Jump to content

Alternative Press reviews ¡TRE!


tdlyon

Recommended Posts

I feel like the chord progression and the strings make this epic sound to The Forgotten, but the lyrics aren't so great. The problem with the trilogy is the songs are kind of samey. I like them, but they're similar. Some songs are different like Kill The DJ, some common ones are great like Let Yourself Go and Nuclear Family, but others like Angel Blue are very similar to others. Also the trilogy is kind of like other punk revival bands' work this year (Days Go By, Self Entitled) it seems designed to get kids into their older stuff. It can still make badass songs that will stand the test of time for me as classic Green Day (Let Yourself Go, my favorite from the trilogy, is my 5th favorite Green Day song, as an example), but it could just be a way to get people into their other music, kind of like a gateway drug.

I don't want to get into a discussion, but ¡Uno! and ¡Dos! are way better than Days Go By, I mean, I like The Offspring, but that album has some good songs, that's all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 241
  • Created
  • Last Reply

How do you go download amanda like it says at the top!!!!????

Get the DeLorean up to 88.

It's just a heads up for when the album comes out, not a download link.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally don't think I'll be making an Uno Dos Tre mix when it comes out, I want to listen to all 37 songs all the way through, even if it wasn't meant to be listened to that way. I'll just make a playlist of all three albums, start with Nuclear Family, put it on shuffle, and then GO!

You know what's funny? When the news about the trilogy first hit, my friend and I were all set to make an "anti-director's cut" like we had done with 21CB. Trimming the fat, as it were ;) But, now that we've heard Uno and Dos, we've both been pleasantly surprised to find there aren't many skippable tracks at all. Definitely not enough to cut it down to a single album.

The trilogy was quickly concocted, pratically every song they played at the secret shows were put onto the albums. Every single one. We haven't had a single b-side or anything. They tried to fill the tracklists as much as they could, that's apparent. Plus Billie said it himself, he threw out whatever line and melody popped into his head. That's not always the best idea, it's better to formulate than just to hastily slap together. iUno! and iDos! don't stand well on their own, because if one of those were released by themselves, without 2 more albums backing it up, a lot more people would be sorely disappointed.

Personally, I think I would've been fine if we had just gotten Dos. I even said as much the first time I listened to it, post-leak. But if we had only gotten Uno, then I probably would've been, not disappointed, necessarily, but underwhelmed.

. If you want a GD album with filler, look at their first record. I know this isn't going to be a popular opinion, but that record really is full of half-arsed tracks which all sound exactly the same. Not to say that there aren't gems in there, but most of them do sound like b-sides.

Agreed! You've essentially summed up with 39/Smooth sits at the bottom of my Green Day album rankings.

Well just to defend that first record, it was comprised of various small releases I believe so it had songs that the band may not have even been overly fond of at the time.

39/Smooth is a full-length LP. It has ten songs. It was one release, not several.

Funnily enough, adding the material from the EPs on 1,039/SOSH actually gave it *more* variety.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The trilogy was quickly concocted, pratically every song they played at the secret shows were put onto the albums. Every single one. We haven't had a single b-side or anything. They tried to fill the tracklists as much as they could, that's apparent. Plus Billie said it himself, he threw out whatever line and melody popped into his head. That's not always the best idea, it's better to formulate than just to hastily slap together. iUno! and iDos! don't stand well on their own, because if one of those were released by themselves, without 2 more albums backing it up, a lot more people would be sorely disappointed.

They'd be disappointed, but it also wouldn't have happened in the first place. Uno, Dos and (presumably) Tre are as they are because of the very compositional style you mention. If they hadn't run with every idea or line they had, the albums wouldn't look like this. Had the intention been to just release one album from these 37 songs, you'd never have heard an album like Dos, which is so focused on one particular style that it occasionally lapses into sameyness. Instead, they would have released something more like Nimrod, where different styles sit alongside one another with reckless, yet tight, abandon.

