November's Storms Posted December 30, 2010 Posted December 30, 2010 I was listening to Desensitized today, and I was wondering where the beginning screaming/crashing noise came from? I thought I read somewhere that Mike was having a panic attack or something, but I really don't get why they would record that. It wasn't a genuine panic attack, that would be a little too coincidental. Just him screaming and shouting and smashing up some things with a bat.
PunkRocks and Coke Posted December 30, 2010 Posted December 30, 2010 I don't know the exact story, but it is Mike. In the Nimrod credits Mike is listed for baseball bat. I personally don't think it was Mike having a panic attack (why/how would you even record that), but I don't know. oh I've always wondered why they listed that, I thought it ws because he played baseball or something.
radiofriendlyunitshifter Posted December 30, 2010 Posted December 30, 2010 I don't know the exact story, but it is Mike. In the Nimrod credits Mike is listed for baseball bat. I personally don't think it was Mike having a panic attack (why/how would you even record that), but I don't know. If it's in the Nimrod credits, then wouldn't there be another song on the actual album that he played "baseball bat" on?
PunkRocks and Coke Posted December 30, 2010 Posted December 30, 2010 If it's in the Nimrod credits, then wouldn't there be another song on the actual album that he played "baseball bat" on? I think Desensitization is a b-side off Nimrod but since they took the song off it looks they would have another one of him "playing baseball bat" like you said
Hermione Posted December 30, 2010 Posted December 30, 2010 If it's in the Nimrod credits, then wouldn't there be another song on the actual album that he played "baseball bat" on? Desensitized was originally going to be on Nimrod. They must've made the album booklet before they decided to take it off. Funnily enough it actually is on the Australian version of Nimrod, along with Suffocate, Do Da Da and You Lied.
Eirik Posted December 30, 2010 Posted December 30, 2010 Sweet, thanks So not overproducing would just be his normal voice then? (that's a bad sentence, but I'm too tired to phrase it correctly, haha) Not really. I'm not trying to be patronizing or anything, but it's sort of in the name: OVERproducing. It just means that too much stuff has been done to it. If it was just his normal voice, it would just be unproduced really (it also wouldn't sound that great).
Daughter.of.Rage.and.Love Posted December 30, 2010 Posted December 30, 2010 Yeah lol pretty sure he was just smashing some stuff up with it and shouting to make a cool sounding intro for the song. Maybe it got described somewhere as sounding like a panic attack? It'd be quite an accurate way to describe it. I always kind of interpreted it as something to show that people aren't phased by someone completely destroying something. Like, hey, cool intro, someone smashing shit up. (hell, it could even be beating someone up because of the screams (even though that's clearly not what's actually happening, but there's the suggestion of)). [/not really ontopic] edit: oh wait. there's a difference between something sounding like something and something having a goal. It does indeed kind of sound like it could be a panic attack.
oda Posted December 30, 2010 Posted December 30, 2010 I always kind of interpreted it as something to show that people aren't phased by someone completely destroying something. Like, hey, cool intro, someone smashing shit up. (hell, it could even be beating someone up because of the screams (even though that's clearly not what's actually happening, but there's the suggestion of)). thats what i thought the first time i heard it i was like: holy shit what is going on?! but yeah, i figured that couldn't be the case
BombingwithBillieJoe Posted December 30, 2010 Posted December 30, 2010 Not really. I'm not trying to be patronizing or anything, but it's sort of in the name: OVERproducing. It just means that too much stuff has been done to it. If it was just his normal voice, it would just be unproduced really (it also wouldn't sound that great). You didn't sound patronizing at all . Thank you
radiofriendlyunitshifter Posted December 30, 2010 Posted December 30, 2010 Desensitized was originally going to be on Nimrod. They must've made the album booklet before they decided to take it off. Funnily enough it actually is on the Australian version of Nimrod, along with Suffocate, Do Da Da and You Lied. Cool, I didn't know any of that.
Hermione Posted December 30, 2010 Posted December 30, 2010 ^ Yeah apparently the four extra songs are on the end of it, not just as bonus songs but as if they're proper songs on the album. I find it extremely freaky and wrong I always kind of interpreted it as something to show that people aren't phased by someone completely destroying something. Like, hey, cool intro, someone smashing shit up. (hell, it could even be beating someone up because of the screams (even though that's clearly not what's actually happening, but there's the suggestion of)) I like your interpretation very much! I'd never really thought about it but I think that's exactly it. It must be true that I'm desensitized to it too because I did just think it was a cool intro
EvanAsFuck Posted December 30, 2010 Posted December 30, 2010 I'm pretty sure it's fake since GDC would be the first to know of these kinda things... But my friend found "setlists" for 3 Green Day shows at 924 Gilman Street: December 26th December 27th December 28th We can't find anymore info, so that (and the fact that it's THREE shows with 40 song setlists) leads me to believe it's just some fake thing... But I just wanted to make sure! So anyone hear about this or have any info on it?
