Jump to content

¡Tré! chart performance


Requila

Recommended Posts

Wait, what? Last thing I'm going to say on this: Apparently, according to you, it makes us immature for sticking up for Green Day on a Green Day fan website. Okay then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 177
  • Created
  • Last Reply

But seriously, thank you for saying what I was thinking but to lazy to type. You're the hero GDC needs and deserves right now.

No problem! I was just getting really fed up with what WWTS kept saying. He's been throwing out these random accusations basically since he joined this summer, and I've just been annoyed by it. It seems aggressive and rude and just unnecessarily confrontational. So I decided to go all out and really dissect the whole argument using my more academic writing and debating skills, haha. Glad to help out :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Green Day is a pop act. The Beatles is considered a pop act. Nirvana called themselves a pop act. They play accessible music. I meant music in general. Songs like Fuck Time and Makeout Party are immature, and not funny at all. They're gimmick tracks. Sure, they're intentionally meant to be stupid, but they aren't funny stupid. And you can't honestly say you wouldn't be able to hear the similarities between Sam Cooke's song and Brutal Love. Almost every single review has brought it up. Green Day sampled a large part of the melody, and that shows by giving writing credit to Cooke. The label probably did that so they wouldn't get sued over it. That's exactly what rappers do when they sample another artist's song. Also, I don't say my opinion is fact or act like it is. I say at the end of my comment this is my personal opinion. I just explain my opinions so people will know why I feel the way I feel.

No it isn't. Just because they took the melody from that Sam Cooke song doesn't mean it's sampled. It is not. Also to be fair, I didn't really hear the similarity. I'm not saying it isn't there, but it's a technical thing - and Brutal Love and that Cooke song are pretty different songs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No problem! I was just getting really fed up with what WWTS kept saying. He's been throwing out these random accusations basically since he joined this summer, and I've just been annoyed by it. It seems aggressive and rude and just unnecessarily confrontational. So I decided to go all out and really dissect the whole argument using my more academic writing and debating skills, haha. Glad to help out :)

High five to you. Your whole statement just made me want to dance. So I put on Kill the DJ and did just that :dance:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Green Day is a pop act. The Beatles is considered a pop act. Nirvana called themselves a pop act. They play accessible music. I meant music in general. Songs like Fuck Time and Makeout Party are immature, and not funny at all. They're gimmick tracks. Sure, they're intentionally meant to be stupid, but they aren't funny stupid. And you can't honestly say you wouldn't be able to hear the similarities between Sam Cooke's song and Brutal Love. Almost every single review has brought it up. Green Day sampled a large part of the melody, and that shows by giving writing credit to Cooke. The label probably did that so they wouldn't get sued over it. That's exactly what rappers do when they sample another artist's song. Also, I don't say my opinion is fact or act like it is. I say at the end of my comment this is my personal opinion. I just explain my opinions so people will know why I feel the way I feel.

Dude. They didn't sample it. Also, they didn't borrow the melody. The vocal lines are totally different. The music is similar enough, but I wouldn't have noticed - to me it's just like the Pachelbel's Canon thing - similar structure, but I don't really care. Other aspects of the music are more important to me. I haven't read a single review that compared the two songs, and regardless, that isn't the point. It also doesn't matter who decided to credit Sam Cooke in the liner notes - I'm sure all parties involved were expecting that.

