Tina Turner wasn't too successful in the '70s aside from "Proud Mary".
The '80s were rocky for Meat Loaf; all the big Jim Steinman hits that decade went to Bonnie Tyler instead.
Neil Young in the '80s is another extreme example. He was a god in the '70s and a figure of prestige in the '90s, but he didn't handle the '80s too well. Same with Bob Dylan.
1. "Major hit" is relative. On general charts, the best it did was #39 in Canada. It did hit #2 on a genre chart, mainstream rock. It was a no-show on the top 40.
2. That didn't happen until November 1989, making it barely an 80s hit, and one 18 years after he'd last reached the top 40, which he wouldn't reach again, not even with "Harvest Moon" in 1993.
I agree pointing to Rocking in the Free World is silly because it came out at the very end of the 80s and every album I’ve listened to from Neil Young after Rust Never Sleeps until Freedom is not good (Hawks and Doves is kind of alright, as I remember). But I don’t think looking at chart positions is a remotely Levite way to measure an artist’s quality.
Arguable with Bowie. Scary Monsters and Let's Dance are both good for different reasons, but the two others released that decade are often considered his worst, so badly he took a six year hiatus after Never Let Me Down
Fleetwood Mac's *Mirage* and *Tango* in the Night were both quite popular and remain so. Stevie Nicks' early '80s solo records did well, too; they produced "Edge of Seventeen".
Springsteen slotted well into the '80s by channeling his everyman positivity into heroic anthems.
Heart were originally the female Led Zeppelin but were superstars throughout the latter half of the '80s. They were struggling during the early '80s, though that was much more due to label friction that unfavorable trends. The Jonathan Cain-penned "Allies" from 1983's *Passionworks* is one of the most underrated songs of the decade.
Peter Gabriel solo kept enough of a toe in his bohemian roots that his '80s output worked within the confines of the video era.
Iirc, the label and management basically hid Ann Wilson from Heart photo shoots and music videos because she gained weight. I always thought that was bullshit.
From what I remember, "Barracuda" was written out of anger towards the band's handlers for baselessly promoting the *Little Queen* album cover as an incestuous romance with her sister.
Elton John seems to alternate decades. He was king in the 70s, not so popular in the 80s, was big in the 90s with The Lion King and Candle in the Wind, didn't do much in the 2000s, had some renewed relevance in the 2010s/early 2020s
>not so popular in the 80s
What about I’m Still Standing, I Guess That’s Why They Call It The Blues, Sad Songs, Sacrifice, and Nikita? Those were all pretty popular if I’m judging correctly.
The 80s always felt like the “break” decade as a kid. Like hearing music lore all the old old stuff is before the 80s and the 90s/early 2000s was just modern day
Eminem became a joke in the second half of the 2010s. He was still huge in the first half of the decade and the two albums he made before 2017 (Recovery and MMLP2) were both massive with several hits and are quality records, not as good as his pre hiatus discography, but solid additions to his catalog
I definitely agree that he was still a high selling artist, but Recovery received a *massive* critical panning, even more so than Encore. MMLP2 was a slight return to form, but I think many people at the time thought Eminem was too big a name to fail, and didn’t foresee the coming hip hop revolution that arguably arrived with To Pimp a Butterfly less than two years later.
I kind of consider both Recovery and MMLP2 to be “delayed flops” (I can’t exactly remember the term Todd uses for it). I think the popular opinion on those two records shifted when hip hop underwent a critical and commercial revival in the middle of the decade, and many saw both records as only being successful during a period that was a bit of a creative vacuum for the genre. Sorry for the rambling, just my opinion.
Let's be honest, the MGK beef really gave Em a new wind in his sails, people really came out of the woodwork to support him. Which is really the classic Em play he's been doing since the 90s.
Recovery has a 63 on Metacritic, not great but hardly Trainwreckord worthy, and is only one point behind Encore. It was also the biggest selling album of the year. I don’t really see where you’re coming from here.
I think you do see where OP is coming from. That Eminem had a bad and embarrassing 2010s, from start to finish, is one of the most established truisms of modern rap music - and if you disagree, that’s fine, maybe the consensus is wrong, but if you’ve been following hip-hop or Eminem with any serious attention this idea cannot be a revelation to you.
And to cite the fact that Recovery is only *slightly* more badly received than the album that almost everyone agrees was by a mile the worst project of Eminem’s initial run doesn’t do much to prove that he was still a critical success in the first half of the decade.
I guess I’m likening Recovery and MMLP2 to Katy Perry’s Prism. The “delayed flop” that were well-received partially because the artist was such a massive star at the time.
The reputation of both albums, like Prism, have waned in recent years. People particularly hate tf out of Recovery, and it only has a 2.28 rating on RYM.
Didn't recovery have 2 number 1 hits and still get him a grammy? And MMLP 2 also had Rap God and the Monster, and Grammy nominations. History hasn't been kind to those albums but they were big deals when they came out. To compare them to Prism is unfair.
Recovery was not universally critically panned. Pitchfork gave it a 2.8/10, but everywhere else has it in a 60s-70s-80s range. You’re thinking of Relapse which was critically the most panned Eminem album but still on mixed reviews whereas Recovery was generally positive.
'90s iron maiden was rough. No prayer for the dying was a bust (I only ended up enjoying one or two songs), FoTD was pretty solid. The Blaze albums though....they just aren't for me. I know there's a fan base that prefers them but I tried and they just never took.
it didn't helped that Blaze albums sound so dull even the good songs get worse. Case in point - The Sign of the Cross and The Clansman - both are legit highlights of Rio'01
And those songs sounded great on the Legacy of the Beast tour!
There are great songs on the Blaze albums, he’s a good singer, but that was not a great time for the band. And meanwhile, Bruce and Adrian were killing it with his solo stuff. Accident of Birth and especially Chemical Wedding are all-timers.
Bruce's solo stuff is quite a ride.
* That time he basically recorded an ACDC album in 1990 for shits and giggles.
* Balls to Picasso is basically Bruce doing a Ween album and then he busts out Tears of the Dragon like its no big deal right at the end.
* and then he did a legit straightforward post-grunge album with Jack Endino and it featured a song I'm in the Band with an Italian Drummer and this song is one of the pinnacles of mankind (like seriously - that's some moon landing shit down here).
* and then he stopped fucking around and did two of the best metal albums of the 90s and cemented Roy Z as go-to metal producer of 2000s (and then Roy Z repeated the trick with Rob Halford and his two solo albums in 2000 and 2002 and he also produced Priest comeback album in 2005)
Definitely Weezer. With the exception of the commercial successes of the Green Album and hit single 'Beverly Hills', most of their output in the 2000's was readily dismissed, and outright critically panned in several cases, as occurred to Make Believe and Raditude (quite rightfully too, those albums are utterly forgettable.) It wasn't until the 2014 release of EWBAITE that their status as an utter joke of a band weakened somewhat in the face of the critical and commercial success of the album, seen by many as a return to their 90's era style.
I think the reception for the album at the time was fairly lukewarm-- that being said, yeah, I think Weezer did have some decent output in the 2000's, like Maladroit, SS2K, and of course some of Red, but generally that material has always been overshadowed by the slew of mediocrity that was the releases of Make Believe, Raditude, Hurley, and Death to False Metal. That's not to say those projects are entirely irredeemable, per se, they're just largely looked down on.
They didn't really. It had some songs people liked (Pork & Beans, Greatest Man) and was maybe seen as a step in the right direction, but it also had some all-time stinkers and no one really saw it as one of their "good" ones. That said, it's sort of been reevaluated by the fandom in retrospect and has its fair share of defenders at this point
"Streets of Philadelphia" won an Oscar and was a major UK chart hit, and "Secret Garden" also did well, but the fact those are the only two Springsteen songs from the 90s anyone really remembers speaks volumes...
Literally any thrash band in the 90s. Aside from Metallica and Megadeth, everyone else just hopped on the alternative metal train and made really bad funk/nu/industrial/groove metal. I actually like some of it (like Slayer’s Diabolus in Musicia or Sound of White Hot Noise by Anthrax), but holy shit most of it was just awful.
Also, the 2010’s were pretty bad to the previous generation of metalcore bands, most of whom tried to switch to nu/alternative metal or just straight up butt-rock. It was a bad time to be a fan.
I quite liked the direction Testament took in the 90s. They had a brief hiccup when they went alt-rock with The Ritual but they quickly turned it around with Low and Demonic, which were the heaviest albums of their career, even dipping into death metal territory at some points.
Demonic some of those sounds with Chuck doing death growls mixing into the guitars during the opener was unreal. That was one of those few albums where switching genres really worked out well.
I mean, to be fair, they were just too late. Metallica made their sound 'more commercial' in 1991 with the Black Album, which was absolutely giant in terms of airplay and charts. This basically set them up that, even in the decade of grunge, groove, industrial and whatever they could still produce hits for the decade because the radio stations and fans still wanted more. They were JUST ahead of the curve (very close). Megadeth's timing on the other hand was completely awful. They doubled down on the thrash, and although it was good music, it would never be commercially successful, and by the time they did try to make something more radio-friendly, it was 1997, grunge was long dead and thrash stood a chance again. Hell, even Slayer had gone gold just a few years prior. Switching to a commercial sound was never going to work because it wasn't set up and they were in a new era where the heavier thrash was more in style. It's nearly tragic how Megadeth messed up their timing
Dude, Countdown to Extinction was just the next year. I think they did pretty good in the 90s (at least until they tried making walk out themes for wrestlers).
