|
|
Post by Jailbird on Jun 20, 2015 12:45:29 GMT -5
Not all bands should go on for fifty years... what bands broke up at the right time?
The most obvious answer is the Beatles, but the Jam's split was also perfectly timed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mean Mrs. Mustard on Jun 20, 2015 13:09:06 GMT -5
Oasis.
|
|
|
|
Post by Frank Lee Vulgar on Jun 20, 2015 13:15:56 GMT -5
R.E.M.. It was a shame, of course, but they just got out of the only slump in their entire career, made two really good albums, and called it a day. They did 15 albums and ended things when they were great again, absolutely the right thing to do.
I think Oasis missed that point, at least musically - they already had their low point with HC, they were coming back with DBTT and DOYS but not quite "there" yet...
|
|
|
|
Post by Mean Mrs. Mustard on Jun 20, 2015 13:23:08 GMT -5
Commercially HC was great for them though, and DBTT even more. I like DOYS a lot and I know not everyone will share this opinion with me, but I think it was a worthy closer of their career.
|
|
|
|
Post by LightsOffInside on Jun 20, 2015 13:25:46 GMT -5
BDI, reckon they were done, another album might have killed them and Liam's ever-downward-spiralling reputation. Plus - if you are of those who prefer BE to DGSS - they technically ended on a high. I still reckon Stone Roses split at the right time, possibly even too late. After the chaos which surrounded Second Coming and the terrible gigs that followed, it was time for them to break free. And their "resurrection" in 2012/13 was also well timed. I am very tempted to say the Smiths solely because I love Morrissey's solo stuff so damn much (Vauxhall & I, You Are The Quarry, Viva Hate and all the non-album singles such as "Last Of The Famous International Playboys", and "Boxers" etc). Saying that, I would have loved to hear another Smiths album.... Now thats one reunion that ain't gonna happen. The Verve I suppose? NOW, one's that I think did NOT split at the right time: - Libertines (too soon, they had so much still in them, thank fuck they are back) - White Stripes (why god why, they were fantastic and consistent, bands like The Black Keys can never compare) - Oasis, coz thats just heartbreak no matter what angle you look at it. FIN  |
|
|
|
Post by World71R on Jun 20, 2015 13:38:03 GMT -5
R.E.M.. It was a shame, of course, but they just got out of the only slump in their entire career, made two really good albums, and called it a day. They did 15 albums and ended things when they were great again, absolutely the right thing to do. I think Oasis missed that point, at least musically - they already had their low point with HC, they were coming back with DBTT and DOYS but not quite "there" yet... I reckon Oasis was about 2-3 songs away from calling it a day perfectly with Dig Out Your Soul. That's another reason why it hurts that the second half was such a missed opportunity. |
|
|
|
Post by World71R on Jun 20, 2015 13:45:05 GMT -5
Led Zeppelin.
With the circumstances of John Bonham's death, having released some of the greatest albums of all-time already, and also looking at what happened to the rock genre in the 80s with the hair bands and such, their timing to split, in retrospect, was good. Their discography is just right, and there's nothing really there to tarnish their legacy, which makes them hailed as one of the greatest bands of all-time, as a result, sort of like how Nirvana came to be, except Zeppelin was around longer.
|
|
|
|
Post by beentherenow on Jun 20, 2015 14:01:29 GMT -5
The Smiths
Sex Pistols (first time)
Rogers Waters left Pink Floyd at the right time which was meant to signify the end but Gilmour carried Floyd on for two albums. The albums were woeful but the tours were great so it's difficult to know whether it was right or not
Oasis is a tricky one because I was calling for the split after HC sounded so tired and Glastonbury was poor but they kept doing thing to make me think they still had life left (City of Manchester, the first half of DOYS, TIOBI) so maybe 2009 was right. Their legacy might have been better had they split after guigsy and bonehead but they did some decent stuff after
Also 'the right time' is a tricky one to interpret because if the question was which bands split at their peak it'd be completely different. When Bands who quit at the top (Jam, Verve after Urban Hymns etc) it's tricky to say whether it was 'right' or not because no one knows if they'd have one onto greater things. For example no one knows what The Verves true follow up to Urban Hymns could have been? Whereas although.the Beatles follow up to Let it Be/Abbey Road would have most likely been awesome because it was still The Beatles it was still undeniably the right time for the group regardless
|
|
|
|
Post by scott1 on Jun 20, 2015 14:30:53 GMT -5
I really think the Stone Roses timed their split very well.
