Red Mosquito

that's true, but he still sets the bar.

U2.

For me the greatest offender in this category is anything after "Up" from R.E.M. I know they called it quits but basically everything after that album is awful except for parts of the last 2 which were OK but by then the band was ruined for me. I actually wished they hung it up after "New Adventures", their best album, IMO. They could have continued under some other name and gone all experimental or whatever. They were never quite R.E.M. without Berry.

REM lasted another 15 years without Bill Berry (about as long as they were together with him), produced another 5 albums, 4 of which were good to great.

Lotus, Hope, Daysleeper, The Lifting, I Wanted to be Wrong, Living Well is the Best Revenge. Uberlin, and It Happened Today are among my top REM songs. Accelerate is probably a top 5 REM record for me. At My Most Beautiful was the first dance song at my wedding.

I'm pretty thankful they didn't calll it quits then.

So.... what about Van Halen? Legacy ruined?

I'm not sure a band like Van Halen can ruin a legacy, since I think the way we're using the word legacy implies a degree of influence, artistic excellence, etc. maintained over a long period of time. Is anything van halen does today going to change the way people think about Panama or Hot for Teacher? Are people so invested in Van Halen's music that this is an issue? I picture them as a band where you either like the music or you don't, without any more subtext than that. I'd put AC/DC into that category as well.

But maybe I'm wrong.

I would agree that Van Halen is not as much in the legacy business as other longtime bands.

A Different Kind of Truth wasn't bad though, so that probably helped wash off some of the Gary Cherone.

U2!

U2 is an embarrassment to themselves and an embarrassment to the world.
Bono should be sent on a one way mission to Neptune.

or Uranus

stip wrote:I'm not sure a band like Van Halen can ruin a legacy, since I think the way we're using the word legacy implies a degree of influence, artistic excellence, etc. maintained over a long period of time. Is anything van halen does today going to change the way people think about Panama or Hot for Teacher? Are people so invested in Van Halen's music that this is an issue? I picture them as a band where you either like the music or you don't, without any more subtext than that. I'd put AC/DC into that category as well.

But maybe I'm wrong.

Unfortunately I think this is probably Pearl Jam's story too, for the most part. Surely Eddie Van Halen is as influential a figure in his field as Pearl Jam are in theirs?

Kevin Davis wrote:

stip wrote:I'm not sure a band like Van Halen can ruin a legacy, since I think the way we're using the word legacy implies a degree of influence, artistic excellence, etc. maintained over a long period of time. Is anything van halen does today going to change the way people think about Panama or Hot for Teacher? Are people so invested in Van Halen's music that this is an issue? I picture them as a band where you either like the music or you don't, without any more subtext than that. I'd put AC/DC into that category as well.

But maybe I'm wrong.

Unfortunately I think this is probably Pearl Jam's story too, for the most part. Surely Eddie Van Halen is as influential a figure in his field as Pearl Jam are in theirs?

Probably more so. EVH launched a thousand guitarists trying to sound like him that still inspires and shapes upcoming guitarists. Anyone trying to sound like Ed was quickly called out and derided.

If Michael Jackson's legacy wasn't ruined, no one else's ever will be.

Kevin Davis wrote:

stip wrote:I'm not sure a band like Van Halen can ruin a legacy, since I think the way we're using the word legacy implies a degree of influence, artistic excellence, etc. maintained over a long period of time. Is anything van halen does today going to change the way people think about Panama or Hot for Teacher? Are people so invested in Van Halen's music that this is an issue? I picture them as a band where you either like the music or you don't, without any more subtext than that. I'd put AC/DC into that category as well.

But maybe I'm wrong.

Unfortunately I think this is probably Pearl Jam's story too, for the most part. Surely Eddie Van Halen is as influential a figure in his field as Pearl Jam are in theirs?

usually when we worry about legacy in this context though it isn't a question of influence as much as identity. You are more likely to think that weaker current material somehow invalidates what came before if you are emotionally invested in that music beyond whether or not the songs themselves are good.

Does that make sense?

Gwyneth yoko'd the fuck out of coldplay, didn't she?

BurtReynolds wrote:Gwyneth yoko'd the fuck out of coldplay, didn't she?

Gwyneth is worth getting yoko'd for. Yoko, not so much.

This thread made me go on a U2 download rampage.

i heard kite the other day. That's a real good song.

Also grabbed Coldplay and REM which I thought I had but didn't.

If they ever wrote a better song than Hairshirt, I've yet to hear it.

they've probably written about 150 songs better than hairshirt, dime

That many? I love a ton of REM songs(I'm not a casual fan but not a hardcore fan)
But that one just always spoke to me. Great beyond, daysleeper and night swimming are my other big ones. Top of my head.