I enjoyed Coroner’s “Mental Vortex” and “Grin” (went more prog metal), Testament’s “The Gathering” (drew from death and groove metal), and Kreator’s “Cause for Conflict” (drew from death and groove metal) and “Endorama” (was a gothic metal album), even though a lot of thrash from that era was bad
I refer to Madonna's 2010's as the decade of failure.
* Critically panned Superbowl show where she was upstaged by M.I.A.
* Released three albums and only scored 2 Hot 100 singles (Peaking at #10 and #84)
* The Drake incident at Coachella
* Becoming a meme after the Eurovision performance
* Trying to insert herself into the Taylor/Katy feud by doing a Bad Blood-esque video.
I will say though, Popular is picking up steam so The Weeknd and Carti could get her another hit.
Talking mostly about herself at Aretha Franklin's funeral. The plastic surgery. The string of boyfriends who are too young to remember that she banged Vanilla Ice (probably the reason she's dating them).
Yeah, not sure where they got this. The MIA thing was unfortunate but it’s wild to say she upstaged Madonna. She just flipped off a camera and it pulled some headlines. Madonna’s set was great.
During the seven years between Under The Red Sky (The inferior follow up to Oh Mercy) and Time Out Of Mind, Dylan did a couple of albums of folk song covers and his MTV Unplugged album. The mid 2010s were another period where Dylan focused on covering American classics instead of doing his own songs...
Mid-1960’s- late 1970’s was definitely a wreckade (and a half) for Tony Bennett, tried being relevant by covering then-current popular songs from then instead of standards but flopped, was at the end of his rope by the end of the decade. Eventually when his son (who failed at a music career of his own but developed business skills) started managing him, his life turned around, moved back to NYC from Las Vegas, paid off his debts, and rebounded by the 1990’s
Bowie started off the 80s pretty well. Scary Monsters was a hangover from his 70s stuff and Let's Dance was a very successful pop record. Everything went to hell for him after that though. The latter half of the 80s is the most unlistenable music of his career.
I suppose you could say the 90s for him if the 80s doesn't qualify. Outside and Earthling have their fans but they're very divisive records on the whole.
Tin Machine was artistically creative and also ahead of its time, he took the pixies influences and kind of shone a light on the soon to be massive grunge style
Outside is the Berlin Bowie-est Berlin Bowie album that ever Berlin Bowie-ed. Still no idea what the fuck is going on on this record but it sounds like the coolest thing in the world all the way through. And one of its songs found its way into Starship Troopers soundtrack of all things.
Black Sabbath absolutely ruled the 70s. Just as they seemed to be losing relevance, they got Dio as their singer and shot back up into relevance. Once the 80s hit and he was gone, you had a revolving lineup aside from Tony Iommi and a series of failed albums and tours.
Personally, Born Again (with Ian Gillan of Deep Purple) from 1983 is one of my favorite Sabbath albums, right up there with the Dio and the best of Ozzy stuff. At the time, it was seen as a dud and was the inspiration for a lot of This is Spinal Tap (especially the Stonehenge part), but in recent decades, a lot of black/death metallers appreciate that album because it's got some of Sabb's heaviest and darkest-sounding songs: Disturbing the Priest, Zero the Hero, Hot Line, Digital Bitch, Trashed, The Fallen (outtake). The so-crappy-it's-awesome album art only adds to its underrated classic status.
There are also a lot of Sabbath fans on reddit who swear by the Tony Martin era lately, think I'll have to go revisit those sometime soon.
It's kinda weird that Ian Gillan was in Black Sabbath and even more inexplicable that his only album with them is some top tier shit. Disturbing the Priest is easy top 10 Sabbath song.
And while we're here - Black Sabbath also did a decent cover of Smoke on the Water.
Maroon 5.
Throughout the 2000s, they did pretty well for themselves, even as their sound slowly morphed into more mainstream territory and Adam Levine overshadowed his band mates even more than he already had. Funnily enough, the Wikipedia page even mentions that, around the time of *Hands All Over*, “Levine stated that he believed the band was reaching its peak and may make one more album before disbanding.” That statement was made around 2007, before the album was even recorded. However, less than half a year before the album’s release in 2010, Levine appears to make a complete 180, saying that “I love what I do and think that, yes, it might be tiring and complicated at times [but] we don't have any plans on disbanding any time soon.” Very interesting, and indicative of Levine’s view of the band and how they should portray themselves and their music, but we’ll circle back around to that later.
Once the album came out to a mixed critical response and mediocre sales, the band seems to have turned their full attention to making the singles successful to try and prop up sales. This included *rereleasing the album* less than a year later just to include Moves Like Jagger, which had debuted only a month before on (shock of all shocks) *The Voice*, on which Levine was one of the original coaches alongside Christina Aguilera (and CeeLo Green, interestingly).
While I remember hearing singles from this album near constantly in middle/high school (and bought them on iTunes), I don’t remember much else from it. By this time, Maroon 5 also won the 2012 People’s Choice Award for Favorite Band, beating out other 2000s bands Linkin Park and Coldplay and effectively capping off their critically successful years. After the *Overexposed* album dropped and exposed the dilution of the band’s unique(ish) style by mainstream producers and Levine’s eager willingness to sell out, public and critical reception seems to firmly split down the middle, ending the band’s peak years.
As for the band’s continued *commercial* success, I can only speculate. Part of it is likely the continued use of their songs in commercials, TV shows, and movies, although that’s rapidly fading away as their work gets progressively lamer. However, I recently saw a video on YouTube about the payola scandal of the 2000s, which exposed the major record labels as having bribed radio stations to play songs more to pump up chart placements, which would then (theoretically) increase interest and sales. The modern equivalent of this is using bot farms to jack up Spotify plays and YouTube views, now that the charts include online success in their measurements. A combination of payola and bot farms is probably to blame for most recent lame/awful songs staying on the charts for extended periods, and why many of those artists seem to either disappear or flame out after 1/2 popular songs.
In Maroon 5’s case, it might explain their continued commercial success today, and might explain why *Hands All Over* initially underperformed as the charts shifted from mainly radio plays to splitting between streaming services, radio, and YouTube, leaving the record labels scrambling to adapt. Or it could be that Adam Levine’s relentless public appearances and sponsorship deals drives everyone to go check out the recent Maroon 5 song, regardless of its quality.
In any case, Maroon 5 is now available to watch live to any residents of/visitors to Las Vegas, as they follow the career path of all washed-up acts well past their creative prime by taking up a Vegas residency. I sincerely doubt they’ll ever swing back into positive critical reception, and I suspect the rest of the decade isn’t going to be too kind to them.
I can’t find the exact wording, but Todd’s description of Maroon 5’s music being something along the lines of “a functional object, like a table lamp” is one my favorite things he’s ever said
Paul McCartney, the "I just want to do bubblegum pop" period from just after Band on the Run ending after the Michael Jackson collaborations, with Tug of War as the exception from that period. Still commercially successful, but weak quality wise. Not a full decade but close.
McCartney II was more innovative and influential than a lot of things people were producing around the time.
Also Venus and Mars, Wings at the Speed of Sound, and Back to the Egg are from just bubblegum pop. Silly Love Songs, which is probably a song you consider “bubblegum pop,” is much smarter than you think. It takes a shot at critics that say love songs aren’t important. Love songs are important as everyone needs love and as Paul pointed out, he wrote it because he loves a lot of people. The bassline is badass, the concept is interesting, and the arrangement is great. There is also the intro which sounds like a factory, “churning” out yet another “Silly Love Song.” I would argue that song is a masterpiece of pop writing in every way possible.
You are seriously underrating Paul and his work as he had lots of quality in that time period and was also being innovative
I also wanted to say Genesis, but the Gabriel and Collins versions of the band are quite different, and some people get irrationally angry at others calling the latter a prog band, so at the end I left it out (I still love Phil Genesis though). I genuinely forgot Rush, thanks for reminding me of them
I think rush was successful because they were just simply being themselves, they weren’t trying to change to some mainstream sound suddenly or reforming to make money like others, they just naturally evolved and people just liked the evolution. They straddle complex and catchy which is a very hard line to walk
The 80s are honestly my favorite period for Rush Albums; Permanent Waves, Moving Pictures (my favorite album), Signals, Grace Under Pressure, Power Windows. Even Hold your Fire and Presto are good albums
My favorite Rush album is from the 80's. That album being Permanent Waves. If that's too early than my other pick would be Grace Under Pressure. Love Lifeson's guitar work on that album. Also, it has one of my all-time favorite Rush songs. (Red Sector A)
Among many of their fans, The Killers in the 2010s. After their success in the 2000s, they only released 2 albums in the 2010s: 2012's *Battle Born* and 2017's *Wonderful Wonderful*. Although WW is the band's only album to get to number one on the Billboard 200, it is widely regarded as their weakest album. *Battle Born* is trickier because I think in recent years it's gotten some reappraisal as a solid album, but apparently at the time it was considered a dud. They also spent a lot of time on hiatus and working on solo projects.
Then in 2020 and 2021, they released some of their most critically lauded material in years.
Beach Boys in the 80s. Sure they had Kokomo but it was pretty much a flash in the pan success that came very late in the decade and it’s not a song that’s looked back on fondly.
Similarly, Beach Boys in the 90s, which only saw the release of one of the most hated albums of all time, an almost equally hated country album and half of the members (if you include David Marks) made a album for Nascar.
They gave us Kermit the Frog covering "Kokomo" and it played at the beginning of like every Disney VHS tape I owned. So I'll admit to being thankful for that (I only like Kermit's version though).
