...started the career good but went downhill.

...started their career bad but became really good.

...at some point was good, went downhill, then made a great comeback.

....have different "eras" in their career due to membership changes.

And by eras, I mean drastic stylistic differences due to a change in group members: Genesis and Pink Floyd for example--not just getting a new bass player who plays in the same style as the old one.

...started their career good but went downhill.
The Spice Girls! Neil Diamond comes to mind, at least as far as his records go. His concerts are still major sellouts.

...started their career bad but became really good.
Da Bruce! "Greetings From Asbury Park" sucked, but from his second on he's been great. Well, with the exceptions of "Lucky Town" and "Human Touch", which aren't bad, just not up to his usual high standards. Thankfully, he came back with "The Ghost of Tom Joad" and his "Tracks" box set.

....have different "eras" in their career due to membership changes.
KISS, maybe?

How about those who started their careers good and stayed there? Moody Blues comes to mind, but then I admit that I'm only basing that on "Time Traveler" on which I like every song.

....have different "eras" in their career due to membership changes.

Chicago.

Fleetwood Mac may be the epitome of having different eras through membership changes. The original line-up was very much blues-based. After absorbing people like Bob Welch and of course, Stevie Nicks and Lyndsay Buckingham, the blues sound was abandoned, giving way to the pop rock sound everyone knows them for. The sad thing is that virtually no one remembers the blues days. The band ignores it, I don't think the Buckingham-Nicks version of the Mac ever performs any of the early Fleetwood Mac songs. Well, if the Fleetwood Mac Live is any indication, there was one song: "Oh Well". But it seems that overall, the Mac has jettisoned its early history.

Acts that started good but went downhill? Edie and the New Bohemians. But is it fair to judge them on the basis of only two albums and a couple of stray songs? Then there's Black N' Blue. Their first album is great. Everybody I've ever played that tape for, if they like metal, they like that album. They went steadily downhill from there. Having Gene Simmons of KISS produce their last two albums, may have the final nail in the coffin. As a producer, Gene Simmons is a decent bass player.

Tina Turner is definitely for the comeback list. She started out strong with ex-husband, ex-abuser, Ike Turner, then went into obscurity starting with Ike, then even moreso following her divorce from Ike. Then came "Nutbush City Limits" and the Private Dancer album. She's slip some since, but that was quite a comeback!

Another act whose career can be marked by eras is the Jefferson Airplane/Jefferson Starship/Starship. Each incarnation, not just name change, had a distinctive sound.

>>...at some point was good, went downhill, then made a great comeback.<<

I suppose Elvis Presley fits into this catagory ...

Went downhill: Rod Stewart, Elton John (although that's just my opinion; his new stuff probably outsells the early stuff, though I sure don't see why.)


Good and stayed there: the Rolling Stones (I like certain eras more than others, and they did slump slightly from time to time, but never long enough to say they went downhill.)

I'm not really a DeadHead but I was wondering which of the above categories could the Greatful Dead generally be considered as, at least before Jerry Garcia went to Rock N Roll Heaven, or maybe even after. Encore showed the original Woodstock, all 3 hours and 50 minutes of it, uncut and unedited and it was great to see it again, except for Sha Na Na's excrable version of "At The Hop". JG still had solid black hair with not one grey one yet, as far as I could tell, but then I wasn't really looking that closely, either.

The Doors could fit in either the "Downhill" or "Comeback" category depending on what your point of view is.