And they are not a pop act, for the last time. Pop originally came from "popular," obviously meaning that the music was popularly received. It is now basically just a musical genre, and Green Day does not fit into it. Nor do the Beatles or Nirvana. There's a difference between having pop influences and sensibilities and actually being pop. All three bands mentioned fall into the former category, not the latter. Also, as I already mentioned, very few artists fit neatly into one genre anyway - many styles influence everyone's music now. But overall, GREEN DAY IS NOT A POP ACT. Their instrumentation, lyrics, presentation, and various other aspects of their music and career make it clear that the umbrella genre they fit into best is rock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just wanna say that I don't think pop act is an insult. There are a lot of historically great pop acts. There are also many terrible pop acts, but pop act by itself is not derogatory in my view. I also want to add that when I looked up rock songs that have been on the charts the longest this year, I didn't really come across anything that was too instrumentally diverse. There were some standup bass', some horns, some strings, but nothing really out of the ordinary. They were all extremely poppy and catchy right away, which is what I would expect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man, some people are really fucking stupid. You obviously have no idea what it means to "sample" a song.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys should try to get along with one another and learn the differences between Fact and Opinion. It's called logic.

I understand most of you are young so you won't learn that difference for a while but coming to this forum to talk about a band I like is a real letdown sometimes.

Go to the 311 forum and compare and contrast differences in behavior of some of the members there and the ones here. It's a pretty eye opening difference.

A lot of good can be gained when people have rational well thought out discussions with one another. You can disagree with one another but try to be respectful.

If anyone disagrees with me so be it. I have stated my piece. I like Green Day a lot but some of you guys here need to grow up and try to make this forum a more enjoyable place for others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait, what? I said pop is a type of music. That's exactly what I said. Pop is an accessible and bright type of music. And yeah I have said positive things about the band. And I'm in this forum for the same reason as everyone else. To throw in my 2 cents. That's what forums are for. If you don't agree with me than fine, but I have just as much right to comment here as you or anyone.

No. You said 'pop is a way of saying accessible'. And it's not. Pop is a music genre like any other. And I'm not saying you don't have the right to post, but for fuck's shake, all you do is saying that they're washed up, they've never been original, they are pop, they steal songs, they're trying too hard to be funny... I doubt that you even like their music.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, Green Day is not a POP act. They have elements of pop in their music, and they can be accessible, but the genre of music they make is primarily rock. You can hear the obvious influences rock (as well as its earlier influences, like the blues, as well as its subsequently developed subgenres, like punk) have had on Green Day's music. And true, they have definite pop sensibilities, as their melodic songwriting demonstrates. But, given the instrumentation, lyrical topicality, and overall presentation of their music, Green Day is a rock band who makes rock music. They can then be fit into subgenres like alternative, punk, pop punk, etc. But there is no way anyone would confuse their music with that of, say, One Direction or Katy Perry, who make true, unmistakable pop music. As with most musicians, Green Day's music is very nuanced and takes influences from a wide variety of styles, and thus their music can fit into a wide variety of genres, depending on what song you're looking at. Most artists are not exclusive to one style of music, and Green Day isn't either. This trilogy alone demonstrates that clearly.

However, all things considered, Green Day would never be identified as a pop band who makes pop music. It is rock, regardless of how accessible you think it is. (And considering the current music trends on radio these days, their music isn't so accessible right now anyway.) (Also, Maroon 5 is much more pop then Green Day - always have been. That seems fairly self-evident.)

Second, while I can respect your opinion, I do wish you would stop presenting it as fact. In my opinion, their new songs *do* have that sparkle, Green Day does *not* sound washed up, and they do *not* sound like they're trying to be immature. Although Uno is overall comparable to their earlier albums, it has a different quality to it. It has a more mature perspective (such as in Nuclear Family) and talks about important topics (such as religion and media in Kill The DJ). But it also is able to show their fun side. It sounds like a band that can still create the kind of atmosphere as they did 15-20 years ago, but has also evolved over the last two decades as well. Dos is experimental and different for them, and shows that they can create an album that sounds fun on the surface despite the darker undertones that run through most of the songs. They show an ease in utilizing more garage rock and 60s styled instrumentation, something that they never did before (except for their less ambitious FBH record). And Tré is absolutely mature, and is a natural progression from Warning, American Idiot, and 21st Century Breakdown. It sounds like a band that has progressed in their career and is able to offer a wiser perspective on life. Songs like X-Kid, Drama Queen, and Brutal Love could never have happened in their career before, but now they have evolved to that mental level. I am truly happy with the trilogy. If you don't like it, fine, but you don't have to make random assertions like they have bloated egos or are forcing immaturity or that they put no effort into their music. Even if you don't like it, it should be obvious those claims are unfounded.

