independent and unofficial
Prince fan community
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Music: Non-Prince > Bands / artists where once you've heard one album you've heard them all.
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 1 of 3 123>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 03/28/15 4:59am

MattyJam

avatar

Bands / artists where once you've heard one album you've heard them all.

US rockers Godsmack are guilty of this.

Good band, good songs, great singer... but all their albums sound identical.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #1 posted 03/28/15 5:04am

NorthC

One name appears in big, big letters:
L E N N Y K R A V I T Z
[Edited 3/28/15 5:06am]
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #2 posted 03/28/15 5:29am

duccichucka

NorthC said:

One name appears in big, big letters: L E N N Y K R A V I T Z [Edited 3/28/15 5:06am]


Hmm....

There is a difference between Let Love Rule and 5, though.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #3 posted 03/28/15 5:33am

duccichucka

The Rolling Stones

Rage Against the Machine
Jay-Z
N*E*R*D
Michael Jackson
Beyonce
Ahmad Jamal
Stevie Ray Vaughan
Oasis

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 03/28/15 5:45am

MattyJam

avatar

duccichucka said:


Michael Jackson

Dangerous sounds nothing like Off The Wall sounds nothing like Bad sounds nothing like HIStory.

It was only with Invincible where he'd started to sound a bit predictable.

[Edited 3/28/15 5:45am]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #5 posted 03/28/15 5:49am

NorthC

duccichucka said:

The Rolling Stones


Rage Against the Machine
Jay-Z
N*E*R*D
Michael Jackson
Beyonce
Ahmad Jamal
Stevie Ray Vaughan
Oasis


The Rolling Stones have done blues, country, psychedelic pop, rock, reggae, even a bit of funk on Black and Blue. There's a big difference in their sound before and after the departure (and death) of Brian Jones
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 03/28/15 5:51am

NorthC

MattyJam said:



duccichucka said:



Michael Jackson




Dangerous sounds nothing like Off The Wall sounds nothing like Bad sounds nothing like HIStory.



It was only with Invincible where he'd started to sound a bit predictable.

[Edited 3/28/15 5:45am]


I'm no Jackson fan, but I have to agree with you on this one.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #7 posted 03/28/15 6:49am

newpowersoul

avatar

without a doubt lenny kravitz, same rehashed material since circus.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 03/28/15 7:09am

MotownSubdivis
ion

Most of today's pop stars.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #9 posted 03/28/15 10:40am

NorthC

MotownSubdivision said:

Most of today's pop stars.

Who? You can't really include artists who have only made one or two albums in this category.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #10 posted 03/28/15 10:48am

CynicKill

The famous examples are KISS and The Ramones.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #11 posted 03/28/15 10:57am

duccichucka

MattyJam said:

duccichucka said:


Michael Jackson

Dangerous sounds nothing like Off The Wall sounds nothing like Bad sounds nothing like HIStory.

It was only with Invincible where he'd started to sound a bit predictable.

[Edited 3/28/15 5:45am]


Sorry...

But Off The Wall, Thriller, and Bad all sound the same. And I'm not even talking about the
solo records he released before Off The Wall which certainly sound similar. Dangerous and
and HIStory and Invincible are more of the same as well. I understand that his stuff in the
80s was mostly pop with a few hard rock flourishes and schmaltzy R&B lite stuff; and that
that stuff is different than his reliance on New Jack swing and hard hitting R&B productions
in the 90s and early aughts, so you have a point, Matty.

However, all of his records feature the big kumbaya tune, the paranoid tune, the hard
rock tune with a featured hard rock guitarist, the in-your-face productions of a trendy
R&B producer (Temperton, Riley, Jerkins), and soft cock pop-rock.

You only need one Michael Jackson record, really, but I understand if there are some detractors
here.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #12 posted 03/28/15 11:02am

duccichucka

NorthC said:

duccichucka said:

The Rolling Stones

Rage Against the Machine
Jay-Z
N*E*R*D
Michael Jackson
Beyonce
Ahmad Jamal
Stevie Ray Vaughan
Oasis

The Rolling Stones have done blues, country, psychedelic pop, rock, reggae, even a bit of funk on Black and Blue. There's a big difference in their sound before and after the departure (and death) of Brian Jones


Every single Stones album sounds just like the previous one. It's not like they ditched their
songwriting structures and hired Nigel Godrich or Kanye West to produce albums. They do
Americana music, for the most part, and do it well.

