Album Rating: 1.5
They had some songs on their first two albums that were decent pop-punk jams, but yeah Infinity on High was when they became a bit more polished. Then after their reformation they've just been unbearable.
|
| |
To be honest guys, FOB were never "artists" in the sense of the word. At least since Infinity On High, they've strived for the mainstream
I dunno, from FOB interviews I've actually come to think the opposite; that they have a very strong impulse to stay true to themselves and their artistic direction. I don't necessarily have to think that that yields good art, however. I just regard their notions of "quality music" as very different to my own.
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.5 | Sound Off
"This is their most critically acclaimed album to date (other than on sput of course). wut."
Hey, nice dig unaMUSEd!
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
Hi, I'll take one ticket for the 4 train, please.
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.5
Okay but is striving for acclaim a type of "art"? I can actually get behind that idea, as it takes extreme skill to consistently do well in the mainstream. Plus I agree that they have stayed true to themselves, albeit in a very hit-oriented, streamlined kind of way.
I dunno though, the notion that anyone would be disappointed in FOB's "artistic integrity" still seems laughable to me.
|
| |
Okay but is striving for acclaim a type of "art"?
It's not apparent to me that they "strive for acclaim".
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.5
You don't think they've been striving for acclaim? They abandoned all instruments and have autotuned the shit out of Patrick's voice. Maybe I'm just embittered, but to me it's quite obvious what they're going for.
|
| |
That's a logical conclusion to draw from their change of sound--straight from being a heavily rock-oriented pop band to almost completely dropping that rock component--but I definitely think they justified where they went stylistically; it wasn't solely a pursuit of popularity in contemporary radio pop. If anything, I think "contemporary radio pop" was their artistic direction. Patrick said a bunch of stuff in Rolling Stone that made sense to me:
"I hear a lot of bands complain as they get older, 'Oh, the new generation doesn't get us.' It's like, 'Well, you have to stay relevant by making music that's relevant to people.' What's fascinating to me is that you can't contrive that. You can't just make the same record that you made forever ago and expect that be something that will resonate with people. But you also can't go for radio and that kind of thing. You have to find this zen place when you find something that sounds like you, but also new."
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.5
'Well, you have to stay relevant by making music that's relevant to people.'
Doesn't that kind of prove my point though? I'm not saying that are losing all sense of identity in doing so, just merely that their appetite for mainstream attention is undeniable.
|
| |
There's a direct response to that at the end of the quote:
"But you also can't go for radio and that kind of thing. You have to find this zen place when you find something that sounds like you, but also new."
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.5
Okay but the "new" aspect of their sound is geared 100% towards this sleeker, radio-ready approach. With
each successive album, they've sacrificed additional elements of their identity in favor of pop-oriented
cliches. Now maybe that's the "change" that they're choosing to make in order to stay relevant, but it
still has a transparent agenda. They want to stay relevant but are conforming in order to do so instead of
inventing. Which brings me back to my original point that these guys have a gooey mainstream center -
that's just who they are. So why be disappointed in their artistic direction? They clearly aren't
trailblazers in any particular genre, besides maybe punk to pop crossovers.
|
| |
They want to stay relevant but are conforming in order to do so instead of inventing.
I think this is where we cross swords. Objectively, it is conforming; they certainly do lose "additional elements of their identity in favor of pop-oriented cliches" (their old identity, that is). However, that doesn't necessarily mean that the end goal is mainstream approval. I don't see a reason not to believe Patrick when he says he has to make "something that sounds like [the band], but also new." Similarly, I don't have to believe that there's any non-musical "agenda." I think this is music that they actually want to make because they like it. That's why I agree with you when you say "these guys have a gooey mainstream center - that's just who they are", although I'd append "as musicians" to the end of that statement.
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.5
Fair enough, but I think the whole struggle to remain relevant - and the entire process of selling out, intentional or not - can be avoided by simply making good music. This album is mediocre radio dribble; if they were still making songs with the same passion and investment as they were in 2006-2009, I don't think we'd be having this conversation. Take a look at bands like Jimmy Eat World and The Decemberists, who at least the latter of which I could still argue as highly relevant, and they've barely changed. It's always the bands that start putting in minimal effort (i.e. Fall Out Boy and their quest for the most under-instrumentalized, overproduced album of all time) that worry about staying in with the hip, new styles because the quality of the music doesn't sell itself.
|
| |
Fair enough, but I think the whole struggle to remain relevant - and the entire process of selling out, intentional or not - can be avoided by simply making good music.
COMPLETELY AGREED, especially with really popular huge bands who can make whatever record they want without having to worry about people listening to it, the way smaller bands do as they constantly need to seek out audiences. Good music stays relevant, even if it seems like it won't at first (e.g. Pinkerton, American Football, that band from the movie A Band Called Death).
|
| |
Album Rating: 1.0
^ Sorry, but the medal for best troll stays reserved for spooky.
|
| |
http://m.imgur.com/YIUaIvB
|
| |
Album Rating: 1.0
Yes, Tunaboy loves the album and has it on repeat for the last week.
|
| |
http://www.kerrang.com/27224/10-reasons-need-new-fall-boy-album-life/
This is even better
|
| |
1. IT'S BOLD AND BRAVE
The cover art alone is enough evidence that Fall Out Boy are making their statement very clear here, but the songs are full of inspired new ideas, too. With trumpets encompassing opener Irresistible, genius samples all over the place (Fourth Of July, Centuries) and a sensational cheerleader-esque chant in the title-track, Fall Out Boy have truly done this album their way.
|
| |
Album Rating: 1.0
The album is actually terrible
|
| |
|
|