Green Day did not "admit" to stealing Sam Cooke's song. They made the conscious creative choice to use a part of his song to build their own song around. Therefore, Sam Cooke is credited as a cowriter, as it is the correct and legal action. This does not suggest lack of originality, but rather a stylist choice to take an existing creation and changing it into a completely new song. This happens all the time, and has for literally centuries. Furthermore, this is not a sample. A sample would require Green Day to have taken the actual recording of Bring It On Home and put a portion of it into their song, or to rerecord the desired portion exactly. They did neither. The two songs have the same general musical construction, but they are played completely differently - different instrumentation, different mood and tone, and with a different vocal melody and lyrics over it. Honestly, I probably never would have noticed the similarity if I hadn't already heard about it. There are way more similar songs in the world that don't give credit to an earlier writer.

Another thing: Just because there are some similarities in some songs to others they have done, as well as to songs by other artists, it does not mean there is a lack of creativity or that the songs all sound indistinguishably similar. As far back as recorded music goes, there have always been similarities between some parts of songs - that's because all of the things that go into making a song (tempo, chords, notes, instrumental timbres, etc) are finite. It's just going to happen. And it doesn't necessarily mean someone is plagiarizing a song or that they're simply not creative - it just means that those 4 notes have been put together before. I could write a sentence, and I'm sure someone will have written the same thing before somewhere in the world. That's just they way it goes. The difference is how people think of this, and the ever lengthening terms of copyright. While Amy may have a distinctly Walking Alone -ish melody in some parts, the song as a whole is very different in terms of mood, tempo, subject, sonic quality, etc. Really, things like that can get rather nitpicky when it isn't something particularly notable.

Finally, the lyrics are actually very strong on many of these songs. Not everything will be poetic and deserving of some literary award, but I found most of the lyrics relay emotions beautifully. There is depth, they are thought-provoking, and they are at the very least on par with Green Day's previous songs. I don't see any issues with Billie's songwriting. I think this trilogy shows some of his best lyrics. You just happened to pick out a few of the weaker points, but every album has them.

best thing I've read since I joined GDC!! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tre entered the UK Rock Chart at #2 (Dos is still at #5 with Uno at #6 and AI at #33)

The Forgotten debuted at #39 on the UK rock singles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, Green Day is not a POP act. They have elements of pop in their music, and they can be accessible, but the genre of music they make is primarily rock. You can hear the obvious influences rock (as well as its earlier influences, like the blues, as well as its subsequently developed subgenres, like punk) have had on Green Day's music. And true, they have definite pop sensibilities, as their melodic songwriting demonstrates. But, given the instrumentation, lyrical topicality, and overall presentation of their music, Green Day is a rock band who makes rock music. They can then be fit into subgenres like alternative, punk, pop punk, etc. But there is no way anyone would confuse their music with that of, say, One Direction or Katy Perry, who make true, unmistakable pop music. As with most musicians, Green Day's music is very nuanced and takes influences from a wide variety of styles, and thus their music can fit into a wide variety of genres, depending on what song you're looking at. Most artists are not exclusive to one style of music, and Green Day isn't either. This trilogy alone demonstrates that clearly.

However, all things considered, Green Day would never be identified as a pop band who makes pop music. It is rock, regardless of how accessible you think it is. (And considering the current music trends on radio these days, their music isn't so accessible right now anyway.) (Also, Maroon 5 is much more pop then Green Day - always have been. That seems fairly self-evident.)

