Would you rather your favorite band............

[Geoff]

A lot of my favourite bands were progressing in sound when the true spirit of music was still alive.

 

I think the best example is Warrant's and Winger's first 3 albums. Both bands are perfect examples of 3 very different albums while never changing the band's signature sound. In both cases, I think the band's second album was better than the debut and the third album was better than both before.

 

Probably the best 2 examples I can think of, to be honest. Vain's 'Move on it' was a beautiful change up from the debut too. Very different albums, but 100% Vain.

[heaven&hell]

A lot of my favourite bands were progressing in sound when the true spirit of music was still alive.

 

I think the best example is Warrant's and Winger's first 3 albums. Both bands are perfect examples of 3 very different albums while never changing the band's signature sound. In both cases, I think the band's second album was better than the debut and the third album was better than both before.

 

Probably the best 2 examples I can think of, to be honest. Vain's 'Move on it' was a beautiful change up from the debut too. Very different albums, but 100% Vain.

 

With Vain we kind of missed out on what was the missing link between those albums with the unreleased "All Those Strangers". Of course with those of us that have heard it it makes the musical change make more sense since it retains some of what came before on "No Repsect" while adding some newer stuff like on "Move on it".

 

As for Winger and Warrant yes their best albums were their third but I don't agree that Winger's "In the Heart of the Young" is better than the debut.

[Geoff]

A lot of my favourite bands were progressing in sound when the true spirit of music was still alive.

 

I think the best example is Warrant's and Winger's first 3 albums. Both bands are perfect examples of 3 very different albums while never changing the band's signature sound. In both cases, I think the band's second album was better than the debut and the third album was better than both before.

 

Probably the best 2 examples I can think of, to be honest. Vain's 'Move on it' was a beautiful change up from the debut too. Very different albums, but 100% Vain.

 

With Vain we kind of missed out on what was the missing link between those albums with the unreleased "All Those Strangers". Of course with those of us that have heard it it makes the musical change make more sense since it retains some of what came before on "No Repsect" while adding some newer stuff like on "Move on it".

 

As for Winger and Warrant yes their best albums were their third but I don't agree that Winger's "In the Heart of the Young" is better than the debut.

Yeah, Vain's progress is more explainable with the inclusion of 'All those strangers' which is kind of the hidden mixture of both albums. As it was shelved, though, the public eye saw a massive change. Not sure any fan could have been disappointed though.

 

And you know what, even as I wrote it I kind of agreed with you about Winger's first two. I'd probably put them equal with maybe just the slightest favouritism to 'In the heart of the young' as I do think it is a better album than the debut... but I might actually personally prefer the debut too.

[heaven&hell]

A lot of my favourite bands were progressing in sound when the true spirit of music was still alive.

 

I think the best example is Warrant's and Winger's first 3 albums. Both bands are perfect examples of 3 very different albums while never changing the band's signature sound. In both cases, I think the band's second album was better than the debut and the third album was better than both before.

 

Probably the best 2 examples I can think of, to be honest. Vain's 'Move on it' was a beautiful change up from the debut too. Very different albums, but 100% Vain.

 

With Vain we kind of missed out on what was the missing link between those albums with the unreleased "All Those Strangers". Of course with those of us that have heard it it makes the musical change make more sense since it retains some of what came before on "No Repsect" while adding some newer stuff like on "Move on it".

 

As for Winger and Warrant yes their best albums were their third but I don't agree that Winger's "In the Heart of the Young" is better than the debut.

Yeah, Vain's progress is more explainable with the inclusion of 'All those strangers' which is kind of the hidden mixture of both albums. As it was shelved, though, the public eye saw a massive change. Not sure any fan could have been disappointed though.

 

And you know what, even as I wrote it I kind of agreed with you about Winger's first two. I'd probably put them equal with maybe just the slightest favouritism to 'In the heart of the young' as I do think it is a better album than the debut... but I might actually personally prefer the debut too.

 

The debut is better hands down IMO even though the follow up did add some cool new flavors like "The Day we'll Never See", "You are the Saint", "Rainbow in the Rose" and the title-track. Hey now that I'm talking about these great songs I need to go listen to that album.

