I was commenting over on West and Clear, who were kind enough to give me a shout out for my 80's Texas Music post, about whether, in Uncle Tupelo terms, I was a Farrarist or a Tweedyist.
But it got me to thinking about a music conversation I'd had with Jim a while back. I seem to have a bit of old-timers disease. I may have posted about this before back in the first iteration, but it's a good question. I always seem to like (enter band name here)'s old shit better than their new shit. The only example of newer stuff that I like might be the Beatles. I like Rubber Soul better than the yeah, yeah, yeah stuff of the early Beatles. But the Beatles were a paradigm buster. Some examples, yeah? Totally off the top of my besotted head, in no order:
Johnny Cash
Willie Nelson
Queen
AC/DC
U2
Son Volt
Wilco
Jayhawks
Rolling Stones
Led Zeppelin
Old 97's
Steve Earle (although some may argue with me here)
Police/Sting - by far
Clash
Robert Earl Keen
Bob Dylan
Jefferson Airplane/Starship- hah!
Elvis by god Presley
Rush
Eric Clapton
This is clearly subjective, but let's hear what you think. I'd like to hear about bands that defy the paradigm as well as theories as to why my theory my exist. Is it me? Or do bands just get rich and lose their creative will?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I would add Metallica and Pearl Jam to the list, and I totally agree with you Re: The Beatles.
My theory: Marketing explains it - "First to Market theory" - when a band ie: "brand" is new, it is still defining itself with sight/sound/etc. Your brain will always go back to that first experience to define the brand (positive or negative). So when you hear something new, it's not necessarily worse, just different than what your brain has hardwired to expect from the band.
If you heard the music without knowing who it was, you might like it. But once your brain hears the brand/band, it evaluates against expectations and adjusts opinion.
In blind taste tests, New Coke actually tasted better than old Coke. But it was rejected because of what people expected from Old Coke.
An extreme: I have an image of Debbie Gibson - and my brain won't accept her playing alt-country-rock.... someone who never knew her old stuff might love it if its good and the first time they've heard it.
Beat that horse, didn't I?
We always enjoy a well reasoned argument coming from a different perspective.
As a project manager, I can't think but that it has quite a bit to do with "expectations management" as well. Which I think is basically what you said in a slightly different context.
Paul Simon - I like all his OLD and NEW stuff. The only one I could think of. I think that amazing Bass line is a constant that pulls it all through.
I think it's more about familiarity.
For instance, I had Clapton's "461 Ocean Boulevard" on vinyl, 8-track, cassette, and now on CD. Some of those songs have now been burned into my soul. "I shot the sheriff", "Motherless Children", etc. have been on the radio for years.
Contrast that with the Clapton CDs "Back Home" or "Reptile". Mainstream radio isn't going to play anything by a 60-year-old. Those CD's will never, ever get the exposure that his earlier releases received.
Ditto for Dylan, Led Zep, Stones, and many of the rest on your list. We'll never have the opportunity to hear their new music as 17-year-olds. We have jobs now.
One exception, of course, is The Clash. I think we all can agree, as objective human beings, that their later releases really did suck.
Post a Comment