Personally, I think they fit in the former. Obviously, The Doorsis nearly perfect and defined everyone's perceptions of The Doors for all eternity. Strange Days isn't quiteas good, but it still stands up to the task of following The Doors very well. Technicaly, it's quite superior, but it never quite achieves the spooky nature of their debut on anything other than "Horse Latitudes". Waiting For The Sunis where things start to go downhill. Musicly, the entier album seem uninspired at best. Most of Jim's songs are quite forgetable and Robbie obviously wasn't ready for the songwriting spotlight yet. Had "Celebration Of The Lizzard" taken it's intended place as the album's centerpiece, things might have been different (indeed, the soul survivor from "Celebration", "Not To Touch The Earth", is easilly the best song); but alas, it was not to be. Next up is The Soft Parade: the most underated album of The Door's career (believe me, I'm well aware of the dangerous waters I'm treading here) Outside of the title track (which is almost to bizzare for it's own good), Jim's songs are down right lousy and his uninspired deleveries don't help things. On the other hand, Robbie's songs make the album. Granted, he can't brag to have matched Morrison's poetry (though "Tell All The People" and "Wishful Sinful" show his influence), but Robbie's contributions are some of the finest musical moments of The Doors' library. Afterwards, as the band plowed into Morrison Hotel, things went bad to stay. Now I admit that all this is my personal oppinion, but the last two albums The Doors made are absolutely abomitable. It may result from their swaping various chemical sumstances for good old fasion booze as the mental stimulant of choice (not that I condone either), but The Doors sound like a second rate bar band on Morrison Hotel and LA Woman if you ask me. Both albums have only a glimmer of the genious that exploded out of their earlier albums: "Peace Frog" for Hotel and "The WASP" for LA Woman (though "Riders On The Storm" is good).

On th other hand, I know many people insist that those two reprisent the band's comeback. In that line of though, Waiting For The Sun and The Soft Parade both represent The Doors' slip into that sinful realm of "pop" and Morrison Hoteland LA Woman are their return to hardcore rock; only this time without the poetic mishmash. As I said, I don't agree with this, bt I thought I'd mention it anyway to be fair.

>...started the career good but went downhill.

Led Zeppelin . . . everything up to HOTH was a classic, but everything after that was widely uneven, with lots of filler a fewer good songs with each album.

...started their career bad but became really good.

I wouldn't call Pink Floyd's early stuff "bad" by any means, but it was esoteric acid rock with minimal production and appeal. They really began to find their own sound on Meddle, but of course Dark Side was so startlingly like anything they had done before that it drastically changed their sound and turned them into a band with mass appeal. Other bands who dramatically redefined their sound with one album and established themselves: Alice Cooper Love It To Death - third album, Yes The Yes Album - third album, Deep Purple In Rock - fourth album.


...at some point was good, went downhill, then made a great comeback.

I would probably nominate Neil Young, whose career is full of severe dips in quality followed by a sudden comeback album. The most recent of these "comebacks" is Silver And Gold. Young's career, in addition to having as skewered a discography as any major artist, is also wildly uneven, with albums of classic brilliance interspersed with records of such dubious quality they should have never been released.

....have different "eras" in their career due to membership changes.

Yes, again. (Banks era, Wakeman era, Martz era, Rabin era, etc.)

Deep Purple has eras primarily defined by vocalists (Gillian, Coverdale, Turner) and guitarists (Blackmore, Bolin, Morse).

But the kings have to be Uriah Heep with six different vocalists, four different keyboardists, six different bassists, and six different drummers in their thirty years of existence. A new era can be defined every two or three albums, although the current lineup has remained stabled since the mid-eighties. The lead guitarist, the venerable Mick Box, is the lone survivor of the original 1970 lineup.

"They really began to find their own sound on Meddle, but of course Dark Side was so startlingly like anything they had done before that it drastically changed their sound and turned them into a band with mass appeal." - Todd Pence (with emphasis provided by me)

I think you mean "startingly unlike".

One band that started out bad (maybe. If you dislike their output...): Wings. Their debut album Wings Wildlife is boring. So was Red Rose Speedway. (Speedway is partially redeemed by "My Love".) It wasn't until their third album, Band On the Run, that they worth listening to.

And then their fourth album was a repeat of the third one, etc. etc. etc. Actually I always have a hard time thinking of Wings as a group, although they technically were. I know Paul didn't sing or write everything, but it was still his backup band when all is said and done. I never met anyone who was into them just because of Denny or Lawrence or anyone but Paul.

And Neil Young, I was just today thinking about his erractic output today. I don't see his career as "dips and comebacks," but rather "hits and misses."

Semantics on both accounts. Don't mind me.

