ITT: 60s-70s artists who put out quality material in the 80s

File: BJ.jpg (35KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 500x500px

I'll do you one better.
His best album WAS in the 80s.

File: phil.jpg (111KB, 700x708px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 700x708px

Fight me

>>74257258
90% of his 80's stuff is the worst of his entire career.

King Crimson

>>74257288
Not him but OP never said ALL the 80s output had to be quality.

Scary Monsters alone was a very strong album.

>>74257269
Are you the same guy who always reps this album on /mu/?
Not judging, just curious. It's an unusual album to pop up here so often.

Lou Reed

Michael Jackson

File: 1200x630bb.jpg (51KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 600x600px

Harder Mode: 60s and 70s artists that did some of their best work in the 90s or later

>>74257324
Yeah. I am.
It's a good ass album, my man.

File: bruce-springsteen-nebraska.jpg (98KB, 945x945px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 945x945px

This is easily one of the best albums of the 80s

The 80s was a difficult time for many veterans, the MTV era made good looks and sex appeal a lot more important and many artists just weren't photogenic. Pretty much anything associated with the hippie era/culture was completely uncool.

Some artists like Neil Young just said fuck it and did whatever they felt like. Some of his fans accepted it and went along for the ride, others maintained that Rust Never Sleeps was the end. Others like America and the Beach Boys never bothered changing their sound and slowly became dadrock.

>>74257414
Bruce's 80's output is all great.

>>74257418
Speaking as someone old enough to remember the 80s, 60s-70s classic rock was still widely played on FM radio but nobody gave a shit about whatever new albums the Stones, Dylan, Beach Boys or The Who had out. Hot Rocks was all the Rolling Stones anyone needed.

>>74257306
Was gonna post this, I'm your man may honestly be my fav album of his

File: 1500810665053.jpg (36KB, 500x606px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 500x606px

both

>>74257487
I think of Kate as an 80's artist.

File: dece77b88d9e8ed9656cf1c3ffefd0bb.500x500x1.jpg (28KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 500x500px

>>74257418
God bless Neil Young for this album. After Trans, the label demanded that he make another rock and roll album.

So he did.

>>74257245
Talking Heads, Devo, Dead Kennedys, etc :—)

>>74257474
well, sure, except for Some Girls, which was huge, and Tattoo You, which was even huger.

>>74257384
Stationary Traveller is beautiful

>>74257539
Some Girls came out in the 70s though and Tattoo You was just a wrapper for a hit single, same as It's Hard.

File: IMG_3576.jpg (86KB, 440x440px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 440x440px

>>74257288
YOU SHUT YOUR WHORE MOUTH!!!

>>74257520
Neil had the most bizarre 80's run, literally got sued by his manager for making un-marketable albums.

File: Lou Reed The Blue Mask.jpg (24KB, 495x500px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 495x500px

Lou had several great underrated albums in the 80's, Blue Mask, Legendary Hearts, New Sensations and New York.

>>74257584
Those early 80s albums like Tattoo You, It's Hard, and McCartney II were pretty much the last time those 60s veterans were still considered as current artists instead of dadrock.

Neil Young started and ended the 80s very strong but mid-decade was just like wtf.

>>74257610
Not even that. He got sued for making albums that weren't consistent with his career. Basically, they tried to sue him because he wasn't being "Neil Young" enough. Bizarre as fuck, and he never backed down from it and won out in the end.

>>74257418
Artists run out of ideas and suffer from middle age burnout. Also past a certain point, if you try to adapt to current sounds, your old fans will call you a sellout while the kids will roll their eyes at the 40 year old trying to act like he's 19.

>>74257560
It gets more and more beautiful the older he gets
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNS2PczHoqw

>>74257245
Paul Simon had a great one with Graceland BUT he also released very few albums, just three during the 80s one of which was a soundtrack, so he didn't waste his time and energy on useless albums.

For comparison, Bob Dylan was completely lost and didn't know what to do, but for some reason the albums kept on coming. He had eight albums in ten years, at least 5-6 of which were useless.

>>74257716
>mid-decade was just like wtf.
see >>74257610 >>74257729

Would Dire Straits and Tom Petty count? They both hit it big in the mid to late 70s but had monster, monster runs in the 80s.

>>74257385
Scott walker

David Bowie and Yes made awful transitions into the 80's outside of Scary Monsters (I'm on the fence with Drama).