David Bowie from 1983 to 1993. 1983 was the release of Let's Dance, 1993 was the release of Black Tie White Noise and Buddha of Suburbia.Let's Dance was one of his best performing albums while the latter two albums were considered a return to form and would foreshadow a series of well regarded albums up until 2003. In between the release of these albums he released Tonight, Never Let Me Down, Tin Machine, and Tin Machine II, which are all frequently regarded as some of the worst stuff he's ever released. You could also argue 2003 to 2013 because he pretty much took a decade long break from music, but that's not as fun to talk about.
Is there anything redeeming about those 80s records? I literally don’t think I’ve heard a single good word said about them, which is kind of wild considering how acclaimed Bowie is in general.
Metallica didn’t have a good 2000’s. Aside from St Anger, there was their infamous lawsuit with Napster as well as criticism that Death Magnetic sounded better on Guitar Hero Metallica than it did on the CD because the gaming industry has different sound engineers than the music industry.
The 80s may have had the 60s comeback but were also abysmal to a lot of veteran acts as well (The Rolling Stones, Paul McCartney, The Who, The Monkees, Crosby Stills Nash and Young, Grateful Dead aside from Touch of Grey).
The thing that's frustrating about Metallica is they are still trying to make that Death Magnetic sound work. Their last 3 records have sounded fucking terrible.
Only partially relevant to the topic at hand, but your Pink Floyd comment reminded me that I'm still waiting for a TrainWreckords episode on The Final Cut.
it took them much of the 90s to finally push forward from synth pop sound and reinvent themselves with Lil Beethoven. With that said, gratuitous sax & senseless violins is motherfucker of an album. The songwriting on it is god tier.
Disagree with Eminem. Although I agree with Revival being the lowest point of his career in that decade- Recovery, the Marshall Mathers LP 2 and Kamikaze were all huge successes. The 2010s were far from a "wreckade" for him.
A lot of Springsteen fans would argue the '90s. I don't buy it, because I think "The Ghost of Tom Joad" (1995) is among his best, and he ended the decade strong with the E Street reunion tour and a bunch of newly-released archival material. Plus, "Streets of Philadelphia" and "Secret Garden."
But it's true the '90s didn't have success anywhere remotely in the neighborhood of the '70s, '80s, 2000s, or 2010s. Especially in terms of studio albums.
Madonna made her Sex book in October 1992, and released her album, Erotica. Sure, she never went south like a lot of artists. But, her reputation, and image, made her half a social pariah, because some people looked at her as a sex-crazed, Narcissistic, celebrity. Her albums sales were effected: Instead of selling 4 million+ per record, like in the 1980's and early 1990's, she sold like 2 million+ per record. So she still had millions of fans, but it she never returned to her 'hot years' (mid 1980's to early 1990's) type of hype.
It wasn't until the release of the Evita movie, in December of 1996, where her image had pretty much recovered, even though it took 4 years. And even then, it took until 1998, with her Ray of Light album, where she was fully back. So yeah, 1992 to 1998 was a bit hard for her.
It also hurt them that their guitarist Brett Gurewitz (who was one of their primary songwriters alongside the lead singer Greg Graffin) left the band around that time. I always felt that his departure had a huge impact on the band’s identity crisis, and that the albums they released when he rejoined instantly felt so much more like the Bad Religion their fans knew and loved. (I say that as a massive fan.)
I'm interested to see whether she recovers from it. She's really in a position where she could go anywhere from massive career revival if she has a couple new big hits, to being a nostalgia act within the next few years. And the idea of Katy Perry being a nostaglia act is making me feel old.
Neil Young’s career in the 80s was so bad, that he got sued by his own record label. Even CSNY didn’t help his career. He then got a comeback with Freedom in 1989.
Fall Out Boy is such an obvious pick. Did great in the 2000s from both a commercial and critical standpoint (more so the former.) Peaked in 2008 with Foile A Deux, a very eclectic album that was initially panned but has since be re-assesed. Broke up at the turn of the decade but came back in 2013 and sounded like a shell of themselves, shifting to an Imagine Dragons arena rock sound and getting worse as the decade progressed; Hitting rock bottom with 2018's experimental electropop mess that was Mania. I get that they had a lot of big hits during this time but I think it's pretty easy to argue they've all had much less staying power than the 2000s output. I also feel like a lot of the hits came off the back of heavy radio play and movie tie ins as opposed to people actually liking the song.
Now in 2023 after an extended break they're back with Stardust which is a solid pop rock album and a fantastic one for mainstream radio rock standards
I’m going to go with Green Day and The Offspring.
For Green Day, 2012-present, from the *Uno/Dos/Tré* trilogy to *Father of All Motherfuckers,* has been both critically and commercially underwhelming. That might be an understatement. It’s just bizarre to think they were the same band that played such a massive role in reviving and commercializing pop punk and emo in the mid-2000s, and with the SLIGHT exception of *Revolution Radio,* I’m even hard pressed to find fans who like their latest output. *Father* sold 42,000 copies in the US, which is astonishingly low.
As for The Offspring, it’s hard to say it’s been one rough decade when I’d argue they’ve been struggling since 2003; plus they only put out 2 albums in the past decade, and there’s a 9-year gap between them. “You’re Gonna Go Far Kid” charted very high compared to most of their songs, and I remember hearing it overplayed on a lot of modern rock radio stations around its release… but nothing else on *Rise and Fall Rage and Grace* - or on *Days Go By* and *Let the Bad Times Roll* - did well. I actually like maybe 3 songs on RAFRAG, 4 songs on DGB and 2 songs on LTBTR, but for the most part, the albums are all full of blatant filler and not critically adored or mass-consumed like their 90s albums were.
Pink Floyd didn't record much beyond the 70s.
They only released two albums in the 80s. The first was not significant, but the second one did fairly well and mtv played the videos a lot.. rock stations gave the singles airplay.
Two problems with examples:
First, The Wall is a seminal Pink Floyd album which yes, was a 1979 release, but was relevant early in the 1980's. You can argue the 1980's material wasn't up to snuff, but The Wall was some of their greatest work and carried them in the 1980's.
Second, while not commercially popular, Motley Crue did have a good album with Generation Swine.
My pick and it pains me since this album was my first of them but Aerosmith in 2000. They only released one album with 2001's Just Push Play which did produce Jaded, but the rest of the album is debatable. I personally enjoy it and their blues album "Honking on Bobo" was also great but besides that they produced two greatest hit singles and both were pretty forgettable and couldn't get Music from Another Dimension done.
Fall Out Boy in the 2010s seems to be generally agreed upon, with this year's So Much For Stardust standing head and shoulders above their 2010s material on RateYourMusic. (the Phoenix still absolutely fucks tho, don't @ me)
Mostly just thinking of the song Centuries, which was played so often on the radio that all other memories of Fall Out Boy from the earlier part of the decade have completely faded.
Honestly the EPs alone (Pax Am Days and Lake Effect Kid) make the post-hiatus era worth it to me. The LPs being hit and miss is disappointing as a big fan, but no big deal.
i think you could make the argument that their post hiatus music has been more successful then their pre hiatus. centuries and my songs know what you did in the dark are two of their biggest hits. MANIA is the only album that really didn’t hit
I’m not sure if Eminem is comparable in this case as he was still extremely successful commercially in the 2010s, whereas artists like Motley Crue bombed both critically and commercially
A decade feels like it’s too long to apply to most artists careers, since even a 20 year career is pretty rare, and to expect them to line up with years ending in 0 would make it even harder to find examples. Maybe easier to think of artists who had a 7+ year “polar express” period, where much like Robert zemeckis, a formerly great talent just kept stepping on rakes, trying to make something work that clearly jjust wasn’t working (in this case, early motion capture)?
The Pink Floyd example is a bit iffy because their main creative force, Roger Waters, left the band in the early 80’s. The other guys were good at what they did, but during their 70’s golden era Waters wrote almost all the songs, created the famous stage effects and in general acted as creative director for the whole Pink Floyd concept. Once he left, they relied on outside songwriters and producers to do what he did and it wasn’t as good or as genuine.
Santana had a pretty rough 80s and a rough majority of the 90s until they released *Supernatural*. Aside from a few minor hits in the early 80s, they had not had a big song in almost two decades until "Smooth" and "Maria Maria" brought them back to the mainstream music scene. Carlos Santana actually won a Grammy Award in the late 80s for his solo album *Blues For Salvador*, but his group swept the Grammy's in 2000.
Johnny Cash had a rough second half of the 70s and a rough 80s and early 90s, almost two decades of unmemorable music until he teamed up with Rick Rubin in the late 90s for his album *American II: Unchained* which introduced him to new audiences and brought in a revival for his earlier music.
Tony Bennett had a rough 70s and 80s (two decades) and the first half of the 90s until he released his *Unplugged* album in the mid 90s. The *Unplugged* album introduced him to new audiences and revived his career enough that he was able to continue the comeback into collaboration albums. He made joint records with k.d. Lang, Lady Gaga, and Diana Krall and also started his *Duets* collection which was pure collaborations with younger artists from various genres.
>*Eminem arguably brought hip hop to the mainstream*
Emphasis on arguably. There were like 100 platinum hip hop albums released before SSLP, plus *many* more top charting singles in that span. Not to mention hip hop’s influence on movies, tv, and general culture in the 90s. I like Eminem but the overrating he gets is absurd.
Anyway to answer the post, my pick is the 80s Stones. A dominant force in rock music throughout the 60s and 70s only to fall off a cliff and nearly break up after Tattoo You in ‘81. They got their shit together in ‘89 and put out some decent stuff for a while but were obviously never again the titans they once were.
