I like to look at three case studies from the 80’s to show the divergent paths an artist can follow. Three bands who hit the scene at approximately the same time (give or take two or three years) and each one had their moment in the sun and reached a peak with a certain album. What each band did after that point created very divergent destinies: The Police, INXS and U2.
ABOVE: The Police knew when to hang it up
The Police recorded their five studio records over a period of about six years. Each record showed a clear progression in their sound from the previous one, and each record stands on its own as the best that rock can offer. They hit their natural apex with their swansong Synchronicity. They went out on top, with their reputation firmly intact. This recent reunion tour notwithstanding, their legacy was defined in the early 80’s with no decline at all. Not that they were thinking of preserving their legacy when they split in the mid-80's (regardless of the self-serving comments Andy Summers has made since then). They broke up because they could not stand each other and Sting's ego could no longer be contained within the group context. But that is irrelevant. The result is that The Police have one of the finest legacies of any band precisely because they did not stay together beyond their sell buy date.
INXS hit the big time with Kick. After Kick they tried to release more of the same, essentially a Kick 2 or Kick 3, to diminishing returns. X was only slightly less exciting than Kick, but they burned out after that. Truth be told, they were finished as a creative band well before Michael Hutchense’s suicide.
U2 reached the stratosphere with The Joshua Tree. Slight misstep Rattle and Hum aside, they soon realized that although they did not want to break up (a la Police), they could not try to reproduce The Joshua Tree again and again. It was perfection. U2 had traveled down that road as far as they could go without repeating themselves. So they managed the trickiest move of all – successfully retooling their sound and reinventing themselves. Achtung Baby marked the most successful reinvention in rock history. It saved them creatively.
ABOVE: U2 knew they could not top The Joshua Tree, so they set about reinventing themselves
So there you have it: you can go out on top, decline, or reinvent yourself.
But back to my original thesis. Can you name an artist/group who was consistently breaking ground and shaking things up beyond a decade’s time? Keep in mind I’m not saying that they cannot make good music beyond that time. I am talking about “leaving their mark,” so to speak. Look at even U2, the most consistently popular band of the last 25 years. Their first really relevant record was War from 1983. Achtung Baby came out in 1991. They have remained popular, but have they released anything really important since Achtung Baby? No. That is still only a decade of real relevancy.
Some may bring up two of my faves, Bruce Springsteen and Neil Young. Neil remains a vital artist, but his great material after 1979 is variations on the foundations he laid in the 70’s (exception: 1989’s brilliant Freedom. That record stands alone.) Bruce? Same deal. Good material, but nothing truly great from start to finish since 1984. His celebrated recent acoustic forays are just repeating Nebraska, and he’s put out some good rock records (his most recent, Magic, is his best since the early 80’s) but it admittedly can’t stand up in consistency to his work 1973-84. And no, Tim, Bowie hasn't done anything relevant since the early 80's.
ABOVE: Neil Young's Freedom is the exception to the rule
10 comments:
Ah, yes, I'm often saying things that people remember 10 years later.
But seriously, you've probably created as much about this rule as I have, because I don't think I used the word "groundbreaking" -- I just meant a decade to make really great music. As you know, I don't mind when a band repeats itself, if what it does is great. Son Volt's first two records are very similar in sound, but I love them both.
The decade rule definitely holds up. Even my personal fave, REM...Murmur came out in 1983, Automatic for the People in 1992, and those two (great) records bookend an amazing streak. Since then? Some really good songs, and Hi-Fi is strong, but nothing quite like their peak. It's a young(ish) man's game.
My other profound insight about this issue was: First albums can be great in a way that first novels, movies, etc., rarely are. Musicians can spend a relatively long time trying to "make it," during which time they're honing their best songs over and over again, on the road or elsewhere, and a first album can be mature-sounding and consistent. Then, they try to follow it up every year by locking themselves in the studio and trying to recapture something that happened much more naturally....
Sorry to go on so long. Inside joke alert: You should have named your blog "Meet Me at Mabee."
good point on the first album thing. First albums are often great because they had five or ten years to work on those songs, vs. the one or two years to work on the follow-ups. Unless you are Peter Gabriel or Guns 'n Roses and have the luxury to take a decade in between records.
Achtung Baby may have reinvented U2, but it was more hype than substance. Frankly the album sucks and you do not have the balls to admit it after all of these years. Many of their later albums were much better, though not as definitive as Jashua Tree
I'm mostly with you on this one, Dez, but Bowie is a major exception. Space Oddity was 1969 - Let's Dance was 1983. That's 14 years of groundbreaking music right there. And I'm not sure what your definition of relevant is, but Outside (1995) and Earthling (1997) were both top-to-bottom great albums (I would argue Outside is one of his three best and one of the very best albums of the 90's). What's more, they were not 'coasting on reputation' albims but reinventions a la Achtung Baby.
You might consider Yes or King Crimson also.