Both happen to be my favorite "groups". Along with the instruments being substituted and augmented by the electronic sounds and engineering board manipulations, the aesthetics were awful with the mullets, pants tucked in boots and rolled up suit jacket sleeves that seemed to be commensurate with the music. 90125 added acapella that sounded less natural than the Yes 70's harmonies. In addition, they added Trevor Horn, a very capable guitarist. Yet, what was missing was the jazzy sounds a la Django Rheinhardt of Steve Howe and his Bachian chords. Rabin, for me, sounded too heavy/metallish with his riffs. In the meantime, juxtapose Scary Monsters with the subsequent Let's Dance, Blue Jean and Time Machine band ( meh ), I feel that Bowie's transition wasn't great either. On the other hand, I agree 100% with Zphage, above, that King Crimson made a phenomenal transition into the 80's by adding Adrian Belew and Tony Levin. Discipline, Beat and Three of a Perfect Pair sounded modern but were balanced well with the African beats and interwoven guitars.

File: download (3).jpg (11KB, 221x228px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 221x228px

Almost everyone had a quality comeback in the late 80s.

Rush did well in the 80s however this was maybe helped by how they'd been a niche AOR band in the 70s and not a mainstream stadium rock act. Also the fact that Permanent Waves came out on January 1, 1980.

I think Led Zeppelin made a smart decision by splitting. There's no reason to think they wouldn't have embarrassed themselves in a horrible way during the 80s.

The Beach Boys have to be the worst example of a 60s band who completely lost it in the 80s. Queen were a 70s band whose 80s output was different but still interesting.

Both bands have been accused unfairly of jumping on the bandwagon, whatever that means. Otherwise they'd have been accused of staying in a rut. Actually the Beach Boys have been accused of both. You can't win it seems.

The 80s gets a bad rap in general. Some of this is deserved but the era still produced some great music.

>>74257747
Actually a lot of the material those veterans were putting out wasn't bad...in a live setting where it was liberated from the disgusting 80s studio aesthetic.

McCartney didn't have a /great/ 80s but he didn't have as bad of one as many of his contemporaries did.

tom waits

The Who, after coming out with Who Are You, which was their answer of sorts to punk rock, entered the 80s with the so-so Face Dances and then It's Hard, which proved beyond all reasonable doubt that they couldn't transition into the 80s and so Pete Townshend emphatically declared that they were done making new albums, and in all honesty Empty Glass was better than anything The Who put out as a band during this time.

Roxy Music's string of terrific 70s albums led to their 1982 masterpiece Avalon. Avalon defined that early 80s cool soft rock sound. Bryan Ferry continued on in the 80s with some really outstanding solo records, the 80s was obviously a comfortable fit for Mr. Ferry.

Genesis was full steam ahead both before and after Gabriel departed. They put out some fine prog albums after Gabriel left, in particular Wind & Wuthering. Their transition to shorter, more radio friendly pop songs turned them into the hugely successful band they ultimately became in the 80s. Hard to argue with that kind of success.

King Crimson. I don't think many other guys from their era handled the Reagan years as well as them.

I think Journey had a smidgen of success with their 80s synth approach. Aerosmith and Van Halen also did OK kinda riding the Hair Band wave.

The 80s were mostly charming to me because a lot of older musicians were able to land on top 40. Old guys like Bill Medley (of the Righteous Brothers) and the Beach Boys even had hit singles. I'm pretty sure there are strict legal age restrictions for male pop stars nowadays- but I may be mistaken.

ZZ Top were great in the 70s but I don't like their 80s stuff at all.

Ditto Van Halen and The Police.

>>74257258
WRONG

There are none. The 80's was a shit decade for absolutely everyone.

>>74258154
>ZZ Top were great in the 70s but I don't like their 80s stuff at all.
Like I said, a lot of people don't like the production on Eliminator, but those songs in a live setting fit perfectly with their older material.
>Ditto Van Halen and The Police
I don't think groups who came out in the late 70s should count since they were still fresh, current bands when the 80s started. Big difference between them and guys like Paul McCartney who had been in the business damn near 20 years at that point.

>>74258240
I was thinking guys from the 60s-early 70s. Guys who had been around long enough to be associated with the hippie era were the ones who had a difficult time with the 80s.

>>74258283
Fair enough although quite a few bands who were less than ten years old fell off a cliff in the early 80s like Aerosmith, Heart, and Cheap Trick.

>>74258240
The Police are generally considered an 80s band although their first album came out in 1979.

>>74258305
Heart definitely struggled for a while before Desmond Child turned them into MTV pop rock garbage with professional song doctors (and believe me, Ann and Nancy Wilson hated doing it but they had no choice).

And incidentally, Heart's S/T album is better than its reputation suggests. Yeah it has that awful mid-80s production, but the songwriting is solid. Bad Animals and Brigade (ok that one came out in 1990 but is still an 80s record for all intents and purposes) are much spottier.

I would argue that there was a bigger change in the music landscape between 1981-83 than there was between 1979-81. During 79-81, most music out still had that late 70s New Wave aesthetic which had completely given way to MTV synth cheese/giant drums by 1983.