Second, while I can respect your opinion, I do wish you would stop presenting it as fact. In my opinion, their new songs *do* have that sparkle, Green Day does *not* sound washed up, and they do *not* sound like they're trying to be immature. Although Uno is overall comparable to their earlier albums, it has a different quality to it. It has a more mature perspective (such as in Nuclear Family) and talks about important topics (such as religion and media in Kill The DJ). But it also is able to show their fun side. It sounds like a band that can still create the kind of atmosphere as they did 15-20 years ago, but has also evolved over the last two decades as well. Dos is experimental and different for them, and shows that they can create an album that sounds fun on the surface despite the darker undertones that run through most of the songs. They show an ease in utilizing more garage rock and 60s styled instrumentation, something that they never did before (except for their less ambitious FBH record). And Tré is absolutely mature, and is a natural progression from Warning, American Idiot, and 21st Century Breakdown. It sounds like a band that has progressed in their career and is able to offer a wiser perspective on life. Songs like X-Kid, Drama Queen, and Brutal Love could never have happened in their career before, but now they have evolved to that mental level. I am truly happy with the trilogy. If you don't like it, fine, but you don't have to make random assertions like they have bloated egos or are forcing immaturity or that they put no effort into their music. Even if you don't like it, it should be obvious those claims are unfounded.

Green Day did not "admit" to stealing Sam Cooke's song. They made the conscious creative choice to use a part of his song to build their own song around. Therefore, Sam Cooke is credited as a cowriter, as it is the correct and legal action. This does not suggest lack of originality, but rather a stylist choice to take an existing creation and changing it into a completely new song. This happens all the time, and has for literally centuries. Furthermore, this is not a sample. A sample would require Green Day to have taken the actual recording of Bring It On Home and put a portion of it into their song, or to rerecord the desired portion exactly. They did neither. The two songs have the same general musical construction, but they are played completely differently - different instrumentation, different mood and tone, and with a different vocal melody and lyrics over it. Honestly, I probably never would have noticed the similarity if I hadn't already heard about it. There are way more similar songs in the world that don't give credit to an earlier writer.

Another thing: Just because there are some similarities in some songs to others they have done, as well as to songs by other artists, it does not mean there is a lack of creativity or that the songs all sound indistinguishably similar. As far back as recorded music goes, there have always been similarities between some parts of songs - that's because all of the things that go into making a song (tempo, chords, notes, instrumental timbres, etc) are finite. It's just going to happen. And it doesn't necessarily mean someone is plagiarizing a song or that they're simply not creative - it just means that those 4 notes have been put together before. I could write a sentence, and I'm sure someone will have written the same thing before somewhere in the world. That's just they way it goes. The difference is how people think of this, and the ever lengthening terms of copyright. While Amy may have a distinctly Walking Alone -ish melody in some parts, the song as a whole is very different in terms of mood, tempo, subject, sonic quality, etc. Really, things like that can get rather nitpicky when it isn't something particularly notable.

Finally, the lyrics are actually very strong on many of these songs. Not everything will be poetic and deserving of some literary award, but I found most of the lyrics relay emotions beautifully. There is depth, they are thought-provoking, and they are at the very least on par with Green Day's previous songs. I don't see any issues with Billie's songwriting. I think this trilogy shows some of his best lyrics. You just happened to pick out a few of the weaker points, but every album has them.

Amen to that :happy: I wish there was a love button :wub:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, couldn't agree more. I think Let Yourself Go should have had as big a release as Oh Love (was that phrase even gramatically correct?). Let Yourself Go is without a doubt one of the best songs on ¡Uno! and one of the biggest potential hits.

I am not sure where but I believe I saw Let Yourself Go #14 on a rock radio chart in terms of plays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it isn't. Just because they took the melody from that Sam Cooke song doesn't mean it's sampled. It is not. Also to be fair, I didn't really hear the similarity. I'm not saying it isn't there, but it's a technical thing - and Brutal Love and that Cooke song are pretty different songs.

