Aint No Right

Larry B. wrote:We didn't judge BSSM based on Mother's Milk, nor One Hot Minute based on BSSM. Many people did, but "we" didn't, because we know better. We didn't judge Ritual based on Nothing's Shocking, we just enjoyed each album for what it was, in that moment of our lives. This new album should be judged for what it is. And what it is is shit.

I hear what you're saying...you're judging the album on its own merit; fair enough.

As far as forming an opinion on it, I've only been listening to it since yesterday. I think that people in general make snap decisions about music since the dawn of downloading. People form an opinion on a song or an album in one afternoon...as opposed to when people used to buy physical music and digest it over weeks or months. We couldn't afford to instantly hate an album (though there may have been a few exceptions). In some cases, I didn't like an album I bought...and then dusted it off a few years later and realized it was a masterpiece (Smashing Pumpkins' Adore comes to mind).

I really don't have an opinion of this album yet (good or bad).

I just think that if RHCP isn't "delivering" for some older fans, I don't believe it's a complete and utter shit show. That kind of reception should be held for a far more "deserving" band, like say Ministry or something.

but people have always done that...they listened to a new albums first single on the radio then made the snap decision to go buy the fucking album

I mean, c'mon...this band was essentially a novelty act in the 80s. They had a gimmick that was thankfully accompanied by chops and Rick Rubin helped them hone their craft into something way bigger. While I was into their music in the mid to late 80s, I never in a million years would've thought they'd become one of the biggest bands in the world and of all time...nobody saw that coming.

are you high? everyone saw it coming they were huge coming up one of the biggest bands in la and a hard ticket to get because they sold out so fucking fast...girls fucking loved them

i mean they were in that burt lancaster & kirk douglas movie in like 86...you really saw flea for the first time and didn't think they'd be huge?

kv wrote:but people have always done that...they listened to a new albums first single on the radio then made the snap decision to go buy the fucking album

I mean, c'mon...this band was essentially a novelty act in the 80s. They had a gimmick that was thankfully accompanied by chops and Rick Rubin helped them hone their craft into something way bigger. While I was into their music in the mid to late 80s, I never in a million years would've thought they'd become one of the biggest bands in the world and of all time...nobody saw that coming.

are you high? everyone saw it coming they were huge coming up one of the biggest bands in la and a hard ticket to get because they sold out so fucking fast...girls fucking loved them

i mean they were in that burt lancaster & kirk douglas movie in like 86...you really saw flea for the first time and didn't think they'd be huge?

I'm not saying they weren't a great act by the late 80s or that they weren't going to be more popular and POTENTIALLY play arenas. But think about the culture in rock music at the time...bands like The Cult and Jane's Addiction just BARELY garnered enough of a following to play arenas (pre-Nirvana and the grunge explosion)...but neither of those bands were HUGE. Sure, RHCP were probably going to headline arenas at some point (in America, anyway)...but the vast majority of people weren't thinking that they were going to end up as one of the biggest bands of all time...NO WAY. It's easy to look back now and say it was an inevitability. Most people were lining up to see garbage like Def Leppard and Motley Crue before 1991. As much as I think those bands suck, if someone came to me in 1988 and said that RHCP will someday be playing stadiums around the world and their popularity will eclipse that of the aforementioned bands, I'd have said they were crazy. Hindsight is 20/20.

Even after One Hot Minute, the future of the band was pretty uncertain and they could've gone the way of Jane's (no longer relevant and occasionally touring a bunch of old, stale songs). Fruscante's return was their second chance and they ended up becoming even bigger than during their early 90s heyday. Their success pre-Californication may have made them one of the biggest bands of the 90s, but their continued success from 1999 onward is what has made them U2 and Metallica huge. People forget how precarious the fate of the Chili Peppers was throughout the 90s.

kv wrote:but people have always done that...they listened to a new albums first single on the radio then made the snap decision to go buy the fucking album

Yeah, and I always thought that was kind of dumb. Most of the time, the single wasn't necessarily indicative of the quality of the album. There would be a great lead single and then a shit album full of filler. Or you could get some super catchy single made to appease the suits at the label and then the rest of the album might be far less calculated. I don't know...I just reserve judgment until I've really given something a fair go (sure, there are exceptions).

