There was a recent thread about consecutive great albums by your favorite artists. How about turning it on it's head? What is the WORST album by your FAVORITE artist. The one where they REALLY stunk up the joint? The one that it pained you to listen to? The one where everybody went "What were they thinking?"
I'll start off, at the risk of picking a fight - Captain Fantastic and The Brown Dirt Cowboys by Elton John. Except for "Someone Saved My Life Tonight", I never really cared for the rest of the album.
I love this thread..thanks.. Anything released by The Rolling Stones after Tattoo You. As for Bela Fleck.. I have all his Flecktone, collaboration and solo stuff. I love it all. Although I have to admit the Flecktones were hard pressed to come up with something different. I liked Left Of Cool nad Outbound. The Hidden Land bored me. Check out the 3 CD set.. Little Worlds... it is a masterpiece, especially Disc 3. to continue... Elvis Costello.. North The Eagles.. Road Out of Eden or whatever that disaster was called. They sounded like the friggin Backstreet Boys!!! Lucinda Williams..both West and Little Honey Come on..Lucinda!! you can do better. Anthing by Chicago after Chicago II. Keep em coming..Glen
-Even a genius like Miles Davis had to work for a couple of years to reach a level that made On The Corner possible. -He did tell everyone what was coming by touring and releasing 5 electric albums, (three of which were double Lps) before On The Corner came out.
Orpheus, On the Corner was made years after Bitches Brew and In a Silent Way, so Miles had alreay moved off Jazz.
About "Miles was supposed to be Jazz," you are wrong on two fronts: 1). Miles had already produced several classical albums. 2). Artists are supposed to grow.
Miles grew more than any other jazz artist, and jazz has been in decline ever since the mainstream press dismissed him.
"Columbia marketed it for them old-time jazz people who couldn't get into what I was doing now in the first place. It was just a waste of time playing it for them; they wanted to hear my old music that I wasn't playing anymore. So they didn't like "On The Corner".
Miles was one funny "Dude". He spent 30 years of his life, and a lot of other people's lives developing his craft in jazz, and one day in 72 he decided to get into "rock funk" or whatever genre you wish to give it, and got an attitude when we didn't like it.
Why didn't he tell us, "Papa done got a brand new bag".
Jeff1225, "The best improv funk ever recorded"; Miles was supposed to be Jazz. When I heard that LP, it was the same as buying a bottle of whiskey, and tasting wine. Of course I spat it out. I took that LP back to the record store and demanded a refund, or give me the LP and send the bill to Miles. They gave me the refund.
Remember liking Get Up With It a lot, and just ordered it...thought it was one of the darker electric period records but haven't heard it for about 30 years. Saying you don't get it or don't like a record is one thing. Entering it in a "Real Stinker" thread is a whole 'nother deal. We've probably all noticed that poorly informed opinions can generate a pretty foul stench... anyway I guess everyone lets one out occasionally.
Hmmm... a record w/ Chick Corea, Herbie Hancock, John McLaughlin, Badal Roy, Jack DeJohnette, Billy Hart, Colin Walcott, Dave Liebman, Bennie Maupin and Miles Davis giving their best is a real stinker? George W. and the Downbeat two star review of On The Corner way back in the early 70's did a great job of supporting old Einstein quote that goes something like... "Two things are infinite; the universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe". Fortunately there are a lot of well informed listeners who understand that there is there's no such thing as a better record than On The Corner.
I always felt the Stones were great because it was so simple and that has a place in music. I have never felt they were really special or some sort of rare talent, not with the writing or the playing but they made some timeless rock songs. You can be simple, sort of unremarkable and still a huge star, and make some great music loved by millions in the bargain.
I for one, do not "worship" the Stones. I simply recognize their rightful place in the rock pantheon. Regarding the legitimacy of their credits: All we have to go on, is what has been given by their publishing companies. And, what has been widely reported by the many sources who were present at the time of a their recordings. Besides, all their earlier cover versions were correctly credited to the original writers. If their credits were up for contention, we would have heard about it, a long time ago. No one is dictating, you have to like the Stones. But, to suggest that their entire catalogue stinks, is frankly, ridiculous.
so a lot of people worship the stones.And keith richards is not one of the great guitarists.How do you know what Jagger wrote? ELVIS WAS GIVEN CREDIT OF WRITING MOST OF HIS SONGS WHEN IN FACT THIS WAS IN ERROR.no not bashing Elvis.If you like the stones fine,but i do not, nor do i have to by any one standard.
Have never subscribed to the "if you can't say anything nice..." cliche, but a record is not a real stinker just because someone can't decipher it. Lark's Tongues In Aspic, Starless And Bible Black and Red are hugely influential recordings that marked a fertile period for all the participating players. A real stinker might be Bluejeans and Moonbeams or Unconditionally Guaranteed by Captain Beefheart who spit these records out quickly to get out of a recording contract. I'm a little surprised that Van Vliet, (Beefheart) who just passed on (and was a real genius if ever there was one) got no R.I.P. thread on this music forum while other comparatively tiny artists who recently died got a send off.