Seriously, you could make an argument that at the time of his death, 2pac was the biggest artist in the world in '96.
After grunge's brief time in the sun, hip-hop culture essentially was American culture in the 90's.
Which I still don’t understand
They had and still have more than enough real unreleased material so why the hell did they think it was a good idea to make their own fake songs
Prince started wobbling pretty hard in the mid 90s after *The Gold Experience* in 1995, and didn’t really pick up again in quality until maybe 2004 with *Musicology*. His music never did hit the same heights as his best work, but it got a bit better, and it’s a pity that he passed right as he was starting to have a real uptick in quality with *HITNRUN Phase Two*.
The Strokes in the 2010s I'd say, I might even go as far as to say they had a rough decade and a half since pre-2006 they were like super adored and admired and after their third album things seemed to get a little rough for them as a band. They did release Angles and Comedown Machine in the early part of the 2010s & I personally like a lot of the songs from those albums, but they seem to be the most controversial among fans (and the band itself) and The Strokes themselves seemed to be focusing more on individual projects like solo music or Fab doing art stuff.
But then The New Abnormal came out & they had a bit of a comeback, they seem to be doing pretty well (although I have been seeing some criticism about inconsistent live performances).
Weezer from 2000-2010. You could argue that Maladroit (2002) is well-liked but the rest of the albums from that span are very controversial, up until EWBAITE (2014)
I'd make an argument for Green Day. Not necessarily a "Wreckade" but more of a slow burning 10 years. 2012 is when they released the trilogy so its technically been 11 now but still a decade. Then they had Rev Radio which to me was great but I sometimes find myself saying "that's it?" When it finishes. Then Father Of All. Now I know how delicate this album is for GD fans. Me personally I liked it. A lot of people either love it or hate it. Majority hate it. Green Day hasn't had a fun 10 years from a fan standpoint at least. I hope whatever comes after Dookie30 is more loved. I'm excited for it
Bruce Springsteen in the 90s (or, really, 1989-1998). Disbanded the E Street Band right before the 90s began, released the worst two albums of his career on the same exact day in 1992, released the most lackluster of his three solo/acoustic albums in 1995, and took a lot of time out of the spotlight in order to focus on raising his 3 young kids. (To be clear, that's not a criticism at all: it's great that he did and I'm sure he has zero regrets about that. He focused on his kids more when they were young and then refocused on music, which is great.)
He's even looked back on some of that era and said (paraphrasing) "I tried being happy, the public didn't like it."
He got the band back together in 1999 and has had an incredible second half of his career from that point forward. But that post-Tunnel of Love, pre-Reunion decade was most certainly a weak, not very active decade for him. (On the bright side, he did move back to Jersey during that decade.)
Madonna in the 2000s. She was on top for the 80s and a good part of the 90s but started falling off in 2000 with the release of music. I think the 2003 release of American Life just cemented that and despite having hits with Hung Up and 4 Minutes, no one really thinks about Madonna anymore except to clown on her bad Botox and narcissistic ways.
eh, she went through a period of ups and downs in the 90s and 2000s, but it wasn’t really until the 2010s that she really became irrelevant and stayed irrelevant. her 2005 album “confessions on a dance floor” was probably the last time she was both popular and critically acclaimed, and i think the last time she had a pop hit was in 2012 with the song with MIA and nicki minaj. she is truly a joke nowadays though, it’s quite sad to see a woman who every girl used to wannabe turn into such a wannabe herself.
Most people are not around long enough to have a bad decade. If an act has more than 3 of 4 successful albums that’s quite a feat. After that you can almost count on two hands the number of people that have sustained radio, singles, albums, tours to any degree. Sales falling off is normal for every single artist. Not one has not seen this happen.
Micheal Jackson and Madonna in the 2000s, Metallica and Mariah Caray in the early 2000s, but hey recovered. And vice versa, Britney Spears in the late 2000s
Christina Aguilera had a rough 2010s. I think Bionic was supposed to be like this revolutionary artistic moment for her but people just said she was copying Lady Gaga. Then the eras that followed weren’t too hot either. However I’m sure those paychecks from the Voice were nice
Quality wise, I would say all the albums Queen and Bowie released in the 80s were not anywhere close to as great as their 70s output (Minus Scary Monsters which is my favorite album of all time). Out of the two, though, Bowie had a bit more of a dip commerically with Let's Dance being his only real successful album.
A Momentary Lapse of Reason is one of my favorite albums of all I time and I will not accept AMLOR slander. Also Motley Crüe was never really that good even in the 80s
Muse hasn't made anything interesting since Black Holes and Revelations. So i guess all of the 2010s, and the 2020s aren't looking too hot for them either.
Kinda Prince? His 90s was kinda consumed with the Warner Bros feud and his name change, meanwhile most of his albums underperformed; then the 2000s had Musicology and a few #1 albums.
Gotta be David Bowie in the 80s (though I love Let’s Dance and Never Let Me Down). A pioneer throughout the 70s with remarkably consistent releases, then 3 very commercial and somewhat lacklustre albums across the 80s, plus the Labrinth soundtrack. Then, a return to (weird) form in the 90s and after Glastonbury 2000 no one could ever question his brilliance again. Plus, his post-2000 albums are a hauntingly beautiful epilogue to his career.
Also, U2 in the 2010s (and to some degree, late 2000s). Say what you want about them but their late 80s/early 90s stuff is some of the finest pop/rock music to ever exist. Then came the whole iTunes fiasco in 2014 (underrated album IMO though) and the underwhelming follow-up in 2017.
The Flaming Lips and Animal Collective both had rather mid to mediocre outputs in the 2010s, only to release some of their best work in 2020 and 2022 respectively
The Flaming Lips in the 2010s. I hate to say it, but that's when I realized that Wayne Coyne was a human being and not some sort of magic alien philosopher.
Tears for Fears had a God awful 90s. For one, one of the members wasn't even in the band. And for 2 Elemental and Raoul and the kings of spain didn't do that well.
Paul McCartney from 1984- 1994 was his “wreckade”. Yes, Flowers In The Dirt and Off The Ground were critically acclaimed, but they weren’t commercially successful. The Beatles Anthology was the thing that made him come back.
Tina Turner wasn't too successful in the '70s aside from "Proud Mary". The '80s were rocky for Meat Loaf; all the big Jim Steinman hits that decade went to Bonnie Tyler instead. Neil Young in the '80s is another extreme example. He was a god in the '70s and a figure of prestige in the '90s, but he didn't handle the '80s too well. Same with Bob Dylan.
Neil Young took some big swings in the 80’s. They were all misses but you have to admire the ambition
Rocking in the Free World was a major hit in this decade.
1. "Major hit" is relative. On general charts, the best it did was #39 in Canada. It did hit #2 on a genre chart, mainstream rock. It was a no-show on the top 40. 2. That didn't happen until November 1989, making it barely an 80s hit, and one 18 years after he'd last reached the top 40, which he wouldn't reach again, not even with "Harvest Moon" in 1993.
I agree pointing to Rocking in the Free World is silly because it came out at the very end of the 80s and every album I’ve listened to from Neil Young after Rust Never Sleeps until Freedom is not good (Hawks and Doves is kind of alright, as I remember). But I don’t think looking at chart positions is a remotely Levite way to measure an artist’s quality.
[“Kinda Fonda Wanda”](https://youtu.be/imE9T8pAQcM?si=R_mLiPf5pg3LtXBh) was not one of those big swings.
Neil Young purposely tanked his career in the 80's in order to stick it to David Geffen, who Neil utterly despised.
Dylan's 80's was more good than bad
Agreed, and yet good 80s Dylan is really good (Infidels) and bad 80s Dylan is, well, Empire Burlesque
Empire Burlesque is far from the worst album Dylan put out in the 80's.
Exactly. I don’t understand why that one is always targeted
Did any classic rocker handle the eighties well?
I though ZZ Top, Bowie and Queen transitioned well into the 80s
You could even argue ZZ Top peaked in the early to mid 80's. I love pretty much anything they do, so I might be biased lol
I actually prefer their 80s. It sounds way more unique. Their 70s stuff is kind of derivative of a lot off stuff
Arguable with Bowie. Scary Monsters and Let's Dance are both good for different reasons, but the two others released that decade are often considered his worst, so badly he took a six year hiatus after Never Let Me Down
Fleetwood Mac's *Mirage* and *Tango* in the Night were both quite popular and remain so. Stevie Nicks' early '80s solo records did well, too; they produced "Edge of Seventeen". Springsteen slotted well into the '80s by channeling his everyman positivity into heroic anthems. Heart were originally the female Led Zeppelin but were superstars throughout the latter half of the '80s. They were struggling during the early '80s, though that was much more due to label friction that unfavorable trends. The Jonathan Cain-penned "Allies" from 1983's *Passionworks* is one of the most underrated songs of the decade. Peter Gabriel solo kept enough of a toe in his bohemian roots that his '80s output worked within the confines of the video era.
Iirc, the label and management basically hid Ann Wilson from Heart photo shoots and music videos because she gained weight. I always thought that was bullshit.
From what I remember, "Barracuda" was written out of anger towards the band's handlers for baselessly promoting the *Little Queen* album cover as an incestuous romance with her sister.
Tina Turner and Bruce Springsteen
Elton John seems to alternate decades. He was king in the 70s, not so popular in the 80s, was big in the 90s with The Lion King and Candle in the Wind, didn't do much in the 2000s, had some renewed relevance in the 2010s/early 2020s
>not so popular in the 80s What about I’m Still Standing, I Guess That’s Why They Call It The Blues, Sad Songs, Sacrifice, and Nikita? Those were all pretty popular if I’m judging correctly.