There's definitely something to be said for that approach, and - like I've said before - reviewers would have preferred it. It's undeniable that a 37 song release isn't going to be as strong or focused as a 14 song one. But Green Day already did that, particular with the last two records, so what's the harm in trying something else here? Who's to say even if they had gone with a regular album approach, that they would have included the songs you liked? At least this way we get everything, filler and all, so we can decide for ourselves. I'll never love these records like I loved American Idiot, but isn't that kind of the point? That, just once, for this single period of their lives, they decided to throw everything at the wall and see what happens.

In ten years you'll only remember your favourite tracks, as ever it was. Let 'em have their fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They'd be disappointed, but it also wouldn't have happened in the first place. Uno, Dos and (presumably) Tre are as they are because of the very compositional style you mention. If they hadn't run with every idea or line they had, the albums wouldn't look like this. Had the intention been to just release one album from these 37 songs, you'd never have heard an album like Dos, which is so focused on one particular style that it occasionally lapses into sameyness. Instead, they would have released something more like Nimrod, where different styles sit alongside one another with reckless, yet tight, abandon.

There's definitely something to be said for that approach, and - like I've said before - reviewers would have preferred it. It's undeniable that a 37 song release isn't going to be as strong or focused as a 14 song one. But Green Day already did that, particular with the last two records, so what's the harm in trying something else here? Who's to say even if they had gone with a regular album approach, that they would have included the songs you liked? At least this way we get everything, filler and all, so we can decide for ourselves. I'll never love these records like I loved American Idiot, but isn't that kind of the point? That, just once, for this single period of their lives, they decided to throw everything at the wall and see what happens.

In ten years you'll only remember your favourite tracks, as ever it was. Let 'em have their fun.

I like you. I've argued this so many times it's not even funny.

30597832.jpg

You're not the only one man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed! You've essentially summed up with 39/Smooth sits at the bottom of my Green Day album rankings.

39/Smooth is a full-length LP. It has ten songs. It was one release, not several.

Funnily enough, adding the material from the EPs on 1,039/SOSH actually gave it *more* variety.

Using their first album from 23 years ago when they were kids as a benchmark to judge the quality of their 9th, 10th, and 11th albums hardly seems like a productive argument. All super young bands like them basically produce filler almost exclusively until they develop more as songwriters/musicians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They'd be disappointed, but it also wouldn't have happened in the first place. Uno, Dos and (presumably) Tre are as they are because of the very compositional style you mention. If they hadn't run with every idea or line they had, the albums wouldn't look like this. Had the intention been to just release one album from these 37 songs, you'd never have heard an album like Dos, which is so focused on one particular style that it occasionally lapses into sameyness. Instead, they would have released something more like Nimrod, where different styles sit alongside one another with reckless, yet tight, abandon.

There's definitely something to be said for that approach, and - like I've said before - reviewers would have preferred it. It's undeniable that a 37 song release isn't going to be as strong or focused as a 14 song one. But Green Day already did that, particular with the last two records, so what's the harm in trying something else here? Who's to say even if they had gone with a regular album approach, that they would have included the songs you liked? At least this way we get everything, filler and all, so we can decide for ourselves. I'll never love these records like I loved American Idiot, but isn't that kind of the point? That, just once, for this single period of their lives, they decided to throw everything at the wall and see what happens.

In ten years you'll only remember your favourite tracks, as ever it was. Let 'em have their fun.

iDos! isn't too different from iUno!. Tracks like SWTRLF, Amy, Baby Eyes, Lazy Bones, Nightlife, and Ashley could have been swapped with tracks on iUno! and none would be the wiser. The guitar, bass, and vocal sounds are all the same on those tracks. The only garage track on the whole album done right is Wow! That's Loud, Fuck Time and Makeout Party are both almost gimmicks that try to solify the album as "raw". They're as much rock sterotypes as you can get. And you evidently didn't read the iTre! review because it said iTre! is the least focused of the albums, and just feels like random songs thrown together that don't gel very well together.

So it isn't as focused as you said. Plus tracks like Kill The DJ and Nightlife are randomly thrown into iUno! and iDos!, so those albums aren't 100% focused either. 21st CB was a lot like Nimrod and Warning. Random songs thrown together from random influences. Russian type music, marachi, garage rock, sappy love ballads.