Energiser, "none of the band members have any personality"?!?!? Are we talking about the same band? Learning to play a song, and actually writing it, are two completely different things. A child can be taught to play Beethoven. Does that make them his equal? Mick Jagger is one of the best rock frontmen in the business. Whether you like his voice or not, is subjective. He's also a wry lyricist, and an excellent harmonica player. Not to mention, a great businessman. The four albums I mentioned, are widely lauded as classics. There is a reason for this.
Jagger can not sing-only real musician in the band is roy wood.Any amatuer high school band can learn to play a stones song in one afternoon.And none of the band members have a personality.
St. Anger by Metallica. As if the music wasn't bad enough, the sound quality is so much worse. Hard to believe it got a few very positive reviews when it came out. It's a great drink coaster for me now.
Load and ReLoad weren't very good either, but both had a few very good songs IMO. It should have been released as a single album without the garbage tracks.
Martykl, I heard that story about "Metal Machine Music" back when it was originally released. A manager at Sam Goody's told me and he also said nearly every copy sold was returned. Personally I think Lou Reed was serious about the music, it's his intent that is the unknown.
You might be right about the contract thing, but you might not be. No one seems to be certain what Reed was thinking (per the original post). AFAIK, Reed has never acknowledged that the record was a joke, (although the lingering risk of potential liability associated with doing so could explain that). As of last spring, so many years later when retribution by his label would seem unlikely, he defended the record in an interview I saw (can't recall where). In that piece, he maintained that the record was a breakthrough in "post metal". Was he just joking? Maybe, but a quick web search turns up a number of folks out there who, incredibly enough, agree with that assessment and take the record seriously.
Since the OP asked for a really bad release by a favorite artist that made you wonder "What was he thinking?", I'll stick with my assertion that MMM is the about the purest answer to that question that I know of.
"Heavy Metal Music" was reputed to be Reed's attempt at a non-listenable, non-commercial recording done only to complete his contractual obligation to RCA. Don't think of it as a Lou Reed album. It's an album by The Artist Formerly Known As Lou Reed.
Might be hard to top Lou Reed's "Metal Machine Music" which -IMHO- is truly unlistenable. Reed has done some great stuff, some not-so- great stuff, some really shaky stuff, and MMM.
Marty
PS I was a bit suprised to see RE Keen's Picnic listed by Viridian, (with whom I agree more often than not) and seconded by Jposs. It was more pop/rock inflected than most of Keen's other records, but I thought it was very good in its own way. IIRC, it got very strong reviews and sold well, too. OTOH, I would acknowledge that popularity doesn't equal quality and that the SQ definetly leaves something to be desired. Different strokes, I guess.
In my opinion the first 2 King Crimson albums are spectacular in their ability to lay lush soundscapes that take you away. The others I cannot decipher. KC is one of my favorite groups and I have The MFSL album In the Court plus my 2nd or 3rd CD. Last one is 24 bit. There was an SACD coming out in 2003-4 but it was scrapped. Their new 5CD boxed set focusing on their first album is on my wish list! It contains 4 different versions of their first release plus one 5.1 DVD with some live material!. I think that may qualify as a record. A long lost master tape was found recently. It was misplaced from the beginning and when it was mixed on a tape machine with misaligned heads the sound was forever flawed. In the wake of Poseidon off their 2nd album is one of the most beautiful songs. I just relistened to my 4 CD best of box set last week and just could not get into it.
Second Coming by the Stone Roses...after what many consider the greatest debut of all time to this royal lemon of an album...has to be the worst follow up ever....
Zooropa by U2. I love U2 but I sure wish they'd have kept anything from that album off of the Zoo TV concert video. I saw the pre-Zooropa version of Zoo TV in Anaheim and it was one of the best concerts ever.
What a crack up! Captain Beyond! Haven't heard that name in quite a few years. That first one was an indispensible 70's longhair stoner record, the critics hated it, but it was one that you hung onto. They could have made it different, but better? The feel you pick up from certain records isn't quantifiable... Man if I could find one of those old green army coats, maybe there'd be a roach in one of the pockets. Anyway, the first one worked, IMHO the rest of their stuff was different, but fell way short of being better or even good.
The first two B.O.C. records had a certain atmosphere and power nothing else came close to (maybe Mahavishnu Orch. Inner Mounting Flame), but their records after that had some real duds on em' and the image went down the toilet when I saw Buck Dharma in a gold and white Elvis jumpsuit on the Merv Griffin show (around the time of their Agents of Fortune album). He could have subbed for the guitar player in Slade. Hey they're not bad live though, and they're smart enough to mostly do stuff from the 1st two records.
Mdoughty & Jond, thanks for your comments. I listened to Live Art again (I only listened to it once, it sounded so bad). Since my initial listen, I replaced my amps, preamp, speakers, I2S cable, listening room (much more alive), outlets -- and added dedicated lines -- and had my cd player cleaned/repaired. Maybe that's it, because Live Art sounds great now! Who knows, maybe I just had wax in my ears before ;-) Of course, I'll tell myself that all those new purchases were worth every penny! In any case, it pays to listen more than once. Thanks -- I just added to my music collection by removing something from my junk bin. Hmmm ... I wonder how many others ...?
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