CSNY--American Dream was pretty fucking bad. To quote one reviewer, "A truly horrendous album that will take hold of your soul and reduce you to a squat, troll-like creature, like Gollum, or Stephen Stills. It's hard to pick a low point, but 'Shadowland' has got to be one of the worst songs I've ever heard. There's some comedy to be found here, but try to avoid this if you have any respect for anyone involved."

DESU I think it could have been ok if the album were trimmed down to a reasonable length, say 35 minutes instead of almost an hour.

First thing that pops in my head is "We Built This City on Rock And Roll" by Starship. One of the worst songs of all time.

>>74258460
Grace Slick had pretty much mentally checked out by that time; she's admitted that by the Reagan years, she was only still in it for the money and of course she retired from performing at the end of the decade.

Literally everything McCartney and Clapton put out in the 80s makes me wince.

>>74258498
Not many 60s guys remained vital in the 80s. Neil Young had some great ones but also quite a few duds. Eric Clapton became so incredibly boring.

Grateful Dead?

>>74258548
Lyl I'm not going to pretend Go To Heaven and In The Dark were great albums.

>>74258565
Go To Heaven is one of their best studio works. The cover is pretty bad I admit, but the songs are great. And the Dead never really were a 60s band, they were constantly evolving.

Bob Dylan's Empire Burlesque, Knocked Out Loaded, and Down in the Groove. To be fair, the 80s are responsible only for the first one. The other two are simply bad albums.

>>74258579
What? Of course the Dead were a 60s band. Also GTH came out in the spring of 1980, it's still a 70s album for all intents and purposes.

The Hollies--What Goes Around. Yeech.

>>74258446
well uhhh

most of them

A lot of good artists just did not translate well into the 80s. You can't make somebody into something they're not. It's always a struggle to stay relevant to your audience, but there were a lot of bad records made by bands and artists that did not stay true to their mission.

>>74258628
>>74258590
>>74258533
>>74258435
I've only heard four of these. I have to say that, yes, 'American Dream' is one of the worst records I've ever heard. 'Landing on Water' isn't that bad; as seed_drill says, there are a few decent songs hidden under the typical 80s production; and I think 'Go to Heaven' and 'Dog Eat Dog' are pretty good.

>>74258652
Are you just posting over and over again

One thing you notice is how all of these albums were dropped from their respective bands' live setlists in a hurry. I don't think Paul McCartney is in the habit of playing anything from Pipes of Peace or Press to Play live.

>>74258693
???

Yeah I agree. 80s Beach Boys is pretty fucking bad, Love You definitely should have been the end.

>>74258548
They were a lot better in the 70's but they released their biggest mainstream hit in the 80's, so guess that counts.

>>74257245
Tina motherfucking Turner

>>74258337
New Wave had a good run for a bit and music critics like Christgau pushed it as hard they could, but after Hi Infidelity and Back in Black became the top selling rock albums of 1980-81, it became obvious that New Wave was never going to be mainstream or displace buttrock anytime soon.

>>74259279
But New Wave ruled in the 80's.

>>74259279
You have to understand that New Wave was primarily a thing for urban hipsters (of which Christgau was one); there was a huge amount of corn-fed goobers in the American heartland that REO Speedwagon connected to better.

I thought Dog Eat Dog was a pretty solid effort by Joni Mitchell, in fact the most rocking album she ever did and the lyrics are great as well.

>>74259279
>it became obvious that New Wave was never going to be mainstream or displace buttrock

It did though, New Wave was everywhere in the 80's. It got much more radioplay then hair metal.

>>74257323
Lets Dance was at least fun, dont know why it gets so much flak when the rest of his 80s was worse except SMSC

Joe Cocker had his biggest hit in the 80s but he was mostly pretty lost.

The S/T from 1986 is a good example--he sounds washed up, even with the modest success of "You Can Leave Your Hat On". The 80s production does him no favors and songs like "From A to Z" and "Don't Drink The Water" are also lousy.

Jackson Browne--Lives in the Balance. I know Browne is pretty political, but this album is too much even for me. Even if I completely agreed with him, he has the subtly of a sledgehammer and I'd rather just watch CNN if I wanted that shit. The next album World In Motion is more of the same but the album after that I'm Alive was a definite improvement.

pic related but for the 90s/2000s as opposed to the 80s.

>>74259017
god bless that woman. ever see the biopic about her and ike? apparently both parties report it isn't too accurate but it's worth a watch.

>>74259460
My dad said he remembered Browne doing an interview on a call-in radio show and some caller starts ripping into him for forcing his beliefs down the audience's throat. He said "Well, I feel I have a moral obligation to say what I think even if it's not popular." Although you can admire his tenacity to an extent, you also have to agree that he was more pushy with his politics than most people would find necessary.