If you want a good Stones record, you really only need to choose between Sticky Fingers or
Exile On Main St.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #13 posted 03/28/15 11:03am

duccichucka

MotownSubdivision said:

Most of today's pop stars.


Most of Motown, too.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #14 posted 03/28/15 11:34am

novabrkr

duccichucka said:

MattyJam said:

Dangerous sounds nothing like Off The Wall sounds nothing like Bad sounds nothing like HIStory.

It was only with Invincible where he'd started to sound a bit predictable.

[Edited 3/28/15 5:45am]


Sorry...

But Off The Wall, Thriller, and Bad all sound the same. And I'm not even talking about the
solo records he released before Off The Wall which certainly sound similar. Dangerous and
and HIStory and Invincible are more of the same as well. I understand that his stuff in the
80s was mostly pop with a few hard rock flourishes and schmaltzy R&B lite stuff; and that
that stuff is different than his reliance on New Jack swing and hard hitting R&B productions
in the 90s and early aughts, so you have a point, Matty.

However, all of his records feature the big kumbaya tune, the paranoid tune, the hard
rock tune with a featured hard rock guitarist, the in-your-face productions of a trendy
R&B producer (Temperton, Riley, Jerkins), and soft cock pop-rock.

You only need one Michael Jackson record, really, but I understand if there are some detractors
here.


Uhm, what?

His records from Off The Wall to Dangerous have completely different productions styles. They have completely different type of beats and synths used on them. Even his vocal style changed considerably. There's some overlap between Off The Wall and Thriller with the R&B cuts, but you'd have to be really in love with your own obscurantist views on what counts as "sounding the same" to say that Thriller, Bad and Dangerous all sound the same. Having "similar formulas" on what type of songs you're going to put on your albums doesn't mean they would "sound the same".

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #15 posted 03/28/15 11:41am

NorthC

duccichucka said:



NorthC said:


duccichucka said:

The Rolling Stones


Rage Against the Machine
Jay-Z
N*E*R*D
Michael Jackson
Beyonce
Ahmad Jamal
Stevie Ray Vaughan
Oasis



The Rolling Stones have done blues, country, psychedelic pop, rock, reggae, even a bit of funk on Black and Blue. There's a big difference in their sound before and after the departure (and death) of Brian Jones


Every single Stones album sounds just like the previous one. It's not like they ditched their
songwriting structures and hired Nigel Godrich or Kanye West to produce albums. They do
Americana music, for the most par

t, and do it well.

If you want a good Stones record, you really only need to choose between Sticky Fingers or
Exile On Main
St.


And this comes from the person who disagreed with me for saying all Lenny Kravitz albums sound the same? This is rich indeed! Like I said, there was a difference in the way The Stones sounded before and after Brian Jones. He was the one who enriched their 60s sound with his mellotron and sitar and the like. After that, with Mick Taylor and later Ron Wood, they became more of a guitar band. And yes, their music was and has always been and will always be rooted in the blues, but that doesn't mean all albums sound the same. Listen to Their Satanic Majesties Request and then to Beggars Banquet and then to the two albums you mentioned. Those are the best, I agree with you there, but it's really not like when you've heared them, you know the Stones. No way.
[Edited 3/28/15 12:08pm]
[Edited 3/28/15 12:20pm]
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #16 posted 03/28/15 12:09pm

duccichucka

novabrkr said:

duccichucka said:


Sorry...

But Off The Wall, Thriller, and Bad all sound the same. And I'm not even talking about the
solo records he released before Off The Wall which certainly sound similar. Dangerous and
and HIStory and Invincible are more of the same as well. I understand that his stuff in the
80s was mostly pop with a few hard rock flourishes and schmaltzy R&B lite stuff; and that
that stuff is different than his reliance on New Jack swing and hard hitting R&B productions
in the 90s and early aughts, so you have a point, Matty.

However, all of his records feature the big kumbaya tune, the paranoid tune, the hard
rock tune with a featured hard rock guitarist, the in-your-face productions of a trendy
R&B producer (Temperton, Riley, Jerkins), and soft cock pop-rock.

You only need one Michael Jackson record, really, but I understand if there are some detractors
here.


Uhm, what?

His records from Off The Wall to Dangerous have completely different productions styles. They have completely different type of beats and synths used on them. Even his vocal style changed considerably. There's some overlap between Off The Wall and Thriller with the R&B cuts, but you'd have to be really in love with your own obscurantist views on what counts as "sounding the same" to say that Thriller, Bad and Dangerous all sound the same. Having "similar formulas" on what type of songs you're going to put on your albums doesn't mean they would "sound the same".