It wasn't cohesive either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

iDos! isn't too different from iUno!. Tracks like SWTRLF, Amy, Baby Eyes, Lazy Bones, Nightlife, and Ashley could have been swapped with tracks on iUno! and none would be the wiser. The guitar, bass, and vocal sounds are all the same on those tracks. The only garage track on the whole album done right is Wow! That's Loud, Fuck Time and Makeout Party are both almost gimmicks that try to solify the album as "raw". They're as much rock sterotypes as you can get. And you evidently didn't read the iTre! review because it said iTre! is the least focused of the albums, and just feels like random songs thrown together that don't gel very well together.

So it isn't as focused as you said. Plus tracks like Kill The DJ and Nightlife are randomly thrown into iUno! and iDos!, so those albums aren't 100% focused either. 21st CB was a lot like Nimrod and Warning. Random songs thrown together from random influences. Russian type music, marachi, garage rock, sappy love ballads.

It wasn't cohesive either.

If only people realized this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Using their first album from 23 years ago when they were kids as a benchmark to judge the quality of their 9th, 10th, and 11th albums hardly seems like a productive argument. All super young bands like them basically produce filler almost exclusively until they develop more as songwriters/musicians.

I wasn't? I merely expressed agreement with another poster's assessment of 39/Smooth. Didn't realize that was a crime :P

Unless you are suggesting that i can't compare 39/Smooth to any of their albums at all ( a necessity when creating favorite album rankings)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think everyone needs to calm down haha we seem to be putting a lot of faith in this reviewer, don't judge Tre before you've even heard it! I'm fairly confident it will be the best of the trilogy based on the songs we've heard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think The Forgotten is lackluster because it falls far short of the two big ballads (well mid-tempos) from their last two albums - BOBD and 21 Guns.

Since everyone else is doing their list, this would be my track list (excluding Tre).

1. Let Yourself Go

2. Stay the Night

3. Carpe Diem

4. Lazy Bones

5. Oh Love

6. F... Time

7. Nuclear Family

8. Sweet Sixteen

9. Baby Eyes

10. Stray Heart

11. Kill the DJ

12. Rusty James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They'd be disappointed, but it also wouldn't have happened in the first place. Uno, Dos and (presumably) Tre are as they are because of the very compositional style you mention. If they hadn't run with every idea or line they had, the albums wouldn't look like this. Had the intention been to just release one album from these 37 songs, you'd never have heard an album like Dos, which is so focused on one particular style that it occasionally lapses into sameyness. Instead, they would have released something more like Nimrod, where different styles sit alongside one another with reckless, yet tight, abandon.

There's definitely something to be said for that approach, and - like I've said before - reviewers would have preferred it. It's undeniable that a 37 song release isn't going to be as strong or focused as a 14 song one. But Green Day already did that, particular with the last two records, so what's the harm in trying something else here? Who's to say even if they had gone with a regular album approach, that they would have included the songs you liked? At least this way we get everything, filler and all, so we can decide for ourselves. I'll never love these records like I loved American Idiot, but isn't that kind of the point? That, just once, for this single period of their lives, they decided to throw everything at the wall and see what happens.

In ten years you'll only remember your favourite tracks, as ever it was. Let 'em have their fun.

This is where I strongly agree. If anyone noticed, these aren't particularly long records either. They don't come in length, but quantity. The best part about the trilogy so far is that it has it's memorable highlights, and other less recognizable, but nicely done songs to fill the spaces, IMO. I wouldn't exactly call those lesser songs 'fillers,' although that's sure what it seems like, it's what you get, with quantity, like I said before. As said before, none of these albums would be proper if they were released as a stand-alone, but they're not, so they are backed up by each other, and I think that even if some of the 'fillers' were taken out, and all the highlights were compiled together, it wouldn't be the same, because, in my opinion, so far, it seems they have they're own theme, so releasing a trilogy of this nature would be the only way to do it.

