I just read a bit of the Rod Stewart string, and it made me think: What exactly goes south with guys like Rod Stewart, Elton John, and Billy Joel. Like these guys or not, but they all put out some tremendous music at the outset of their careers. I happen to particularly love early Rod Stewart (and The Faces). I know that Bernie Taupin wrote most of Elton John's lyrics, but it seems that they all hit a certain inflection point in their careers where they simply ran out of creative talent, in fact they have all arguably tarnished their legacies.

Is it that all artists only have so much material in them? Is it that they were struggling, miserable and poor, and eventually got rich and soft?

Any thoughts? Any other musicians who fall into this category?

Rod and Elton aside for the moment, I will step in to defend Billy Joel. I think he is a great muscician, and song writer, and I think he was strong and original throughout his entire career all the way through River of Dreams. It was not a "safe" album, and it had some really great songs on it. He did sort of disapear after that, but I think that it is for the best. There are several artists and bands that I think should have just retired gracefully a while back. U2 for instance.

Interesting. I know U2 went through a weird phase, but they seem to have bounced back, as their last album was actually pretty good.

I must respectfully disagree on Billy Joel. He went from Great albums like Piano Man and Scenes From an Italian Restaurant to some really bad music. "Tell her About It", "Uptown Girl", and "For the Longest Time", and even "Big Shot" are about as painful as songs gets in my book. But, the great thing about music is we all have our own taste.

Other than Rod's flirtation with disco, he has basically eased into the sunset playing housewife rock and oldies, but in my opinion has not embarrassed himself quite to the degree that Billy Joel has, and I won't even mention Elton John becoming a complete diva, and playing Disney soundtracks and singing about dead blondes as a career.

ugh Billy Joel {shudders}

I think that the poor = great and rich = shit is right on.

I know a lot of people that would put Lou Reed in this conversation.

I constantly get grief for this from some of my older friends who claim Lou was so influential and great. I never liked him, and thought he was overrated from the start, thus I could not put him in the once great, now deplorable category; but rather the once mediocre, now dreadful category.

I am always open to change and/or reconsidering my opinions, so if you can recommend some Lou that you think is good, let me know. Thanks.

Have you heard the Velvet Underground? It begins with their first four albums.

As for Lou Reed solo, I swear by Transformer (1972), Coney Island Music (1976), The Bells (1979), The Blue Mask (1982) and New York (1989). Pretty much everything up through 1989 is worth a listen (except Metal Machine Music (1975)-- don't let anyone fool you). I really like the 1990 collaboration he did with John Cale, Songs for Drella. His records since have been more miss than hit with 1992's Magic and Loss being the best of the bunch.

quote:

Originally posted by Maximum Jack:
Have you heard the Velvet Underground? It begins with their first four albums.

Agreed. Those VU albums are so influential to the rock canon. Along with Dylan, the Beatles, and the Rolling Stones, they're one of those bands that really helped to shape the way we think of rock music. Whether you actually like VU or not, from an objective standpoint they're an important band, and can hardly be called overrated.

As for Lou's solo stuff, I think it's more hit or miss than his stuff with the VU, but even today, I admire Lou. I'd probably say this about Bowie too, but even at his worst, Lou still seems to be making an effort to make cool and interesting music. He never got into a phase where he was just playing it safe or going through the motions.

quote:

Originally posted by EricG75:
Lou still seems to be making an effort to make cool and interesting music. He never got into a phase where he was just playing it safe or going through the motions.

Likewise his compadre, John Cale.

I won't gear up for this fight now, but as a hardcore U2 fan, I resent the hell out of the fact that so many young music fans refer to current-day U2 with such disrespect.

Listen with a neutral ear, and you'll find that "All That You Can't Leave Behind" rivals even "The Joshua Tree" in quality. Yes, I said it. "Pop" is a very good record, too.

And if you don't think U2 put on one of the best live shows around today, you're out of your mind. In regards to work in the studio: As long as they've got the right collaborators (Flood, Lanois, Eno, et al) they'll stay fresh.

I'll admit, the band's absolute best days are probably behind them, but that doesn't mean U2 doesn't still put out some killer songs and even killer records head-to-toe. "Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own," for example, from "How to Dismantle An Atomic Bomb," is one of the best songs U2's ever written.

