Some general impressions
You all probably thought the same when hearing about the new album of GC: '****, spare me more of the stuff like "Lifestyles of the rich and the famous"...' I read some articles on this album before it's release, heard some interviews by the band, stating that it is much more mature than their older work. Well, I had the opportunity to listen to it a couple of times, as I borrowed the CD from a friend. It comes in two flavors, the 'Life Edition' and the 'Death Edition', each with it's own bonus track. I checked both out (one at a record store)
So, what's the general impression? The intro is quite surprising. Japanese choir, and an orchestral arrangement. Sounds actually not bad. Even a bit... epic. The first 'real' song... WTF? Back to normal, sounds like the average Pop-Punk stuff to me. Not much difference on the following tracks. 'What's the big deal about maturity and stuff, not making only pop-punk stuff?' Good question...
Overall, it all sounds a bit darker. Lyrics-wise as well as speaking of the music. What really is new, are the orchestral/'foreign instrument' parts in some songs (Intro of 'Predictable' for instance. piano on 'The truth') or nice acoustic passages ('S.O.S.'). It seems that there are more samples used.
What I really like about the album:
Ok, going in a bit more specific, what was good on this album? Some songs are done real nice. 'The Truth' with it's main piano theme has a nice emo touch to it. The two guitars are used in a normal manner. I see the need for two guitarists here, not as normal with some other bands. But, I've heard that done better. Still, not bad. While listening, I really got the feeling on many songs, that they really try to advance their work and musical horizon.
What was not so good:
Ok, the intention is there, but still the first genre that I think of when I hear this stuff is Pop-Punk. The orchestral parts are nice, and give new accents, but it's not enough to bring it all into a whole new direction. The instrument work sounds normal, nothing very special there. Or I must have missed it if it's there.
Summary:
To sum it up: Nice effort, but... The stuff is, as Pop-Punk often is, very catchy. The record seems darker, which mostly comes from 'darker' lyrics. It has this little epic touch here and there, coming from the use of instruments foreign to this genre normally. Songs like The Truth or Predictable with it's intro can show that. I got the impression that the intention was there to do something 'bigger and more sophisticated', yet it does not really come out that way. Predictable really grew on me, and I actually like that song quite a bit, but the rest of the album kind of failed to impress.
Regarding the special versions: Both bonus songs are ok, nothing very bad, nothing especially good. Best would be to take the CD for a test drive and decide what song you like better.
My song suggestions:
"Predictable" - nice intro, quite catchy. not bad
"The Truth" - Mostly a piano track. This is probably the track that impressed me the most. Falls out of order the whole way it's set.
"In this World (Murder)" - Has all in all a more melancholic touch. Good example for the darker side of the album.
It really annoys me that every pop-punk band feels the need to 'grow up'. They have a place in the world, writing catchy, throwaway songs -and a lot of them are very good at it. But all these albums that are coming out with 'grown up' sounds are embarassing.
To be fair, though, this isn't a disaster on the scale of Blink 182. There's some cool touches on it, and when they attempt to expand, rather than grow up, they show some real potential.
[QUOTE=Iai]Eh. Couldn't really give a toss. Millencolin and NOFX sound the same as GC to me, just better.[/QUOTE]
I can understand Green Day or Blink (at one point in their career anyway) being called pop-punk. Good Charlotte just don't have any real element of punk anywhere in their music. They don't even play anything that punkish at all.
[QUOTE=SubtleDagger]I can understand Green Day or Blink (at one point in their career anyway) being called pop-punk. Good Charlotte just don't have any real element of punk anywhere in their music. They don't even play anything that punkish at all.[/QUOTE]
exactly, they just dress the part, and they go waaaaaay overboard, even with that. However, we debated this shitty band to death for the review of the last GC album, so unless some people are ready to make some actually valid points, let it die.
[QUOTE=Kif]That really is depressing that you can play a Millencolin song, then a Good Charlotte song and not see the difference.
Good Charlotte are clearly trying to fit in with the music constantly over-played on MTV, Kerrang (Yeah, I said it!) and the likes, whereas Millencolin have continued making pop-punk tunes which stay in your head for all the right reasons; because they are good.[/QUOTE]
Both have guitars. Both use simple structures. Both use the standard rock-band format. Both are very melodic and catchy. Both have a clear 'pop' element to them.