File: scottwalker_3_copy_body.jpg (512KB, 548x819px) Image search: [Google]

512KB, 548x819px

>>74259486
forgot pic

>>74259495
That's a great post, and I know with Browne there is always going to be politics mentioned on his albums, and he had always struck a balance for me until those two I mentioned. But I can see his point too, I know he is passionate and really wants to get his message out, but I think he got his point across better on albums like Lawyers In Love and Time The Conqueror.

>>74259423
"Shelter Me" is his attempt at Springsteen rock. 1987's "Unchain My Heart" was better.

>>74258721
Press To Play is not a bad album, either. It's cluttered, ill-focused, lacking distinctive melodies, and riddled with production excesses, but it's a brave and fascinating record, too, with unusual lyrics and sonic landscapes. Paul's commercial decline in earnest began here, but the record shows him moving out of pop-maven territory into the earliest beginnings Fireman mode and it's a marked improvement over his prior two albums, which were just wrappers for hit singles.

>>74259406
Let's dance was a quality album.

King Crimson
James Taylor (not great albums, but not embarrassing either)
Richard Thompson (if he counts as a 60s artist)

>>74259565
>Richard Thompson (if he counts as a 60s artist)
I suppose he gets in on a technicality. If so, he had a great 80s... A solid run of solo albums that have all aged well, and of course one of the best records of the decade (Shoot Out The Lights) with Linda.

By that criteria, Robert Plant had a decent decade too. Principle of Moments is easily one of his best solo albums.

>>74259610
Plant's 80s output is almost underrated, aside from Now and Zen which is horribly dated and cheesy. It seemed like a good idea at the time; he got completely consumed by 80s studio tech, sort of like David Byrne but without the tongue-in-cheek irony that made it work.

Heaven Knows was cool though.

How about John Lennon's "Just Like Starting Over". An astonishingly lightweight song compared to what he was doing ten years earlier.

RYM user MrMungbean has compiled a list of 27 albums from the 80s that are, in his opinion, horse crap. Among the usual suspects: CSNY, Jefferson Starship, David Bowie, The Monkees, Paul McCartney, etc.

He also mentions Neil Young - 'Landing on Water' which I didn't even know existed. Apparently this one has been airbrushed from history.

Anything James Brown put out in the 80s that wasn't a back catalog release was facepalm.

>>74259690
>He also mentions Neil Young - 'Landing on Water' which I didn't even know existed. Apparently this one has been airbrushed from history.
I see this in the used bins/$5.99 in a number of places.

Blue Oyster Cult....well, Fire of Unknown Origin and maybe Imaginos at least.

>>74259735
It's not that I actively look for Neil Young albums in the bins, but I've never actually seen this album in person to my knowledge. Even if I'm not looking for something, usually I'd be like, "oh yeah I've seen that in occasional glimpses". I've never to my knowledge stumbled across it.

>>74259735
I remember hearing Landing on Water when it came out. It was shit then and it's even worse now.

It's certainly an obvious target but I don't think "Dirty Work" belongs in there. In fact I really enjoy it and didn't Christgau give it an A?

>>74259760
It's not as bad as you'd think and the digs at Crosby, Stills, and Nash are pretty funny.

>>74259778
But again, the songs on DW are actually pretty good, it's the production that brings it down.

Some it of it all is just sheep-like /mu/ behavior I think. Like the idea that Iggy Pop's 1997 'Raw Power' and Sleater Kinney's 'The Woods' aren't rendered unlistenable for having a lot of audio compression. Do their real fans have those issues with them? You mention Christgau - he's said that 'The Woods' was the only album (pre their new remasters) that Sleater-Kinney were totally happy with production-wise, and the Raw Power revamp was made by Iggy himself of course.

Another falsehood frankly (seen in this very thread) is Bob Dylan's 'Empire Burlesque' being a "bad album." Again, it's a production issue surely? Yes, it sounds very 80s, but song-by-song it's strong. It's not a bad album at all.

Personally I think that... Lou Reed's 'Mistrial', Bob Dylan's 'Down in the Groove' and 'Knocked Out Loaded', Neil Young's 'Landing on Water' and 'Everyone's Rockin'... stuff by Leonard Cohen and Paul Simon etc... none of the those are really bad albums compared to the average albums of their time. Hardly any of the major singer-
songwriters delivered truly poor albums in my view, only albums that were below par to some small or greater degree. McCartney's output in my view wasn't that much different from most of his 70s stuff. Tug Of War and Pipes of Peace weren't terrible either, and were better than a lot of his 70s stuff.

The people who really dipped into the murk for certain albums were the part-time singer-songwriters (who are by definition more vulnerable), like Eric Clapton and Rod Stewart etc. And some of the struggling hard rock groups too, like Slade. Also vulnerable to that 1980's 'production-before-songs' cynicism were perhaps some of the 'weaker' artists temperament-wise, like Elton John.

