Artists that start on a high and then never quite achieve that peak again
- Thread starter Snufkin
- Start date
Goldenmouse
pfm Member
House Of Love
Ride
Pale Saints
Bettie Serveert
Liz Phair
Ride
Pale Saints
Bettie Serveert
Liz Phair
I disagree, Never Forever was (and is) way better than Lionheart.
Weekender
pfm Member
Seeker_UK
Feelin' nearly faded as my jeans
They didn't get into their stride until 'Going Blank Again'. The follow-up, 'Carnival of Light' was terrible, though.
Weather Diaries was a great comeback album after the incredible first 2 albums.
Agreed that albums 3 and 4 were well off the pace compared to their other records.
foxwelljsly
Me too, I ate one sour too.
PiL
Louis Armstrong did his best work in the 50’s & lots of great stuff in between so not having that, sorry.
RobGordon
Well-Known Member
Muse is the ultimate one. Killer first single then devolves into what I'd call unlistenable except apparently they are very popular. + the accompanying conspiracy stuff stinks
Disagree about Television. They had an excellent third album.
Thing is the general perception is that loads of artists start good then lose their edge. I don't think that's as frequent as people say. Maybe truer for high energy stuff, but then Dinosaur Jr have just put out a killer album and many rappers are good into their 40s and beyond. J-Zone, a favorite of mine, just kept improving until a late-30s career change to being a drummer.
Disagree about Television. They had an excellent third album.
Thing is the general perception is that loads of artists start good then lose their edge. I don't think that's as frequent as people say. Maybe truer for high energy stuff, but then Dinosaur Jr have just put out a killer album and many rappers are good into their 40s and beyond. J-Zone, a favorite of mine, just kept improving until a late-30s career change to being a drummer.
aedagnino
pfm Member
We'll have to agree to disagree! I'm viewing this solely from an influence peak point of view. Yes, he did marvellous stuff in the 50s (love his Plays W.C. Handy) and in between, but nothing had the impact his Hot Five sides had in all music that came after. Unless you're Wynton Marsalis that is.
Peter McDermott
pfm Member
Generally agree, certainly did when I was buying their records, but on listening to Liquid Skin very recently I would suggest giving that one another go.
He was playing better in the 50s than in the 20’s, have a listen to the extended Satch plays Fats & you can easily compare his later work.We'll have to agree to disagree! I'm viewing this solely from an influence peak point of view. Yes, he did marvellous stuff in the 50s (love his Plays W.C. Handy) and in between, but nothing had the impact his Hot Five sides had in all music that came after. Unless you're Wynton Marsalis that is.
Very few people knew who Armstrong was in the 20s compared to the 50s so I would say his influence was far wider in later life.
I really like the Hot 5 & 7s but apart from Armstrong quite a bit of the playing doesn’t hold up. I am not lessening the impact of his early work just saying his work in the 50s was of a higher standard. The duet albums he did with Ella Fitzgerald are among the greatest pieces of recorded art ever committed to disc.
Oh & Wynton Marsalis knows a lot more about playing than most so I will defer to his judgment
aedagnino
pfm Member
He was playing better in the 50s than in the 20’s, have a listen to the extended Satch plays Fats & you can easily compare his later work.
Very few people knew who Armstrong was in the 20s compared to the 50s so I would say his influence was far wider in later life.
I really like the Hot 5 & 7s but apart from Armstrong quite a bit of the playing doesn’t hold up. I am not lessening the impact of his early work just saying his work in the 50s was of a higher standard. The duet albums he did with Ella Fitzgerald are among the greatest pieces of recorded art ever committed to disc.
Oh & Wynton Marsalis knows a lot more about playing than most so I will defer to his judgment
Haha, ok, fair point! However, in regards to who knew Armstrong was in the 20s I'd counter by saying that those who knew him were those that counted, that is, other musicians. The same could be said of the Velvet Underground in the rock milieu, they didn't sell that much (pretty poorly actually) but those that were listening did end up filtering down to the masses what they learnt from the VU. Having said that, I wouldn't (or couldn't, don't really know) say that Armstrong sold poorly in the 20s, I'd have to check the numbers.
The record market was very different in the 20’s, sides rather than albums etc. Very few artists spanned both 78 & LP era. My main point is that he really crossed over later in his career & that is the key. He became incredibly famous, probably the first black superstar & introduced Jazz to a whole new audience. Hard to over state this, lots of white middle class people bought his LPs, he was a true ambassador.
The point about VU is much touted, impossible to prove but Lou Reed’s later work achieved more cut through for various reasons.
Even if you liked it originally as soon as you here this you can never listen to it again without hearing Tom Gleeson's extra words.