Off The Wall to Dangerous doesn't really feature wholly different production styles: you've got his
vocals always up front; you've got the tight studio musicianship; the studiocraft is polished to a
sheen; R&B styles dominate. Sure; there is a difference between disco and New Jack swing. But
how Jackson incorporated them was always the same. For example, the production and song-
writing featured in "Working Day and Night" ain't too dissimilar from "Jam." And I disagree: his
vocals in Off The Wall are the beginning of the extreme hiccups, purposeful mispronunciations, and
rhythmic/percussive mannerisms he popularized later. So, from Off The Wall to Dangerous, there
is not a considerable change. There is some, but considerable? There is considerable change in
his vocal styles between Forever, Michael to Thriller most certainly.

I don't expect many to agree with me in this forum, but MJ's records aren't distinct the way Janet
Jackson's records were. And my views aren't obscurantism; they are founded in my training as a
musician who was an amateur record producer for awhile.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #17 posted 03/28/15 12:11pm

duccichucka

NorthC said:

duccichucka said:


Every single Stones album sounds just like the previous one. It's not like they ditched their
songwriting structures and hired Nigel Godrich or Kanye West to produce albums. They do
Americana music, for the most par t, and do it well.

If you want a good Stones record, you really only need to choose between Sticky Fingers or
Exile On Main St.

Those are the best, I agree with you there, but it's really not like when you've heared those two, you know the Stones. No way. [Edited 3/28/15 12:08pm]


I gotta disagree with you on that one, North!

Sorry! I fucking love the Stones: Exile On Main St. is my shit. But in my opinion, once you've
heard one Stones record, you've pretty much heard 'em all.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #18 posted 03/28/15 12:14pm

SoulAlive

Lenny Kravitz

Mariah Carey

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #19 posted 03/28/15 12:24pm

NorthC

Okay, ducci, I was editing my post while you were responding, so it's a little different now. But if you fucking love The Stones, why limit yourself to one album? wink Anyway, this discussion is getting interesting.
[Edited 3/28/15 12:27pm]
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #20 posted 03/28/15 12:27pm

novabrkr

duccichucka said:

novabrkr said:


Uhm, what?

His records from Off The Wall to Dangerous have completely different productions styles. They have completely different type of beats and synths used on them. Even his vocal style changed considerably. There's some overlap between Off The Wall and Thriller with the R&B cuts, but you'd have to be really in love with your own obscurantist views on what counts as "sounding the same" to say that Thriller, Bad and Dangerous all sound the same. Having "similar formulas" on what type of songs you're going to put on your albums doesn't mean they would "sound the same".


Off The Wall to Dangerous doesn't really feature wholly different production styles: you've got his
vocals always up front; you've got the tight studio musicianship; the studiocraft is polished to a
sheen; R&B styles dominate. Sure; there is a difference between disco and New Jack swing. But
how Jackson incorporated them was always the same. For example, the production and song-
writing featured in "Working Day and Night" ain't too dissimilar from "Jam." And I disagree: his
vocals in Off The Wall are the beginning of the extreme hiccups, purposeful mispronunciations, and
rhythmic/percussive mannerisms he popularized later. So, from Off The Wall to Dangerous, there
is not a considerable change. There is some, but considerable? There is considerable change in
his vocal styles between Forever, Michael to Thriller most certainly.

I don't expect many to agree with me in this forum, but MJ's records aren't distinct the way Janet
Jackson's records were. And my views aren't obscurantism; they are founded in my training as a
musician who was an amateur record producer for awhile.


If you can't hear a clear stylistic difference between a song like "Jam" and "Working Day And Night" there's really no point trying to discuss music with you at all.

Just because you are able to spot some similarities in an overall approach doesn't mean that things would "sound the same" when they obviously don't.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #21 posted 03/28/15 12:58pm

duccichucka

novabrkr said:

duccichucka said:


Off The Wall to Dangerous doesn't really feature wholly different production styles: you've got his
vocals always up front; you've got the tight studio musicianship; the studiocraft is polished to a
sheen; R&B styles dominate. Sure; there is a difference between disco and New Jack swing. But
how Jackson incorporated them was always the same. For example, the production and song-
writing featured in "Working Day and Night" ain't too dissimilar from "Jam." And I disagree: his
vocals in Off The Wall are the beginning of the extreme hiccups, purposeful mispronunciations, and
rhythmic/percussive mannerisms he popularized later. So, from Off The Wall to Dangerous, there
is not a considerable change. There is some, but considerable? There is considerable change in
his vocal styles between Forever, Michael to Thriller most certainly.

