I wouldn’t say Simple Minds lost their way, but with the sacking of bass player Derek Forbes they lost a key musical ingredient in songwriting and sound, and it hastened the erosion of the original band.
Blue without Graham Coxon were certainly missing his unique contribution and unsurprisingly they broke up after just the one album without him, then every reformation since has included him. Effectively the band couldn't exist in its proper form without him on board.
The Kaiser Chiefs were s*** to begin with but, astonishingly, even more so after their drummer/songwriter left.
Certainly "By Numbers" is something less than the one-two punch of Who's Next and Quadrophenia but it has several great tracks that I would very much miss of they were removed from The Who's catalog.
Well, I do like the first two albums, but yea, things had already gone downhill before Nick Hodgson left. I thought The Future Is Medieval was a pretty fun idea, but a little short on any great songs. Their first album without Nick, Education Education Education and War, actually showed a bit of promise, but then since then they have just been really bad in my opinion. So in summary, yea I agree that they got even worse without him.
I love every thread where Americans bemoan the decline of REM after Bill Berry. It gives me an excuse to post REM’s Perfect Square show, one of my favorite live shows of all time. It is amazing how good they were and it’s a tragedy that most Americans missed out. Hopefully, one day there will be a reappraisal. Their popularity never waned in the UK
Personally, I don't dislike the Augeri or Pineda albums, one of which did go platinum. They are also still playing good sized venues. A great deal of in-fighting among today's members, but they were also doing that with Perry around.
Except their two most recent works in the studio have pulled in some of the best reviews of their career, both fans and the "press."
Hell of a nice touch naming Judas Priest, but not Iron Maiden. At least Bruce and the band still play songs from Blaze Bayley's era live today. Rob refuses to even listen to Ripper's albums, let along sing the material live.
Who started to "lose their way" after "Quad", IMO. "By Numbers" is pretty mediocre, and as you note, "Are You" didn't work especially well - I like it more than you do but think it's meh. I don't think the loss of Keith is what sent them on a downward creative path.
Couldn't disagree more. Marillion with Fish was so great!!! But Marillion with Steve Hogarth has been a great band too! They could do certain things much better with Fish (IMO), those overly dramatic (but I love them) songs. With Hogarth they have covered a lot of artistic ground that I'm not sure they could have done with Fish, and done it very well. Both incarnations of the band have their poppy moments, their proggy long material, great albums. They've continued to be an excellent live band no patter who the frontman is. At this point, coming up on 45 years as a band, they continue to redefine "their way" and challenge/entertain their fans. I haven't loved everything they've ever done, but I also don't think they've lost their way.
I'll side with Andy. Doug Aldrich co-wrote two studio albums for Whitesnake in the 2000's in a period of three years, as an equal songwriting partner with Coverdale, the latter of those albums releasing in 2011. Aldrich leaves and in a full 12 years since, Whitesnake has released 2 more studio albums. One of those, by the way, is re-recordings of Deep Purple songs. I'd say the creativity dried up without Aldrich. Also worth remembering that before Doug's first album with Whitesnake in 2008, the most recent Whitesnake album was released in 1989, a full 19 years before. You might recall "Restless Heart" from 1997 was a Coverdale solo album that the label later forced him to slap the Whitesnake name on (sort of like Tony Iommi with "Seventh Star").
Love after losing Bryan Maclean (and Johnny Echols).... Four Sail and Out Here just couldn't match the peak of Forever Changes.
Spice Girls after Geri left - at least as a recording act. The remaining foursome still put on very good concerts sans Geri in 1998/99, and they managed one good last gasp single with late 1998's "Goodbye". But the wind went out of their sails. They went 3 years between albums, and by the time 2000's ironically titled "Forever" arrived, the result was a dud. Would it have been much different if Geri hadn't quit? Maybe not, but whatever the case, Spice Girls lost their way after her departure.
I would agree...the singles they cut from 65 to 67 were very good and diverse....I liked them but JJ Flash Street Fighter Beggars got their ship righted....and when they were forced into adding Mick Taylor the flourished. I think up to that time they were considered a good band of miscreants, troublemakers....and they probably were. One they took off in 68 they still were, but higher class ones who garnered mass attention and adoration. From 69 to 73 they could do no wrong. I love the early days with Brian, and he was a special cat who had various issues. But the years defining the Stones are 69 to 73; great rhythm section, good singer out front...not great voice but very mobile and a fine storyteller, but the sharp deep cut and thrust powerhouse exchange of Mick T and Keith drove them to endless heights. After 73 the studio lps are ok...some I have, played once and retired as I do not need to hear them again...Black and Blue, Some Girls, Tattoo You....not fond of at all. Despite average studio music, the live shows have always been their bread and butter, and their live shows are still pretty good. People want to see The Stones live; they outpace everyone people flock to see them young middle age old...got to have another bite of the cake. They used to tour really regular, but of course at 80 its tough...but if they play I'm going. People ask me after 31 shows since 72 whats the best one? I say The Next One!!!!!
