 |
(Angry Staffer)
Label: Soft Drive - Rating:
When I hear polished, alternative, grunge music it makes me cringe as if I was forced to listen to an over-produced Hall and Oates album. Sure. There’s catchy riffs and songs. But overall, the music is cheap, plastic and lacking any soul. I mean, that’s all this mainstream alternative shit is. Isn’t it? Overproduced, over-polished, pop crap.
“Oh! But there’s tough, rough, bumbly guitar hooks and riffs! Oh! And the singer doesn’t have a perfect voice – it’s raspy! Oh! The drummer lost his dog when he was 12. These guys are singing about pain… real pain. It’s much more then Hall & Oates. It’s rock AND roll, man. “
To that I say… No. No it is not.
Pure alternative rock music is supposed to be messy, full of dissonance and noise. Something different than what we are used to. So when I listen to a record like Something to Burn’s “Transitions” in which it is so obvious that producers hands have molded a cookie-cutter polished version of whatever alternative rock music means to the record company heads… it makes me want to overdose on xanax. Don’t get me wrong. It is in no way the producers and engineers fault. If anything, that’s who should be applauded here. They are given a task of making this music the most radio friendly safe alternative music possible. And they have succeeded. But in no way is this music of any worth or substance. It’s the same washed up shit that we’ve seen over and over… and it sells.
Something to Burn should be synonymous with Nickelback. When I say STB you say Nickelback. This alone should make you want to stop reading now.
No?
Fine. But I warned you. In all honesty, I can only see Something to Burn gaining a following when Nickelback fans need another cheap uninventive thrill. The problem is Nickelback fans don’t need to turn anywhere else for slick polished post-grunge music. They have THAT band and that’s all they need.
Songs like “Below” and “Home” are attempts at the those top-40 catchy alternative ballads full of resent, loss and depression. That’s all fine and good if it weren’t for the fact that when I hear Greg Wayne sing – he sounds like a constipated man in need of a Laxative Bullet while we all need that silver bullet. The Greg-ster sings these blank lyrics as if he’s a grown man who just discovered he doesn’t have hair on his nuts yet (or he forgot that he shaved them off). The guitar work is fine and in no way impressive. The songs all sound the same and mix together like some bland pre-packaged chicken noodle soup can.
The combination of the gruff generic venereal disease vocals; the distorted radio friendly guitar work; and the catchy, polished production work makes this entire record drone on like one unimportant suicide note.
We can chalk this up as another crappy Hollywood band put together by some successful crappy Hollywood band (Stone Temple Pilots).
Something to Burn can easily reach the popular demographic of ill-minded teens who search for music at Target and Wall-Mart. They might even get so popular as to open up for Nickelback or shit, maybe even sell out their own arena venue one day. But in a world where there is so much better music to be heard – should we really waste our time listening to records of this quality? Time is too short. If you’re planning on listening to this record you would be better to spend your time buying a gun and shooting your self in the face.
Oh, and a question for Something to Burn: "Transitions"? Transitions from what? How can you transition from crap if you're still crap?
1 Gun (the gun I need to kill myself for listening to this piece of shit)
Logging you in...
JasonColdiron 1p · 807 weeks ago
To say my colleague was a bit over zealous and looking for a fight would be an understatement. Some of the things he says are certainly true, but he portrays them in a negative light when they really aren't bad things.
To his statement that the album and band are, “Overproduced, over-polished.” Ok, that may be true, but I could say the same thing about almost every band. This is simply a product of the age we live in. Every band we
hear is polished up and probably overproduced, even my beloved favorite metal acts. To call out this band for it is silly. He says that the producers did the best they could with the talent they had to work with, while also saying that they are overproduced puppets along for the ride. So, was the band bad and so the producers took over, or the producers took the band (whoever it was) and made them sound the way they wanted them to? Which is it? He can't have it both ways. Andy is just looking to pick a fight here. (note, I have been in recording studios many times and in my experience the producers have guided the music every step of the way. The band brings an
outline to the studio and the producers control the direction of the sound.) I have a problem with Andy's entire line of logic here.
To his statement that pure alternative punk is supposed to be, “Something different than what we are used to.”
He is acknowledging that the band is different, but basically saying he doesn't like the WAY they are different. Whoever said that this band is 'pure alternative punk'? I've listened to the album and spoken with the lead singer and I didn't get that impression at all. It is intended to be lighter than that stigma and aimed at a different group. And who is Andy to say anyway? This band is obviously not made for or marketed to him. He is not supposed to like it and nobody really cares if he does or not. He is not the target demographic. In fact, why does he even care? Is he upset that there is some music out there that he doesn't like? Get over it. This band is in a genre that he doesn't care for. Why should he, or anyone else, care if he doesn't like it?
Example: I am a big fan of heavy metal. If someone puts some metal music in front of me, I can listen to it and say if I think it is good or not. I can also listen to other types of music I don't really care for and be able to acknowledge that they are good, even if they don't appeal to me personally. Perhaps this is something Andy should look into.
To his remarks about comparing something to burn to Nickelback... that is just a low blow... and also way off base. Finding a bad quality in one band and comparing it to a similar quality in one of the worst bands of our generation (at least Andy and I agree on that)... just weak. I might as well compare Andy to Milli Vanilli because they both
wear clothes. The argument holds no water.
Andy next lets his true motives, and lack of rock and roll history and perspective, show through. Yes, Something to Burn was found and lead by a bigger band, Stone Temple Pilots. For one, his assessment that STP was a “crappy” band is beyond lunacy. They are easily one of the better bands of the last 20 years. To be guided and mentored by a band like them, we should all be so lucky.
Secondly, do you know how many bands have been put together by a more successful band? About a million. I am really not sure what music Andy thinks is good, but I'm sure I can point out a dozen of his favorite bands that were put together in a similar fashion. When bands get together and dream of fame, they will do anything to get
their name out, get exposure, get signed. This is the way it is and there is nothing wrong with it. If a producer happens to hear a demo tape he likes, or someone has a friend of a friend of a friend that can help them (as was the case with this band), why wouldn't they jump on that opportunity? They'd be crazy not to. Andy wants to
penalize this band because they had friends in high places. I would say that this sounds like jealousy on his part but... no, it is probably just jealousy.
He closes with his anecdotes about venereal disease and buying a bullet and a gun instead of listening to this music. Well, nothing says fun like venereal disease right? And the anecdote about the gun and the bullet... never heard that one before, what a great new story! I bet he's full of brand new stories like this one. And isn't name calling the last resort of the defeated, or something to that effect?
Andy makes a lot of effort to bash Something to Burn because he thinks they are catering to morons like, “the
popular demographic of ill-minded teens who search for music at Target and Wall-Mart .” He spends an awful lot of energy talking them down and belittling them. Then he uses flawed logic, old metaphors and trash talking to try to make his case. In a twist of irony, his whole argument is catered to the very people he is trying to bash- IDIOTS!
andy · 807 weeks ago
no? did i really read that sentence? no? wait - what? Yep... I fucking did--
Jason on Stone Temple Pilots: "They are easily one of the better bands of the last 20 years. To be guided and mentored by a band like them, we should all be so lucky."
this statement instantly makes you the jackass and lose all credibility... your statement cannot be made with a straight face.
I'm all for a good discussion - i applaud your efforts... but what it really comes down to is:
i honestly just got super bored of your response and stopped reading
who's the jackass?
me or you? probably me - but at least i'm not the guy who said STP was one of the better bands in the past 20 years... do you really want that on your conscious or, worst... on your tomb stone?