Friday, October 19, 2018

Give it up old man

by FrixFrixFrix (writer), Brooklyn, February 01, 2007

I watched "Some Kind of Monster" recently, the documentary about what used to be Metallica bringing a Cosby sweater wearing therapist into the studio and only working 4 hours a day on a pile of shit they call a new album with a snare drum that sounds like a stick hitting a metal folding chair... you know the one. And upon some reflection, and after getting over the fact that I actually sat through 3 hours of James Hetfield crying like a little bitch, I've come to a conclusion.

No band should be together for longer than ten or eleven years. That's it, that's the cut-off, you're not allowed to be together after that. Because after that, you just get way too comfortable and start to suck if you haven't already. Seriously, I'm sitting here thinking about it and can't really come up with any bands that passed the decade mark and continued to make good music, even Queen got pretty shaky in the 80's.

Just look at the bands that quit before or around the cut-off point, The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Velvet Underground, Talking Heads, REAL Van Halen, etc. Now look at the list of bands who have overstayed their welcome The Rolling Stones (when's the last time the Stones put out a really good album? 1972?), Aerosmith (they almost got it back with Pump & Get a Grip, but seriously, have you ever listened to Rock in a Hard Place?), AC/DC (Back in Black was a great way to show that there was life after Bon Scott, but that was pretty much the end of that life), The Who (Kieth Moon dead=The Who dead, give it up Pete), Metallica (they're so goddamn terrible now it's unbelievable), Weezer (has it even been ten years? should've given up after Pinkerton. fuck Weezer.). And the latest casualty to the overstaying your welcome virus, Queens of The Stone Age (get off your fucking high horse Josh, bring Nick and Grohl back so you can put out a good album. I bet even your mom hates the new one, and she's your mom.)

Solo artists don't seem to fall into this dilemma so often, maybe it's cause they're only one person, and a band is 4-5 people, so those 4-5 people suck up the good a lot faster than one person can, so it'll take people like Beck or whoever a lot longer to go stale.

There seem to be exceptions, like The Flaming Lips and Red Hot Chili Peppers, who have managed to stick around for a really long time and still make good music, but that seems to be due to the fact that they've drastically changed since they started. And I know, that's usually how bands hit their suck period, by "trying something new", but apparently everyone else just really sucks at it and should stick to the sound that made them famous. It probably also has to do with the two of them having a musical genius in their band (Steve Drozd and John Frusciante respectively). So I guess if you really want to break that barrier and not suck really really bad in everything you do after ten years, you have to find yourself a genius. That and not suck from day one (I'm looking at you Green Day).

Then there's bands like Foo Fighters who are still making good music and putting on awesome live shows, but Grohl's not writing The Colour and The Shape every time out. However, they just hit their ten year mark last year, so who knows what the next album will bring. Hopefully by then Josh Homme will have realized the error in his ways and they can just start a new band together and fuck it up after ten years.

About the Writer

FrixFrixFrix is a writer for BrooWaha. For more information, visit the writer's website.
Want to write articles too? Sign up & become a writer!

4 comments on Give it up old man

Log In To Vote   Score: 0
By SGraham on February 19, 2007 at 06:49 pm
Hey, what about U2? I think they withstand that ten year rule. They've been together at least 25, long enough to get into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Pretty much other than that, yeah, every ten years or so, someone has to step aside for someone new to have their turn, whether its music, film stars, anyone in entertainment.
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 0
By FrixFrixFrix on February 19, 2007 at 06:57 pm
They haven't done anything worthwhile since "Achtung Baby", which fell right around 10-11 years after "Boy", their first album.
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 0
By FrixFrixFrix on February 22, 2007 at 10:28 am
To the person who reviewed the article, it's become painfully evident over the past 25 years or so that album sales have absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the music therein. Britney Spears and The Backstreet Boys both have albums that went 14 times platinum, does that make them good? No, it just points out the fact that the public will suck up anything it's fed with a smile. If you want to read music reviews with no opinion behind them, just a lot of limp, middle-of-the-road bullshit sucking up to the latest "it" group, go read Rolling Stone.
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 0
By Annonymous on February 23, 2007 at 06:45 pm
Album sales were simply used as an example for a way to give your article some weight, rather than it appearing to be based solely in your personal opinions. If what you state in this article is true, there must be something out there to back you up. If you want to read music reviews with no opinion behind them, just a lot of limp, middle-of-the-road bullshit sucking up to the latest "it" group, go read Rolling Stone. I have no interest in reading Rolling Stone, or listening to the current "it" bands. I do however, have a interest in reading articles that contain some facts, instead of just opinions. Unless, of course, they are in the opinions section.
 Report abuse

Add A Comment!

Click here to signup or login.

Rate This Article

Your vote matters to us