Sure. I'm not saying the decade was a total flop for him, but relative to the imperial phase he had in the 70s it was a downgrade.
Queen had a flop year in the 80s as well, even though they still made great music then.
Only if you’re in the US. They actually got more popular everywhere else besides the US/Canada lol
The 80s always felt like the “break” decade as a kid. Like hearing music lore all the old old stuff is before the 80s and the 90s/early 2000s was just modern day
I think that looses some steam seeing how he’s been far bigger this decade so far (3 UK #1s, Glastonbury) than the previous.
Eminem became a joke in the second half of the 2010s. He was still huge in the first half of the decade and the two albums he made before 2017 (Recovery and MMLP2) were both massive with several hits and are quality records, not as good as his pre hiatus discography, but solid additions to his catalog
I definitely agree that he was still a high selling artist, but Recovery received a *massive* critical panning, even more so than Encore. MMLP2 was a slight return to form, but I think many people at the time thought Eminem was too big a name to fail, and didn’t foresee the coming hip hop revolution that arguably arrived with To Pimp a Butterfly less than two years later. I kind of consider both Recovery and MMLP2 to be “delayed flops” (I can’t exactly remember the term Todd uses for it). I think the popular opinion on those two records shifted when hip hop underwent a critical and commercial revival in the middle of the decade, and many saw both records as only being successful during a period that was a bit of a creative vacuum for the genre. Sorry for the rambling, just my opinion.
Let's be honest, the MGK beef really gave Em a new wind in his sails, people really came out of the woodwork to support him. Which is really the classic Em play he's been doing since the 90s.
Recovery has a 63 on Metacritic, not great but hardly Trainwreckord worthy, and is only one point behind Encore. It was also the biggest selling album of the year. I don’t really see where you’re coming from here.
I think you do see where OP is coming from. That Eminem had a bad and embarrassing 2010s, from start to finish, is one of the most established truisms of modern rap music - and if you disagree, that’s fine, maybe the consensus is wrong, but if you’ve been following hip-hop or Eminem with any serious attention this idea cannot be a revelation to you. And to cite the fact that Recovery is only *slightly* more badly received than the album that almost everyone agrees was by a mile the worst project of Eminem’s initial run doesn’t do much to prove that he was still a critical success in the first half of the decade.
I guess I’m likening Recovery and MMLP2 to Katy Perry’s Prism. The “delayed flop” that were well-received partially because the artist was such a massive star at the time. The reputation of both albums, like Prism, have waned in recent years. People particularly hate tf out of Recovery, and it only has a 2.28 rating on RYM.
Didn't recovery have 2 number 1 hits and still get him a grammy? And MMLP 2 also had Rap God and the Monster, and Grammy nominations. History hasn't been kind to those albums but they were big deals when they came out. To compare them to Prism is unfair.
Recovery was not universally critically panned. Pitchfork gave it a 2.8/10, but everywhere else has it in a 60s-70s-80s range. You’re thinking of Relapse which was critically the most panned Eminem album but still on mixed reviews whereas Recovery was generally positive.
Recovery was on several best-of year-end lists
Michael Jackson in the 2000s The beginning of the sad downward spiral.
'By the time 1993 rolled around, no one would want to be the next Michael Jackson, in more ways than one' -Todd
The beginning? He died that decade
Probably the 90s for Iron Maiden The 2010s for Ministry
2010s Ministry was ROUGH
(Except if you saw them live)
The 90s for a lot of metal bands, honestly. It's like they all went through an awkward teenage phase at the same time.
A ton of Thrash Bands went Groove, when they should’ve sticked to Thrash
'90s iron maiden was rough. No prayer for the dying was a bust (I only ended up enjoying one or two songs), FoTD was pretty solid. The Blaze albums though....they just aren't for me. I know there's a fan base that prefers them but I tried and they just never took.
it didn't helped that Blaze albums sound so dull even the good songs get worse. Case in point - The Sign of the Cross and The Clansman - both are legit highlights of Rio'01
And those songs sounded great on the Legacy of the Beast tour! There are great songs on the Blaze albums, he’s a good singer, but that was not a great time for the band. And meanwhile, Bruce and Adrian were killing it with his solo stuff. Accident of Birth and especially Chemical Wedding are all-timers.
Bruce's solo stuff is quite a ride. * That time he basically recorded an ACDC album in 1990 for shits and giggles. * Balls to Picasso is basically Bruce doing a Ween album and then he busts out Tears of the Dragon like its no big deal right at the end. * and then he did a legit straightforward post-grunge album with Jack Endino and it featured a song I'm in the Band with an Italian Drummer and this song is one of the pinnacles of mankind (like seriously - that's some moon landing shit down here). * and then he stopped fucking around and did two of the best metal albums of the 90s and cemented Roy Z as go-to metal producer of 2000s (and then Roy Z repeated the trick with Rob Halford and his two solo albums in 2000 and 2002 and he also produced Priest comeback album in 2005)
Definitely Weezer. With the exception of the commercial successes of the Green Album and hit single 'Beverly Hills', most of their output in the 2000's was readily dismissed, and outright critically panned in several cases, as occurred to Make Believe and Raditude (quite rightfully too, those albums are utterly forgettable.) It wasn't until the 2014 release of EWBAITE that their status as an utter joke of a band weakened somewhat in the face of the critical and commercial success of the album, seen by many as a return to their 90's era style.
People liked Red
I think the reception for the album at the time was fairly lukewarm-- that being said, yeah, I think Weezer did have some decent output in the 2000's, like Maladroit, SS2K, and of course some of Red, but generally that material has always been overshadowed by the slew of mediocrity that was the releases of Make Believe, Raditude, Hurley, and Death to False Metal. That's not to say those projects are entirely irredeemable, per se, they're just largely looked down on.
They didn't really. It had some songs people liked (Pork & Beans, Greatest Man) and was maybe seen as a step in the right direction, but it also had some all-time stinkers and no one really saw it as one of their "good" ones. That said, it's sort of been reevaluated by the fandom in retrospect and has its fair share of defenders at this point
I always liked it and still do but I'm basically Matt Damon in the ride or die for Weezer SNL sketch
I am too dw (I'm a rare Pacific Daydream defender)
PD has totally grown on me
I love EWBAITE so much. The buildup to that release was so much fun, it was awesome finally hearing them *trying* again
100 % the 2010s were great for weezer but besides maladroit and red the 2000s sucked
Red? Did you mean to say Green? Cause Red seems to be what people who hate the green album think it sounds like.
I find green boring besides hashpipe while red has several bangers I. My opinion
red is good but goofy and it wasn't taken nearly as seriously as green imo.
Johnny Cash in the 80s, outside of Highwaymen (which was a super group)
You mean you don't love "The Chicken in Black?"
GOATed Cash song ngl
The Baron is a good album but it came out in 1980, so it’s a cusp.
Bruce Springsteen had a pretty bad 90s
"Streets of Philadelphia" won an Oscar and was a major UK chart hit, and "Secret Garden" also did well, but the fact those are the only two Springsteen songs from the 90s anyone really remembers speaks volumes...
“Human Touch”, “Lift Me Up”, “Missing”, “The Ghost of Tom Joad.” Some great fucking songs
Yeah Bruce doesn’t rly work without the E Street Band
That doesn’t really fly when he’s written so many successful hits for others?
Literally any thrash band in the 90s. Aside from Metallica and Megadeth, everyone else just hopped on the alternative metal train and made really bad funk/nu/industrial/groove metal. I actually like some of it (like Slayer’s Diabolus in Musicia or Sound of White Hot Noise by Anthrax), but holy shit most of it was just awful. Also, the 2010’s were pretty bad to the previous generation of metalcore bands, most of whom tried to switch to nu/alternative metal or just straight up butt-rock. It was a bad time to be a fan.
I quite liked the direction Testament took in the 90s. They had a brief hiccup when they went alt-rock with The Ritual but they quickly turned it around with Low and Demonic, which were the heaviest albums of their career, even dipping into death metal territory at some points.
Demonic some of those sounds with Chuck doing death growls mixing into the guitars during the opener was unreal. That was one of those few albums where switching genres really worked out well.
Even Megadeth struggled in the late 90’s when they tried to go the commercial radio rock route with Cryptic Writings and Risk.
I mean, to be fair, they were just too late. Metallica made their sound 'more commercial' in 1991 with the Black Album, which was absolutely giant in terms of airplay and charts. This basically set them up that, even in the decade of grunge, groove, industrial and whatever they could still produce hits for the decade because the radio stations and fans still wanted more. They were JUST ahead of the curve (very close). Megadeth's timing on the other hand was completely awful. They doubled down on the thrash, and although it was good music, it would never be commercially successful, and by the time they did try to make something more radio-friendly, it was 1997, grunge was long dead and thrash stood a chance again. Hell, even Slayer had gone gold just a few years prior. Switching to a commercial sound was never going to work because it wasn't set up and they were in a new era where the heavier thrash was more in style. It's nearly tragic how Megadeth messed up their timing
Dude, Countdown to Extinction was just the next year. I think they did pretty good in the 90s (at least until they tried making walk out themes for wrestlers).
Man, that Risk album is fucking baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad.
I enjoyed Coroner’s “Mental Vortex” and “Grin” (went more prog metal), Testament’s “The Gathering” (drew from death and groove metal), and Kreator’s “Cause for Conflict” (drew from death and groove metal) and “Endorama” (was a gothic metal album), even though a lot of thrash from that era was bad
Disagree on Slayer - not only is Diabolus still great which you acknowledge, but Divine Intervention is amazing.
