Just Announced Commentary - 2011 Edition

walkonby wrote:
i hate opinions . . . go away.

ha.

I don't understand the Mumford and Sons obsession.

DeathFromAbove1979 wrote:
Mumford & Sons have more songs played on the radio than Queens Of The Stone Age.

Every Mumford & Sons song sounds exactly the fucking same.

You seem to be a expert of what is played on the radio. 

atomicfront wrote:

sweetcell wrote:
could we please not clog up Just Announced with your inane opinions of museums and associated travel plans?  thx.

So you prefer to clog it up with post like these which add nothing?

clearly the children need to be reminded to behave.  i was hoping that one "STFU" post would prevent a further flood of useless drivel…  your reply proved me wrong, the mental diarrhea continues. 

talk about childish reasoning: "could you folks please stop talking?" "oh yeah?!?  we you just had to talk to make that request, so there!!!111"

sweetcell wrote:

atomicfront wrote:

sweetcell wrote:
could we please not clog up Just Announced with your inane opinions of museums and associated travel plans?  thx.

So you prefer to clog it up with post like these which add nothing?

clearly the children need to be reminded to behave.  i was hoping that one "STFU" post would prevent a further flood of useless drivel…  your reply proved me wrong, the mental diarrhea continues. 

talk about childish reasoning: "could you folks please stop talking?" "oh yeah?!?  we you just had to talk to make that request, so there!!!111"

well there was a post after yours which agreed with you.  So you had two posts that provided nothing.  And the posts were about the rock n roll hall of fame.  Which is worth a visit if you are ever in cleveland.

And we are not your children.  going up to people who are having a conversation in public and tell them to stfu and see what happens. 

it's the "just announced" thread for upcoming shows, not the "things to visit when in cleveland" or "why rush sucks" thread.

sweetcell wrote:
it's the "just announced" thread for upcoming shows, not the "things to visit when in cleveland" or "why rush sucks" thread.

Well I didn't put the stuff about the rock and roll hall of fame into the thread. I just responded to it.  And who cares anyway?  This site gets next to no traffic. You can deal with a few off topic post without acting like you are someone's mother. 

walkonby wrote:
you know . . . you could have just added that to your first post.

what?  and miss out on the opportunity to clog up JA with inane comments about one's personal preferences? 

surely you jest. 

(original source)

oh you're so cute when you try . . . oh who am i kidding, you're cute all the time. 

A couple of things re album shows:

1. Some songs were never intended to be played live.

2. Song order is very often determined by the marketing concerns of the label and the technological limitations of the medium, e.g. singles coming first on each side of an LP and soft songs at the side ends because loud songs distort too much.

beetsnotbeats wrote:
A couple of things re album shows:

1. Some songs were never intended to be played live.

2. Song order is very often determined by the marketing concerns of the label and the technological limitations of the medium, e.g. singles coming first on each side of an LP and soft songs at the side ends because loud songs distort too much.

Good lord Beets! Please take your commentary to the Just Announced thread!!

beetsnotbeats wrote:
A couple of things re album shows:

1. Some songs were never intended to be played live.

2. Song order is very often determined by the marketing concerns of the label and the technological limitations of the medium, e.g. singles coming first on each side of an LP and soft songs at the side ends because loud songs distort too much.

Well if some songs were never intended to play live why do it on an "album show".  Anyway if you see a band touring their first album you most likely will see an album show with a cover thrown in.  Most bands best album is probably their first anyway.

Oh excited about Lumineers.  This might be another show that sells out pretty quickly. 

Well sure, if flash in the pan acts are your thing.

atomicfront wrote:
  Most bands best album is probably their first anyway.

James wrote:
Well sure, if flash in the pan acts are your thing.

atomicfront wrote:
  Most bands best album is probably their first anyway.

Most bands that are not flash-in-the pans put out a load of crap music.  There were two rolling stones shows on tv last night. one from 2008 and one from 1991 in both instances they were absolutely awful.  And to think when was the last time they put out anything decent?  1981's tattoo you?  Yeah but most of the music on that album was recorder earlier.  So  last real new release worthy material? Some Girls 1978.  So they have been touring and putting out crap music for over 30 years. 

I prefer to see a flash in the pan that puts out one incredible album which I hear live than a band that puts out a few good albums followed by 20 bad ones and they can't play live yet they charge insane amounts of money to see them.

For example Lykii Li.  Great first ablum.  Great performance.  or the La's.  Great album and great show and never to be seen from again. 

edit==starting new thread

I would say that most bands that have a long life put out their best album within their first five, but rarely is their first the best.