To sum up what I said, you can't have three consecutive "American Idiots" all with they're own theme and brand and have them sound good. No, IMO, make the tracks short and sweet, with highlights, as iUno! and iDos! have been so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't? I merely expressed agreement with another poster's assessment of 39/Smooth. Didn't realize that was a crime :P

Unless you are suggesting that i can't compare 39/Smooth to any of their albums at all ( a necessity when creating favorite album rankings)?

You, and you alone, are never allowed to mention any albums predating Dookie again. We all got together and decided, so...

I see that you were just agreeing about the filler on their early albums. I was just wrongly directing the point at you that using those early albums as a guide to what Green Day filler looks like isn't really fair. It might be really stupid to bring this up, but the early Beatles album were rife with filler, from covers to shitty knock-offs that none of them were really proud of. But once they hit Hard Days Night and started doing albums of quality and original material, the standard was raised, and they were rightly knocked for the filler-laden White Album. To clarify, Green Day and The Beatles are two different animals entirely, but the comparison stands to reason, I think. As both are essentially triple albums, this trilogy may well end up being Green Days White Album. The only difference for me is... I love the White Album with all my shriveled heart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You, and you alone, are never allowed to mention any albums predating Dookie again. We all got together and decided, so...

I see that you were just agreeing about the filler on their early albums. I was just wrongly directing the point at you that using those early albums as a guide to what Green Day filler looks like isn't really fair. It might be really stupid to bring this up, but the early Beatles album were rife with filler, from covers to shitty knock-offs that none of them were really proud of. But once they hit Hard Days Night and started doing albums of quality and original material, the standard was raised, and they were rightly knocked for the filler-laden White Album. To clarify, Green Day and The Beatles are two different animals entirely, but the comparison stands to reason, I think. As both are essentially triple albums, this trilogy may well end up being Green Days White Album. The only difference for me is... I love the White Album with all my shriveled heart.

The other difference is that the White Album was released almost 44 years ago and has stood the test of time and aged extremely well; meanwhile Uno and Dos are brand new releases. If I recall correctly from a biography I read a while ago, the White Album was, for lack of a better phrase, shitted on badly when it was released. Now we call it genius, 40 years ago a good handful of critics called it chopped with filler and some even referred to it as "4 solo albums strewn together". The same can be said for other legendary albums: Metallica's Black Album was received with massive disappointment by their fanbase and some rock critics, and now it sells hundreds of thousands of copies a year and is praised as a Rock and Metal masterpiece. In Green Day's catalog, Nimrod and Warning were given similar treatment and are now called testaments of the band's musicianship and creativity when it comes to punk and pop songwriting. For all we know, these albums may age very well (granted, it could also go the other way). It's simply too early to tell, those who swear by the albums right now might hate them in the future, those who swear against them now might love it; or out opinions will stay the same; who knows?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other difference is that the White Album was released almost 44 years ago and has stood the test of time and aged extremely well; meanwhile Uno and Dos are brand new releases. If I recall correctly from a biography I read a while ago, the White Album was, for lack of a better phrase, shitted on badly when it was released. Now we call it genius, 40 years ago a good handful of critics called it chopped with filler and some even referred to it as "4 solo albums strewn together". The same can be said for other legendary albums: Metallica's Black Album was received with massive disappointment by their fanbase and some rock critics, and now it sells hundreds of thousands of copies a year and is praised as a Rock and Metal masterpiece. In Green Day's catalog, Nimrod and Warning were given similar treatment and are now called testaments of the band's musicianship and creativity when it comes to punk and pop songwriting. For all we know, these albums may age very well (granted, it could also go the other way). It's simply too early to tell, those who swear by the albums right now might hate them in the future, those who swear against them now might love it; or out opinions will stay the same; who knows?

The White Album is GOAT tho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The White Album is GOAT tho.