Actually, goog, I disagree. I personally prefer Venus and Mars over Band On the Run. Moreover, I feel each Wings album had it's own personality. When Paul became a true solo artist staring in the Eighties, I think his music went downhill. I think thr group setting made a difference for Paul. (Of course, I also think the biggest reason his music had gone downhill was because John was no longer around to compete with.) Still, I have to agree to an extent with the backup band comment. Though I do think the Paul, Linda, Denny, Jimmy McColloch, Joe English line-up of Wings was it's best formation. Incidentally, I think some of Denny's songs are better than Paul's.

By the way, the back-up band party line, seems to be the one embraced regarding E.L.O. That is, "It wasn't really a band, it was really Jeff Lynne. That's why it's okay the new Electric Light Orchestra is almost pure Jeff. It's always been that way." Yeah, except Zoom is nowhere near as good as the original E.L.O. albums. The presence of the others matters.

Neil Young. Love him. I see him as someone who's always experimenting, going off on different tangents. Love him or leave him.

While I don't quite agree, I can respect your opinion on Wings. I do agree that that lineup was the best, and that they peaked with Band on the Run and Venus and Mars, and I'll take Wings Over America over his later live albums anytime. But Paul's post-Beatle stuff has always suffered from a lack of focus, Wings or not (though there are exceptions, Run Devil Run being perhaps the most notable).

Come to think of it, I also rather like the Paul-Linda-Denny lineup--I just never really thought of it as a lineup before, more of a core group who could do it themselves when others weren't available. This lineup would be credited with two albums, right? The well known band on the Run and also London Town, which I think is underappreciated.

I think you mean "startingly unlike".

Yes, I did. Thanks.

I agree that Paul's post-Beatles output was quite unfocused, in the main. I'm just saying that the first two albums were pretty bad, then beginning with Band On the Run, they began to hit their stride. This isn't to say that Wings were great, or their albums were, but that had improved as they went along.

I would say that Wings was the McCartneys and Denny. They were the charter members of the band. But you do have to wonder what was going on in Wings, considering how many people took the drummer's seat, or took over on lead guitar.

I love Wings Over America, by the way. It's fun to hear how Macca and the band played around with those songs in a live setting. The live version of "Hi, Hi, Hi" is a vast improvement over the studio version.

I also happen to really like London Town, even though I think "Children, Children" and "Girlfriend" are wastes of acetates. But "Deliver Your Children" and "Famous Groupies" are most definitely album highlights. Jimmy and Joe do appear on some of London Town's tracks, so it's not purely Paul-Linda-Denny. I read an online interview (I'll have to look up it's email address) with Denny Siewell. He said that he and Henry McCullough did make some contributions to Band.... The drumming is Seiwell's, supposedly.

Todd, you're welcome.

I know that Led Zepplin has already been mentioned on their own, but they could also me seen as the second half of The Yardbirds' twisting soap opera (Over Under Sideways Down indeed)

Supertramp is another band that started out very badly, but improved with each album. Supertramp and Indelibly Stamped are very boring records. The only thing either has going for them is the cover of Indelibly Stamped.

Re: Zep

Led Zeppelin . . . everything up to HOTH was a classic, but everything after that was widely uneven
Ya gotta extend that to Physical Graffitti! It may have been a while, but that was always my fave.

On a related note, I'd list Fairport Convention under the "went downhill but then picked it up again" heading. If you pretend that the first one doesn't exist (most of us do) then you've got four bona-fide classics to start with, each of which progressively delved further into British folk rock and created a musical sub-genre in the process.

Then the solo careers hit pretty hard and things "degenerated" into primarily rowdy slapdash drinking songs. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing, I loved listening to those albums over many a pint and dart game, but inspiring they are not.

They actually called it quits at that point but regrouped in the mid 80's for a festival, added some genuinely talented new blood, and have been back as the "Respected Elder Statesmen" on the folk rock circuit ever since. Made some dam n fine albums as well.

And then there are the bands who were good and then just sort of dwindled away...

Journey
REO Speedwagon
Foreigner
Cheap Trick
Styx
Kansas
Queen (although I know many people, younger than myself, who would disagree, and even I like some of their later stuff)

Looking at that list, I think you'd be able to guess my age within three years.