I don't expect many to agree with me in this forum, but MJ's records aren't distinct the way Janet
Jackson's records were. And my views aren't obscurantism; they are founded in my training as a
musician who was an amateur record producer for awhile.


If you can't hear a clear stylistic difference between a song like "Jam" and "Working Day And Night" there's really no point trying to discuss music with you at all.

Just because you are able to spot some similarities in an overall approach doesn't mean that things would "sound the same" when they obviously don't.


You are not paying attention to the nuance of my argument; there's no point in discussing music
with you if you're not going to be more attentive.

Yes, there is a stylistic difference between "Jam" and "Working Day and Night." No, there is not
much of a difference between their respective production values, studiocraft, and musicianship.
In this regard, and because of how I approach listening to an album critically (and being a
musician and former record producer), I hear similarities from Off The Wall all the way through to
Invincible that makes me think that one could consider that once you heard one Michael Jackson
album from 1979 - 2001, arguably, you've pretty much heard 'em all. Sure, Dangerous is New Jack
swing and Off The Wall is disco-lite on it's last gasp, but I've given you the context in which I hear
music, and in my opinion, Janet Jackson's oeuvre is much more colorful than her big brother's.

In other words, there is more to "sounding the same" than the context being that of genre.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #22 posted 03/28/15 1:08pm

duccichucka

NorthC said:

Okay, ducci, I was editing my post while you were responding, so it's a little different now. But if you fucking love The Stones, why limit yourself to one album? wink Anyway, this discussion is getting interesting. [Edited 3/28/15 12:27pm]


North, I mean, think about it:

Keith Richards' riffs all kinda sound the same. He's got that funky rhythm open G tuning thing
going on constantly. And they stick with that Americana template, only occassionally stretching
out beyond it.

I limit myself to one Stones record because there is a lot of music to be listened to. I want the
best of the best. This means choosing from their best work. If I listen to Exile, am I really
missing out on their stuff in the 80s and 90s or even in the 60s?

Who the fuck cares about the Stones in the 60s? Those albums are awful!

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #23 posted 03/28/15 1:22pm

NorthC

Are you just a Trolling Stone or what? If Aftermath and Beggars and Let it Bleed are awful, I guess I just like awful music! I do agree their 80s/90s work is forgettable though, but that still leaves some fantastic 60s/70s records.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #24 posted 03/28/15 1:29pm

duccichucka

NorthC said:

Are you just a Trolling Stone or what? If Aftermath and Beggars and Let it Bleed are awful, I guess I just like awful music! I do agree their 80s/90s work is forgettable though, but that still leaves some fantastic 60s/70s records.


Nice one!

But no, there's a lot going on in the 60s where listening to those albums isn't essential for me.

I will acknowledge that I am being highly critical, though.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #25 posted 03/28/15 2:04pm

NorthC

duccichucka said:



NorthC said:


Are you just a Trolling Stone or what? If Aftermath and Beggars and Let it Bleed are awful, I guess I just like awful music! I do agree their 80s/90s work is forgettable though, but that still leaves some fantastic 60s/70s records.


Nice one!

But no, there's a lot going on in the 60s where listening to those albums isn't essential for me.

I will acknowledge that I am being highly critical, though.


Nothing wrong with that, so am I. If you ever want to discuss James Brown or Bob Dylan, let me know. I'd be happy to. cool
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #26 posted 03/28/15 5:35pm

KingSausage

avatar

AC/DC.

Many death metal bands.
"Drop that stereo before I blow your Goddamn nuts off, asshole!"
-Eugene Tackleberry
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #27 posted 03/29/15 1:06am

MattyJam

avatar

duccichucka said:

in my opinion, Janet Jackson's oeuvre is much more colorful than her big brother's.

Absurd comment.

Janet's music is hugely derivitive compared to Michael's. She wouldn't dare record a song like Morphine, They Don't Care About Us or Little Susie and to be honest, she doesn't even have the talent to attempt such a song.

Michael was one of those rare artists - like Prince, or The Beatles - who could adapt to multiple different styles of music and still pull it off with as much passion and conviction as acts who are considered masters of those genres.

[Edited 3/29/15 1:09am]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #28 posted 03/29/15 8:12am

JanFan

MattyJam said:



duccichucka said:


in my opinion, Janet Jackson's oeuvre is much more colorful than her big brother's.




Absurd comment.