Greatest of all time? Maybe it is, but few people, if any, called it that when it was released.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other difference is that the White Album was released almost 44 years ago and has stood the test of time and aged extremely well; meanwhile Uno and Dos are brand new releases. If I recall correctly from a biography I read a while ago, the White Album was, for lack of a better phrase, shitted on badly when it was released. Now we call it genius, 40 years ago a good handful of critics called it chopped with filler and some even referred to it as "4 solo albums strewn together". The same can be said for other legendary albums: Metallica's Black Album was received with massive disappointment by their fanbase and some rock critics, and now it sells hundreds of thousands of copies a year and is praised as a Rock and Metal masterpiece. In Green Day's catalog, Nimrod and Warning were given similar treatment and are now called testaments of the band's musicianship and creativity when it comes to punk and pop songwriting. For all we know, these albums may age very well (granted, it could also go the other way). It's simply too early to tell, those who swear by the albums right now might hate them in the future, those who swear against them now might love it; or out opinions will stay the same; who knows?

An important note is that the White Album came out right after the bands seminal work, Sgt. Pepper. Some might say that the AI/21CB era is Green Day's equivalent pinnacle, and they'd have a real argument to that effect. But one thing that is infinitely to the White Album's credit, and a testament to it's longevity, is that it was a dramatic departure from anything the Beatles had ever done in terms of musical innovation and lyrical content, including Sgt. Pepper. This trilogy is, according to the band themselves, basically a retread. A return to classic Green Day. The next Hot Tubs record. We get a rehash of the bands back catalogue with a few surprises (some welcome, others not) sprinkled in. The album that eventually destroyed the Beatles was their attempt to recapture their past with Let It Be. I'm not suggesting that Green Day is going to break up over the trilogy by any means, but you can't use a 30-track album that moved forward to justify what is essentially a 37-track album that is a step (or three) back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An important note is that the White Album came out right after the bands seminal work, Sgt. Pepper. Some might say that the AI/21CB era is Green Day's equivalent pinnacle, and they'd have a real argument to that effect. But one thing that is infinitely to the White Album's credit, and a testament to it's longevity, is that it was a dramatic departure from anything the Beatles had ever done in terms of musical innovation and lyrical content, including Sgt. Pepper. This trilogy is, according to the band themselves, basically a retread. A return to classic Green Day. The next Hot Tubs record. We get a rehash of the bands back catalogue with a few surprises (some welcome, others not) sprinkled in. The album that eventually destroyed the Beatles was their attempt to recapture their past with Let It Be. I'm not suggesting that Green Day is going to break up over the trilogy by any means, but you can't use a 30-track album that moved forward to justify what is essentially a 37-track album that is a step (or three) back.

Very good point, although I could have sworn that Sgt. Pepper came out after The Beatles...my memory is absolutely broken today; regardless of that I disagree that the trilogy has been all "Green Day rehash." I also disagree that it's a step back.

On a separate but somewhat related note, I don't think that it was Let It Be that destroyed The Beatles. Was it the album that they needed to make at the time? No. But they dissolved because of much deeper issues with management, band power, and ultimately money. But that's not important here obviously, we're supposed to be discussing this review after all.

(Although I will mention that Help! will always be my favorite Beatles album, I love that movie).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very good point, although I could have sworn that Sgt. Pepper came out after The Beatles...my memory is absolutely broken today; regardless of that I disagree that the trilogy has been all "Green Day rehash." I also disagree that it's a step back.

On a separate but somewhat related note, I don't think that it was Let It Be that destroyed The Beatles. Was it the album that they needed to make at the time? No. But they dissolved because of much deeper issues with management, band power, and ultimately money. But that's not important here obviously, we're supposed to be discussing this review after all.

(Although I will mention that Help! will always be my favorite Beatles album, I love that movie).

Agree to disagree with nothing but respect. You're right about some of the reasons for the break up, or at least as right as any of us outsiders can hope to be. I mentioned it just as a little tidbit to scare people into agreeing with me. And Help! is awesome, with the exception of Dizzy Miss Lizzy for me. Never got into that one...