you can think it's dumb all you want but that's how it works

and it's made to appease the masses to make more money...but of course you and i have different meters we judge by compared to the "masses"

i do agree the singles suck or to be more far are burnt out the fastest because of repeat play...i pretty much don't every wanna hear been caught or janes says again in this lifetime...i hate those are the songs the masses think of first.....bitch have you ever heard ted?!1!! lol or like the cure with lovecats back in the day ...a new topic is coming

kv wrote:you can think it's dumb all you want but that's how it works

and it's made to appease the masses to make more money...but of course you and i have different meters we judge by compared to the "masses"

Oh yeah, I agree...it definitely works.

this is pretty much exactly how I feel about the new album....the thing he says about Anthony's vocal melodies is dead on

i only read this page so i don't know exactly what you're talking about but i agree with this

Tyler Durden wrote:I'm not saying they weren't a great act by the late 80s or that they weren't going to be more popular and POTENTIALLY play arenas. But think about the culture in rock music at the time...bands like The Cult and Jane's Addiction just BARELY garnered enough of a following to play arenas (pre-Nirvana and the grunge explosion)...but neither of those bands were HUGE. Sure, RHCP were probably going to headline arenas at some point (in America, anyway)...but the vast majority of people weren't thinking that they were going to end up as one of the biggest bands of all time...NO WAY. It's easy to look back now and say it was an inevitability. Most people were lining up to see garbage like Def Leppard and Motley Crue before 1991. As much as I think those bands suck, if someone came to me in 1988 and said that RHCP will someday be playing stadiums around the world and their popularity will eclipse that of the aforementioned bands, I'd have said they were crazy. Hindsight is 20/20.

Even after One Hot Minute, the future of the band was pretty uncertain and they could've gone the way of Jane's (no longer relevant and occasionally touring a bunch of old, stale songs). Fruscante's return was their second chance and they ended up becoming even bigger than during their early 90s heyday. Their success pre-Californication may have made them one of the biggest bands of the 90s, but their continued success from 1999 onward is what has made them U2 and Metallica huge. People forget how precarious the fate of the Chili Peppers was throughout the 90s.

they were great up until 92. couldn't care less about what they're doing now or since then. maybe i'm just old

Flea's new signature bass:
http://www.guitarsite.com/news/bass_gui ... jazz-bass/

nausearockpig wrote:Flea's new signature bass:
http://www.guitarsite.com/news/bass_gui ... jazz-bass/

who buys that shit? why would i want an instrument that has fake wear marks on it?

Since when does Flea play a Jazz bass?

Man, it’s been a löooooooooong time since I’ve paid any interest to them

sinep wrote:

nausearockpig wrote:Flea's new signature bass:
http://www.guitarsite.com/news/bass_gui ... jazz-bass/

who buys that shit? why would i want an instrument that has fake wear marks on it?

yeah - that would look lame, and i'd feel lame showing it to people too.. god...

nausearockpig wrote:

sinep wrote:

nausearockpig wrote:Flea's new signature bass:
http://www.guitarsite.com/news/bass_gui ... jazz-bass/

who buys that shit? why would i want an instrument that has fake wear marks on it?

yeah - that would look lame, and i'd feel lame showing it to people too.. god...

It's a niche market that the major guitar manufacturers, especially Gibson and Fender have been increasingly exploiting for the past 15 or so years. There's basically two levels of these kind of musician endorsed copies - the kind that are based on what the musician plays and perhaps custom designed specifically for the guitar company that are for the most part functional instruments and the usually far more pricey exact copies of iconic artist-named/endorsed "relic" instruments aren't really meant to be played but collected and hung on the wall. There's some musician endorsed guitars and basses out there that are actually really good instruments that don't visually scream "I'm playing (so and so's) guitar or bass. An example is lot of pro musicians played and highly recommended Eddie Van Halen's older Ernie Ball and Peavy Wolfgang guitars. I think the Flea bass is a players instrument due to it's competitive pricing and likely average build quality despite the fake aging but limited edition so-called relic guitars meant to be exact duplicates of iconic instruments by Clapton, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Jimmy Page, Eddie Van Halen, etc retail for upwards of $25k+ and are geared to idiot collectors with more money then brains.