One highly lauded album, one slightly less highly lauded album - anything after that, it's reasonable to assume that weight of expectation would mean it also fell short of the mark.
So by bowing out when they did, they've built a colossal legacy that would likely have just been corroded by further albums.
I remember hearing Bonehead theorising what would have happened if Oasis called it quits after Knebworth - I hate using the word legacy but it would be absolutely huge, on par if not bigger than that of the Roses.
Instead, a handful of sub par albums later they retain little of that aura they had in '96 - the Stone Roses, by splitting when they did, retain a lot of theirs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2015 14:36:19 GMT -5
Nirvana
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jun 20, 2015 16:27:17 GMT -5
R.E.M.. It was a shame, of course, but they just got out of the only slump in their entire career, made two really good albums, and called it a day. They did 15 albums and ended things when they were great again, absolutely the right thing to do. I think Oasis missed that point, at least musically - they already had their low point with HC, they were coming back with DBTT and DOYS but not quite "there" yet... Wasn't so keen on Accelerate but the final album Collapse Into Now I thought was brilliant. A real shame they never toured it or ever played any of those songs live. |
|
|
|
Post by glider on Jun 20, 2015 16:35:43 GMT -5
I think that was the worst time. The DOYS tour from what I've seen of it was the most dysfunctional especially between Liam and Noel, Liam's voice was terrible as they got further into the tour, and the setlist was just another greatest hits glory days one, with Liam butchering Live Forever and Slide Away. No one wants their band to break up over a brotherly fight gone wrong and one of them calling it quits. I understand why people don't want a reunion but I also understand why people still do. Just look at the threads around August 28th '09... people were heartbroken but really upset and angry at either Liam or Noel, leading to a deeper divide between fans on here unfortunately. With that being said, Stone Roses and Nirvana broke up at the right time. Second Coming, although I enjoy it, wasn't as critically acclaimed or groundbreaking as the first record, their legal issues with Silvertone slowed them down and kept them in the dark for so long, as Second Coming recording sessions were difficult with Ian always off his rocks, arguements etc., leading to Reni leaving and a terrible tour and promotional season, ending with John leaving and just the band falling apart. It wasn't to be sadly but at that point they had to split. Nirvana obviously because of Kurt's death. He was (imo) the heart of the band and what made them amazing. Was no way they could've went on without him. Sad time but the best decision they could've made. |
|
|
|
Post by The Crimson Rambler on Jun 20, 2015 17:22:50 GMT -5
Nirvana very rightfully broke up after Kurt's death (in one of the easiest decisions ever made by any band ever), however if you're factoring out Kurt's death then no, no way. It's one of the major reasons they're so missed.
For me, a perfect band break up should be early on during a downward trend, something Nirvana we're clearly not on, however I get that many people like a band to end on a high note. The White Stripes also fit that description, whiles't Led Zeppelin fits the former more so.
|
|
|
|
Post by sgtpeppr on Jun 21, 2015 3:55:10 GMT -5
the sex pistols.
also; the jam, led zep & the clash.
oasis waited a bit too long.
|
|
|
|
Post by mimmihopps on Jun 21, 2015 4:15:28 GMT -5
The Jam.
They broke up when they were on the top and saved their legacy.