 

Of course this is just my opinion but I don't think that Winger's "IV" would of shocked so many if we would of had three or four albums in between that one and "Pull" that would of showed a little bit of growth album to album instead of whole bunch of growth on one album. It was a similar situation with Judas Priest first album with Tim Owens in 1997 and their first album in seven years, they seemed to get slammed by some fans and critics for sounding to much like the bands they influenced but if they would of been able to release a few albums before that the change might of made more sense.

 

Def Leppard is another great example. If one was to listen to "On through the Night" and then follow that with "X" you wouldn't believe it was the same band. But if you listened to "Hysteria" and followed each album after that to get to "X" it would make a little more sense, even though I'm not a big fan of the change.

[Geoff]

I still think Winger's 'IV' album would have fared just fine if it still had good songs. The departure in sound was not that extreme. It was the complete lack of any decent song that killed it.

 

I see what you're saying, but nothing can alter the fact that either a song is good or it's not. No amount of discography between albums can change that.

[heaven&hell]

I still think Winger's 'IV' album would have fared just fine if it still had good songs. The departure in sound was not that extreme. It was the complete lack of any decent song that killed it.

 

I see what you're saying, but nothing can alter the fact that either a song is good or it's not. No amount of discography between albums can change that.

 

See the way you feel about "IV" is the way I feel about "X" but at least you understand what I'm saying.

[Jez]

A lot of my favourite bands were progressing in sound when the true spirit of music was still alive.

 

I think the best example is Warrant's and Winger's first 3 albums. Both bands are perfect examples of 3 very different albums while never changing the band's signature sound. In both cases, I think the band's second album was better than the debut and the third album was better than both before.

 

Probably the best 2 examples I can think of, to be honest. Vain's 'Move on it' was a beautiful change up from the debut too. Very different albums, but 100% Vain.

 

With Vain we kind of missed out on what was the missing link between those albums with the unreleased "All Those Strangers". Of course with those of us that have heard it it makes the musical change make more sense since it retains some of what came before on "No Repsect" while adding some newer stuff like on "Move on it".

 

As for Winger and Warrant yes their best albums were their third but I don't agree that Winger's "In the Heart of the Young" is better than the debut.

Yeah, Vain's progress is more explainable with the inclusion of 'All those strangers' which is kind of the hidden mixture of both albums. As it was shelved, though, the public eye saw a massive change. Not sure any fan could have been disappointed though.

 

And you know what, even as I wrote it I kind of agreed with you about Winger's first two. I'd probably put them equal with maybe just the slightest favouritism to 'In the heart of the young' as I do think it is a better album than the debut... but I might actually personally prefer the debut too.

 

Def Leppard is another great example. If one was to listen to "On through the Night" and then follow that with "X" you wouldn't believe it was the same band. But if you listened to "Hysteria" and followed each album after that to get to "X" it would make a little more sense, even though I'm not a big fan of the change.

 

I was going to add a few things and Def Leppard sprang to mind, but Wes has for me, made a damned good summation on my thoughts, so I won't bother.

[heaven&hell]

A lot of my favourite bands were progressing in sound when the true spirit of music was still alive.

 

I think the best example is Warrant's and Winger's first 3 albums. Both bands are perfect examples of 3 very different albums while never changing the band's signature sound. In both cases, I think the band's second album was better than the debut and the third album was better than both before.

 

Probably the best 2 examples I can think of, to be honest. Vain's 'Move on it' was a beautiful change up from the debut too. Very different albums, but 100% Vain.

 

With Vain we kind of missed out on what was the missing link between those albums with the unreleased "All Those Strangers". Of course with those of us that have heard it it makes the musical change make more sense since it retains some of what came before on "No Repsect" while adding some newer stuff like on "Move on it".

 

As for Winger and Warrant yes their best albums were their third but I don't agree that Winger's "In the Heart of the Young" is better than the debut.

Yeah, Vain's progress is more explainable with the inclusion of 'All those strangers' which is kind of the hidden mixture of both albums. As it was shelved, though, the public eye saw a massive change. Not sure any fan could have been disappointed though.

 

And you know what, even as I wrote it I kind of agreed with you about Winger's first two. I'd probably put them equal with maybe just the slightest favouritism to 'In the heart of the young' as I do think it is a better album than the debut... but I might actually personally prefer the debut too.

 

Def Leppard is another great example. If one was to listen to "On through the Night" and then follow that with "X" you wouldn't believe it was the same band. But if you listened to "Hysteria" and followed each album after that to get to "X" it would make a little more sense, even though I'm not a big fan of the change.