Speaking of Eddie Van Halen, he's made it a cottage industry recently doing limited run "Frankenstrat" guitars with that stripped pattern (which he copyrighted). Aside from the stupid expensive $27k 1981 Frankenstrat copy (exact right down to accurate cigarette burns on the headstock and the correct year quarter wedged under the trem), he has a deal with Fender who produced limited run "budget" copies of his 80's striped guitars that he'd play in concert the last 2 VH tours for one song, sign and sell for $5 - $7k. I can't imagine any respectable musician unless he was in a VH cover band wanting to be seen onstage with an EVH stripped copy. Oh wait....

people who buy relics should definitely have their heads examined. It's the weirdest thing. Buy a new one and fuck it up yourself by playing it a ton, that's the way to go.

I'm sure it's a great bass though. I have a squier vintage modified jazz bass that costs 400 bucks or something and it plays and sounds great. As good as a standard US

I totally dig that bass. I don't need the relic job, but I'd rock it.

Matz wrote:people who buy relics should definitely have their heads examined. It's the weirdest thing. Buy a new one and fuck it up yourself by playing it a ton, that's the way to go.

I'm sure it's a great bass though. I have a squier vintage modified jazz bass that costs 400 bucks or something and it plays and sounds great. As good as a standard US

Decades ago, I knew a guy who was a pretty decent budding guitarist who was into widdly-wanky players like Malmsteen, Vai, Satriani, etc and he had a really well known LA area guitar maker at Fender custom build him a weird Strat-style guitar. The body was like an inch thicker and much larger then normal out of some exotic white ash wood with a scalloped fretboard, yadda yadda. Cost him at least $5k. Thing weighed a ton but looked and played beautifully. Anyway, the dumbass gets this really striking guitar that has a natural finish (no paint) and the first thing he does is take a chisel, 60 grit sandpaper, grease and dirt on the guitar, dinging and beating it up to make it look well played. Totally made it look like shit. After that, any time you handled it, you got bicycle grease and filthy dirt on your hands and clothes like you cleaned an engine in a fireplace.

Tyler Durden wrote:

Larry B. wrote:We didn't judge BSSM based on Mother's Milk, nor One Hot Minute based on BSSM. Many people did, but "we" didn't, because we know better. We didn't judge Ritual based on Nothing's Shocking, we just enjoyed each album for what it was, in that moment of our lives. This new album should be judged for what it is. And what it is is shit.

I hear what you're saying...you're judging the album on its own merit; fair enough.

As far as forming an opinion on it, I've only been listening to it since yesterday. I think that people in general make snap decisions about music since the dawn of downloading. People form an opinion on a song or an album in one afternoon...as opposed to when people used to buy physical music and digest it over weeks or months. We couldn't afford to instantly hate an album (though there may have been a few exceptions). In some cases, I didn't like an album I bought...and then dusted it off a few years later and realized it was a masterpiece (Smashing Pumpkins' Adore comes to mind).

I really don't have an opinion of this album yet (good or bad).

I just think that if RHCP isn't "delivering" for some older fans, I don't believe it's a complete and utter shit show. That kind of reception should be held for a far more "deserving" band, like say Ministry or something.

Funny, I hear QOTSA are recording now and I remember my first reaction to their last album was mediocre at first. Now I fucking love that album. Most of my all time favorite albums start off with me not liking them at first.

guysmiley wrote: Most of my all time favorite albums start off with me not liking them at first.

Exactly.

If anything, I find a number of albums that are instantly accessible tend to run out of gas in the long run. One album that stands out for me is Pretty Hate Machine. I bought it in 1990 and the moment I heard it, I fucking loved it from beginning to end; it had an instant appeal. And though it can be argued that it is now a product of its time and sounds ever so slightly dated, I still feel the way I did 26 years ago when I hear it. It never got stale for me.

As I mentioned before, Adore by Smashing Pumpkins takes the cake when it comes to an album I didn't like at all when I first heard it and grew to love it over the years.

Flea mentioning Jane's referring to them as (co) survivors. There has to be a bit of nostalgia there....LA and all.

Kling taking the solo spot of Froosh chooses "I Would For You".

SR wrote:Kling taking the solo spot of Froosh chooses "I Would For You".

It was a great performance

For all you Pepper lovers, the NA tour dates were announced today....

http://redhotchilipeppers.com/blog/news ... rican-tour

For fuck's sake....tour announcement got me to reminiscing. Froosh is god

They're not coming to Mexico
And I actually liked this album