The La's and Lykke Li are not/will not be long life bands/artists.

atomicfront wrote:

James wrote:
Well sure, if flash in the pan acts are your thing.

atomicfront wrote:
  Most bands best album is probably their first anyway.

Most bands that are not flash-in-the pans put out a load of crap music.  There were two rolling stones shows on tv last night. one from 2008 and one from 1991 in both instances they were absolutely awful.  And to think when was the last time they put out anything decent?  1981's tattoo you?  Yeah but most of the music on that album was recorder earlier.  So  last real new release worthy material? Some Girls 1978.  So they have been touring and putting out crap music for over 30 years. 

I prefer to see a flash in the pan that puts out one incredible album which I hear live than a band that puts out a few good albums followed by 20 bad ones and they can't play live yet they charge insane amounts of money to see them.

For example Lykii Li.  Great first ablum.  Great performance.  or the La's.  Great album and great show and never to be seen from again. 

The La's fell apart due to drug use plain and simple.  John Powers released some good but great albums as The Cast.   

James wrote:
I would say that most bands that have a long life put out their best album within their first five, but rarely is their first the best.

The La's and Lykke Li are not/will not be long life bands/artists.

atomicfront wrote:

James wrote:
Well sure, if flash in the pan acts are your thing.

atomicfront wrote:
  Most bands best album is probably their first anyway.

Most bands that are not flash-in-the pans put out a load of crap music.  There were two rolling stones shows on tv last night. one from 2008 and one from 1991 in both instances they were absolutely awful.  And to think when was the last time they put out anything decent?  1981's tattoo you?  Yeah but most of the music on that album was recorder earlier.  So  last real new release worthy material? Some Girls 1978.  So they have been touring and putting out crap music for over 30 years. 

I prefer to see a flash in the pan that puts out one incredible album which I hear live than a band that puts out a few good albums followed by 20 bad ones and they can't play live yet they charge insane amounts of money to see them.

For example Lykii Li.  Great first ablum.  Great performance.  or the La's.  Great album and great show and never to be seen from again. 

What is a long-life band?  How many bands have 5 great albums in their catalogue?  I would say not too many. 

Off hand:

Beatles
Depeche Mode
Cure
U2
Coldplay
Johnny Cash
Led Zeppelin

Most long life bands contain 2 or 3 decent albums and a bunch of press praise that makes them seem better than they are.  Radiohead:  The Bends, Ok Computer, Kid A.  so 3.  Rolling Stones: Let it Bleed, Stick Fingers, Some Girls great.  Beggars Banquet good.  David Bowie: Ziggy Stardust, Hunky Dory. 

I would say Coldplay's best was their first. 

I didn't say five GREAT albums.

I said any band that puts out five or more albums likely will have have their best album within the first five (but not their first). Bands like Nada Surf, My Morning Jacket, Wilco, Old 97's, Neil Young, Drive By Truckers, The Smiths, Belle and Sebastian, The Clash, Brendan Benson, Devotchka, Dr. Dog, Dwight Yoakam just too pull off a few from my ipod.

Bands that only put out two or three albums are flash in the pan bands,  are much more likely to have their first album be their best.

You listen to Coldplay? That's so gayyyyyyyy.

The Rolling Stones have only three great albums?? And Exile on Main Street isn't even one of them?
::)


I really think Atomicfront just doesn't like rock and roll.. I mean he's into the 80s gay synth bands and mopey bands of his youth and the wannabe "indie" folksters of today (Lumineers, Mumford).. there is just not a lot of rock and roll left… sure he gives the Beatles their credit.. he has to.. everybody does.. and Johnny Cash is cool… and Zep "rocks" not that he knows what that is..not really..

Obviously a person like that couldn't appreciate Exile on Main Street.

Plus he just seems to have no clue about music history.. I wonder if you told some of his favorite bands what they though about Bowie having only two good albums? And Low wasn't even one of them??? They'd laugh him out the building.

This is the man who prefers Big Audio Dynamite to the Clash.. I mean really…he just doesn't like rock and roll. And that is fine but don't pretend to be an expert on it dude.

Exile on main street is an awful album.  Definitely the worst stones album through tatoo you.  Even the band say as much.  And the critics said as much when it came out.  I don't know why people like it. Just a bunch of crappy songs.  well other than tumbling dice and happy.  evidently keith richards was too drugged up at the time to make a decent album.