When a Once Great Band Gets a Forever Pass • Page 2

Well, your die-hard fans will continue to love you even if you release an album they don't like. I think that's true of any artist, big, mid-level, or small. It just seems more pronounced with artists like U2 or Springsteen (or Radiohead or Arcade Fire) because they are so high-profile. But I mean, if you love a band, they kind of deserve a "forever pass" from you, at least in that you'll always check out their new stuff and see their shows and stuff. Arcade Fire isn't that kind of band for me, and I'm kind of over them in general at this point, but Springsteen's still a top three artist even though two of the last three albums he's put out are kind of just okay. It's easy to give an artist a pass if they've released one or two (or 11 or 12) records you've loved.

 

Nate Ruess is another good example. I don't think Grand Romantic is a bad album at all, but it definitely doesn't match up to his previous work, but after releasing 3 really incredible albums and 1 really great album, I'm certainly no where near writing him off yet, and even if he never releases anything better than Grand Romantic, I will always continue to listen and go see his shows. The quality of his work would have to just drop appallingly low for me to not want to continue supporting him. (But seriously don't get me wrong - Grand Romantic has some real jams.)

 

And let's be honest, Arcade Fire are only one album cycle past their last great record. I don't think anticipating their next album is giving them a "forever pass," even though Reflektor is v bad.

 

That was 7 years ago, and everything since has kinda sucked. Haha.

 

I guess I just can't read this without hearing someone say, 'I don't enjoy the music that other people do, so here's an article saying they should stop making music.'

That's a pretty shitty attitude. I think. There are giant mass swaths of music I don't like, but for the people who do, good on them. And hey, maybe someone's favorite record is Reflektor - what's it matter if it is?

This is a guy shaking his fist at the fact people like different things than him. It seems like out of all things to shake one's fist at in the world in June of 2017, 'Arcade Fire is releasing new music after their last one was one I didn't enjoy' should be at the bottom of the list. But that's just me.

 

Weezer's biggest hits are post-Pinkerton. Maybe it's just that people like Make Believe and the Green Album? Why is THAT not an equally viable explanation for Weezer's career?

And while we're here - most Weezer fans (even the ones pining for another Pinkerton) legitimately like Maladroit and Everything and the White Album. Just saying 'they persist because they're too big to fail' discredits the fact that people legitimately know and love bands for different reasons and different periods of their careers.

 

Surprised nobody mentioned linkin park. none of their past ~3 albums has produced a hit within the same universe as the singles from the first 2-3 albums. It takes a special kind of lifetime pass to be a nostalgic act while still an active/prolific band.

 

I don't think that's what the article says at all though:

Does it fill my entire being with profound, uncontainable bliss the way they used to? No, but it at least leaves the door open for the possibility that some song on this new album might send me soaring so high again. Until such a song materializes in the Infinite Content stream, I’m going to keep lamenting Arcade Fire’s loss of greatness. No band should be forced to endlessly mimic their classics, but there’s also no need to lower the bar for old favorites who have proven they can do much better.

I think it argues the opposite of "stop making music" and instead argues that a once great band may have lost sight of what made them great. I think that's a pretty common argument amongst music fans, especially in relation to the "giants" of the music scene itself. What made a band "great" to start, how do you keep that for multiple albums, the creative spark, the subsequent output alienating some fans, gaining new ... feels like the stuff we talk about here daily.

 

Yea that's another great point. If the entire works of albums aren't as good as they once were, but they have some great songs, then it's obviously worth it to keep giving them attention when they release an album. And yes that's what I was getting to at the end when I said it was more deserved now. Weezer is a great example of why these bands deserve the benefit of the doubt. And I also love your last sentence.

 

Perhaps the worst post I've seen on this website

 

The last three Say Anything records have gotten awful reviews across the board.

 

how many bad albums would it take to sink FOB? i think Weezer falls into this as well, even though I think white album is great

 

Yeah, that's true. Which is more of an argument for not taking for fucking ever to make a record than anything else. Haha

 

Brand New.

 

I don't believe they're coming back. They've entered "I'll believe it when I'm listening" territory.

 

Really??? So you want it to only be a three-minute song?

 

Hebrews is trash

 

So very wrong, my friend. So very wrong.

 

I actually really like Reflektor. I am so sorry (or not).

 

Thanks.

I was reacting to the 'nothing can kill a rock band' quote. Which is much less charitable.

 

True, but they still headline tours and get considerable attention with each release.

 

Doesn't count if their music was trash from the start #burn

 

What I thought when I saw Say Anything come up.

 

this may be a tangent to the discussion, but in my eyes arcade fire "saved" music at one pt in time. perhaps they're not being given a pass, but instead have a genuine place in music history.

 

So...Will Ferrell?