Thanks for your thoughts on Led Zeppelin. I agree that "Achilles Last Stand" is one of the best things the band ever did. It's the rest of Presence ("Hots on for Nowhere" notwithstanding) that merited its inclusion on my original list. And while Physical Graffiti may be my second favorite Led Zep album, I agree that it's not perfect. I always skip over "In My Time of Dying" and "Sick Again" from that one.   

As much as I find that thought truly excruciating Will, I'm sure we're not going to fall out over it... 

The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway is my favourite Genesis album, but to each their own tastes, of course.  I find it satisfying all the way through.

There are some albums that I clearly think inferior follow-ups, but generally I was expecting that.  I'm trying to think of something where I came in and was hoping for more based on loving past albums.  *three seconds later* Oh yes, of course, Yes' Close to the Edge.  The time is in the latter half of the 1980s, I'm a teenager in high school.  My very good friend Rob introduced me to Fragile, and I adored it. Months later he introduced me to Close to the Edge as an even better album and it feel quite flat.  I do actually like the first two tracks and it was "Siberian Khatru" that really made me want to replace the tape with Fragile.

I think we finally found a topic on which our tastes do not align. Which is not very often, my grumpy friend.

Interesting that according to Steve Hackett in a recent interview said that when they recorded it at the Grange , PG was writing the music in an entirely different room. He had already left the band it seemed. This is not anything new probably but it was interesting to hear it said. Does it make any difference? I tend to think of it as almost as being a solo album much like The Wall was the start of Roger Waters solo career and Floyd had become his backing band. Nowadays I like Lamb more than SEBTP but I can't say that about Animals and The Wall.

I know this is not a popular view, but in many ways, I find this thread really sad ... if you were one of those bands, I doubt you would not stand up for your talent and creativity, but now, in the Internet Age we think the fan is the rule and screw the artist ... and I don't think that is right, and it smacks of disrespect, which is now centered on the enduser/fan's money for purchasing something ... when they could have gotten something else!

You can look at Picasso, and in the end, he had over thousands of paintings, or an insane number like that, and of course, some would seem better than the others ... but in the end, the artist went out in a massive blaze of glory for his work, and specially its quantity.

We're working on the process to hurt artists, is what it feel like to me ... so Ian's album is not as "great" in our estimation as some stuff he did before, but he's still the same artist, and he's still good, despite his advancing years. About the only one I dislike, is RW, because of his trashing of YES. I find it hypocritical, that he doesn't know music beyond his likes ...  and thinks only his scales and composition matters in this world ... and he obviously has never heard any other music other than the English variety for the last 50 years ...

I notice many more generally positive threads about music than negative if such threads sadden/ bother you.  Of course you are free to share your negative opinions on such things just as others are free to share their opinions. I might suggest, for some, focusing on those, and making one's own, than giving the negative threads more "legs".  While I do like the idea of being sensitive to artists, it is to be expected that as a forum of music fans we do have these kinds of frank conversations about what we like, don't like, unexpected joys, disappointments.....  Since you brought up Maddy Prior in this poll,  https://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=133286&PID=6147104#6147104" rel="nofollow - Part 3 Female singers, this time of groups/collabs , I thought you might have some enthusiasm about her inclusion in this poll,  https://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=133292" rel="nofollow - Pt. 4: Some Female Singers in PA Not Listed Before , that I made yesterday.  When I make polls I hope that people will find something appreciative to say about any of the listed artists, but I am happy to hear about others too.  I generally do prefer it when people focus on the positive, are more appreciative of artists, topics, posts and other forum members, than those that are disparaging, but for a fuller forum, I would expected a spectrum of perspectives and approaches.

Just a thought... after the recent debacle on my 'underrated albums' thread, I certainly won't be starting another any time soon, but it might be an idea for some of the positivity Greg alludes to?

That being said, as the OP I'm a little bit stunned with the comments that this is a "disrespectful/negative" subject to be discussing. All I was thinking when I came up with the original idea was that sometimes the artists we enjoy record/release an album that doesn't live up to our expectations. Even if we take for granted that every album is going to be new and different from previous albums, is it wrong to expect that we will "once again" be pleasantly surprised, based on what they've given us previously? 

