Mazec wrote:The Stranglers. They've been through some stupendous highs and devastatingly embarrassing lows.

Their first four albums were almost uncontestable excellent. Their fifth, Gospel According to the Men in Black, almost bankrupted them, although diehard fans sometimes liked it.

After that defeat, they came back with La Folie, a mostly good album which featured Golden Brown.

Then, they started doing increasingly MOR adult oriented 80s music for a few albums, when their head songwriter quit.

The 90's was hard for the Stranglers, with their Billy Idol-like new frontman, Paul Roberts, but they still managed to pull out a couple great albums: About Time from '96 and Norfolk Coast from '04.

Then they booted the Idol man and put out a so-so album with a few good songs last year.

It's hard to say if they've ever pulled off a complete and enduring recovery since their golden years '77-'81, but they have managed to put out the occasional good album in the face of overwhelming odds against them.

matthias beebe wrote:

M_a_x wrote:

sphincter wrote:The trilogy was awful, apart from the new album I think everything they've done on Ipecac has been hash. Colossus is a slightly different subject-I don't think it's a good record, even within it's respective genre, but it is interesting and I do think it serves some sort of purpose. I don't view them as the untouchable band that a lot of people do. I do love them though, Bullhead is one of my favourite albums of all time, and the three major label albums are all amazing as well as most of their work.

The new album is the best thing they've done for maybe 10 years.

Man, I totally agree. There were bits of "they still got it" spread here and there, but just did nothing to me like the old stuff. But the new record is great. The combination of 3 part vocals and a second drummer was just the kick in the ass they needed. Buzz is an awesome, amazing, godlike songwriter but I think when you have such an original style you can tend to get directionless after you've made your main points.

I couldn't disagree more. Senile Animal is perhaps the most accessible and poppy thing they've done in years, but in terms of listener reward it doesn't hold a candle to Hostile Ambient Takeover. If songs like The The Brain Center at Whipples or the Anti Vermin Seed don't do it for you I have no idea why you are even into the Melvins.

sphincter wrote:
Yeah, Hostile is perhaps half an half, still quite weak.

sphincter wrote:
I don't see how this new album being poppy is a bad thing?

sphincter wrote:They focused on actually writing well structured Melvinesque songs instead of trying to be subversive for the first time in a while, they pulled off some great rocky little anthems, nearly every song sits well on a mix-tape to be a toe tapping sing a long classic.

sphincter wrote:Good shit, not their best by any means and obviously not their most advanced, but it's an album of good songs, the best thing they've done in ten years probably...

sphincter wrote:

tinycorkscrew wrote:

sphincter wrote:Shellac?
The Melvins
Iron Maiden
Earth
Acid Mothers
Merzbow

Which Melvins album is bad?

Prick?

Colossus?

The trilogy was awful, apart from the new album I think everything they've done on Ipecac has been hash. Colossus is a slightly different subject-I don't think it's a good record, even within it's respective genre, but it is interesting and I do think it serves some sort of purpose. I don't view them as the untouchable band that a lot of people do. I do love them though, Bullhead is one of my favourite albums of all time, and the three major label albums are all amazing as well as most of their work.

The new album is the best thing they've done for maybe 10 years.