JimN wrote:Iain Purdon wrote:Would critics of the “watered down” sound put The Boys into that category?
No.
The Boys was often described as an FBI clone. In fact, it was a fair bit more aggressive than FBI (and better for that reason, in my opinion).
I am glad you agree on The Boys because it shows that changing the drummer and bass guitarist did not prevent the group from being aggressive when it wanted to be.
It seems to me that the key to the "sound" lies in the lead guitar and in the material chosen. Hank could have played his guitar on, say, Dance On the way he did on the hard-edged hits of earlier. But he didn't. Who knows why? Also, you can't keep recording the same tunes, which begs the question whether it was actually possible to keep things as they had been with the new material? They were still playing the old hits on stage with every bit as much gusto, however!
I don't personally like Foot Tapper much, by the way! My point about it being the peak of their achievement was that, with the Beatles et al nipping at their heels, they still managed to get a Number One hit with it and, unlike their previous chart toppers, they had written it themselves. So in terms of return on the investment they have every reason to be particularly proud of it.
I am not saying it is their best work, however. That's an entirely different question!