They're not the Stones. THAT band should retire. U2 aren't there... at least not yet. Not for another decade or so.

quote:

Originally posted by Yay!:
Listen with a neutral ear, and you'll find that "All That You Can't Leave Behind" rivals even "The Joshua Tree" in quality.

Eh..Now I think you're stretching it a bit. I think U2 still puts out a good song or so now, but since Pop, they've definitely been sliding. Your Stones comparison is a good one. I believe U2 to now be in the Tattoo You phase of their career. They might churn out a "Start Me Up" or "Waiting On A Friend". But don't hold your breath for another Let It Bleed.

quote:

Originally posted by EricG75:

quote:

Originally posted by Yay!:
Listen with a neutral ear, and you'll find that "All That You Can't Leave Behind" rivals even "The Joshua Tree" in quality.

Eh..Now I think you're stretching it a bit. I think U2 still puts out a good song or so now, but since Pop, they've definitely been sliding. Your Stones comparison is a good one. I believe U2 to now be in the Tattoo You phase of their career. They might churn out a "Start Me Up" or "Waiting On A Friend". But don't hold your breath for another Let It Bleed.

Thanks for saying everything I was wanting to say. I don't disagree that U2 is still a good band. Perhaps I was too extreme earlier. But I grew up on U2, and they were sortof idols for a while. There was no denying that they were a great band. Then around Pop they became a band that made a few good songs every album.

I think that most people hate on U2 because of Bono's antics. On the video for "Beautiful Day" his performance alone is enough to generate some dislike for him. Despite all the good things he does for charity, he seems to push his face everywhere, always in those colored shades just comes off a little obnoxious. Maybe it's just me but it seems that U2's older music had more meaning and purpose than what they have put out recently (last ten years).

quote:

Originally posted by EricG75:

quote:

Originally posted by Yay!:
Listen with a neutral ear, and you'll find that "All That You Can't Leave Behind" rivals even "The Joshua Tree" in quality.

Eh..Now I think you're stretching it a bit. I think U2 still puts out a good song or so now, but since Pop, they've definitely been sliding. Your Stones comparison is a good one. I believe U2 to now be in the Tattoo You phase of their career. They might churn out a "Start Me Up" or "Waiting On A Friend". But don't hold your breath for another Let It Bleed.

I think Some Girls is a damn solid album but I could be nuts. Does anyone else hear a similarity between the Black Lips' "What do you do?" and "Far Away"?

I hate on Bono sometimes just because he annoys the crap out of me. I'm not sure precisely why, but I think it's because he makes me think he takes himself really seriously. and that almost always drives me up the wall.

quote:

Originally posted by Maximum Jack:
Have you heard the Velvet Underground? It begins with their first four albums.

As for Lou Reed solo, I swear by Transformer (1972), Coney Island Music (1976), The Bells (1979), The Blue Mask (1982) and New York (1989). Pretty much everything up through 1989 is worth a listen (except Metal Machine Music (1975)-- don't let anyone fool you). I really like the 1990 collaboration he did with John Cale, Songs for Drella. His records since have been more miss than hit with 1992's Magic and Loss being the best of the bunch.

Good to have some more recommendations on Reed stuff. I knew there was more good stuff in his catalog, but when I see something at the record store its always a bit of a gamble.

I have yet to be able to make it through Coney Island Baby. Something about the production smells rancid to me. I'll give it another shot.

Where's JB? He'd have you hung for saying that about MMM

I have 2 other recommendation for Lou Reed stuff. Street Hassle (1978) is a great album that is neck and neck with Transformer in my book.

And you haven't had the full Lou Reed experience until you've heard Berlin. That sucker will depress you like Joy Division. Really powerful though.

quote:

Originally posted by The New Mr. Rainbow (vitun):
I have 2 other recommendation for Lou Reed stuff. Street Hassle (1978) is a great album that is neck and neck with Transformer in my book.

Agree

quote:

Originally posted by The New Mr. Rainbow (vitun):I have yet to be able to make it through Coney Island Baby. Something about the production smells rancid to me. I'll give it another shot.

I love CIB (even if I got the title wrong!), because I'm a pop-guy. I do love Berlin, but I have to be in the right frame of mind. And I should have mentioned Street Hassle, too.