George Harrison had an impressive comeback with Cloud Nine after years of inactivity. Paul McCartney however...ouch.

>>74259855
I disagree. There. McCartney II had some experimentation, Tug of War was quite solid, and the rest were of variable quality with Pipes of Peace probably my least favorite.

File: nice.png (1MB, 582x847px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 582x847px

>>74259855
>Cloud Nine

Thing-Fish is one of the worst things I've ever heard in my life. Frank Zappa was a funny guy who could write clever lyrics and absolutely sharp and cynical commentaries about politics, sexuality and celebrities (there's plenty of them in Broadway The Hard Way). But sometimes he was absolutely childish, very unfunny, offensive for the sake of being offensive while missing any point for miles and miles. Thing-Fish is the cornerstone for boring and unfunny Zappa lyrics. I'm not even talking about the music--I mean, there's music in that crappy record anyway? It sounds to me like two discs of corny radio vignettes narrated by my drunk uncle.

>>74259855
But again, that's like Paul Simon. He waited until he actually had something to say before putting out an album unlike Bob Dylan who kept releasing shitpile after shitpile just for the sake of having a new release out.

>>74259884
Broadway The Hard Way was awful. When I first heard it, I knew Zappa was done creatively.

>>74259924
I don't mind BTHW. Zappa went back to playing with a real band instead of synth garbage. Ok, the political stuff hasn't aged well but it's still pretty good. Thing-Fish however...

>>74259735
Never heard that one, but the one that came after it wasn't bad, Neil Young & The Blue Notes - This Note's for You.

Bee Gees--Living Eyes

And nobody mention "Pool It". :^)

>>74260028
I've never heard Living Eyes, in fact I'm fairly sure that only hardcore Bee Gees fans have listened to it, but from what they tell me, it was a solid, engaging album aside from the lead single, the lousy "He's a Liar".

>>74259942
Dated as fuck.

File: I'm Your Man.jpg (31KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 500x500px

Cohen made a great comback in the late 80's with I'm Your Man. Came out of nowhere, he hadn't done anything in a decade and no one ever expected a 60's folk singer to do anything worthwhile in the 80's.

>>74260054
I guess I'll have to agree that He's a Liar was a terrible, terrible choice for a lead single.

>>74260028
Not at all. Living Eyes is one of their most underrated albums along with Life in a Tin Can. It's very solid and not terrible at all. It bombed commercially aside from some areas of Europe, but commercial failure =/= artistic failure.

Pool It however...yeah, there's no defending that aside from the clever as fuck album title.

>>74257258
Thumbs up

I say that reunion albums like Pool It and the Animals' Ark were worse than bands like the Beach Boys who kept continuously putting stuff out.

Ark...uggghh. Jefferson Airplane's S/T reunion is also terrible except for Grace Slick's "Freedom". And Quicksilver's Peace by Piece. Yuck.

I love Graceland and will put it up there with any of Paul Simon's other post-S&G material. The songwriting is of its time, but is good enough to transcend it and it definitely deserved those Grammys.

Dylan's Oh Mercy was at the very end of the decade but it's as good as anything else he did, people forget because the followup album was trash.

And the first Traveling Wilburys is one of my favorite 80s albums. That was huge for all involved... It cemented Harrison's comeback, brought Roy Orbison back from obscurity (followed by the Mystery Girl album), and got Dylan out of his decade-long slump.

>>74259760
Landing on Water isn't perfect but I'll take it any day over anything Neil Young has come out with since 2000. It has melodies, songs with more than three chords, and actually interesting lyrics instead of whining about Republicans.

>>74260236
Honestly Neil's late career stuff isn't that bad and Psychedelic Pill and Le Noise were better than anything we had a right to expect from a 60-something guy (though I do admit none of these albums have as good melodies as LOW). Maybe you prefer the sentimentality of LOW over the more political songs of his recent work, but that's ok. Different strokes for different folks.

>>74260236
Le Noise and Psychedelic Pill were good.

I'd say Van Morrison had a pretty good run in the 80s - Common One, Beautiful Vision, Inarticulate Speech, Sense of Wonder, No Guru, poetic Champions, Irish Heartbeat, and Avalon Sunset. Nothing bad there at all.

Dylan was patchy but Infidels and Oh Mercy are fine albums (even though Infidels could have been even better).

File: 3bd67862d02c2478e4115967199a37fe.1000x960x1.png (2MB, 1000x960px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1000x960px

Here's another one who kicked off the '80s with their strongest work of that decade, and I personally think he was still good for more than just pic related. Even his synclavier stuff is pretty neat.

>>74260328
I think Dylan and VM were both a bit patchy in the 80's, Dylan a little more though. A couple of Van's on your list (Sense of Wonder esp, Inarticulate to a degree, and maybe Guru compared to his usual best) were dips in form in my opinion, and a couple of Dylan's (Empire Burlesque and Knocked Out Loaded to a degree) tend to be underrated.

