Author Topic: 'I prefer their later stuff'  (Read 4400 times)

Re: 'I prefer their later stuff'
« Reply #90 on: July 05, 2021, 03:09:47 PM »
Sparks have got to be the ultimate exception to that. Ron's mind seems to sharpen as he gets older, and they made their most daring music in their 4th decade.

Glebe

  • We're all in the gutter.
Re: 'I prefer their later stuff'
« Reply #91 on: July 15, 2021, 06:52:09 AM »
Faith No More greatly improved as Jim Martin's influence was dialled down (and once he left the band entirely). The Chuck Mosley albums have the odd good nugget but it's thin stuff overall, with The Real Thing (replacing Mosley with Patton) being the best culmination of that earlier style. Things really took off from Angel Dust onwards. KFAD for the win, and I'd always rather listen to AOTY and Sol Invictus than the first three albums.

I actually found KFaD a tad disappointing, there are some cracking songs on there but I felt like they'd kinda lost a bit of their magic spark, although AotY is a bit more like it. Haven't heard Sol Invictus, apart from one the singles.

Re: 'I prefer their later stuff'
« Reply #92 on: July 15, 2021, 03:25:16 PM »
Sparks have got to be the ultimate exception to that. Ron's mind seems to sharpen as he gets older, and they made their most daring music in their 4th decade.

There's a lot of recent Sparks songs which are a bit flat because you expect there would be some crazy melodic hook or harmony, or an OTT Russell delivery, but there's just a normal chorus.
But then they do something like Johnny Delusional or Ediaf Piaf (Said it Better than Me) and there's genuinely a case to be made that they're better than they were in the mid 70s.

the science eel

  • married to Su Pollard for 8 years
    • PRELUDIN - where goons don't go
Re: 'I prefer their later stuff'
« Reply #93 on: July 15, 2021, 06:01:24 PM »
There's a lot of recent Sparks songs which are a bit flat because you expect there would be some crazy melodic hook or harmony, or an OTT Russell delivery, but there's just a normal chorus.
But then they do something like Johnny Delusional or Ediaf Piaf (Said it Better than Me) and there's genuinely a case to be made that they're better than they were in the mid 70s.

Edith Piaf is sooooooooooooo good

Re: 'I prefer their later stuff'
« Reply #94 on: July 15, 2021, 07:39:32 PM »
Oh yeah the Beatles is a great choice.

There's a lot of hardcore punk / extreme metal where the earlier albums are really 'raw' and sound like they were recorded through a calculator, and to me it is so vastly inferior to the music they made when they've got a bit of cash; even the re-recordings of their old songs are much better. I can barely listen to some of the most lo-fi stuff. Leftover Crack and Carcass can be two big name examples (that I'm not ashamed of mentioning on a left-leaning messageboard).

But when I think about it, most of my favourite bands' early records aren't their best, and the best stuff tends to appear in the middle of their career.

Maybe you've gotta do a Nirvana at your creative peak. Not to say Bleach has any bad songs on it, but In Utero's best songs are much better.

What HC bands do you think record their best stuff later in their career? Other than Poison Idea (Feel the Darkness -1990) & Rudimentary Peni (Cacophony - 1988) I can't really think of any - in fact it's one of those genres where your safest bet is always their debut 1981 7" or what have you.

markburgle

  • A flavourless mush I call Rootmarm
Re: 'I prefer their later stuff'
« Reply #95 on: July 19, 2021, 03:32:53 AM »
yeh, I knew A New Morning would cause trouble, I don't rate it much but I do think Head Music is their best, by a decent stretch - the guitars on prior albums sound dreadful.

I don't know Suede in much depth but I thought Barriers and Hit Me off Bloodsports were both brilliant, they'd be regarded as absolute classics if they were on the early albums

Tags: