Many of the "best" bands have a short period where they write lots of fantastic songs - but usually the success from those either breaks the winning format (for writing), the band or the various members. There is a big difference between spending all day, every day writing songs at home having the time to perfect them and then trying to do that after a 200-date tour that covers 50 countries while everyone tell you how great you are and the record company expecting it to sell 1m copies on release. Bands like Oasis, Pixies, AM had 2-3 years building up the release of their first album and the songs were finished. Songs from later albums were often still in a state of development.
Good points Scoff and sorry I shouldn't have used the term 'best' bands, it sounds incredibly pompous and others may think they are garbage You make an excellent point on songwriting and how it's affected. Noel Gallagher said he spent 10 years (or something) writing Definitely Maybe, down-and-out, on the dole, and speaking directly to the hearts of the working classes. Then Morning Glory/The Masterplan continued the success. Be Here Now is good in parts but is a bloated representation of the coked-up Gallagher brothers. By SOTSOG they had a brand new line-up and some might say (pardon the pun) they went downhill. I liked SOTSOG a lot, and Heathen Chemistry to an extent, but after that I lost all interest. That was probably down to the influx of new bands coming through in fairness (The Strokes, Libertines, White Stripes, The Vines etc.).
I just find it very odd not just for the Arctic monkeys but for lots of bands people keep expecting them to be writing songs about High Green Lots to agree with there though I loathe Radiohead with an absolute passion. The ‘best’ artists for me are those that have a development arc like the Beatles, Bowie of someone like Weller. Think early New Order showed where Joy Division would have gone. Unfortunately for them the banality of their lyrics post Curtis held them back artistically if not financially .
Agree, which is exactly why for me nobody can touch REM. The first ten albums are diverse and pretty much flawless. The five post-Berry albums aren't quite as consistent, but they still all contain several songs which would be most other bands' greatest track. I can't think of another band who maintained such high quality and originality for such a long period.
Indeed, you often find the best songs on the second album were written at the same time as those on the first album, just wasn’t room for them!
Caught them live twice in the 80's, once at Milton Keynes bowl with U2 & the Ramones, I think that was either 85 or 86 & then the Green tour at Sheffield Octagon in 89. I lost a bit of interest a few albums into their major label period, but was an avid fan of the IRS period. My mate Mark leant me Murmur in the early 80's & that got me hooked for a long while. Shiny Happy People probably puts off a lot of people who haven't heard their early stuff & a lot of bands have taken that "americana" sound to newer & possibly more interesting places from the 90's onwards.
Add me to the REM are objectively the second best band ever camp. After Oasis obviously. Don't give me this ***** that Be Here Now is crap and they did nothing after 2000. They're the best.
FFS. I'll die on the hill that it was cool to hate Oasis after about 97, but it wasn't warranted. Their later albums were classic and full of tunes that would have been singles on dirge like that Elevator record by the Arctic Monkeys and Chris Martin would kill for a tune like The Importance Of Being Idle or Gas Panic. Caveat I've had a few.
Nah. Pulp were the trendy "look at me I read the lyrics and get the meaning" band. It's always Oasis.
On a non drunk serious note, Ray Davies was a genius. Even as late as Scattered in 93. Melodies for days that man.