 

I was going to add a few things and Def Leppard sprang to mind, but Wes has for me, made a damned good summation on my thoughts, so I won't bother.

 

It's like I'm in your mind and to be honest there are some sick and disturbing things in here.

[Geoff]

Yeah, I don't know. Def Leppard may have lost their balls but since 1984 they have been an super melodic rock band with gigantic choruses and hooks - that was their most noted feature. Even if 'X' didn't have balls of fire musically you can't deny the style of Def Leppard's song writing and huge chorus/hook was still there.

 

As for 'IV', I get no sense on that album of anything from Winger's past. Winger never wrote songs like that, for good reason. It's just a complete different style, even if musically it is perhaps closer to 'Pull' than 'X' is to prime Def Leppard.

[Geoff]

Yeah, I don't know. Def Leppard may have lost their balls but since 1984 they have been an super melodic rock band with gigantic choruses and hooks - that was their most noted feature. Even if 'X' didn't have balls of fire musically you can't deny the style of Def Leppard's song writing and huge chorus/hook was still there.

 

As for 'IV', I get no sense on that album of anything from Winger's past. Winger never wrote songs like that, for good reason. It's just a complete different style, even if musically it is perhaps closer to 'Pull' than 'X' is to prime Def Leppard.

And I should actually make a point to add - 'IV' is NOWHERE near 'Pull' musically... but that was kind of my point too. That even though it's miles away, it's still obviously a lot closer than Def Leppard's 'X' is to any of their other albums.

[heaven&hell]

Yeah, I don't know. Def Leppard may have lost their balls but since 1984 they have been an super melodic rock band with gigantic choruses and hooks - that was their most noted feature. Even if 'X' didn't have balls of fire musically you can't deny the style of Def Leppard's song writing and huge chorus/hook was still there.

 

As for 'IV', I get no sense on that album of anything from Winger's past. Winger never wrote songs like that, for good reason. It's just a complete different style, even if musically it is perhaps closer to 'Pull' than 'X' is to prime Def Leppard.

And I should actually make a point to add - 'IV' is NOWHERE near 'Pull' musically... but that was kind of my point too. That even though it's miles away, it's still obviously a lot closer than Def Leppard's 'X' is to any of their other albums.

 

I thought that IV was very good musically it's just not the music style that most of their fans were expecting.

Lets face it most Winger fans were expecting the more progressive style that they have on IV.

[Geoff]

Yeah, I don't know. Def Leppard may have lost their balls but since 1984 they have been an super melodic rock band with gigantic choruses and hooks - that was their most noted feature. Even if 'X' didn't have balls of fire musically you can't deny the style of Def Leppard's song writing and huge chorus/hook was still there.

 

As for 'IV', I get no sense on that album of anything from Winger's past. Winger never wrote songs like that, for good reason. It's just a complete different style, even if musically it is perhaps closer to 'Pull' than 'X' is to prime Def Leppard.

And I should actually make a point to add - 'IV' is NOWHERE near 'Pull' musically... but that was kind of my point too. That even though it's miles away, it's still obviously a lot closer than Def Leppard's 'X' is to any of their other albums.

 

I thought that IV was very good musically it's just not the music style that most of their fans were expecting.

Lets face it most Winger fans were expecting the more progressive style that they have on IV.

I would never say anything with Reb Beach, and to be honest, any of the guys from Winger, was actually bad musically. As for my personal tastes - I hated the style/sound. And it just wasn't Winger.

 

I went with my mate to see Winger and he wouldn't know any of their songs from a toothbrush. The funny thing is, without any prior knowledge of the band, he loved all the old songs and didn't like the two new ones at all. I smiled triumphantly at that fact.

[Jez]

A lot of my favourite bands were progressing in sound when the true spirit of music was still alive.

 

I think the best example is Warrant's and Winger's first 3 albums. Both bands are perfect examples of 3 very different albums while never changing the band's signature sound. In both cases, I think the band's second album was better than the debut and the third album was better than both before.

 

Probably the best 2 examples I can think of, to be honest. Vain's 'Move on it' was a beautiful change up from the debut too. Very different albums, but 100% Vain.

 

With Vain we kind of missed out on what was the missing link between those albums with the unreleased "All Those Strangers". Of course with those of us that have heard it it makes the musical change make more sense since it retains some of what came before on "No Repsect" while adding some newer stuff like on "Move on it".