But, yeah, hell of a review, huh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because the lyrics are suppose to conceptually detail a finale doesn't mean they have to feel cliche and tacked on. It's like when some music artists think that adding strings or a piano to a song automatically makes it "deeper" and more "meaningful". It just feels like they're trying too hard, they aren't letting it flow. Hell, just the title of the song feels cliche. THE Forgotten. Forgotten by itself would be fine, nothing wrong with that. But the THE gives it this inflated feeling of self-importance, like "Oh, this song is gonna be sooo deep and impactful". This song just needed simplistic lyrics. The chorus of the song "Don't look away..." works fine, but the verses just bring it down.

The trilogy was quickly concocted, pratically every song they played at the secret shows were put onto the albums. Every single one. We haven't had a single b-side or anything. They tried to fill the tracklists as much as they could, that's apparent. Plus Billie said it himself, he threw out whatever line and melody popped into his head. That's not always the best idea, it's better to formulate than just to hastily slap together. iUno! and iDos! don't stand well on their own, because if one of those were released by themselves, without 2 more albums backing it up, a lot more people would be sorely disappointed.

There have been lots of B-sides from the trilogy? State Of Shock, Gabriella, Dreamcatcher, Olivia, Soda Pop Curtis, pretty sure theres 1 or 2 more I just can't think of them now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree to disagree with nothing but respect. You're right about some of the reasons for the break up, or at least as right as any of us outsiders can hope to be. I mentioned it just as a little tidbit to scare people into agreeing with me. And Help! is awesome, with the exception of Dizzy Miss Lizzy for me. Never got into that one...

But, yeah, hell of a review, huh?

There's something about that song that will always be...off. I can't explain it either.

On the subject of the review, I can't say if I agree or not, seeing as I haven't heard it; although it has only made me more excited for the album, since this is the first description we have heard about many of these songs. The reviewer seems to contradict themselves a bit, at least to me, and I feel that they may have missed the point of a ballad like The Forgotten. Otherwise it's a decent review, I think I'll give it a solid 3/5. Reviewception.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There have been lots of B-sides from the trilogy? State Of Shock, Gabriella, Dreamcatcher, Olivia, Soda Pop Curtis, pretty sure theres 1 or 2 more I just can't think of them now.

Those aren't b-sides. Those are names of songs we know of that haven't been officially released.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There have been lots of B-sides from the trilogy? State Of Shock, Gabriella, Dreamcatcher, Olivia, Soda Pop Curtis, pretty sure theres 1 or 2 more I just can't think of them now.

Uh..what? Oh. My. Ah-God...

There's something about that song that will always be...off. I can't explain it either.

On the subject of the review, I can't say if I agree or not, seeing as I haven't heard it; although it has only made me more excited for the album, since this is the first description we have heard about many of these songs. The reviewer seems to contradict themselves a bit, at least to me, and I feel that they may have missed the point of a ballad like The Forgotten. Otherwise it's a decent review, I think I'll give it a solid 3/5. Reviewception.

You can't really miss the point to The Forgotten. It's a ballad, a finale, a finale that the reviewer obviously thought was flat. He didn't miss anything. And he didn't contradict himself, he pointed out a couple tracks he thought broke the flow a bit and were a little weak (Drama Queen, 8th AS) tracks that felt random (Dirty Rotten Bastards) and that the album as a whole is incohesive. Drama Queen and 8th Avenue Serenade knocked the album down a point, and incohesivness as a whole knocked it down another point. Simple as that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh..what? Oh. My. Ah-God...

They did say that they wrote over 60 songs. They did the same for Nimrod, and if I recall correctly, for Warning as well.

You can't really miss the point to The Forgotten. It's a ballad, a finale, a finale that the reviewer obviously thought was flat. He didn't miss anything. And he didn't contradict himself, he pointed out a couple tracks he thought broke the flow a bit and were a little weak (Drama Queen, 8th AS) tracks that felt random (Dirty Rotten Bastards) and that the album as a whole is incohesive. Drama Queen and 8th Avenue Serenade knocked the album down a point, and incohesivness as a whole knocked it down another point. Simple as that.

Okay. Good to know you have an interpretation too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...