I was tempted to actually include 'Irish Heartbeat' (Van and the Chieftains) and 'Dylan and the Dead' (ie Greatful Dead) in the "bad list" - but they are just very disappointing in my eyes as much as anything. The are both pretty-cynical late-80s money-makers in my view. By the late 80s it seemed that almost everyone lost site of the fact that album releases should always strive to be something more than just padding your Swiss bank account/radio play.

I kind of like The Kinks 80's stuff, they had some strong singles like Destroyer, Living on a Thin Line, Come Dancing. It's a lot better then their mid-70's albums.

>>74260236
The songwriting isn't the problem with LOW, it's the dated production. Like someone else said, those songs are fine in a live setting. I know some people like Neil's 21st century output, but I just think it comes off as lazy efforts made by a grumpy old man who just wants to complain about everything he doesn't like.

When you line up the highlights from Neil's 21st century output, you notice the best songs are ones like Hitchhiker and Razor Love that he wrote decades earlier and never used. Prairie Wind is paint by numbers Neil Young--too many lazy, reused melodies and phoned-in lyrics. Living With War and Fork In The Road are topical albums that became dated in 5 seconds. Americana is a covers album.

>>74260494
I agree the melodies are not as abundant as they used to be but I think his songwriting is sharper than it was in the 80s and some of the 90s. As for the political stuff being dated, I don't see how it's more dated than Freedom, which is still regarded as a classic.

I'm listening to 'Living With War' right now and it still sounds completely relevant to me. Half of the 'peace songs' - which is what they all are essentially - are pretty 'general' in content (After the Garden is Gone, Families, The Restless Consumer and Roger and Out), and the ones that reference the wars themselves are still pretty up to date (though the Obama-referencing 'Looking for a Leader' is clearly about the campaign trail, and "Let's Impeach the President", although it was written about Bush, is relevant again with the current president) Ultimately we are still effectively at war, despite the various withdrawals/reengagements. And people are still "starving" etc.

As it goes on I'm actually finding (with at least some surprise) that it hasn't dated at all, and the the album 'rocks' too. One song is called "Shock and Awe" - but it's simple enough, and can a song like that one about, say, Vietnam, ever be dated? These wars are not all that different in many respects. That song, and the couple of others like it, are what they are, and Young is too skillful and too clever to make an album that dates too easily. And we are still "living" through all this shit anyway, as I say: nothing is over.

File: peter gabriel.jpg (4KB, 228x221px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 228x221px

>>74257286
I am you, but better

>>74260530
>I agree the melodies are not as abundant as they used to be but I think his songwriting is sharper than it was in the 80s and some of the 90s. As for the political stuff being dated, I don't see how it's more dated than Freedom, which is still regarded as a classic.
I feel the exact opposite regarding the lyrics. I've thought about this and I guess it's down to taste. His lyrics nowadays are mostly literal. Plain spoken, not much to figure out; we know they are about his life.
Or cars.
For me, his older material has more appeal in:

1) that I can identify with the lyrics. One example would be "Don't Cry" from "Freedom", most of us have probably had those feelings when ending a relationship. It's a universal lyric that could apply to anyone.
2) There's an open-endedness and mystery to the lyrics where multiple interpretations are possible. One example would be "Slip Away", another "Down By The River" - what's going on there? It's open to interpretation.

He just doesn't write that kind of song anymore.

File: chaos and creation.jpg (57KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 500x500px

I mean not the 80's, but this is honestly one of my favorite Paul albums. It's pretty crazy that he'd be able to come up with something this good so far past his prime.

I think the Mick Jagger solo albums "She's The Boss" and especially "Primitive Cool" fit the bill. The main problem here is in my opinion, that Jagger is trying way too hard to sound modern. So these albums sound more dated than any of the 80's Stones albums.

File: christgau4.jpg (24KB, 300x225px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 300x225px

Chaos and Creation in the Backyard [Capitol, 2005] *bomb*

Bee Gees. I dig their 70s stuff but they lost it in the 80s. 'You Win Again'.. Ugh.

>>74260580
I agree, the Bee Gees were far more successful as producers for other artists during the 80s than as artists themselves.

File: 2-414533-nazi.jpg (31KB, 386x592px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 386x592px

>>74257258
I adore Bowie but fuck lad his 80's output outside of Scary Monsters was absolute trash. His 90s and 2000s output was pretty great tho

Dylan and Neil Young did some weird albums in the mid-80s. Clapton tried out state-of-the-art 80s production on a couple of albums. No so bad necessarily but maybe not the most fitting for his bluesy guitar style. The same with Bowie in the mid-80s. It wasn't the best style of production for his music. McCartney did just fine to my ears.