Millencolin have better melodies, slightly better riffs, and better lyrics. That doesn't make them a different genre altogether.
Relatively, yes. Play The Hives, NOFX, Miles Davis, Public Enemy, Aphex Twin, JS Bach, and Darkthrone in a row, and The Hives and NOFX will sound similar.
On their own, not as much, but still to an extent. The Hives bring a little more to the table - flecks of garage rock, rock'n'roll, even ocassionally rockabilly. Plus the vocalists are totally different.
Thing is with that comparison, though - punk these days isn't that far removed from non-balladic pop to start with. Simple to play instrumentation, minimalist (not in the Steve Rice way) arrangements, a mostly rhythm-driven sound, simple yet effective melodies.....punk just adds distortion, a less tuneful singer, and an occassional misinformed political comment.
There are exceptions to that, of course. But Millencolin, NOFX, and GC aren't examples of that.
Hey, I can understand what ur sayin bout G/C not bein 'punk' cos they do hav a pop sound to em. But it is a bit harsh sayin tht ther nt pop punk, cos they play in a punk style of music. I'm nt a big fan of G/C, But they are quite a good punk pop band, bcos they write catchy songs, n if they wana 'grow up' then people shud judge on the music ratha than whether they like the band. you can't critisize em for they people they are either, cos I bet they probabli like the same type of punk/punk pop music that evri1else dus.
The new cd of wat iv heard of it is ok, n has sum good tracks on it, but its nt amazin. But I wish people wud stop slaggin off bands like GC, cos they do play as a punk/punk pop band, and Id like to see the people who do write and play a better punk song.
I always just took it that they were pop-punk leaning more towards the pop side than the punk whereas stuff like NOFX is on the opposite side of the genre. But lets not be genre Nazis, there's room for manuvere in a genre surely? I don't really mind their image, if that's what works for them then that's what works for them; it doesn't affect me really. I've heard Predictable and it's alright for what it is but I don't paticularly like it, espcially when he starts to talk in the middle. I've been known to shout at the television when GC are "playing" their guitars without moving their fingers on the frets or touching the strings but I do attempt to be tolerant.
Simple to play instrumentation? Try to play some of the Rancid basslines and then tell me that its simple. There are definitely a lot of bands out there that use the generic chords and have very simple music, but there are also a lot of punk bands that have very complex and excellent riffs.
I did say there are exceptions. Rancid are an exception when it comes to the difficulty of the instrumental passages, but I tend to overlook them, since whenever I hear Rancid I have an overwhelming urge to listen to The Clash instead.
[QUOTE=GingaJ]Hey, I can understand what ur sayin bout G/C not bein 'punk' cos they do hav a pop sound to em. But it is a bit harsh sayin tht ther nt pop punk, cos they play in a punk style of music. I'm nt a big fan of G/C, But they are quite a good punk pop band, bcos they write catchy songs, n if they wana 'grow up' then people shud judge on the music ratha than whether they like the band. you can't critisize em for they people they are either, cos I bet they probabli like the same type of punk/punk pop music that evri1else dus. [/quote]
Ignoring your spelling, that's a valid point. In fact, in The Anthem, Good Charlotte referenece Minor Threat fairly heavily, and I'd give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they really do love Minor Threat.
The new cd of wat iv heard of it is ok, n has sum good tracks on it, but its nt amazin. But I wish people wud stop slaggin off bands like GC, cos they do play as a punk/punk pop band, and Id like to see the people who do write and play a better punk song.
I don't tend to like a lot of pop-punk, but there are a couple of stellar pop-punk bands at my college, who I really enjoy. And I'd say they're better than most of the stars of the genre. But anyway, your assessment of the album is pretty much the same as mine.
On a tangent, I really do think that Good Charlotte have a lot of songwriting talent that's being wasted. I also said that about Avril Lavigne, and I stick to it, with both acts. And I think that, if the brothers maybe went seperate ways or worked on a new project that wasn't constrained by the commercial expectations they currently face, they could come up with something that would shock a lot of people.
[QUOTE=burton.and.gas]its time for a whose punk? whose sold out? conversation! yippeee![/QUOTE]
Hehe. It was kind of inevitable when this album got reviewed though.
Oh, if I haven't mentioned it before - it was a very good review, Damrod. Nice work.
