of course, as well as personal tastes. And that's what makes it all so much fun. But even with artists I like, it's rare that I end up considering some poorly regarded album to be a lost classic.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Oct 26, 2020 13:10:37 GMT
One thing that really stuck out to me with Alice is how he went from an originator to a follower. And, he's not the only legacy artist who fell into that trap.
Flush the Fashion (1980) is very new wave sounding.
Trash (1989) is a "hair metal" album.
Last Temptation (1994) is a little grungy
Brutal Planet (2000) has a bit of an industrial feel
The Eyes of Alice Cooper (2003) has a little of that early 00s garage rock sound
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Oct 26, 2020 14:15:58 GMT
I think your point about legacy artists becoming followers is almost always true to some degree as they fall out of fashion. We've discussed it before. The choice is whether to:
a) continue in the same vein that made you famous in the first place (and inevitably be criticized for that);
b) try some other path that is more current/popular (and inevitably be criticized for that); or
c) continue to forge a new path that will have everyone acknowledge your ongoing brilliance and leadership in the field (good luck with that!).
Frankly it's just hard to keep doing new, exciting AND popular things across years and decades.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Oct 26, 2020 14:28:16 GMT
I think your point about legacy artists becoming followers is almost always true to some degree as they fall out of fashion. We've discussed it before. The choice is whether to:
a) continue in the same vein that made you famous in the first place (and inevitably be criticized for that);
b) try some other path that is more current/popular (and inevitably be criticized for that); or
c) continue to forge a new path that will have everyone acknowledge your ongoing brilliance and leadership in the field (good luck with that!).
Frankly it's just hard to keep doing new, exciting AND popular things across years and decades.
I think there's a lot of truth to that, but I also think that some legacy artists were better at adapting to modern trends rather than just following them to a tee. Pink Floyd comes to mind. Their 1987 album A Momentary Lapse of Reason definitely has a second half of the 80s feel to it, but still has plenty of Floyd hallmarks. I think, to a certain extent, U2 pulled off Option C, although personally I don't think they've done anything I'd call brilliant since The Joshua Tree.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Oct 26, 2020 14:45:03 GMT
I'd say U2 were successful at keeping their own momentum only up through the late '90s. After that, I think they were more an example of chasing their own past and sounding like themselves (for the most part).
Of course they also moved more into the typical legacy-act move of releasing far, far fewer new albums and instead being relevant mostly as a massive touring act.
EDIT: of course maintaining some sense of innovation/leadership in one's own style for almost 20 years, as U2 did, is nothing to sneeze at, either! That's a REALLY long run. It's just that now it has been matched by another 20 years of uninteresting repetition.
|
|
|
Post by kds on May 10, 2021 13:07:59 GMT
For whatever reason, I've never really explored much of Hendrix's catalog. I bought a 20 track comp at a flea market when I was 16, and that's pretty much the extent of it.
So, I've listened to the three LPs from the Jimi Hendrix Experience, and granted, it's just one listen, but I'm actually very underwhelmed by Are You Experienced and Electric Ladyland. Axis: Bold as Love was quite good though, and I'll probably get a tangible copy at some point.
As a fan of guitar based Classic Rock, I'm not sure what's more odd - that it took me this long to take a dive in Hendrix or that I'm finding it far less interesting that I'd have hoped.
I'll give credit to the guy all day, but in all honesty (and this could be a very unpopular opinion), I find the overly distorted guitar sound and some of the noodling to be a bit much.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on May 10, 2021 14:38:47 GMT
I'd be a little surprised at that if I hadn't become familiar with your particular taste. Hendrix incorporates a lot of old R&B and blues into his psychedelic rock, and your taste seems not to include so much of those roots. It would be almost as if someone who loves blues guitar heroes (but not classical music) heard Yngwie Malmsteen. Superficially he should like it, but when you think about it, not really.
Hendrix was an absolute primary influence and favorite of mine for several formative years, like maybe ages 14-18. I got everything I could and just devoured it. But now I find some of the psychedelic effects off-putting, and his voice limits his musical range.
His guitar playing, however, is just unreal. (As if anyone needs me to say that.) Like so many of the greats, it seemed to come easy to him.
|
|
|
Post by kds on May 10, 2021 15:09:25 GMT
I'd be a little surprised at that if I hadn't become familiar with your particular taste. Hendrix incorporates a lot of old R&B and blues into his psychedelic rock, and your taste seems not to include so much of those roots. It would be almost as if someone who loves blues guitar heroes (but not classical music) heard Yngwie Malmsteen. Superficially he should like it, but when you think about it, not really.
Hendrix was an absolute primary influence and favorite of mine for several formative years, like maybe ages 14-18. I got everything I could and just devoured it. But now I find some of the psychedelic effects off-putting, and his voice limits his musical range.
His guitar playing, however, is just unreal. (As if anyone needs me to say that.) Like so many of the greats, it seemed to come easy to him.
I agree about his playing, but I still need great songs to hang my hat on, and you're right some of those styles just don't do it for me. That's probably why I gravitate more towards Blackmore, Gilmour, May, Roeser, Van Halen, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on May 10, 2021 15:16:25 GMT
I always mentally separated Hendrix songs into categories: pop/rock songs; blues-guitar songs; psychedelic songs. As time has gone on, it's the first category I like most.
Foxy Lady, Fire, Purple Haze, The Wind Cries Mary, Hey Joe, Wait Until Tomorrow, Little Wing, She's So Fine, Crostown Traffic, and Little Miss Strange are some of the more straightforward tunes that I think fit in very well with pop-rock of that era. Plenty of guitar but not overwhelmingly in a blues idiom, and not so much of the psychedelic sound effects-laden stuff, either.
You'll note I've got a few Noel Redding tunes in there. I think the band would have been well served to use even more of his material, partly for its pop sensibility and partly because he sang well.
|
|
|
Post by kds on May 10, 2021 15:30:29 GMT
I'd say the pop rock songs are more of what I gravitate to, and for the most part, that's what the one disc comp I have is full of.
|
|
|
Post by kds on May 11, 2021 13:44:42 GMT
Listening to the three Hendrix Experience albums again, I can say that Are You Experienced is decent, I really really like Axis, but other than the hits, I'm not into Electric Ladyland. Too long, too much psychadelic fuzz for me.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on May 11, 2021 13:53:34 GMT
Listening to the three Hendrix Experience albums again, I can say that Are You Experienced is decent, I really really like Axis, but other than the hits, I'm not into Electric Ladyland. Too long, too much psychadelic fuzz for me. EL was my favorite Hendrix album throughout high school and college. But now I'd agree with your impression. I do think it was too long, too rambling. It's almost my stereotype of a double-album, self-indulgent and bloated.
But there are some great songs there to be sure.
One other thing I meant to note yesterday as we chatted Hendrix: he's one of very few artists whose live versions almost always exceed the studio ones for me. That tells me at heart he was a live performer more than a "studio auteur" creating brilliant recordings a la Beatles or Beach Boys.
|
|
|
Post by kds on May 11, 2021 14:01:30 GMT
It doesn't help that 60s technology was pretty limited when it came to heavy rock.
|
|