I said it was similar to sampling, they took large chunks of the melody from his song. Enough to give him writing credit. They didn't rip off the entire song, I never said that. I said they took a lot from his song, so Brutal Love isn't an entirely original song. It's like a hybrid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said it was similar to sampling, they took large chunks of the melody from his song. Enough to give him writing credit. They didn't rip off the entire song, I never said that. I said they took a lot from his song, so Brutal Love isn't an entirely original song. It's like a hybrid.

Is that a bad thing? I like it :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other thing I can't understand is how someone could think Kendrick Lamar and frank ocean had the two best reviewed albums of the year unless they were reading solely pitchfork media, which isn't really a good indication of the general consensus. Don't get me wrong those albums do show up on quite a few top 25 lists but they're absent from just as many. Two well reviewed albums? Yes. The top two? Not by a long shot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys should try to get along with one another and learn the differences between Fact and Opinion. It's called logic.

I understand most of you are young so you won't learn that difference for a while but coming to this forum to talk about a band I like is a real letdown sometimes.

Go to the 311 forum and compare and contrast differences in behavior of some of the members there and the ones here. It's a pretty eye opening difference.

A lot of good can be gained when people have rational well thought out discussions with one another. You can disagree with one another but try to be respectful.

If anyone disagrees with me so be it. I have stated my piece. I like Green Day a lot but some of you guys here need to grow up and try to make this forum a more enjoyable place for others.

Yes I really agree with you!! Sometimes people can be so hateful not just here but all over the internet. Most of these people are teens or just ignorant and probably haven't experience real life yet. People really need to stop to take anyone that post something so seriously...

about if green day is pop or not. I would say no. Pop isn't what it was anymore. Green Day definitly has a formula (I'm not saying it's bad) but it does not attract people anymore. They rather listen to taylor swift. Which I find hilarious cuz they always bash on green day for being so simple but yet Tswift get praised for her music espically her writing LOL. I mean she's like what 23 her love songs are worse than the lyrics billie wrote when he was 16 (which are good btw)

The other thing I can't understand is how someone could think Kendrick Lamar and frank ocean had the two best reviewed albums of the year unless they were reading solely pitchfork media, which isn't really a good indication of the general consensus. Don't get me wrong those albums do show up on quite a few top 25 lists but they're absent from just as many. Two well reviewed albums? Yes. The top two? Not by a long shot.

I listened to frank ocean album becaus it was number one on every fucking list! but i just found it boring. I guess it just different strokes for other folks type of thing. Just like Folk music is suddenly huge right now. People are so boring nowadays :happy:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. 13 in the U.S. But considering the changed date and everything, it could have been much worse. What will be sad to see is next week. :(

True. But here's hoping this one gains momentum. Such a shame, if it had been released first with X-Kid as a single...

Hopefully this trilogy has longevity and a future. First-week sales don't mean much to me, and neither will the next few weeks until proper promotion happens. Talk to me in a year about the success of this album :lol: There is, of course, the chance nothing happens, and that's a damn shame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think thirteen is pretty good. The marketing was the best it could have been. I got quite a few Youtube ads popping up for Tre and anyone who watches ESPN definitely heard a song or two on there. I don't know what the plan is for when Billie comes back, but unfortunately I don't see these records really cracking the top ten again unless something like a whole boxset purchase becomes really desirable item through a few hit Tre singles. I suppose the fact is, Warner really had to adjust on the fly and they probably didn't want to pour millions into records without a band able to do promotion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think people are already tired of so much new Green Day. That's how it was with AI after a while and then especially with 21CB. People were sick of Green Day. Now they've put out 3 albums of material and people are sick of them again. Or they don't understand the trilogy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think people are already tired of so much new Green Day. That's how it was with AI after a while and then especially with 21CB. People were sick of Green Day. Now they've put out 3 albums of material and people are sick of them again. Or they don't understand the trilogy.

How can you be sick of Green Day?!

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...