 

As for Winger and Warrant yes their best albums were their third but I don't agree that Winger's "In the Heart of the Young" is better than the debut.

Yeah, Vain's progress is more explainable with the inclusion of 'All those strangers' which is kind of the hidden mixture of both albums. As it was shelved, though, the public eye saw a massive change. Not sure any fan could have been disappointed though.

 

And you know what, even as I wrote it I kind of agreed with you about Winger's first two. I'd probably put them equal with maybe just the slightest favouritism to 'In the heart of the young' as I do think it is a better album than the debut... but I might actually personally prefer the debut too.

 

Def Leppard is another great example. If one was to listen to "On through the Night" and then follow that with "X" you wouldn't believe it was the same band. But if you listened to "Hysteria" and followed each album after that to get to "X" it would make a little more sense, even though I'm not a big fan of the change.

 

I was going to add a few things and Def Leppard sprang to mind, but Wes has for me, made a damned good summation on my thoughts, so I won't bother.

 

It's like I'm in your mind and to be honest there are some sick and disturbing things in here.

 

 

Indeed there are mate - Shhhh

[heaven&hell]

The Scorpions added a newer sound perfectly IMO on their newest album "Humanity Hour 1".

[TIM (2)]

I still think Winger's 'IV' album would have fared just fine if it still had good songs. The departure in sound was not that extreme. It was the complete lack of any decent song that killed it.

 

I see what you're saying, but nothing can alter the fact that either a song is good or it's not. No amount of discography between albums can change that.

 

I agree. "IV" wasn't really that different in style from "Pull" (though maybe a touch more progressive) but the songs just weren't anywhere near strong enough - no hooks.

 

Europe were actually one of my favourite bands - after the incredible "Out of This World" & "Prisoners..." - who tried to make the change to Modern Rock, but left all their fans behind. I admire them for taking a chance, but again the songs were just nowhere near strong enough.

[sharatan]

i love jimmy matheos when he was immature(ouch....)

[heaven&hell]

i love jimmy matheos when he was immature(ouch....)

 

Would that be Jim Matheos from Fates Warning?

Is so I prefer the old stuff with Arch(who rules IMO).

[Metal T]

Primal Fear need to go back to the 'Jaws Of Death' / Devil's Ground' style and ditch the absolutely f**king horrible symphonic garbage!

[heaven&hell]

Primal Fear need to go back to the 'Jaws Of Death' / Devil's Ground' style and ditch the absolutely f**king horrible symphonic garbage!

 

As I'm sure you've seen the new press release about the new album makes it sound like it's closer to the 'Nuclear Fire' sound with some straight ahead rockers.

[Dead Planet]

Primal Fear need to go back to the 'Jaws Of Death' / Devil's Ground' style and ditch the absolutely f**king horrible symphonic garbage!

 

As I'm sure you've seen the new press release about the new album makes it sound like it's closer to the 'Nuclear Fire' sound with some straight ahead rockers.

 

 

Haven't missed one of their releases yet and this one won't be any different.........

[Metal T]

Primal Fear need to go back to the 'Jaws Of Death' / Devil's Ground' style and ditch the absolutely f**king horrible symphonic garbage!

 

As I'm sure you've seen the new press release about the new album makes it sound like it's closer to the 'Nuclear Fire' sound with some straight ahead rockers.

Yeah,hey 'Nuclear Fire' was awesome as well.Just checked their site-kinda hints at it being in line with some of the early stuff like 'Chainbreaker'..sounds good.

[Shawn Of Fire]

All my favorite bands are ones who show growth...Journey, Def Leppard, King's X, U2, Harem Scarem...

[heaven&hell]

All my favorite bands are ones who show growth...Journey, Def Leppard, King's X, U2, Harem Scarem...

 

I love all those bands too, well besides U2, but to me anyway Def Leppard really lost there way from what they were in the early days to what they have been for the last 2 decades.

[Shawn Of Fire]

I don't think they lost their way at all...they simply became what they intended from the beginning...a Pop Rock band, and and a damn good one, IMO...

[SamboraRocks86]

I don't think they lost their way at all...they simply became what they intended from the beginning...a Pop Rock band, and and a damn good one, IMO...

 

Exactly, just like Bon Jovi who always said they were never a particular style but just themselves. you cant lose your way when you dont have a way, so to speak