For many bands, I just choose to ignore that they released something new or anything after their peak.
Printable View
For many bands, I just choose to ignore that they released something new or anything after their peak.
Did not read through any of this, but I hope Kenny Chesney was mentioned at some point.
That's actually a pretty solid list. Even more surprised by your previous comment given the list. And I never said you were "less intelligent". Just pegged you as the typical "fan" who only knows a bands most popular work. Some of the less known Floyd albums are some of their best work.
Andy Warhol.
Pink Floyd
Led Zeppelin
Sadly Fitzy, I kind of agree with him.
MUSE is one of my mother effing favorite bands EVER. But ever since they had a song in that stupid effing Twilight movie, they have almost completely gone to ****.
They might still have a few good songs come out, but nothing compared to their early albums which in my opinion were epic and at the time, NOONE knew about them.
They went from incredibly underrated to overrated/overhyped almost overnight. Pisses me OFF!
I didn't mean for The Monkees to be THE replacement for them. I didn't live through that era like I believe you said that you did, but I would assume that there were a few, if not multiple, bands in England at the time that could have done what The Beatles did. Band X just never got the same break for some reason, didn't get the approval of the popular kids because the popular kids went to The Beatles instead, or were maybe just forming and needed another 6 months or a year to gain ground in the music industry.
I am a fan of Nirvana and I think they are pretty analogous to The Beatles' situation. Nirvana just kind of exploded nationally due to one music video from their poppiest record. There were many other bands up in the NW who could have replaced Nirvana but didn't due to some unknown circumstances. Some of those other bands were probably also better musically than Nirvana.
As far as changing styles to keep them on the map; a lot of bands do that after they garner a good following. It is like asking someone for a favor. First, keep it small and easy to agree to (pop music). Then progress to the more difficult favor that is objectively more difficult to agree to (serious music), and the person will likely agree to it because they have already agreed to that previous small one and that was no big deal.
The culture for both bands at the time was ripe for a change and they were just lucky enough to find themselves in the place where they could be the catalyst for the change. I have no issues with people who like either band because of the music they produced, but it makes me cringe when I hear that the reason they like them is because they "revolutionized" the music industry and deserve to be adored by everyone because they came at an opportune time when there were x number of other bands who could have done the same thing.
What I'm seeing a lot on this list is bands that were once popular but over time have become less popular. Bands like Led Zeppelin had a 5-10 run where they were popular and then they went away. If they still made new music today would it be popular? Very few bands can keep coming out with new material and not fall off.
I'm struggling to think of any band that has done this.