As with any artistic endeavor, there are, of course, no guarantees, and we take for granted that ALL artists will change/grow with the passage of time. If anything, we have it MUCH easier today, because we can sample/stream albums before purchasing them, which would have been unthinkable back when much of this music was originally released. I just do not see how it is somehow "disrespectful/disparaging" to desire a return on our investment of time/money, even if we acknowledge from the beginning that the artists who have given us something we enjoy in the past will not/cannot always do so.

Or is the real issue here the DEIFICATION of the artist? Simply because someone creates a work of art does not make them infallible, or somehow a higher-grade of human being who is beyond error and accountability. It's actually rather refreshing to hear a recording artist say in an interview, "We did the best we could, but that album didn't turn out the way I liked." I'm not convinced that saying, "I didn't like Album B as much as Album A that preceded it" is somehow "hurtful" to the artist. Nor does it bring them "down to earth". It's just an acknowledgement that every album is different, and some we like more than others.

HI,

No worries there at all. As you well know, I have ALWAYS been on the side of the artist, regardless. Sure, it could be said that one album or other is not as good, but, for me, that's like saying I wanted more of the same as the previous album, and that is something I do not like, or enjo at all ... and that is my only bug about a lot of prog rock being so formulaic, but that is not a comment on the musicianship involved, even though it might seem that way. I still listen to them all ... regardless. Again, for me, Beethoven's 9 Symphonies are all great ... and there is no such thing as one is better than the other, and I look at a lot of rock music exactly the same ... I can put on those disks of classical music and love them dearly ... heck, I have 3 versions of Turandot ... or a couple of versions of Tosca because Gigli's voice in one is out of this world ... 

There are a lot of things to find in those "lesser" albums, and in general, I tend not to comment on them much.

1. ANDY SUMMERS/ROBERT FRIPP - I Advance Masked/Bewitched

2. PETER GABRIEL - III (Melt)/IV (Security)

^^ I for one really appreciate diversity coming from artists, Pedro.  This can be from album to album or from track to track in an album.  While many pan it, I really enjoy Comus' follow up to First Utterance, To Keep From Crying, partially because it is so different on the whole.  I like the uniqueness of Merci in Magma's discography even if I don;t enjoy it nearly as much as the preceding Attahk, which also had been pretty unique to its discography.  Swans is one of my favourite bands but I have not got much into its first few albums as I like the change of direction with Jarboe, and then later albums, but I appreciate the diversity and that elements of those early albums persisted despite becoming more melodic later.  I appreciate contrast.

With Beethoven, I have a von Karajan box set of the none symphonies, which I prefer to other versions of those.  I do gravitate more to the Ninth and the Seventh the most of those.  While I was raised with classical music, a big part of my Beethoven fascination did come from the A Clockwork Orange and Zardoz films.  And awesome use of the second movement of Beethoven in this favourite short film of mine (no doubt it resonate more because of the music).

Smak - Zašto ne volim sneg / Smak 86

I think Hold Your Fire was a disappointing follow up to Power Windows. 

For me, presto was a return to form. Hot take, i know, but i think Presto is a better put together album than HYF. 

I agree. 

I agree with these ones. 

Hi,

I would think that this seems like a lot more of a preference than a band issue. You liked the earlier stuff and musician, and the "replacement" is not good enough. Then we have the massive changes in a band like KC and all it does is send us all into a tiffy, because things are so different, and yet, they get played 30/40 years later in their shows ... and something of that nature would not be an observation of the whole thing going downhill but  a change to something else. Again, I would look at this as an artist decision, and us, the fans, not  liking it or thinking it is inferior is an external matter, not necessarily related to the band and its members ... 

This is a scary part ... people thinking one thing is better than the other because it was better received, and not quite appreciated as it was before ... times change, folks change, and we're suggesting that our favorite bands can not change with the times, place, equipment, and such at all, because it won't be as good as what we liked?

I keep thinking that it is a fan problem. Not an artist problem! But heck, sometimes, it's difficult to not say something ... I mean, after BAD, how could anyone do better or be more interesting? So yeah, it's easy to say something, but again, we did not take into consideration the drive and the workmanship that the artist took to try and live to that next release, and fan reaction ... the question is, are you an artist, or just a crowd pleaser for the money?

