Why didn't Green Day go more nuts with the trilogy?

[CrimsonArk]

They talked about how they had "tapped into their inner Exile On The Main Street" but outside of like 2 songs (Kill The DJ and Nightlife) they didn't really go any deeper than they ever had in the past. I mean, you'd imagine that by deciding to release what's pretty much a triple album that they would have decided to experiment more sonically (arrangement wise, songwriting wise etc.), at the very least for variety's sake. My biggest issue as a whole with trilogy was the sameyness of it all. The songs pretty much all had the exact same structure, the same guitar tones, nothing to really help the songs differentiate themselves from one another. I mean what was really the point? They said they wanted to go "epic as fuck" but the albums themselves weren't even epic. 

[Beerjeezus]

Too drunk to hear. 

[Guest]

Because they're not particularly talented or creative musicians and have stuck to pretty much exactly the same template and sound for 99% of their output?

I used to push the same line dude, expect to cop a lot of flak from mindless Green Day worshippers who'd praise the liquid dookie dripping from Billie's ass (better known as the Trilogy).

[CrimsonArk]

Too drunk to hear. 

But...you're reading.

[moonflower93]

eh i still think Uno is the better of the three

[Jimmy Strummer]

I think they were more talking about the concept itself rather than what was contained inside. In this day and age, it's very rare for bands to even attempt something like the Trilogy, or something similar like a double or triple album. Albeit for good reason, seeing as how triple or double albums leave more room for error and usually contain more than their fair share of filler, which the Trilogy I will admit suffers from. But few bands are willing to take that risk, and Green Day were excited to be facing a new challenge like that. Should they have taken more advantage of having three albums to fill by reaching out to more different styles, or at least making the songs better? Probably. But the fact that they were willing to attempt something so risky, given the recent climate changes in popular music, is impressive in and of itself. And I think that's where they got the impression that what they were doing was "epic as fuck." Because given today's popular music scene, yeah, it's a pretty epic idea.

[Hermione]

As far as I see it they've always been a band who weren't afraid to experiment a bit with different sounds/influences but still never strayed that far from their core sound. So on every album you get some interesting differences and quirkiness, but never anything that outlandish. By their standards it's fairly experimental.

I wouldn't go as far as Ceadagh to say that means they aren't particularly talented or creative musicians though. They're creative enough to experiment in lots of different ways, just because they choose not to take it that far and still keep a distinctive sound of their own it doesn't mean they're incapable of it, seems more like an artistic choice to me.

[Beerjeezus]

But...you're reading.

at least I'm not writing lyrics. 

[CrimsonArk]

I think they were more talking about the concept itself rather than what was contained inside. In this day and age, it's very rare for bands to even attempt something like the Trilogy, or something similar like a double or triple album. Albeit for good reason, seeing as how triple or double albums leave more room for error and usually contain more than their fair share of filler, which the Trilogy I will admit suffers from. But few bands are willing to take that risk, and Green Day were excited to be facing a new challenge like that. Should they have taken more advantage of having three albums to fill by reaching out to more different styles, or at least making the songs better? Probably. But the fact that they were willing to attempt something so risky, given the recent climate changes in popular music, is impressive in and of itself. And I think that's where they got the impression that what they were doing was "epic as fuck." Because given today's popular music scene, yeah, it's a pretty epic idea.

What do you mean the recent climate changes? Have you never heard of a little artist named Kanye West? Someone famous for attempting something completely different with every single one of his releases? Hell, his last album Yeezus was certified platinum and it pulled from similar genres as Daft Punk's early work and Nine Inch Nails. Or take Kendrick Lamar for instance. He just released a 78 minute manifesto that deals with racial issues that permeates throughout today's climate, all the while pulling from Jazz, Funk and Neo-Soul and it went gold in just a few weeks. Seriously an album featuring this song:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMxNYQ71LOk

Went gold in just a few weeks.

Releasing a triple album for the sake of saying you released a triple album isn't particularly impressive, especially considering Green Day tend to write that amount of songs each album anyway, it just so happens that in this instance they decided to just throw them all out there in a gimmicky fashion rather than attempt to make something more concise. 

As far as I see it they've always been a band who weren't afraid to experiment a bit with different sounds/influences but still never strayed that far from their core sound. So on every album you get some interesting differences and quirkiness, but never anything that outlandish. By their standards it's fairly experimental.

I wouldn't go as far as Ceadagh to say that means they aren't particularly talented or creative musicians though. They're creative enough to experiment in lots of different ways, just because they choose not to take it that far and still keep a distinctive sound of their own it doesn't mean they're incapable of it, seems more like an artistic choice to me.

Then why bother releasing a triple album, 3 albums that you have to buy separately, if you aren't going to offer anything new or anything better than what you've offered in the past? It comes off as extremely egotistical in a way, like how they said in the videos up until release that people would be, "blown away" by these albums, and how there was absolutely no filler at all. They released 37 songs, and only like 5 (Nightlife, Kill The DJ, Brutal Love, Drama Queen, The Forgotten) featured some form of dynamics to them to help them stand out from all the other songs. They even said these were the best songs they'd ever written, and talked about how they were bringing "real rock n roll" back. These albums were about as raw as the Arctic Monkey's last album.  

[Hermione]

Then why bother releasing a triple album, 3 albums that you have to buy separately, if you aren't going to offer anything new or anything better than what you've offered in the past? It comes off as extremely egotistical in a way, like how they said in the videos up until release that people would be, "blown away" by these albums, and how there was absolutely no filler at all. They released 37 songs, and only like 5 (Nightlife, Kill The DJ, Brutal Love, Drama Queen, The Forgotten) featured some form of dynamics to them to help them stand out from all the other songs. They even said these were the best songs they'd ever written, and talked about how they were bringing "real rock n roll" back. These albums were about as raw as the Arctic Monkey's last album.  

I don't think they necessarily meant people would be "blown away" because the songs were totally different/experimental, I think they meant more that they thought they were great songs (just because a lot of people didn't agree it doesn't mean they didn't believe that ) that were more simple and back to basics and had more of a rock and roll vibe than their recent albums. Pretty much every time a band releases an album they're excited and enthusiastic about it and believe it's good, I just don't think the trilogy is much more safe or less experimental than other albums they've released which they no doubt also said would blow people away.

[TaylorKlinke]

They didn't really have a chance to promote the albums because of Billie's rehab. I remember they were suppose to perform on Ellen and The Late Show with David Letterman...I was really looking forward to that! I wanted to see Tre do something crazy on Letterman again. Damnit.

[rootbeersoup]

Some people are very allergic

[captain peroxide]

I feel like a lot of the best albums were recorded either over a fairly long time, or a pretty short time. It's really easy to get caught up in the studio process and get into an echo chamber kind of state where everything seems like an awesome idea and you can't be critical or objective about what you're producing. There's a writing technique where, once you've written something, you leave it alone for a while, and come back to it later with fresh eyes, and it allows you to be more objective about what's good and what isn't. I feel like the same thing is true with music, and I feel like that's what happened with the Trilogy. Green Day got caught up creating, which is great, but they didn't give themselves the space to be objective about whether it was actually any good or not, and they ended up with a lot of filler. If they had a producer who was more objective, that would've probably helped, too.

[Insomniac85]

Not a fan of The Trilogy at all really. Some shit on there makes me flat out cringe. I like Angel Blue and Missing You. Other than that I can deal without. 

[Hero_Of_The_Hour]

A better question here would simply be:

The trilogy - why?!