well we're not excited enough to shell out $100 to see them at the garden.
I think you should still be sad for them and how badly they lost the plot over the past decade and how desperately they're trying to cling to past glories. Plus, you should pity them for using the title "Supernatural Superserious." You can't fake excitement and this album is already the cause of enough fake excitement in the world of music critics. Let's not hang on too dearly to the past, ok?
i kind of disagree with the overall sentiment here though. yes, they are no longer what they used to be. not even close. but i do find it interesting that in 2008 - even after so many years of crap that i'm interested in what they are doing. i really don't think they are trying to cling to past glories. i get the impression that pete buck got bored with being boring. the dude likes to rock. his comments in the robyn hitchcock doc i saw recently were telling. he was quite derisive in his tone about the band. he hated their last LP. i think this album was an attempt to get back to the way they used to make records. writing the songs, recording them and being done with them rather than being in the studio for an hour.the album is only 35 minutes which is shorter than any album they've ever done, isn't it? i find that interesting. i actually think the production of the record is very good. it is definitely their most "rock" album since document. i just don't think it is a great album by any stretch.i don't think they are trying to recreate past glories as much as they just don't really have that much more new to say right now. understandable though and i can't fault them for still banging away at it. the new stuff they had to say from up - around the sun was dullsville. i agree with the pitchfork review that states that this album is a good first step back. i still want to hope that they can put out good albums. and i feel much more optimistic on that front now than i did at this time a year ago."You can't fake excitement and this album is already the cause of enough fake excitement in the world of music critics. Let's not hang on too dearly to the past, ok?"who is faking excitement? the band? the critics? i don't think either are. i think the band is excited to rock again. i think critics are excited that the band is rocking again. they are such a beloved band who is still trying. in today's climate, no one expects this to sell that well, do they? i just feel like the band wants to be better than they have been and i think critics are hopeful. your last sentence is so darn snarky, dude. that being said, the album really does remind me a lot of past efforts but what band that has put out 14 albums doesn't have moments that sound similar to past moments of glory. hell, mule variations sounds very similar to swordfish and rain dogs, doesn't it? then again, mule variations is awesome and the new r.e.m. reminds me of lesser versions of their past glory - in particular outtakes from life's rich pageant and with some borrowed melodies from automatic for the people and what's the frequency kenneth?but i do agree that the title of the single is pretty bad.
I see nothing wrong with clinging to past glories:)
Post a Comment