Yeah the growth and change from Shake Your Money Maker to the next two albums is unprecedented. It's like a totally different band really.

That makes sense. What I heard was good, but I was kind of wondering what the big deal was.

So have these guys done anything worth checking post Amorica? How many of the original members still plays in the band? I was wondering the other day how media reacted to Amorica's album cover back in 94?

yes they are worth checking out after Amorica. Three Snakes and One Charm is more of a fan favorite but loaded with great songs. It just doesn't seem to grab people on first listen like the albums before it but a great album nonetheless. Just a grower. By Your Side isn't that great but it has some good songs on there like Horsehead welcome to the goodtimes and a few others just kind of lacks cohesion. It seems like the band was just in a bad place at the time and it comes through on the record a bit. Lions is solid but not great considering songs like Ozone Mama made the cut. Warpaint and Before the Frost/Until the Freeze are great in my opinion but some people seem to have very different opinions about what is great about those albums.

Here's a good one from 3 Snakes & 1 Charm:

There's only 3 original members from the Shake Your Money Maker lineup (the Robinsons and Steve Gorman on drums). What is considered the classic lineup (with Marc Ford on lead guitar and Ed Harsch on keys) was what was touring in 2005 and most of 2006 (both those guys left before the Fall 2006 tour). It's also important to consider that most people consider the bassist who's been in the band since the reunion (Sven Pipien) is in every way superior to Johnny Colt from the original classic lineup period (92-97). And Luther Dickinson, who took over permanently for Ford in 2007, fits in much better than Audley Freed did from 98-01. He still does things that drive you nuts with some of the classic material, but he's a good fit. Adam MacDougall isn't as good as Ed (no one is for this band), but he's come a long way, especially on a song like Wiser Time.

As Veddar10 said, 3 Snakes is a challenging record at first but has some of the band's very best material on it. In fact, their first six albums matches up very well in terms of arc with Pearl Jam's. The first record is kind of their touchstone record, the second expands on the first and improves on it greatly, the third they start experimenting with different stuff and whatnot, the fourth is mellower and even more exploratory, the fifth is back to basics, the sixth is heavily experimental in nature.

By Your Side (album 5) is very engaging at first. It's very bright sounding and very much back to basics, but multiple listens (and in some cases very few listens, like on Heavy or Diamond Ring) starts to reveal its flaws. A lot of the b-sides from that era are terrific though, and well worth searching out (Smile, It Must Be Over, You Don't Have to Go, Peace Anyway in particular).

Lions (album 6) is very uneven. When it's awesome, it's awesome, and when it's not, it's not.

The other thing with BYS and Lions is that a lot of those songs evolved from better, earlier songs that the band wrote for 3 Snakes or for the junked Band album from 1997 (which is part of the "Lost Crowes" collection, essential listening if I do say so myself).

Warpaint is good but it's dragged down by the last 1/4 of the record, which I can't stand. I'd say those songs are the ones that are the most debated among fans.

Before the Frost...Until the Freeze is great for the first half, but the second half (i.e. the UTF disc) is just bad IMO. There's 3-4 good songs on that second disc and the rest I could go without ever hearing again.

I'll shut up now...

Matt's pretty much dead on until he gets it all wrong about the last two albums, which are stellar through and through.

there's nothing stellar about:

God's Got It
Whoa Mule (though my stance on this is softening slightly)
There's Gold in Them Hills
Aimless Peacock
Roll Old Jeremiah
Lady of Ave A
So Many Times
Fork in the River

there's very little stellar about:
Evergreen

other than that, the rest of the songs range from decent to fucking awesome

For those interested, a quick RAR file of mp3s of various b-sides and a couple of tracks that were only performed live (or studio recordings do not circulate)

http://www.mediafire.com/?5zec6l4j0og769q

you really don't like So many times. fork in the river. Lady of Avenue A roll old jeremiah or There's Gold in them Hills? There's Gold in them Hills has such a great bridge though. Whoa Mule is alright but definitely drags and is a set killer. Shine Along and Greenhorn are awesome too.

and Nebakkanezar was much better on the Lost Crowes version IMO

oh MattA...

whoa mule rules. So .....feel good.

nope, they all bore the fuck out of me...just not my thing...

and wtf are you talking about dude, Neb ain't on Lost Crowes? I'm assuming you mean Evil Eye?

I actually love all those songs!

Anyone know if both Boston shows are both acoustic/electric? I believe they are but wanted to check.

you're right I did mean Evil Eye. I still gotta disagree on those other song. I sorta see what you mean on Aimless Peacock; that song is a little pointless.

yup, both Boston shows are the two set variety

I'll be at Friday night's, only 6 days away, last time I'll see the band for quite a while I imagine

Great, thanks. I'll be at both nights. Looking forward to it.

I think considering the wide range of material they had already, but had not released (I think non fiction, for example, was a very old song.) they could have simply been holding something back, but its just a theory, I definitely remember SHMC being almost a very last minute, quickly developed record, but the quality of material that came together so fast (or maybe not) is quite impressive.

most of the songs for SHMC were developed on the road, but not until well after they had become established thanks to SYMM