Also how they announced it, no other band could have done better.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elie De Beaufour 🐴 on Jun 21, 2015 4:28:15 GMT -5
Luciifer's Heritage.....oh wait they changed name, wrong thread
|
|
|
|
Post by allingoodtime on Jun 21, 2015 5:56:10 GMT -5
Speaking from a neutral point of view i'd say Oasis should have split after The Masterplan if they wanted to retain their reputation.
As a fan, im glad they lasted till when they did - their last album was imo their best after DM and WTSMG.
But yeh i'd say The Beatles split at the right time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mean Mrs. Mustard on Jun 21, 2015 6:06:49 GMT -5
When you look at their relationship towards the end, definitely The Beatles. Not musically necessarily though. Imagine an album with all those great songs from their first solo albums combined (Okay not Ringo's Sentimental Journey, but I was more thinking about a song like It Don't Come Easy in his case, songs off Ringo's album Ringo.). That would have been a great album too. The solo albums are good too though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2015 7:31:10 GMT -5
When you look at their relationship towards the end, definitely The Beatles. Not musically necessarily though. Imagine an album with all those great songs from their first solo albums combined (Okay not Ringo's Sentimental Journey, but I was more thinking about a song like It Don't Come Easy in his case, songs off Ringo's album Ringo.). That would have been a great album too. The solo albums are good too though. Pun intended? |
|
|
|
Post by mkoasis on Jun 21, 2015 13:25:36 GMT -5
R.E.M.. It was a shame, of course, but they just got out of the only slump in their entire career, made two really good albums, and called it a day. They did 15 albums and ended things when they were great again, absolutely the right thing to do. I think Oasis missed that point, at least musically - they already had their low point with HC, they were coming back with DBTT and DOYS but not quite "there" yet... Wasn't so keen on Accelerate but the final album Collapse Into Now I thought was brilliant. A real shame they never toured it or ever played any of those songs live. I really liked both those last two albums. I like some of their albums, some I find hard to get into, but they really hit a high with those last two IMO. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2015 17:19:27 GMT -5
The Beatles did it all in such a short space of time and now their legacy is the without a doubt the greatest of any band in history. Every band since has been compared to them. If they had carried on after the enjoyment died then perhaps their legacy wouldn't be so great.
|
|
|
|
Post by Norbert Gallhager on Aug 4, 2015 17:43:32 GMT -5
To those of you mentioning The Smiths...
If I wasn't so sure that they had much potential left and that their potential next albums would've been great I would agree with you. For their reputation it's obviously great that they split up relatively early because they didn't ever release a bad song. Still, when I look at all the amazing things Morrissey did after The Smiths and how they could have been even improved by Johnny's beautiful guitar, it makes me a bit sad.
For a reunion, yeah, that's pretty much no option at all. At least with the original line up. But sometimes I think, Marr und Morrissey don't hate each other, right? They wouldn't even have to reform the Smiths, a simple gig together here and there would be enough. One can dream...
|
|
|
|
Post by Mean Mrs. Mustard on Aug 4, 2015 18:04:47 GMT -5
The Beatles did it all in such a short space of time and now their legacy is the without a doubt the greatest of any band in history. Every band since has been compared to them. If they had carried on after the enjoyment died then perhaps their legacy wouldn't be so great. The Beatles released 12 (13 if you count Yellow Submarine) albums in less than a decade. That is unbelievable! I mean, what band can even say that? Not many, I'm sure. They were truly amazing. |
|
|
|
Post by Manualex on Aug 4, 2015 18:13:02 GMT -5
Queen if they didn't do the +Paul Rodgers or Adam Lambert thing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2015 18:26:02 GMT -5
R.E.M.. It was a shame, of course, but they just got out of the only slump in their entire career, made two really good albums, and called it a day. They did 15 albums and ended things when they were great again, absolutely the right thing to do. i don't know. as much as i liked R.E.M. i kind of think they stayed on a little too long. |
|
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5