Saxo, I will admit that Bowie is at least an arguable one. There is no question that his work in the 70's is unassailable. I quibble with your starting date for him. I don't think you can start the clock on prime Bowie until 1971's 'Hunky Dory'. And I am a big fan of 'Let's Dance', so I will definitely go through 1983 with Bowie. When I say "decade", give or take a couple of years. So I give Bowie's important period 1971-83. I have some friends whom I greatly respect who feel that 'Outside' and 'Earthling' are indeed great works, but I just don't hear it. Actually, I much prefer 'Heathen' as far as "recent" Bowie goes.
I do consider King Crimson and Yes. Crimson is a tough case. to be honest, I only hold up 'In the Court of the Crimson King', 'Red' and 'Discipline' as great works through and through. that makes it a little difficult to analyze, becase you are looking at release dates of 1969, 1974 and 1981, respectively. They had uneven work in between each of those.
With Yes, 1971-74 and 1983's '90125'.
I cede to your superior knowledge of music, Dez. Though I really recommend giving "Outside" another chance.
Saxo, I will give 'Outside' another try. I think Tim gave me a copy years back, I'll try it again.
And you should cede nothing, Sir! As much as JMW has always accused me of trying to reduce my views on music to scientific facts that I can prove in the lab, it is all just opinion and conjecture anyway.
In my last post I fell into my own trap. On Bowie, while 1983's 'Let's Dance' is a favorite album of mine ( in large part due to Stevie Ray Vaughan on lead guitar, and SRV didn't play all that great on it. SRV's style doesn't really fit at all, his gritty maximum overdrive blues clashes with the glossy 80's pop sheen of the record. That is precisely why it is so interesting. It is like trying to fit a square peg in the round hole, and SRV just tries to mash the peg in there anyway. Bowie, I think, knew that would happen. Kudos to him for recognizing that it would give the pop music of 'Let's Dance' an uncommon tension. I digress...)
Anyway, as much of a fan as I am of 'Let's Dance', I don't think it fits my definition of groundbreaking, it is more a great set of tunes that build on something groundbreaking he did before, along the lines of 'Young Americans' (sort of). Plus, it's got some filler on it. There are 5 awesome songs on it, the rest is filler or bad. Therefore I can cut Bowie's important period off at 'Scary Monsters', which was 1980. There, now he fits nicely in my decade thesis. David Bowie, 1971-80.
Well, Saxo's already made my point for me. I think your thesis is generally accurate, Dez, but "Outside" is a major refutation. In fact, I actually feel that in 25 years or so, it's going to stand as one of his three most influential works (along with "Low" and "Ziggy")--if not THE album-- by which he's known. To support this, I would ask you to consider Harold Bloom, and The Anxiety of Influence; the best way to assess the relevance and power of an artistic work, over time, is to determine its value as an inspiration (or a challenge) to subsequent artists. What finally makes great art great is its power to excite and inspire future artists. In that respect, I think Bowie's two masterpieces are "Low" and "Outside."
The influence of "Outside" isn't as overwhelming, yet, as that of "Low." But it's there. Notice how many soundtracks works from that album have appeared on in the years since it was released--and how many of those movies borrow or develop ideas put forth in "Outside." The album's referenced by other artists of all stripes in interviews as a major influence (David Lynch and Moby, to name the first two that spring to mind). I think, too, that it anticipates a lot that's in the culture now, in everything from "Horror Porn"--the idea of finding some disturbing beauty in treating humans like animals only, subjects for flaying and dismemberment ("The Voyeur of Utter Destruction As Beauty")--to the recent exhibit of dismembered human and animal bodies (featured in the new "Casino Royale.")--to all sorts of other lesser and sadder things (Marilyn Manson) that presently do not summon themselves to me. But which I will recall.
I'd also say, in response to one of your posters, that "Achtung Baby" (majorly influenced by Bowie's "Low", of course) is not only NOT overrated, it's U2's best album (along with the underrated "War.") Although I'll concede that "Joshua Tree" suffers from familiarity, to a degree.
"Outside" is about four tracks too long. And some of the spoken word material could have been dispensed with. But at its best, it is the best.
-ANCIANT
Achtung Baby is great.
And I want to congratulate ANCIANT for finding something lesser and sadder than David Lynch and Moby.
Guapo/ANCIANT,
I'm with you on "Low". I love that record, and its influence is huge. But on "Outside", how much of that influence of which you speak is directly attributable "Outside" vs. how much was "Outside" itself influenced by other elements that have carried through "Outside" itself. And was "Outside" itself the influence or was it other factors, and you can just point back to "Outside" as being one of the first commercial responses to said influences? I really don't know the answer to these questions, so I am sincerely asking. The only reason I have these suspicions is that "Low" is so universally name-checked and so universally worshipped that I clearly see and hear the influence. I don't get that with "Outside". Perhaps more time needs to pass.
Post a Comment