Again though, when Clapton et al played those mid-80s songs live, where you didn't have the awful wind tunnel sound and giant drums, they were perfectly fine and on par with anything they did in the 60s-70s.

>>74260643
I think Never Let Me Down is better than Tonight. It doesn't have the standout songs of Tonight, but is more consistent.

Tonight is mostly phoned-in crap. NLMD is spotty but at least Bowie seems like he actually believes in the material he's singing. It was a mistake but an honest one.

>>74259406
Let's Dance was okay, a solid album but a real downgrade when you compare it to his 70s and post-80s records

File: Electric Light Orchestra.jpg (100KB, 976x549px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 976x549px

ELO
L
O

>>74257729
this is why he's the best. complete conviction as an artist and person. he just does what he fuckign wants to do which is a huge inspiration to me

The Moody Blues had two successful 80s albums with Long Distance Voyager and The Other Side of Life, and even their 1988 tour played to packed audiences. Too bad the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame doesn't know that.

>>74258721
I know that Carlos Santana has seldom played material from the late 70s up until the big comeback at the end of the 90s live, but he _never_ plays anything from the mid-80s--it's like he'd prefer to airbrush that period from history.

Pink Floyd. Fight me.

I think the production aesthetic had a lot to do with it. 80s production (super slick guitar, watery synths, booming reverb drums) was really bad if you were a blues/folk shitter like Dylan, Santana, or CSNY--it did not fit that kind of material at all. But like someone else said, it didn't affect the songs when they were played live.

Donovan's Lady of the Stars. He was one guy who didn't really try to modernize his sound or jump on 80s fads.

>>74257747
>Also past a certain point, if you try to adapt to current sounds, your old fans will call you a sellout while the kids will roll their eyes at the 40 year old trying to act like he's 19.
Yeah like all those 60s artists who were pushing middle age by the Reagan years sporting mullets and skinny New Wave ties. Even Bob Dylan sported a New Wave look for a brief period.

And didn't Roger Daltrey wear a New Romantic haircut in the early 80s?

I mean, really, you couldn't keep making 1971's music forever.

Foreigner did pretty good adapting with 4 when their original sound was already getting stale on Head Games.

Rush, Yes, Plant, and the Moody Blues are good examples and I actually quite enjoy some of 80s Santana.

I didn't even mind when the old guard started wearing mullets...love the Chicago documentary with Peter Cetera sporting a kind of punk cut (and a Bauhaus T-shirt!?)

Rain Dogs and Graceland are excellent, so is Freedom. Other than that, most of those 60s veterans did very poorly by trying to adopt New Wave/synthpop sounds.

Graham Parker. Most of his 80s efforts are iffy but he ended the decade with The Mona Lisa's Sister, an absolutely fantastic record that rivals any of his 70s output, and also completely avoids the 80s wind tunnel/big drums production.

The Kinks' 80s stuff has held up a ton better than most anything their peers put out during that time.

>>74259760
I don't think Neil Young has ever said a whole lot about LOW over the years, even though he's played its songs live from time to time. He's said a lot more about Trans than any of his other 80s albums.

Beach Boys self-titled was pretty fucking terrible. There's barely even any instruments on it, it's almost nothing but synths and drum machines.

Graham Nash--Innocent Eyes. Another bad experiment with synthpop and he doesn't even pick up his guitar once the whole record.

David Lindley--Mr. Dave. Doing a literal children's album. Sorry, but...

Stephen Stills--You think he'd have learned from his attempt at disco not to jump on fads for the sake of it, but no. Too bad because it has some decent songs otherwise.

>>74262221
>Graham Nash--Innocent Eyes. Another bad experiment with synthpop and he doesn't even pick up his guitar once the whole record.
The title track is basically a Kenny Loggins song with GN singing lead vocals.
>Stephen Stills--You think he'd have learned from his attempt at disco not to jump on fads for the sake of it, but no. Too bad because it has some decent songs otherwise.
I admit, I kind of like Stranger from Right By You and the music video is a great piece of 80s cheese.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6UjIqTtbHk

All of these albums bombed:

Earth, Wind & Fire: Electric Universe (1983)
ELO: Balance of Power (1986)
The Moody Blues: Sur La Mer (1988)
Toto: The Seventh One (1988)

Two words: Leather Jackets

I'd have to say the number of actual New Wave bands who fell for bad 80s fads was even worse than 60s-70s artists doing it. All of the punk/New Wave groups came along in the late 70s and promised a return to gritty, back-to-basics rock-and-roll, and it took them on average four albums to fall into MTV synth cheese. They all did it--Devo, the Clash, Siouxse and the Banshees, the Police, Wire, the Undertones.