Janet's music is hugely derivitive compared to Michael's. She wouldn't dare record a song like Morphine, They Don't Care About Us or Little Susie and to be honest, she doesn't even have the talent to attempt such a song.



Michael was one of those rare artists - like Prince, or The Beatles - who could adapt to multiple different styles of music and still pull it off with as much passion and conviction as acts who are considered masters of those genres.

[Edited 3/29/15 1:09am]


Janet has covered way more topics in music than Michael did that is a fact. Over the course of 4 albums she has sung about: independence, abstinence, love,sex,racism, bigotry, prejudice, illiteracy, killing of children,lonliness, drug addiction, African American women empowerment, depression, disillusionment, domestic violence, homophobia, lesbianism, cyber love,bondage,aids and death. You say Janet wouldn't dare do a song like those, I guarantee Michael wouldn't approach half of Janet's songs the way she did. He would never do a song like "What About," "Tonight's the Night," or any of her sex songs. You talk about derivative? All of Michael's albums from Bad to Invincible covered the same topics: sappy songs about world improvement, tabloids, paranoia about women who did him wrong and a few upbeat love songs. The same formula. Janet's albums were much more distinct. You can't compare what she sung about in Control to Rhythm Nation or what she sung about in janet.to The Velvet Rope. I will admit that her last few albums were derivative, but her entire discography isn't.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #29 posted 03/29/15 8:26am

duccichucka

MattyJam said:

duccichucka said:

in my opinion, Janet Jackson's oeuvre is much more colorful than her big brother's.

Absurd comment.

Janet's music is hugely derivitive compared to Michael's. She wouldn't dare record a song like Morphine, They Don't Care About Us or Little Susie and to be honest, she doesn't even have the talent to attempt such a song.

Michael was one of those rare artists - like Prince, or The Beatles - who could adapt to multiple different styles of music and still pull it off with as much passion and conviction as acts who are considered masters of those genres.

[Edited 3/29/15 1:09am]


This is one of the most ridiculously inane comments I've read in a long time, and I am quite sure
you won't be able to support any of it.

1) Show how Janet Jackson's music is more derivative than Michael Jackson's music. You are
hardly a musicologist, so I'm really eager to see how you reached this conclusion. And let me
remind you that neither of them could survive without supremely talented producers, whether
it be Quincy Jones or Teddy Riley for MJ, or Jimmy Jam & Terry Lewis for JJ. Ultimately, both of
their music has been derived in some form from the creativity of someone other than themselves;
MJ did not possess Prince's instrumentalist skills or abilities to be a self-contained recording artist,
so let's get that straight right here. His music was not wholly autogenous so that you can bark
at me about JJ's music being "hugely derivative compared to Michael's" as if his music wasn't
ever derived from outside sources at all.

2) Show how you arrived at the conclusion that Janet Jackson wouldn't "dare record" songs
like the ones you mentioned: you must know her personally to make this statement. I could
counter that MJ never performed songs that explored his sexuality the way that Janet Jackson
did, but I wouldn't use this as a reason to slight his career the way you've managed to slight
hers. But this is a dumb argument on your part: essentially you're saying "Because singer A
doesn't have songs that cover the topics that singer B did means that singer B is better than
singer A." This is a flawed argument you have here, bro. But even more emphatically, you're
talking straight out of your asshole: Janet Jackson has performed socially conscious songs like
"They Don't Care About Us:" songs like "State of The World," "Rhythm Nation," and "The
Knowledge" speak to this claim. And I'm quite sure that "Black Cat" was written as a warning
against drug use (a quick Wiki search proves this) and that Janet Jackson has songs that
speak of neglection like "Little Susie." But even if she doesn't, how is this a strike against her?
Michael Jackson never did a song like Janet Jackson's "Warmth." Does this mean that we cast
aspersions against him because he wasn't interested in singing about sucking dick?

The reason why I think her body of work is more varied than Michael Jacksons is due to the
number of genres she touched upon in her career. In my opinion, she was more musically
explorative than her brother and was so on a more consistent basis. Nowhere in this claim
I'm making am I suggesting that she's a better recording artist. I'm only suggesting that I
struggle more to say "Once you've heard one album, you've heard them all" with Janet Jackson
than I do with Michael Jackson. In other words, her career, because of her more daringness,
is more colorful than MJ's. This is not a slight against him, so don't read it as such.

One final note about your ridiculous post: pulling something off with passion and conviction does
not mean that you pulled it off well.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 1 of 3 123>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Music: Non-Prince > Bands / artists where once you've heard one album you've heard them all.