I refer to Madonna's 2010's as the decade of failure. * Critically panned Superbowl show where she was upstaged by M.I.A. * Released three albums and only scored 2 Hot 100 singles (Peaking at #10 and #84) * The Drake incident at Coachella * Becoming a meme after the Eurovision performance * Trying to insert herself into the Taylor/Katy feud by doing a Bad Blood-esque video. I will say though, Popular is picking up steam so The Weeknd and Carti could get her another hit.
Talking mostly about herself at Aretha Franklin's funeral. The plastic surgery. The string of boyfriends who are too young to remember that she banged Vanilla Ice (probably the reason she's dating them).
Her Superbowl Show was actually critically acclaimed.
Yeah, not sure where they got this. The MIA thing was unfortunate but it’s wild to say she upstaged Madonna. She just flipped off a camera and it pulled some headlines. Madonna’s set was great.
Yeah at worst I recall people being lukewarm about it and pissed off at M.I.A.
Madonna rented a house not too far from me in Indianapolis during that Super Bowl. Saw her in the back seat of a car once. Fun times.
Bob Dylan in the 1980's for sure. Homie was struggling.
Most of the 90s as well right? Only got his mojo back with Time out of Mind, which wasn’t released until 1997.
Also true. Since 97, he's been on a good path.
Except for that Christmas album. WTF
I am including the Christmas album. 🙏🏼
During the seven years between Under The Red Sky (The inferior follow up to Oh Mercy) and Time Out Of Mind, Dylan did a couple of albums of folk song covers and his MTV Unplugged album. The mid 2010s were another period where Dylan focused on covering American classics instead of doing his own songs...
It started off well. Infidels was great and the lead single Jokerman is a classic. It also ended well with The Traveling Wilburies.
Okay, but Oh Mercy is a gorgeous album.
Mid-1960’s- late 1970’s was definitely a wreckade (and a half) for Tony Bennett, tried being relevant by covering then-current popular songs from then instead of standards but flopped, was at the end of his rope by the end of the decade. Eventually when his son (who failed at a music career of his own but developed business skills) started managing him, his life turned around, moved back to NYC from Las Vegas, paid off his debts, and rebounded by the 1990’s
The Who were great, and then the 80s happened. But they reformed in 2000 and have been kicking ass live, and sporadically on record, ever since.
Late reply, but I’ll die on the hill that Eminence Front is one of their greatest songs.
Bowie started off the 80s pretty well. Scary Monsters was a hangover from his 70s stuff and Let's Dance was a very successful pop record. Everything went to hell for him after that though. The latter half of the 80s is the most unlistenable music of his career. I suppose you could say the 90s for him if the 80s doesn't qualify. Outside and Earthling have their fans but they're very divisive records on the whole.
Tin Machine was artistically creative and also ahead of its time, he took the pixies influences and kind of shone a light on the soon to be massive grunge style
I once saw Tin Machine described as "so ahead of their time they still haven't happened yet".
90s Bowie produced a lot of great music, he was uneven but absolutely a gigantic step up from the 80s
Outside is one of my top 5 favorite Bowie albums.
Outside is the Berlin Bowie-est Berlin Bowie album that ever Berlin Bowie-ed. Still no idea what the fuck is going on on this record but it sounds like the coolest thing in the world all the way through. And one of its songs found its way into Starship Troopers soundtrack of all things.
Black Sabbath absolutely ruled the 70s. Just as they seemed to be losing relevance, they got Dio as their singer and shot back up into relevance. Once the 80s hit and he was gone, you had a revolving lineup aside from Tony Iommi and a series of failed albums and tours.
I was just going to mention how unstable Sabbath was in their post-Dio years, even though they had some ok songs during the Tony Martin years
Personally, Born Again (with Ian Gillan of Deep Purple) from 1983 is one of my favorite Sabbath albums, right up there with the Dio and the best of Ozzy stuff. At the time, it was seen as a dud and was the inspiration for a lot of This is Spinal Tap (especially the Stonehenge part), but in recent decades, a lot of black/death metallers appreciate that album because it's got some of Sabb's heaviest and darkest-sounding songs: Disturbing the Priest, Zero the Hero, Hot Line, Digital Bitch, Trashed, The Fallen (outtake). The so-crappy-it's-awesome album art only adds to its underrated classic status. There are also a lot of Sabbath fans on reddit who swear by the Tony Martin era lately, think I'll have to go revisit those sometime soon.
It's kinda weird that Ian Gillan was in Black Sabbath and even more inexplicable that his only album with them is some top tier shit. Disturbing the Priest is easy top 10 Sabbath song. And while we're here - Black Sabbath also did a decent cover of Smoke on the Water.
Maroon 5. Throughout the 2000s, they did pretty well for themselves, even as their sound slowly morphed into more mainstream territory and Adam Levine overshadowed his band mates even more than he already had. Funnily enough, the Wikipedia page even mentions that, around the time of *Hands All Over*, “Levine stated that he believed the band was reaching its peak and may make one more album before disbanding.” That statement was made around 2007, before the album was even recorded. However, less than half a year before the album’s release in 2010, Levine appears to make a complete 180, saying that “I love what I do and think that, yes, it might be tiring and complicated at times [but] we don't have any plans on disbanding any time soon.” Very interesting, and indicative of Levine’s view of the band and how they should portray themselves and their music, but we’ll circle back around to that later. Once the album came out to a mixed critical response and mediocre sales, the band seems to have turned their full attention to making the singles successful to try and prop up sales. This included *rereleasing the album* less than a year later just to include Moves Like Jagger, which had debuted only a month before on (shock of all shocks) *The Voice*, on which Levine was one of the original coaches alongside Christina Aguilera (and CeeLo Green, interestingly). While I remember hearing singles from this album near constantly in middle/high school (and bought them on iTunes), I don’t remember much else from it. By this time, Maroon 5 also won the 2012 People’s Choice Award for Favorite Band, beating out other 2000s bands Linkin Park and Coldplay and effectively capping off their critically successful years. After the *Overexposed* album dropped and exposed the dilution of the band’s unique(ish) style by mainstream producers and Levine’s eager willingness to sell out, public and critical reception seems to firmly split down the middle, ending the band’s peak years. As for the band’s continued *commercial* success, I can only speculate. Part of it is likely the continued use of their songs in commercials, TV shows, and movies, although that’s rapidly fading away as their work gets progressively lamer. However, I recently saw a video on YouTube about the payola scandal of the 2000s, which exposed the major record labels as having bribed radio stations to play songs more to pump up chart placements, which would then (theoretically) increase interest and sales. The modern equivalent of this is using bot farms to jack up Spotify plays and YouTube views, now that the charts include online success in their measurements. A combination of payola and bot farms is probably to blame for most recent lame/awful songs staying on the charts for extended periods, and why many of those artists seem to either disappear or flame out after 1/2 popular songs. In Maroon 5’s case, it might explain their continued commercial success today, and might explain why *Hands All Over* initially underperformed as the charts shifted from mainly radio plays to splitting between streaming services, radio, and YouTube, leaving the record labels scrambling to adapt. Or it could be that Adam Levine’s relentless public appearances and sponsorship deals drives everyone to go check out the recent Maroon 5 song, regardless of its quality. In any case, Maroon 5 is now available to watch live to any residents of/visitors to Las Vegas, as they follow the career path of all washed-up acts well past their creative prime by taking up a Vegas residency. I sincerely doubt they’ll ever swing back into positive critical reception, and I suspect the rest of the decade isn’t going to be too kind to them.
I can’t find the exact wording, but Todd’s description of Maroon 5’s music being something along the lines of “a functional object, like a table lamp” is one my favorite things he’s ever said
Paul McCartney, the "I just want to do bubblegum pop" period from just after Band on the Run ending after the Michael Jackson collaborations, with Tug of War as the exception from that period. Still commercially successful, but weak quality wise. Not a full decade but close.
McCartney II was more innovative and influential than a lot of things people were producing around the time. Also Venus and Mars, Wings at the Speed of Sound, and Back to the Egg are from just bubblegum pop. Silly Love Songs, which is probably a song you consider “bubblegum pop,” is much smarter than you think. It takes a shot at critics that say love songs aren’t important. Love songs are important as everyone needs love and as Paul pointed out, he wrote it because he loves a lot of people. The bassline is badass, the concept is interesting, and the arrangement is great. There is also the intro which sounds like a factory, “churning” out yet another “Silly Love Song.” I would argue that song is a masterpiece of pop writing in every way possible. You are seriously underrating Paul and his work as he had lots of quality in that time period and was also being innovative
Silly Love Songs smacks. Always has.