Press To Play was probably Paul McCartney's bid at co-existing with the 80s musical aesthetic. On some tracks, he was still the same old Paul - "Stranglehold", "Footprints", "Only Love Remains", "Move Over Busker", "Angry", "However Absurd". Some tracks he tried to experiment with 80s technology. It isn't an "80s" album for me, although I'm sure some would disagree by the mere virtue of having Hugh Padgham as the producer, coming straight from Genesis's Invisible Touch.

Nobody fell apart harder in the 80s than prog groups. Yes had a big success with 90125, but it alienated a lot of their core fanbase. Ian Anderson devolved into synthesizer muck, Pink Floyd did arena pop with no Roger Waters, and even Gentle Giant got into it.

>>74262336
>Ian Anderson devolved into synthesizer muck
Under Wraps and his solo record Walk Into Light are absolutely horrible.

>>74258470
wtf i hate bernie now

CSN's "Live It Up" should qualify even though it came out in the summer of 1990 since most of the recording work was done in the 80s. Synths everywhere and an absolute minimum of guitars. Not all of the song are bad but it screams 80s from every direction.

And I will also point out how the 90s seemed to be a liberating period for artists where they felt free to be themselves instead of jumping on cheap fads like disco or synthpop. You didn't see a lot of veterans try to bandwagon grunge for example.

File: 1406507570430.jpg (282KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

282KB, 1000x1000px

>>74262386
>And I will also point out how the 90s seemed to be a liberating period for artists where they felt free to be themselves instead of jumping on cheap fads like disco or synthpop. You didn't see a lot of veterans try to bandwagon grunge for example.

No but a whole lot of metal bands tried jumping on the grunge bandwagon with generally terrible results eg. Motley Crue's 90s albums. Either that or they tried sounding like nu metal/Pantera like with Judas Priest's Jugulator.

>>74262417
Good call. Pop/R&B/classic rock artists tried bandwagoning disco and synthpop, metal bands tried bandwagoning grunge which was equally bad.

>>74262386
During the 90s, a lot of veteran artists gave up on fad-chasing and just decided to be themselves. For example, CSN came out with After The Storm which actually sounded like CSN...there were even acoustic guitars and everything. Too bad it sold 10 copies, but oh well.

>>74260028
E.S.P. when they tried to sound like Prince was awful.

>>74259394
New Wave was mostly 1978-81. By 1983, it was definitely on the way out and all of those bands either turned into Top 40 pop or became irrelevant.

>>74262386
>And I will also point out how the 90s seemed to be a liberating period for artists where they felt free to be themselves instead of jumping on cheap fads like disco or synthpop. You didn't see a lot of veterans try to bandwagon grunge for example.
This is wrong

Ah yes, Live Aid. A funny mixture of rock dinosaurs (Dylan, Rolling Stones), rising superstars (U2, Madonna), and a few literally whos like Adam Ant. Oh, and Patti LaBelle mutilating "Imagine".

Also the distinct lack of 80s titans like Bruce Springsteen, the Eurythmics, and Prince. Where did they crawl off to?

>>74263223
>A funny mixture of rock dinosaurs (Dylan, Rolling Stones)

And it's even more funny because all those 60s dinosaur rockers were a long way from their dotage in 1985. Bob Dylan was 44, Mick Jagger 42, David Crosby 44, etc.

>>74263223
Springsteen didn't show up to Live Aid because "I underestimated how big this thing would be." Prince didn't show because of his usual paranoid "chemtrails are poisoning me" weirdness, and the rest IDK.

>>74263223
Don't forget Phil Collins. He was so massive in 1985 that after performing at the London Live Aid show, he immediately hopped on the plane for the US show.

>>74263223
I'm not sure why Dire Straits were shit on by critics. Their Live Aid performance was almost flawlessly executed stadium rock and even has Sting singing "I WAAAAAANNNNNT MYYYYYYYY EEEEEMMMMMMTTEEEEEEVVEEEEEE".

>>74257245

Aerosmith
Elton John
Michael Jackson
ZZ Top
Kenny Loggins
Santana

>>74260550
>It's pretty crazy that he'd be able to come up with something this good so far past his prime.

Well.. it was Nigel Godrich that forced him to step his game, the whole sessions were reworked over and over again

>>74263223
Black Sabbath were there and Judas Priest, but they didn't have too many metal acts so as not to scare away normies.

>>74263693
Did Sabbath even perform with Ozzy at Live Aid? They had so many lineup changes back then that...

>>74263716

yes, they reunited with Ozzy for Live Aid.

>>74261977
Division Bell was good. AMLOR..Uh... Not so much.

>>74257414
The river was in 1980, that counts right

File: 7771948.jpg (214KB, 345x336px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 345x336px

>>74258185

>>74257302
>>74258087
Only Discipline
>>74263210
They were playing the same songs for their entire career.

>>74263843
learning to fly was always underrated

>>74257667
new york is far from underrated