I know a lot of people liked the 80s, but boy, it sure killed a lot of good acts.

And then there are the bands who were good and then just sort of dwindled away...

Obviously those bands didn't pay any attention to Neil Young, "It's better to burn out than to fade away".

Um, the line is "It's better to burn out 'cause rust never sleeps"
But then, I've never understood that...

It's also as I quoted, in the first verse.

>Re: Zep

>>Led Zeppelin . . . everything up to HOTH was a >>classic, but everything after that was widely >>uneven
>Ya gotta extend that to Physical Graffitti! It >may have been a while, but that was always my >fave.

I like most of PG, but there's some filler on it . . . I don't care too much for "In My Time Of Dying" or "The Wanton Song" . . . it's hard to fill a double album of studio material with consistently good songs.

One thing you can say about Zeppelin's latter career, is that it contained far less overt plagerism than their earlier days.

I was probably one of the few defenders of Presence at the time and for that very reason: they seemed determined not to get into too much of a rut.

And there always seemed to be some filler on even the most classic albums. ("Moby Dick" anybody?) The good far outshined the bad on PG IMHO, plus it has "Ten Years Gone", my favorite Zep tune.

At some point was good, then went downhill, then made a great comeback

Billy Joel: pre-, during and post-Christie Brinkley, respectively. (OK, maybe not a great comeback. But a pretty good one. )

Harry Connick Jr.'s weird detour into funk (or whatever that was) before returning to his swing roots probably fits him into this category, too.

at some point was good, then went downhill...

I hate to say it, but STING would have to be on the top of my list. man. I think I was 7 years old when the Police hit it really big with "Snynchonicity." I have all their CDs. I also have most of Sting's solo career up until his "best of" CD. then it went downhill from then, with all those •••••• Puff Daddy remixes. Sadness, great big sadness there. The man is getting old; maybe he should stick to saving the rainforests, perhaps? ;-)

For me Sting started sliding with the Ten Summoner's Tales album. I haven't bought anything else by him since.

Rush definitely qualifies for the different sounding eras, but not due to changes in the members, so I guess that doesn't fit on this board.
SO...Rush, for bands that started good and got bad. (As to when that happened, I'll leave that up for debate, although personally I don't care for anything after Power Windows.)

I mark Moving Pictures as the last real classic Rush album (although there's certainly some good songs on future releases, the epic grandeur of the albums pretty much ended on this one). It has a transitional feel, in that while the album is still mostly progressive there is a trimmed down feel and glossier production to a lot of the material that hearkens toward more commercial material. In this way, Moving Pictures is very comparable to Yes' Going For The One - they were both last gasps for each bands true progressive days.

Good points, Todd. I should clarify that while I liked stuff up through Power Windows (which for me marked Rush's first "all commercial" venture, but it still had some stuff I liked), I too noticed their sound got more "refined" after 'Moving Pictures.' I believe I heard the term "over-engineered" to describe this movement on Rush's part.

By the way, on a 1990's Rush song, I thought I heard a segment of rap, or at least speaking rather than singing. I'm hoping it was just a bad dream, or that the radio station I was listening to grafted a rap song onto the tail end of a Rush song. At any rate, at the time I presumed it was Rush, and decided that they had sold out to commercialism.
I'm all for bands adapting to changing times, adopting new styles and experimenting, but this was too much. Can anyone confirm if I heard what I thought I heard?

Blitz,

If you burn out then you can't stay still and rust will catch you even if it is far behind because while you rest it never sleeps and keeps on coming at you.

Kerriem,

I was going to mention Billy Joel as a "started out good but became bad" but I haven't really listened to his post-Brinkley stuff.

U2 has eras but they are based on the record producers. From the Joshua Tree on they are definitely sound different.

Another band with eras is the Kinks, but that has more to with Ray Davy's interests (and the recording company's interest).

That's Ray Davies, William Berry.

I knew he didn't play in the Monkeess, does that count?

Oh, thanks anonymous.