Hi,

My thoughts are that the artist has the option to do something else ... we, as fans, do not have the right to decide what the artist should do at all ... but sometimes, we think that as "critics" that we are more important than the artist and his/her output. This is one of the reasons why I do not do as many reviews of rock albums as I would like to ... I would love to see more folks separate their "favorites" for something else about the art of it all and how it grew in the past 500/700 years. It wasn't about the fans, all the way to the start of the 20th Century (more or less) when all of a sudden we got to see reviews of the new music, and Stravinsky threw people for loops, Debussy was booed ... and so on ... and to their credit they could fly a finger high, now ... they stood up for their work, although this might be different if there were no "changes" in the group ... but you and I know that different combinations yield different results, so it would be best to not expect the same thing.

I consider a "band" an artist ... and this  might be the difference between our words ... Yes is still Yes despite the different keys, for example. However, it seems to me that the majority of folks simply discuss all the music as SONGS ... for which they drop their coins. That is not me as a music appreciation person, and one that has been close to many artists during my life, and some are much better, stronger and appreciated than how rock fans differ when they don't like something, which is the saddest side of this whole adventure ... no one that plays music for a living wants to hear that ... and they better be strong inside to be able to ignore the comments ... many of which have nothing to do with music or the artist whatsoever.

verslibre wrote: ... As the saying goes, I calls 'em like I sees 'em. ...

But that is about you, not the artist! Heck, he/she might as well be a dishwasher in a restaurant for all that matters!  ... just another dirty dish getting cleaned up!

I see Animals as the start of Roger Waters's solo career. Gilmour makes a powerful showing on that album, but Wright (except for his jazzy solo at the beginning of "Sheep") and Mason are relegated to being the backing/supporting group. Also, the lyrics/vocals become far too central to the entire package, rather than integrated into the music/performances.

Hi,

Not sure about that at all ... the material for "Animals" was being played during the WYWH tour and it is in all the bootlegs. The 3 pieces were different, and the "space rock" piece (Sheep) was turned into a Roger Waters song, though the playing of it Live at the Anaheim Stadium was exceptional with Rick's keyboards literally dominating things.

I think they cleaned up the 3 pieces well, however, the original "Raving and Drooling" was to me, better than what Roger did with it ... this older version fit with "Astronomy Domine" and "Interstellar Overdrive", and other spacey far out stuff, that obviously Roger wanted to get rid of ... I doubt Nick didn't like it, since in his shows he has been doing the old stuff for us to enjoy ... something that both Dave and Roger have lost a taste for.

My take is, that both Dave and Roger are too set in their notes and chords and think that the compositions are better because they can screw around with a DAW and create something, and this would be a reason why they dislike the early stuff that had a lot of improvisation and undefined moments where they could do something different, which they obviously now feel that it was just kids screwing around, and not serious music ... and to me, that is very disrespectful to the other 2 members ... and I do not feel that Dave's solo work is anywhere near the quality of PF in its heyday ... and in fact, I find it "cheap" and just rock'n'roll (for lack of a better term) ... when compared to the moods, the creativity and the visuals that their older material carried, which their lyrics CURRENTLY do NOT. It's like their words are more important ... and honestly ... I don't need that any more than you do!

"AFTER THE MASTERPIECE"

This is something that has fascinated me ever since Andy Partridge talked about following up Skylarking. It was different now; they knew the music they were working on was actually going to be digested by a lot of people and it changed the vibe, the process, everything...

It's just a incredibly well balanced album, without the heaviness of Pure that would come and the massive walls of keyboards that was Not From this World... I really, really love it.

As for Rush, HYF would be a good example to me. Power Widows is a fantastic album and HYF is just so different, much more "romantic" (melody wise), lighter and with more filler tracks (it's a quite long album too). Also, the mixing quality is a lot worse and the drums don't sound good, especially when Power Windows gets a lot of this right.

Transatlantic: Whirlwind/Kaleidoscope

Neal Morse: Sola Scriptura/Lifeline