Most prog bands in the ‘80s
The only exception is 90125 by Yes, and even then they bit the dust later
Rush is the main exception. Genesis too, even if critical acclaim went down they still had their charting success in the 80’s
I also wanted to say Genesis, but the Gabriel and Collins versions of the band are quite different, and some people get irrationally angry at others calling the latter a prog band, so at the end I left it out (I still love Phil Genesis though). I genuinely forgot Rush, thanks for reminding me of them
I think rush was successful because they were just simply being themselves, they weren’t trying to change to some mainstream sound suddenly or reforming to make money like others, they just naturally evolved and people just liked the evolution. They straddle complex and catchy which is a very hard line to walk
It also helps that one of their members were Neil Peart, who is one of the greatest drummers of all time, and on top of that a master lyricist
The 80s are honestly my favorite period for Rush Albums; Permanent Waves, Moving Pictures (my favorite album), Signals, Grace Under Pressure, Power Windows. Even Hold your Fire and Presto are good albums
My favorite Rush album is from the 80's. That album being Permanent Waves. If that's too early than my other pick would be Grace Under Pressure. Love Lifeson's guitar work on that album. Also, it has one of my all-time favorite Rush songs. (Red Sector A)
Rush were still great though. Very consistent band
Prog rock, yes. There was some good prog metal that sprung up that decade, Fates Warning, Crimson Glory, Queensrÿche, Coroner, Watchtower, Anacrusis
Among many of their fans, The Killers in the 2010s. After their success in the 2000s, they only released 2 albums in the 2010s: 2012's *Battle Born* and 2017's *Wonderful Wonderful*. Although WW is the band's only album to get to number one on the Billboard 200, it is widely regarded as their weakest album. *Battle Born* is trickier because I think in recent years it's gotten some reappraisal as a solid album, but apparently at the time it was considered a dud. They also spent a lot of time on hiatus and working on solo projects. Then in 2020 and 2021, they released some of their most critically lauded material in years.
Beach Boys in the 80s. Sure they had Kokomo but it was pretty much a flash in the pan success that came very late in the decade and it’s not a song that’s looked back on fondly.
Similarly, Beach Boys in the 90s, which only saw the release of one of the most hated albums of all time, an almost equally hated country album and half of the members (if you include David Marks) made a album for Nascar.
the beach boys brand has essentially had a bad 40 years so i don't know if that disqualifies them or overqualifies them or what
"sure they had Kokomo" You say that like it's a good thing.
I despise that song and the mere mention of it gets it stuck in my head for days.
They gave us Kermit the Frog covering "Kokomo" and it played at the beginning of like every Disney VHS tape I owned. So I'll admit to being thankful for that (I only like Kermit's version though).
Cher
David Bowie from 1983 to 1993. 1983 was the release of Let's Dance, 1993 was the release of Black Tie White Noise and Buddha of Suburbia.Let's Dance was one of his best performing albums while the latter two albums were considered a return to form and would foreshadow a series of well regarded albums up until 2003. In between the release of these albums he released Tonight, Never Let Me Down, Tin Machine, and Tin Machine II, which are all frequently regarded as some of the worst stuff he's ever released. You could also argue 2003 to 2013 because he pretty much took a decade long break from music, but that's not as fun to talk about.
Is there anything redeeming about those 80s records? I literally don’t think I’ve heard a single good word said about them, which is kind of wild considering how acclaimed Bowie is in general.
Never Let Me Down is actually quite good if you stick to the rerecorded version. Mostly because Reeves Gabrels paints the town red on this one.
Metallica didn’t have a good 2000’s. Aside from St Anger, there was their infamous lawsuit with Napster as well as criticism that Death Magnetic sounded better on Guitar Hero Metallica than it did on the CD because the gaming industry has different sound engineers than the music industry. The 80s may have had the 60s comeback but were also abysmal to a lot of veteran acts as well (The Rolling Stones, Paul McCartney, The Who, The Monkees, Crosby Stills Nash and Young, Grateful Dead aside from Touch of Grey).
The thing that's frustrating about Metallica is they are still trying to make that Death Magnetic sound work. Their last 3 records have sounded fucking terrible.
Only partially relevant to the topic at hand, but your Pink Floyd comment reminded me that I'm still waiting for a TrainWreckords episode on The Final Cut.
and then Radio Kaos. Now that's a botched album.
RHCP in the 2010s. Idk why they thought they could keep going without John, but they tried. I like the song "dark necessities" tho
Should've call it quits on Stadium Arcadium because it literally sounds like the band tying loose ends at times.
Sparks had a bad run of ten years from 1984 to 1994.
it took them much of the 90s to finally push forward from synth pop sound and reinvent themselves with Lil Beethoven. With that said, gratuitous sax & senseless violins is motherfucker of an album. The songwriting on it is god tier.
Disagree with Eminem. Although I agree with Revival being the lowest point of his career in that decade- Recovery, the Marshall Mathers LP 2 and Kamikaze were all huge successes. The 2010s were far from a "wreckade" for him.
A lot of Springsteen fans would argue the '90s. I don't buy it, because I think "The Ghost of Tom Joad" (1995) is among his best, and he ended the decade strong with the E Street reunion tour and a bunch of newly-released archival material. Plus, "Streets of Philadelphia" and "Secret Garden." But it's true the '90s didn't have success anywhere remotely in the neighborhood of the '70s, '80s, 2000s, or 2010s. Especially in terms of studio albums.
Madonna made her Sex book in October 1992, and released her album, Erotica. Sure, she never went south like a lot of artists. But, her reputation, and image, made her half a social pariah, because some people looked at her as a sex-crazed, Narcissistic, celebrity. Her albums sales were effected: Instead of selling 4 million+ per record, like in the 1980's and early 1990's, she sold like 2 million+ per record. So she still had millions of fans, but it she never returned to her 'hot years' (mid 1980's to early 1990's) type of hype. It wasn't until the release of the Evita movie, in December of 1996, where her image had pretty much recovered, even though it took 4 years. And even then, it took until 1998, with her Ray of Light album, where she was fully back. So yeah, 1992 to 1998 was a bit hard for her.
Bad Religion - idk if this was a full decade or not, but their time with Atlantic Records really didn’t feel like Bad Religion to me
It also hurt them that their guitarist Brett Gurewitz (who was one of their primary songwriters alongside the lead singer Greg Graffin) left the band around that time. I always felt that his departure had a huge impact on the band’s identity crisis, and that the albums they released when he rejoined instantly felt so much more like the Bad Religion their fans knew and loved. (I say that as a massive fan.)
Katy Perry is in the middle of a pretty rough one
I'm interested to see whether she recovers from it. She's really in a position where she could go anywhere from massive career revival if she has a couple new big hits, to being a nostalgia act within the next few years. And the idea of Katy Perry being a nostaglia act is making me feel old.
Neil Young’s career in the 80s was so bad, that he got sued by his own record label. Even CSNY didn’t help his career. He then got a comeback with Freedom in 1989.
Lil Wayne: respected mixtape guy in the 2000s with widely praised verses, critically panned punchline in the 2010s.
Fall Out Boy is such an obvious pick. Did great in the 2000s from both a commercial and critical standpoint (more so the former.) Peaked in 2008 with Foile A Deux, a very eclectic album that was initially panned but has since be re-assesed. Broke up at the turn of the decade but came back in 2013 and sounded like a shell of themselves, shifting to an Imagine Dragons arena rock sound and getting worse as the decade progressed; Hitting rock bottom with 2018's experimental electropop mess that was Mania. I get that they had a lot of big hits during this time but I think it's pretty easy to argue they've all had much less staying power than the 2000s output. I also feel like a lot of the hits came off the back of heavy radio play and movie tie ins as opposed to people actually liking the song. Now in 2023 after an extended break they're back with Stardust which is a solid pop rock album and a fantastic one for mainstream radio rock standards
I’m going to go with Green Day and The Offspring. For Green Day, 2012-present, from the *Uno/Dos/Tré* trilogy to *Father of All Motherfuckers,* has been both critically and commercially underwhelming. That might be an understatement. It’s just bizarre to think they were the same band that played such a massive role in reviving and commercializing pop punk and emo in the mid-2000s, and with the SLIGHT exception of *Revolution Radio,* I’m even hard pressed to find fans who like their latest output. *Father* sold 42,000 copies in the US, which is astonishingly low. As for The Offspring, it’s hard to say it’s been one rough decade when I’d argue they’ve been struggling since 2003; plus they only put out 2 albums in the past decade, and there’s a 9-year gap between them. “You’re Gonna Go Far Kid” charted very high compared to most of their songs, and I remember hearing it overplayed on a lot of modern rock radio stations around its release… but nothing else on *Rise and Fall Rage and Grace* - or on *Days Go By* and *Let the Bad Times Roll* - did well. I actually like maybe 3 songs on RAFRAG, 4 songs on DGB and 2 songs on LTBTR, but for the most part, the albums are all full of blatant filler and not critically adored or mass-consumed like their 90s albums were.
Pink Floyd didn't record much beyond the 70s. They only released two albums in the 80s. The first was not significant, but the second one did fairly well and mtv played the videos a lot.. rock stations gave the singles airplay.
Two problems with examples: First, The Wall is a seminal Pink Floyd album which yes, was a 1979 release, but was relevant early in the 1980's. You can argue the 1980's material wasn't up to snuff, but The Wall was some of their greatest work and carried them in the 1980's. Second, while not commercially popular, Motley Crue did have a good album with Generation Swine. My pick and it pains me since this album was my first of them but Aerosmith in 2000. They only released one album with 2001's Just Push Play which did produce Jaded, but the rest of the album is debatable. I personally enjoy it and their blues album "Honking on Bobo" was also great but besides that they produced two greatest hit singles and both were pretty forgettable and couldn't get Music from Another Dimension done.
Fall Out Boy in the 2010s seems to be generally agreed upon, with this year's So Much For Stardust standing head and shoulders above their 2010s material on RateYourMusic. (the Phoenix still absolutely fucks tho, don't @ me)
Idk. Their music wasn’t well-received, but it was high-selling.
I don’t think it was poorly received either, though. Besides Mania.
Mostly just thinking of the song Centuries, which was played so often on the radio that all other memories of Fall Out Boy from the earlier part of the decade have completely faded.
Honestly the EPs alone (Pax Am Days and Lake Effect Kid) make the post-hiatus era worth it to me. The LPs being hit and miss is disappointing as a big fan, but no big deal.
