Killers jumping the shark?

So I just flipped past MTV and they were actually playing a video. It was the Killer's new song. Why does it sound like Meatloaf to me?

Just my first impression, but the whole thing sounds and looks terribly over-produced. Booring.

i dont get it, everyones saying this….is it really THAT different from their first album? The new song (When You Were Young) sounds just like everything off Hot Fuss to me.

Killers soooo sold out. I mean I loved their first album until everyone else started liking it and the radio started playing their stuff. I hate them now.

I know I've told this story before, but the guy at the dentist office loaned me his Killers album when I was having about three hours of dental work done. It was the first time I had heard them. I preferred the dental work.

i didnt mind the old album, i dont mind the new song.

the CD isnt going to go in my car and i wont be paying directly for tickets to see them, but they are no worse than the Arctic Monkeys or the Strokes.

i thought they were terrible from the start.

I saw them open for Morrissey and thought they were dreadfully boring (and Morrissey wasn't that great either). It's really funny how bands just don't understand rock'n'roll these days. There really are only a handful that get it. I'm happy to see that at least there's still a band like Queens of the Stone Age, but so much depends upon a band's image and not on the music. And what's more, kids don't buy LPs. They download music and it has no value to them. It's disposable, and what's more, fan bases are no longer loyal because people's attention spans are too short. I would hate to be in a rock band in this day and age, unless it was Radiohead. They can pretty much put out a record of Thom York making armpit farts and still sell out venues like the Patriot Center.

they push alot of magazines with their faces on the cover, and sell out any place they play. plus they're uber neuvo, wish a dash of filthy rich . . . and that's all that matters in music. right?

I really really hated this band ever since the first times I saw them live opening for Stellastarr*, then even more when their annoying singles hit the airwaves and were played non-stop. Eventually, Mr Brightside did grow on me to the point where I can tolerate it, but besides that, I really had it out for this band, calling them talentless hacks, etc blah blah.

However, I love the new single. To me it seems like it's from a totally different band.

What is there to "understand" about rock and roll?

Originally posted by bearman:
I saw them open for Morrissey and thought they were dreadfully boring (and Morrissey wasn't that great either). It's really funny how bands just don't understand rock'n'roll these days. There really are only a handful that get it. I'm happy to see that at least there's still a band like Queens of the Stone Age, but so much depends upon a band's image and not on the music. And what's more, kids don't buy LPs. They download music and it has no value to them. It's disposable, and what's more, fan bases are no longer loyal because people's attention spans are too short. I would hate to be in a rock band in this day and age, unless it was Radiohead. They can pretty much put out a record of Thom York making armpit farts and still sell out venues like the Patriot Center.

I don't know if the band has jumped the shark, but the drummer has reportedly jumped an Olsen twin.

Is Mary-Kate Olsen happily humming the once inescapable tune "Mr. Brightside"? The New York Daily News reports the teeny-tiny twin titan and Killers drummer Ronnie Vannucci were flirting "like teenagers" last Thursday at Manhattan club Bungalow 8 (of course, that description loses a bit of oomph when you consider that up until three months ago, MK was a teenager).

old people's taste vs. the young. i love it.

And doesn't rock n' roll constantly redefine itself? You can sit around like a dinosaur lamenting the good old days, but music is what it is right now. And like it or not, music nowadays is downloadable, more easily accessible for kids and more disposable than it's been in the past.

I'm reading Pitchfork's interview with Oneida right now, and I think they have the right attitude: "Well, the times are changing; let's roll with it." Digital music does lend itself a little more to the single than the album; is that such a bad thing? Look at the past…some of the best music was released as singles. Should we lament that? I don't think so; it's just another shift.

And if you think even the indie-cred-iest bands dont' care about image, you're highly mistaken. Hell, have of those bands are MORE cautious of it.

Originally posted by Weird Little Self Loathing Man:
What is there to "understand" about rock and roll?

Originally posted by bearman:
I saw them open for Morrissey and thought they were dreadfully boring (and Morrissey wasn't that great either). It's really funny how bands just don't understand rock'n'roll these days. There really are only a handful that get it. I'm happy to see that at least there's still a band like Queens of the Stone Age, but so much depends upon a band's image and not on the music. And what's more, kids don't buy LPs. They download music and it has no value to them. It's disposable, and what's more, fan bases are no longer loyal because people's attention spans are too short. I would hate to be in a rock band in this day and age, unless it was Radiohead. They can pretty much put out a record of Thom York making armpit farts and still sell out venues like the Patriot Center.

