Why did the 80s fucking destroy every artist who was fantastic

80's production

>>69860617
*late 80s

Billy's early 80s albums are all fantastic. He didn't start sucking till 86.

>>69860617
quite funny how some came back in the 90's: Dylan and Bowie, respectively. man, you're definitely right about a lot of the old guard having a decade-long slump in the 80's.

>>69861187

I think Bowie even called his 80s output his "Phil Collins years"

>>69861227
haha, that's hilarious. i've only ever heard Bowie slag Gary Numan and Madonna. oh and Jim (Iggy Pop), when all he did was put down Bowie in interviews. sure, it was to forge his own identity post Blah Blah Blah, but, damn, Jim, Bowie produced and contributed the best parts of your two best solo albums. show some respect!

>>69861227
I didn't think most of his 80s albums were that bad.

Granted the ONE was....

80's didn't destroy Paul Simon 'until' Graceland. It had no impact on him. That was him and him alone and Graceland is barely an 80's album sound wise.

Bowie did it to himself.

Billy Joel did it to himself.

Gary Numan really did it to himself. Even before his bandmates from Tubeway Army were gone. Though his initial 80's output was great. Still, that's one guy who's never really made a return. The Pleasure Principle and Replicas are such great records and it's unfortunate most people have only heard the singles.

>>69860617
mtv was a huge factor, it meant that even if your act was 90% image you were still in with a chance
that and also what works on a big stage doesn't necessarily work on a small screen

and as far as needing to play music well goes, it's all machines now, fuck it

What are some artists who didn't fall of in the 80s?

File: 404.png (24KB, 1277x734px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 1277x734px

>>69862618

>>69860617
John Lennon

Who are Genesis?

>>69862618

U2?

I mean yeah, Rattle and Hum, but otherwise that was their best era.

Arguably may not count, I mean saying U2 is a 70's band is kind of like saying Nine Inch Nails is an 80's band, but still.

The question does leave me scratching my head. It's almost like it was a rule or something because I could say New Order, but you still face the technicality of not truly being Joy Division.

Nothing comes to mind that's more relevant than perhaps Kraftwerk. A ton of little groups but nothing big.

>>69862991

Nevermind, scratch U2. Thought Boy came out late '78 or so but apparently it wasn't until '80.

>>69862618
Queen

>>69862618
Lou Reed

>>69863542

Kind of depends on your opinion as to where he was in the 70's.

I mean he did kind of accidentally create industrial music, but that's a misstep to most people.

>>69863542
I mean, he didn't have very far to fall. New York is good though.

>>69862618
Leonard Cohen
Various Positions and I'm Your Man contain some of his best songs

>>69861187
>"came back"
>implying Let's Dance, Scary Monsters and Super Creeps, and Tonight are bad
>well, yeah Tonight is actually kinda bad but even that has good songs on it

>>69862618
I want to say Rush but that's because they crashed in the 90s instead

>>69863660
I think he just meant more along the lines of Bowie becoming stagnant and almost like a dinosaur to a lot of critics and musicians, even if still good (I've never considered his 80's work bad at all) before shifting dramatically back to reinventing himself in the 90's with Outside and Earthling, being recognised again, even if to really mixed reception.

He did the exact same thing in this decade compared to the 00's before he died.

>>69862618
Kraftwerk

>>69863655
yeah, but the production of Various Positions is quite bad. too much reverb on his voice and the Casio percussion for Dance Me is abysmal. I'm Your Man is freaking amazing, though.

>>69863660
don't take the date too literally, mate. Bowie's post-Let's Dance slump is well known.