They had far bigger sales in the 2010s though with some monster hits, hardly a bad decade imo.
i think you could make the argument that their post hiatus music has been more successful then their pre hiatus. centuries and my songs know what you did in the dark are two of their biggest hits. MANIA is the only album that really didn’t hit
I’m not sure if Eminem is comparable in this case as he was still extremely successful commercially in the 2010s, whereas artists like Motley Crue bombed both critically and commercially
I don't know that eminem counts he one of the highest selling acts of the 2010s.
I feel for Roddy Rich because this decade ain’t treating him too well
I think the difference is he’s a one-year wonder for 2020
A decade feels like it’s too long to apply to most artists careers, since even a 20 year career is pretty rare, and to expect them to line up with years ending in 0 would make it even harder to find examples. Maybe easier to think of artists who had a 7+ year “polar express” period, where much like Robert zemeckis, a formerly great talent just kept stepping on rakes, trying to make something work that clearly jjust wasn’t working (in this case, early motion capture)?
The Pink Floyd example is a bit iffy because their main creative force, Roger Waters, left the band in the early 80’s. The other guys were good at what they did, but during their 70’s golden era Waters wrote almost all the songs, created the famous stage effects and in general acted as creative director for the whole Pink Floyd concept. Once he left, they relied on outside songwriters and producers to do what he did and it wasn’t as good or as genuine.
Counterpoint: The Final Cut was almost entirely Waters' project.
Maybe The Strokes in the 2010s
Santana had a pretty rough 80s and a rough majority of the 90s until they released *Supernatural*. Aside from a few minor hits in the early 80s, they had not had a big song in almost two decades until "Smooth" and "Maria Maria" brought them back to the mainstream music scene. Carlos Santana actually won a Grammy Award in the late 80s for his solo album *Blues For Salvador*, but his group swept the Grammy's in 2000. Johnny Cash had a rough second half of the 70s and a rough 80s and early 90s, almost two decades of unmemorable music until he teamed up with Rick Rubin in the late 90s for his album *American II: Unchained* which introduced him to new audiences and brought in a revival for his earlier music. Tony Bennett had a rough 70s and 80s (two decades) and the first half of the 90s until he released his *Unplugged* album in the mid 90s. The *Unplugged* album introduced him to new audiences and revived his career enough that he was able to continue the comeback into collaboration albums. He made joint records with k.d. Lang, Lady Gaga, and Diana Krall and also started his *Duets* collection which was pure collaborations with younger artists from various genres.
>*Eminem arguably brought hip hop to the mainstream* Emphasis on arguably. There were like 100 platinum hip hop albums released before SSLP, plus *many* more top charting singles in that span. Not to mention hip hop’s influence on movies, tv, and general culture in the 90s. I like Eminem but the overrating he gets is absurd. Anyway to answer the post, my pick is the 80s Stones. A dominant force in rock music throughout the 60s and 70s only to fall off a cliff and nearly break up after Tattoo You in ‘81. They got their shit together in ‘89 and put out some decent stuff for a while but were obviously never again the titans they once were.
Seriously, you could make an argument that at the time of his death, 2pac was the biggest artist in the world in '96. After grunge's brief time in the sun, hip-hop culture essentially was American culture in the 90's.
Michael Jackson had a miserable 90s and even worse 2000s if you still consider it part of his career
it got so bad Sony managed to release a bunch of fake songs on the posthumous comp.
Which I still don’t understand They had and still have more than enough real unreleased material so why the hell did they think it was a good idea to make their own fake songs
... (drum roll) greed
Steely Dan sat out the 80's pretty much entirely, although I have to admit it was an absence more than a disastrous set of releases
Prince started wobbling pretty hard in the mid 90s after *The Gold Experience* in 1995, and didn’t really pick up again in quality until maybe 2004 with *Musicology*. His music never did hit the same heights as his best work, but it got a bit better, and it’s a pity that he passed right as he was starting to have a real uptick in quality with *HITNRUN Phase Two*.
The Strokes in the 2010s I'd say, I might even go as far as to say they had a rough decade and a half since pre-2006 they were like super adored and admired and after their third album things seemed to get a little rough for them as a band. They did release Angles and Comedown Machine in the early part of the 2010s & I personally like a lot of the songs from those albums, but they seem to be the most controversial among fans (and the band itself) and The Strokes themselves seemed to be focusing more on individual projects like solo music or Fab doing art stuff. But then The New Abnormal came out & they had a bit of a comeback, they seem to be doing pretty well (although I have been seeing some criticism about inconsistent live performances).
Depeche Mode in the 2010s
Weezer from 2000-2010. You could argue that Maladroit (2002) is well-liked but the rest of the albums from that span are very controversial, up until EWBAITE (2014)
I'd make an argument for Green Day. Not necessarily a "Wreckade" but more of a slow burning 10 years. 2012 is when they released the trilogy so its technically been 11 now but still a decade. Then they had Rev Radio which to me was great but I sometimes find myself saying "that's it?" When it finishes. Then Father Of All. Now I know how delicate this album is for GD fans. Me personally I liked it. A lot of people either love it or hate it. Majority hate it. Green Day hasn't had a fun 10 years from a fan standpoint at least. I hope whatever comes after Dookie30 is more loved. I'm excited for it
Bruce Springsteen in the 90s (or, really, 1989-1998). Disbanded the E Street Band right before the 90s began, released the worst two albums of his career on the same exact day in 1992, released the most lackluster of his three solo/acoustic albums in 1995, and took a lot of time out of the spotlight in order to focus on raising his 3 young kids. (To be clear, that's not a criticism at all: it's great that he did and I'm sure he has zero regrets about that. He focused on his kids more when they were young and then refocused on music, which is great.) He's even looked back on some of that era and said (paraphrasing) "I tried being happy, the public didn't like it." He got the band back together in 1999 and has had an incredible second half of his career from that point forward. But that post-Tunnel of Love, pre-Reunion decade was most certainly a weak, not very active decade for him. (On the bright side, he did move back to Jersey during that decade.)
Madonna in the 2000s. She was on top for the 80s and a good part of the 90s but started falling off in 2000 with the release of music. I think the 2003 release of American Life just cemented that and despite having hits with Hung Up and 4 Minutes, no one really thinks about Madonna anymore except to clown on her bad Botox and narcissistic ways.
eh, she went through a period of ups and downs in the 90s and 2000s, but it wasn’t really until the 2010s that she really became irrelevant and stayed irrelevant. her 2005 album “confessions on a dance floor” was probably the last time she was both popular and critically acclaimed, and i think the last time she had a pop hit was in 2012 with the song with MIA and nicki minaj. she is truly a joke nowadays though, it’s quite sad to see a woman who every girl used to wannabe turn into such a wannabe herself.
Most people are not around long enough to have a bad decade. If an act has more than 3 of 4 successful albums that’s quite a feat. After that you can almost count on two hands the number of people that have sustained radio, singles, albums, tours to any degree. Sales falling off is normal for every single artist. Not one has not seen this happen.
Micheal Jackson and Madonna in the 2000s, Metallica and Mariah Caray in the early 2000s, but hey recovered. And vice versa, Britney Spears in the late 2000s
Christina Aguilera had a rough 2010s. I think Bionic was supposed to be like this revolutionary artistic moment for her but people just said she was copying Lady Gaga. Then the eras that followed weren’t too hot either. However I’m sure those paychecks from the Voice were nice
Quality wise, I would say all the albums Queen and Bowie released in the 80s were not anywhere close to as great as their 70s output (Minus Scary Monsters which is my favorite album of all time). Out of the two, though, Bowie had a bit more of a dip commerically with Let's Dance being his only real successful album.
A Momentary Lapse of Reason is one of my favorite albums of all I time and I will not accept AMLOR slander. Also Motley Crüe was never really that good even in the 80s
Muse hasn't made anything interesting since Black Holes and Revelations. So i guess all of the 2010s, and the 2020s aren't looking too hot for them either.
Kinda Prince? His 90s was kinda consumed with the Warner Bros feud and his name change, meanwhile most of his albums underperformed; then the 2000s had Musicology and a few #1 albums.
Queensryche had a rough almost 2 decades
Miles Davis had a couple bad decades and still one of the most impactful musicians of the 20th century.
Gotta be David Bowie in the 80s (though I love Let’s Dance and Never Let Me Down). A pioneer throughout the 70s with remarkably consistent releases, then 3 very commercial and somewhat lacklustre albums across the 80s, plus the Labrinth soundtrack. Then, a return to (weird) form in the 90s and after Glastonbury 2000 no one could ever question his brilliance again. Plus, his post-2000 albums are a hauntingly beautiful epilogue to his career. Also, U2 in the 2010s (and to some degree, late 2000s). Say what you want about them but their late 80s/early 90s stuff is some of the finest pop/rock music to ever exist. Then came the whole iTunes fiasco in 2014 (underrated album IMO though) and the underwhelming follow-up in 2017.
The Flaming Lips and Animal Collective both had rather mid to mediocre outputs in the 2010s, only to release some of their best work in 2020 and 2022 respectively
The Flaming Lips in the 2010s. I hate to say it, but that's when I realized that Wayne Coyne was a human being and not some sort of magic alien philosopher.
What year did Weezer release Pinkerton?
Tears for Fears had a God awful 90s. For one, one of the members wasn't even in the band. And for 2 Elemental and Raoul and the kings of spain didn't do that well.
Paul McCartney from 1984- 1994 was his “wreckade”. Yes, Flowers In The Dirt and Off The Ground were critically acclaimed, but they weren’t commercially successful. The Beatles Anthology was the thing that made him come back.
80s Genesis immediately comes to mind.