Daughter.of.Rage.and.Love Posted December 30, 2010 Posted December 30, 2010 I'm pretty sure it's fake since GDC would be the first to know of these kinda things... But my friend found "setlists" for 3 Green Day shows at 924 Gilman Street: December 26th December 27th December 28th We can't find anymore info, so that (and the fact that it's THREE shows with 40 song setlists) leads me to believe it's just some fake thing... But I just wanted to make sure! So anyone hear about this or have any info on it? Yeah, that's fake for sure. Apart from that indeed GDC would be all over it if that happened, Billie (and I'm not sure if it was Mike and Tre too) was spotted in Chicago on like the 27th or some date around that time, so it's physically impossible those shows happened. And even if it was possible, if it would've happened there would have been something on GDC about it.
November's Storms Posted December 31, 2010 Posted December 31, 2010 And as far as I know they haven't played as Green Day in Gilman since 2001
farley drexel hatcher Posted December 31, 2010 Posted December 31, 2010 Plus it's kind of an unofficial rule that they only play music from before they signed to the major label, when they do play there ... so they'd never dream of playing the new stuff.
Liam Posted December 31, 2010 Posted December 31, 2010 And as far as I know they haven't played as Green Day in Gilman since 2001 Yep the only other time has played there was in Pinhead Gunpowder because they aren't signed.
SmoothSlappyHours Posted December 31, 2010 Posted December 31, 2010 thanks for leading me here... hmmmm... what clothes does he (Billie Joe) wear on live performances? (brands, and whether or not it is tailored)?
Vaso.Of.Suburbia Posted December 31, 2010 Posted December 31, 2010 thanks for leading me here... hmmmm... what clothes does he (Billie Joe) wear on live performances? (brands, and whether or not it is tailored)? All I know is that he usually wears Converse and TUK (shoes)...
jello4president Posted December 31, 2010 Posted December 31, 2010 Desensitized was originally going to be on Nimrod. They must've made the album booklet before they decided to take it off. Funnily enough it actually is on the Australian version of Nimrod, along with Suffocate, Do Da Da and You Lied. I always wondered why it was they were on Nimrod here... I remember when I first listened to Shenanigans I got all confused because I knew that they were all b-sides and assumed that I wouldn't know any of the songs on it and then there was these songs I knew! Sorry that was a bit of a ramble...
green day is Posted December 31, 2010 Posted December 31, 2010 Where was it confirmed that Prosthetic Head originally was going to have a music video? It's in the GDA "trivia" section. Also, (again from the trivia section) was 86 released as a promotional single? I'm pretty sure it wasn't. If so, what did the cover look like? And one more thing; Why were some (actually a lot) of songs in the singles box set not actually singles?
Hermione Posted December 31, 2010 Posted December 31, 2010 I always wondered why it was they were on Nimrod here... I remember when I first listened to Shenanigans I got all confused because I knew that they were all b-sides and assumed that I wouldn't know any of the songs on it and then there was these songs I knew! Sorry that was a bit of a ramble... Haha it's weird! I can't get my head round Nimrod having 22 tracks. Where was it confirmed that Prosthetic Head originally was going to have a music video? It's in the GDA "trivia" section. There was a radio interview from around when Nimrod came out where they said Prosthetic Head would be the next video. Trying to remember which one it was....I'm thinking the Modern Rock Live one but it could be the KROQ one.
The Platypus! Posted December 31, 2010 Posted December 31, 2010 I'm really confised about the whole Dookie and Elmo thing . Is this the one with Elmo? and it's meant to be rare right ? And this the one without Elmo supposed to be more common because o the copyright thing. Can someone tell me if this is right or wrong please.
Hermione Posted December 31, 2010 Posted December 31, 2010 I'm really confised about the whole Dookie and Elmo thing . Is this the one with Elmo? and it's meant to be rare right ? And this the one without Elmo supposed to be more common because o the copyright thing. Can someone tell me if this is right or wrong please. Depends where you live. It was originally made with Ernie and then they had to remove it. But they only had to remove it in the US. So with Ernie is rare in the US, and without Ernie is rare everywhere else.
The Platypus! Posted December 31, 2010 Posted December 31, 2010 Depends where you live. It was originally made with Ernie and then they had to remove it. But they only had to remove it in the US. So with Ernie is rare in the US, and without Ernie is rare everywhere else. Ahh thanks, but I always got told it was Elmo .
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.