Album Rating: 1.0 | Sound Off
If listening to a band for nearly a decade makes me ignorant, then yeah I guess I am.
I was, for a brief moment in time, expecting something better than their last few releases. After all, what else could they have been doing for eight years?
There are no good moments here, and I'd love to hear where you think they are.
|
| |
i didnt see this coming
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0 | Sound Off
I like to listen to good rock 'n roll songs...AC/DC are a good band with great rock 'n roll tunes.This Message Edited On 10.20.08This Message Edited On 10.20.08
|
| |
so funny
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.0
After all, what else could they have been doing for eight years?
Why do you hold this time line thing against them... does it really matter.
There are no good moments here, and I'd love to hear where you think they are.
First three tracks, "Stormy May Day" "Spoilin' for a Fight" to name a few.
|
| |
Album Rating: 1.0 | Sound Off
Why do you hold this time line thing against them... does it really matter.
Let's use a local example.
2007 saw Birds of Tokyo release Day One, and 2008 saw them release Universes. Both albums were fantastic- well written, excellently arranged and very high in quality. That was a gap of maybe just over 12 months.
2000 saw AC/DC release Stiff Upper Lip, and 2008 sees them release this. That's a lot more time to come up with something good. And they did not deliver.
So yeah, I think a timeline matters.
|
| |
^but so does age. we're talking three decades of time between when these bands began.
to compare twenty-something BOT vs AARP card holding acdc, would make a poor addition to your original argument
edit: this doesn't nullify your 'time' argument, just the use of BOT as a sufficient example. Radiohead's in rainbows might be better being that they did take a LOT of time before in rainbows and the quality reflected that timeThis Message Edited On 10.20.08
|
| |
Album Rating: 1.0 | Sound Off
What about the Who? We had to wait 20-plus years for Endless Wire, and even that had some great songs on it.
|
| |
Or SMiLE by brian wilson.
These examples aside, I'd actually argue that the longer time spent away from making albums increases the likelihood of being out of touch
|
| |
dayamn, a 1? i agree this is probably derivative and boring as fuck, but it's as bad as souljaboytellem.com?
|
| |
Album Rating: 1.0 | Sound Off
I'd actually argue that the longer time spent away from making albums increases the likelihood of being out of touch
Definitely.
|
| |
Album Rating: 1.0
dayamn, a 1? i agree this is probably derivative and boring as ****, but it's as bad as souljaboytellem.com? well no, not as bad as that, but we couldn't rate that any lower than a 1, otherwise we'd have -5's but that would be a negative negative rating, which is a double negative, making it a positive rating, now is that what you want?
|
| |
just go buy live at donnington. it's really all you need. nothing has changed since then aside from they've released 2 or 3 albums i couldn't give a crap about.
good times live tho, if you can afford tickets
|
| |
Album Rating: 1.0 | Sound Off
They were rumoured to play the Big Day Out here in Australia, but that never happened.
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
Rock 'n Roll Dream (seems like their first ballad?) what about Ride On?
2000 saw AC/DC release Stiff Upper Lip, and 2008 sees them release this. That's a lot more time to come up with something good. And they did not deliver.
So yeah, I think a timeline matters While this is an understandable argument (yes, they had plenty of time between records) please consider the fact that there isn't much more they can do with the same style. Also, theywere probably touring for most of the last 8 years anyways. The band obviously still enjoys playing and performing, so now it's probably more of a hobby than a career for them.They probably couldn't care less if the record was a success or not. If the band likes a song they wrote...they're gonna release it, whether it's really good or just an okay song. That's why this album isnt as good as previous work.(Although I still like it)
|
| |
Album Rating: 1.0 | Sound Off
They probably couldn't care less if the record was a success or not
Only because they know they have a legion of morons who will wait outside the record store religiously for anything they put out.
|
| |
Also, theywere probably touring for most of the last 8 years anyways/ nope
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0 | Sound Off
Technically AC/DC themselves took a break starting 2003. Their SUL tour ended in 2001 but they continued doing some shows in the UK and Canada until 2003.
Most of the time between now and 2003 were spent with their families...the band said themselves they were going to take "long" break. Then once they got back together, their bassist broke his arm and couldn't play for at least a year and a half. Also, it took a LONG time with a bunch of legal stuff involving their record switch...and a bunch of other stuff I don't feel like typing.
Lots has happened since 2000, it's not like they've been working hard for eight years to put out out something amazing. However in my opinion this album is something special...one of my new favorite albums by them. Very well done AC/DC.
And I would hardly consider Ride On (amazing song!) a ballad.
|
| |
Quote
"well no, not as bad as that, but we couldn't rate that any lower than a 1, otherwise we'd have -5's but that would be a negative negative rating, which is a double negative, making it a positive rating, now is that what you want?"
lol i guess not
|
| |
Album Rating: 1.0 | Sound Off
it's not like they've been working hard for eight years to put out out something amazing
|
| |
|
|