Brandon Flowers is going to do anything he can to make his band the next U2……

Understanding the fact that rock'n'roll should be about how you present your music (i.e. well-written songs that shakes music to its core) and not about how you present a look while posing on the red carpet at the VMAs. All one needs to do is listen to a Stooges or early Ramones record. Sure, both bands looked the part, but it was part of who they were. There was some guts and balls to it. But ultimately, the music is what made them matter. Same thing for the Clash.

So the Killers don't look the part, or they do look the part but it isn't part of who they are?

If the latter, who are they and what part should they look? And why should looking the part matter anyway? I though rock and roll was about not having any rules?

Now I'm thorougly confused.

Originally posted by bearman:
Understanding the fact that rock'n'roll should be about how you present your music (i.e. well-written songs that shakes music to its core) and not about how you present a look while posing on the red carpet at the VMAs. All one needs to do is listen to a Stooges or early Ramones record. Sure, both bands looked the part, but it was part of who they were. There was some guts and balls to it. But ultimately, the music is what made them matter. Same thing for the Clash.

And as for nkotb's post, the thing is that not enough younger people educate themselves on what rock'n'roll used to be. I used to laugh at the dinosaurs who turned their noses up at new wave in the 80's because it was too weak and there were synths, but lo and behold, I discovered a lot of the music they listened to and thought that it gave me a better perspective.

All I'm saying is that the music industry is in huge trouble, and I'm just bummed by what passes for "good" these days. Not forgetting about the vitriol of older rock'n'roll makes you more careful to weed out the good from the bad being released these days, and I don't see that as a bad thing. The fact is that I don't have time to invest in a band like Clap Your Hands Say Yeah…I like the Talking Heads more, they did it better 25 years ago. So reinventing? Maybe in some cases, but I also hear a LOT of rehashing.

Killers soooo sold out. I mean I loved their first album until everyone else started liking it and the radio started playing their stuff. I hate them now.

so your opinion is dependent on that of others? because the mainstream likes them, you can't? how very indie™ of you. i got into the first album, and i continue to like it despite what the radio thinks of it (i don't listen to radio that much, so it hasn't been overplayed for me).

i find it funny that people hate certain bands or album because they've been overplayed - not just on the radio, but in their own houses, cars and ipods. and why were they overplayed? because in the beginning, they loved that band or album. it's an over-reaction.

i think reports of the killers' death are greatly exaggerated - let's wait for the album to drop, m'kay?

<img src="http://img457.imageshack.us/img457/8405/simpsonwm4.jpg" alt=" - " />

Just because you listened to every influential band that every mattered at age 6 doesn't mean these kids have the same access or interest that you do. I grew up in Bumfucksville, and thanks to bands on the radio was able to keep digging deeper to find something I truly cared about. It look awhile, and I'm still playing catch-up to a certain degree, but not everyone has an older brother or cool friends to push them along. If they truly care, they'll find their way, and maybe a band like Panic! is the one that will open the door.

Of course, that's if they even care to find out anything deeper. Remember, music is a recreation for probably 90% of the world's population; they dont' give two shits about the lineage dating back 150 years that brought a band like Panic! to the forefront. They like the beat, or they like they lyrics, or (god forbid) they like the clothes. Either way, who cares?

In the end, it's just rock 'n' roll. And I think putting limits on it or what people should do at any point is bullshit. Wearing a torn t-shirt and a mohawk is just as stiffling and just as uniform as wearing Victorian puffy shirts and eyeliner.

Originally posted by bearman:
And as for nkotb's post, the thing is that not enough younger people educate themselves on what rock'n'roll used to be. I used to laugh at the dinosaurs who turned their noses up at new wave in the 80's because it was too weak and there were synths, but lo and behold, I discovered a lot of the music they listened to and thought that it gave me a better perspective.

All I'm saying is that the music industry is in huge trouble, and I'm just bummed by what passes for "good" these days. Not forgetting about the vitriol of older rock'n'roll makes you more careful to weed out the good from the bad being released these days, and I don't see that as a bad thing. The fact is that I don't have time to invest in a band like Clap Your Hands Say Yeah…I like the Talking Heads more, they did it better 25 years ago. So reinventing? Maybe in some cases, but I also hear a LOT of rehashing.