» Back to review

Comments:Add a Comment 
Storm In A Teacup
November 19th 2005


45784 Comments


Not many like St. Jimmy, but I do.

Electric City
November 19th 2005


15756 Comments


St. Jimmy is the most punk song on the album, without a doubt. The Bullet in a Bible version's, pretty good.

Storm In A Teacup
November 19th 2005


45784 Comments


I like the Bullet in a Bible version, but may people don't.

Electric City
November 19th 2005


15756 Comments


Again! WTF! It's def a love/hate album/song.

Storm In A Teacup
November 19th 2005


45784 Comments


Indeed it is, although I am apparently the exception as I don't love it or hate it. I'm in between.


I wish there was a face that would show I'm high.

Storm In A Teacup
November 21st 2005


45784 Comments


I am posting a response to MusicOfficial about this review that he asked about in a different thread. Just to keep it all clean.


He(1039'Slappy Hours) told about the story in the review, but didn't really go into any other detail about the album.

nag*with*a*gun
April 13th 2006


420 Comments


god. everyone thinks green day is overrated. They are not, thanks.
The review was really good.. I totally agree with your highlights.
This album was kinda like green day breaking away from thier old "immature" (not that that's bad) stuff.
Good album, good band. They've been around for seventeen years, haven't they?



labonza01
May 4th 2006


546 Comments


ok, good review, it would be better if i liked this album, but, i just do not, i absolutely despise it. anyway, i didnt just come here to say that, i actually had something to say about the review and the band at the same time. in your review, you explain that BJA is angry at the mainstream. that implies that he hates it, and therefore, makes him one of the most hypocritical people i have ever encountered. if he hates the mainstream, then why did he ever want to publicize this album to the extent at which he did? if green day hates the media so much, then why do they come out with a new music video every so often, why would they pay major television networks to hold week-long marathons of themselves? does this make sense to anybody else? this could go on for hours, but i'll spare you. just voicing my opinion.

Steerpike
May 4th 2006


1861 Comments


Actually, most of what you're talking about is the label's doing, not the artists'.

labonza01
May 4th 2006


546 Comments


i beg to differ, but i dont want to start an arguement, so, before anything starts, you win, but i do beleive in my previous comment

Steerpike
May 4th 2006


1861 Comments


i beg to differ, but i dont want to start an arguement, so, before anything starts, you win, but i do beleive in my previous comment


Dude, this is not a topic of argument. Major labels do not let artists promote themselves. They have massive promotion departments which are given millions upon millions of dollars annually to turn every band that they can into a media sensation.

This is a verifiable fact. Please explain to my why large record labels would rather let bands promote themselves instead of getting college-educated experts in advertising and marketing to do the work much, much better than the artists themselves could. Can you come up with an argument that supports that kind of logic?This Message Edited On 05.03.06

The Sludge
May 4th 2006


2171 Comments


its a-boot democracy
its a-boot respect
its a-boot freedom of speech
its a-boot, its-aboot

I really really (x100) loved this review. It does count as a review because it told the extended story. Although it could have a little bit more on the music also... but still, great review.

labonza01
May 4th 2006


546 Comments


ok, steerpike, i knew that an arguement would arise, and i tried to stop it, but it happened anyway. now, my logic here is this, the band may not promote themselves, but they certainly can stop heavy heavy promotion from occuring. green day supposedly hates the media, so I'm pretty sure that they, as a band, are going to allow their label to promote them to the extent to which they have been promoted unless they were ok with it. they obviously are, or else the "campaigns" as i call them, would be much more minimal.

Foreskin Fondler
May 4th 2006


279 Comments


but if BJA hates the mainstream and the media so much than why doesn't green day return to their indie roots?

By the way labonza, it kinda seems like you hate this album because you hate the new green day look not their music. I agree that this album is pretty terrible but it does not deserve a 1.

Down N Out
May 4th 2006


1 Comments


Brilliant review, I dont know how people suggest Green Day as "sellouts", they've been around for nearly 17 years nobody should expect them to still play the same kind of stuff as they used to. Although what really annoys me is that it is attracting a lot of newer fans and that Green Day are getting a more 'popular image'. Who knows what kind of album will be next but the true fans should stick with them.

Steerpike
May 4th 2006


1861 Comments


but they certainly can stop heavy heavy promotion from occuring


Not really. Their contract says they just make albums. The rest of it is completely up to the label. That is how the recording industry works.

green day supposedly hates the media,


Green Day never said that. You're thinking of their idiot fans.This Message Edited On 05.04.06

CharmlessMan
May 4th 2006


169 Comments


I don't think Green Day have sold-out...They have grown-up, looked around at all the world's problems and decided they wanted to tell the world their political views through their music, and they have for once have got a point to prove. Their promoting to put their message out there. Everyone already knew before 'American Idiot' came out that Green Day were huge, As if making music with a more mature edge sold them out, if they put out another album like 'Dookie' or 'Nimrod', people would have grown tired of them and they probably would of sank like the Offspring did, but they grew-up, changed direction and saved their careers.

If Green Day ever sold-out it was in 1994 when 'When I Come Around' and 'Longview' completely dominated the mainstream.

Foreskin Fondler
May 5th 2006


279 Comments


^you obviously don't know how to use the term "sell-out".
Also The majority of the people who bought (or a large percentage) AI didn't know green day has been out there since the ninties. These are the sane retard kids who treat music as nothing more than a fad.

CharmlessMan
May 5th 2006


169 Comments


Are you directing that at me? coz if you were, what I was trying to put across (albeit in a bit of a mashed form :s) was that people are calling Green Day sell-out's because of how they have embraced the mainstream with their more accessable rockier direction and political message, and how they have sort of abandoned their punk roots, to put their message out into the world, which incedentely is consumed by the mainstream ...That was what I was trying to imply...

See, even trying to defend my confusing comment probably even confused people more...lol This Message Edited On 05.04.06

The Sludge
May 5th 2006


2171 Comments


Green Day never had to change their style to fit the mainstream. The furthest Green Day went is Warning, but it was experiemental Green Day. So I dont think that Green Day are sell outs, by the terminology used.



You have to be logged in to post a comment. Login | Create a Profile





STAFF & CONTRIBUTORS // CONTACT US

Bands: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z


Site Copyright 2005-2023 Sputnikmusic.com
All Album Reviews Displayed With Permission of Authors | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy