Jump to content
 

Parking Lot - California Deluxe Single (March 17th)


NotNow

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Chase said:

100% agreed. I became a hard-core Blink fan in 2009, right after the reunion announcement. I bought every album, fell in love with Untitled, followed the studio updates...and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited...

Those 2 years of broken promises and pushed deadlines were miserable. Absolutely miserable.

I remember when Neighborhoods finally leaked, about a week before I was going to see them for the first time live on the Honda Civic Tour. I binged the album leading up to the show to learn the lyrics to GOTDF (since I knew they were playing it live). The night of the concert, I will never forget the juxtaposition of my excitement versus Tom half-assing the performance on stage with the stupid Love beanie and AVA guitar strap.

I'm not even going to go into the 2011-2016 bullshit that we all sat through, nor do I claim to know how bad it must have sucked for everyone on here who was lucky enough to see Blink in their heyday. But I'd rather have Feldmann and "NA NA NA WHOA" than go through that again.

I agree plus I also love having an active board.. this place was fucking dead when tours ended. People can say "oh I'd still rather have Tom" fine but this place would be dead by now. It was on the verge of it till Tom got the boot and we had shit to talk about again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think parking lot represents California (the full album) very well, it has the same strong points and the same flaws, on one side the vocals are good, drums, guitar shows improvement, but the nanana´s, terrible-lazy lyrics, gang vocals, dont let it be considered a great song. Its getting an unffair hate though i think this is waaaaay better than California (the song) or Hey Im sorry, and its on the same vein as No Future or Rabbit Hole but i find it better than those two as well. Its like a NoFx influenced song ruined by All time Low elements.

This shit happens when a filler song get released as a single, its getting barely the same reaction as Rabbit Hole.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok, so travis wanted to be dramatic in an interview and told the readers that tom didn't even listened to the masters. yeah, that's really dramatic... where's your common sense?

you tend to lost in meaningless details, and can't see the big picture. people, even famous people and qualified musicians are not walking dictionaries, they often use incorrect phrasing (especially when they want to convince others about something, and they throw into some buzzwords to raise attention). there's no point of analyzing their sentences word by word. the important part is the message they try to pass, which in travis' case was this simple: tom did not care about anyone else's work, he did his parts, emailed them to mark, and disappeared in his own world again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Chase said:

100% agreed. I became a hard-core Blink fan in 2009, right after the reunion announcement. I bought every album, fell in love with Untitled, followed the studio updates...and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited...

Those 2 years of broken promises and pushed deadlines were miserable. Absolutely miserable.

I remember when Neighborhoods finally leaked, about a week before I was going to see them for the first time live on the Honda Civic Tour. I binged the album leading up to the show to learn the lyrics to GOTDF (since I knew they were playing it live). The night of the concert, I will never forget the juxtaposition of my excitement versus Tom half-assing the performance on stage with the stupid Love beanie and AVA guitar strap.

I'm not even going to go into the 2011-2016 bullshit that we all sat through, nor do I claim to know how bad it must have sucked for everyone on here who was lucky enough to see Blink in their heyday. But I'd rather have Feldmann and "NA NA NA WHOA" than go through that again.

Truly sorry you were not there for the pre hiatus days. It was so much better.

There is just something amazing about seeing a band and knowing they are in their prime and going along for the ride. Literally growing up with them. Especially someone as great as Blink. Having seen bands many times that are well past their prime there is always that lingering thought "I wish I could have been there back in the day". Blink was the first band where I was able to say "here I am, right place, right time" and it was amazing.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Zoltan said:

ok, so travis wanted to be dramatic in an interview and told the readers that tom didn't even listened to the masters. yeah, that's really dramatic... where's your common sense?

you tend to lost in meaningless details, and can't see the big picture. people, even famous people and qualified musicians are not walking dictionaries, they often use incorrect phrasing (especially when they want to convince others about something, and they throw into some buzzwords to raise attention). there's no point of analyzing their sentences word by word. the important part is the message they try to pass, which in travis' case was this simple: tom did not care about anyone else's work, he did his parts, emailed them to mark, and disappeared in his own world again.

Nope, again you're losing your perspective when someone points to you out to correct a thing that, basically, is not true. If Travis wanted to say something, I don't know. I just know what he said, and knowing the guy uses to be pretty transparent, that's what I get and what I'm gonna take as official. And if there's no point in analyzing meanings on sentences, then, what the hell are you doing frely interpreting what Travis sais? Just stick with what he said, and move on.

To think that listening or not to the masters is a big deal or not, well... it will depend on your personal opinion, but I'd say that any musician who cares about his band and records, just shows some interest on the important moments of the whole process, and to listen to the masters is a big deal if you care about how you'll en up sounding finally. Is technical shit? No, common sense too, and interest in what you're doing.

So, you sometimes grab some sentences and take them as if they were written in stone, but other times, when those sentences don't fit your opinion or whatever you're thinking, you just pretty much say they are not big deal. Oh yeah.

Weird, because the last sentence I agree again on. I don't know to what extent he (Tom) did that, but it's pretty obvious they were working in separate ways and intereseted in different directions for the band. But guess what: that... we all knew that, man, even you, since a few years ago now. No need to mess with words, concepts, sentences or opinions. The fact that Tom was not 100% into it, that is something you can hear on the record.

Also, remember he said once that when he asked Mark if he gave everything he had on the Dogs Eating Wogs EP in a meeting they had (was Las Vegas?), there was no response. So, yeah, although Tom has been a total bitch in the way he managed the whole situation -the main reason blink is where is at now-, and that he wanted blink to sound something Mark and Travis didn't agree, maybe there are much more details in the whole story. Unfortunately, doesn't seem ike we will ever know them.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Zoltan said:

from the 17 songs we have heard:

 - 2 meaningless joke songs: built this pool, brohemian rhapsody

 - 1 song with a very specific theme: hisalp

 - 2 songs with "universal" lyrics (not abot the past) and a newer sound: no future, left alone

 - 2 songs with a "retro" sound: cynical, rabbit hole (fast paced punk songs, both has an early 90's surfpunk/skatepunk feel.)

 - 10 songs with absolutely nostalgic themes: all those wo-oh's framing the bridge in btd are there to get you back to the past, and mark's lyrics are clearly about his youth. soohm is about mark meeting her future wife 20 years ago. then a song about los angeles that feels like the theme song of 90's crime series or superhero cartoons (and as i remember matt said that bridge he sings about doesn't exist anymore, but it was something he remembered from the first time he was in la). in sober matt sings about the time he was a bike messenger, mark sing about a date with a girl. we have a song about they are 20 years old and they are the kings of the weekend. teenage satellites is about the feelings of their teenager years. san diego is about when mark and tom were best friends in the early days of blink. in tottm matt sings about when he was robbed, also cites a line from reel big fish's 1996 song. california with its melancholic sound and sarcastic lyrics is the nostalgia itself. parking lot is also about their youth.

so most songs are part of a concept. even the songs that are not clearly nostalgic can be in this concept because they're timeless.

it's obvious that they intentionally used this much teenager/young adult themes - mixed with soundscapes of a past era. (in contrary: on toypaj they sang about being reckless teens too, but it had a present sound then.)

This would be really believable if it weren't for the fact that in practically every interview about the record, they've stated the 'theme' of the record is California, how it's this bright sunny place where dreams come true with this darkness underneath. I think their theme is nonsense but they played on it pretty damn hard. if they also had a theme of nostalgia and reminiscing I imagine that would have been talked a lot about, also.

Instead, we get this "legacy" speech and how blink is about "eternal youth" (hilariously a Tomism) and I think thats more of a reason for it, not some kind of California specific theme. 

As for the mastering argument I do want to agree that Travis means more that Tom didn't listen to the final product but as Travis literally produces things himself I highly doubt he'd use "masters" without literally meaning the "masters"

I still think not listening to the masters is despicable, if you're about to release a record. Regardless of how many mixes Tom may or may not have listened to, him not listening to the masters is still awful. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, jordidanen95 said:

The only reason i dont listen to neighborhoods is cause i dont like how it all sounds together and the boring bridges...

but that record had some potential. even with the way they recorded. If it just sounded better and had some lyrical bridges...i would love neighborhoods

Record could of been bigger had the label given a shit and actually promoted it the way California was promoted. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Zoltan said:

here we are again. stating technical definitions, while you just need to use your fucking brain to understand what someone wanted to tell.

travis said "masters". he could have said "final mixes", he could have said "the record before it came out", he could have said "the songs after he finished his own parts". these are all mean the same thing if you are not a know-it-all, but a normal human being who talks to the wide public.

The only two things that actually mean the same thing here are "Masters" and "The Record Before It Came Out".  You're final mixes are gonna sound alot different then your masters. The mastering process happens after the final mix.  It's essentially doing a mix on the WAV form of all the pieces together.   The songs after he finished his own parts wouldve happened even before the final mix.

 

TBH having Tom not listen to the masters isnt THAT big of a deal. They usually sound pretty similar to you're final mix and have ALOT less to do with the creative process then the mix. If you're sending off your mixes to someone you trust to do the masters, I dont think its THAT big of a deal that he didnt hear them. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

they said the album's concept is "the dark and bright side of california". if you listen to the album, you can realize that almost every song is filled with early 90's nostalgia. what is the conclusion? "they did not say that, so that cannot be true." :S

mark wrote "likewise" in a reply to feldmann about waiting to work together in the future. if you think about it, you can realize that feldmann's tweet was written after they finished the california deluxe, and the band most likely won't be in any studios for the next 1-1,5 years. mark's reply was probably just a polite gesture, not a future-defining signature on a contract. it's possible that they just finished their relationship with feldmann, their future is wide open, they can choose another producer for thir next album, etc. what is your conclusion? "mark expressed he wants to work with feldmann, their future is doomed." :S

travis said "tom hadn't listened to the masters". if you think about it, you can realize that he just wanted to bash tom for not caring about the band, and you know that travis is that kind of person who answers different random things (e.g. the number of recorded tracks) to the same question at different times because for him it's enough to give you an impression, concrete answers are not that important (or maybe he cannot tell anything concrete). so why would you think that every single word of a story from his mouth is precisely worded? no one cared what words he used. yet 2 years later your conclusion is: "he said a technical term, so i must go into an irrelevant argument about what is the definition of masters." :S (then what? why is it important? if everyone agrees that travis wanted to talk about the masters, tom's fault will be reappraised? "tom just didn't listen to the masters, it's not that important, he's still a caring guy." while you know that travis wanted to express the opposite.)

the album booklet and feldmann said he was a "producer/co-writer". if you think about it, he could get the co-writer credit for at least 2 reasons even if he wasn't an active writer: he had pre-recorded samples/ideas to help any band to write songs faster (his engineers talked about it), and the band used some of those. or he could have enforced a contract with the label, that the band must give him co-writer credit for his help, for being with them in the studio. (yeah, you wrote it a hundred times that it's illegal, but it's totally legal. i can give you ownership of something without getting anything in return. the illegal way would be its inverse: you claim ownership without my permission. but it's not the case... the label/band was able to legally give credits for nothing... i'm not saying that it is what happened. i'm saying that: it could have happened. the probabilities of "feldmann as a real co-writer", "usage of his old ideas", and "nothing but a contract" are the same... see: schrödinger's cat.) your conclusion after a logical reasoning is that "the booklet says he's a co-writer, it must be true, feldmann wrote everything." :S

do you see the pattern? we have info bits from official sources. i present you a logical explanation of how you can translate it. then the answer from the boards is an illogical word-analysis, like official sources would tell you the absolute truth in 2 word sentences. "if they say it's about california, it cannot be about anything else", "mark must tweet 'i don't want to see you again, you donut eating bastard', then i'll believe that blink can leave feldmann", "oh, if travis says masters, tom's probably innocent", "feldmann said he co-wrote the album with the band, it must be true, because if the public co-writer credits were just the result of a contract he would have said he's not a co-writer"...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Adrianm14 said:

The only two things that actually mean the same thing here are "Masters" and "The Record Before It Came Out".  You're final mixes are gonna sound alot different then your masters. The mastering process happens after the final mix.  It's essentially doing a mix on the WAV form of all the pieces together.   The songs after he finished his own parts wouldve happened even before the final mix.

 

TBH having Tom not listen to the masters isnt THAT big of a deal. They usually sound pretty similar to you're final mix and have ALOT less to do with the creative process then the mix. If you're sending off your mixes to someone you trust to do the masters, I dont think its THAT big of a deal that he didnt hear them. 

please fuck off. can't you just understand that there's no point of defining what masters are, because it won't change the story?! you guys just want to show off your technical knowledge (like others don't know about the same thing), then you just show that your text interpretation skills are below 0.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Zoltan said:

they said the album's concept is "the dark and bright side of california". if you listen to the album, you can realize that almost every song is filled with early 90's nostalgia. what is the conclusion? "they did not say that, so that cannot be true." :S

mark wrote "likewise" in a reply to feldmann about waiting to work together in the future. if you think about it, you can realize that feldmann's tweet was written after they finished the california deluxe, and the band most likely won't be in any studios for the next 1-1,5 years. mark's reply was probably just a polite gesture, not a future-defining signature on a contract. it's possible that they just finished their relationship with feldmann, their future is wide open, they can choose another producer for thir next album, etc. what is your conclusion? "mark expressed he wants to work with feldmann, their future is doomed." :S

travis said "tom hadn't listened to the masters". if you think about it, you can realize that he just wanted to bash tom for not caring about the band, and you know that travis is that kind of person who answers different random things (e.g. the number of recorded tracks) to the same question at different times because for him it's enough to give you an impression, concrete answers are not that important (or maybe he cannot tell anything concrete). so why would you think that every single word of a story from his mouth is precisely worded? no one cared what words he used. yet 2 years later your conclusion is: "he said a technical term, so i must go into an irrelevant argument about what is the definition of masters." :S (then what? why is it important? if everyone agrees that travis wanted to talk about the masters, tom's fault will be reappraised? "tom just didn't listen to the masters, it's not that important, he's still a caring guy." while you know that travis wanted to express the opposite.)

the album booklet and feldmann said he was a "producer/co-writer". if you think about it, he could get the co-writer credit for at least 2 reasons even if he wasn't an active writer: he had pre-recorded samples/ideas to help any band to write songs faster (his engineers talked about it), and the band used some of those. or he could have enforced a contract with the label, that the band must give him co-writer credit for his help, for being with them in the studio. (yeah, you wrote it a hundred times that it's illegal, but it's totally legal. i can give you ownership of something without getting anything in return. the illegal way would be its inverse: you claim ownership without my permission. but it's not the case... the label/band was able to legally give credits for nothing... i'm not saying that it is what happened. i'm saying that: it could have happened. the probabilities of "feldmann as a real co-writer", "usage of his old ideas", and "nothing but a contract" are the same... see: schrödinger's cat.) your conclusion after a logical reasoning is that "the booklet says he's a co-writer, it must be true, feldmann wrote everything." :S

do you see the pattern? we have info bits from official sources. i present you a logical explanation of how you can translate it. then the answer from the boards is an illogical word-analysis, like official sources would tell you the absolute truth in 2 word sentences. "if they say it's about california, it cannot be about anything else", "mark must tweet 'i don't want to see you again, you donut eating bastard', then i'll believe that blink can leave feldmann", "oh, if travis says masters, tom's probably innocent", "feldmann said he co-wrote the album with the band, it must be true, because if the public co-writer credits were just the result of a contract he would have said he's not a co-writer"...

Well, actually, if the album has a theme (not all of them do) and they discuss that theme, then you kind of assume the theme they're discussing the one they employed when writing the record. They said the theme, time and time again, was about the dark and light side of California. and that theme is present in the album. the 90s nostalgia thing is obvious in a song like Kings Of The Weekend and I suppose San Diego if you want to talk about their personal history, but overall that 'nostalgia' your talking about isn't made a point of. The songs sounding like them ripping themselves off or forcing themselves to sound young isn't a 'theme' its them trying to be commercially relevant. Any feldmann interview makes that fairly obvious - Both the one where he discusses California track by track specifically, but also in that recent interview where he talks about writing pop punk songs. It's not an artistic 'theme' if the entire point of it is to be commercially viable. 'Themes' in albums are about overarching naratives, ideas and flows of emotion. Not 'how to get money out of teenagers'.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Holy Shit! What did I just read?

 

And are you seriously still trying to say that Feldman didn't help write the album? What is it going to take to get your to believe otherwise? The interviews where Feldman said he helped write it have been posted how many times?

Do you have to get the interview branded on your ass or something? My god.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Zoltan said:

travis said "tom hadn't listened to the masters". if you think about it, you can realize that he just wanted to bash tom for not caring about the band, and you know that travis is that kind of person who answers different random things (e.g. the number of recorded tracks) to the same question at different times because for him it's enough to give you an impression, concrete answers are not that important (or maybe he cannot tell anything concrete). so why would you think that every single word of a story from his mouth is precisely worded? no one cared what words he used. yet 2 years later your conclusion is: "he said a technical term, so i must go into an irrelevant argument about what is the definition of masters." :S (then what? why is it important? if everyone agrees that travis wanted to talk about the masters, tom's fault will be reappraised? "tom just didn't listen to the masters, it's not that important, he's still a caring guy." while you know that travis wanted to express the opposite.)

Well, I don't think they saying that is bashing DeLonge. Is just exposing what happened, for fuck's sake. You're constantly second guessing what the band actually says in order to invent your own interpretation. I mean, do whatever you want, but your thoughs and personal interpretations are not the real deal, no matter how many times you say them.

Concrete answers are important, as long as they provide concrete info, and not the amount of excuses DeLonge told to the fans when the shit was delayed. Tom basically said he was so busy he should split his time, Travis basically said: "look, maybe that's right, but this guy didn't listened to the masters". Which, yeah, that's a significan detail.

And finally, I'm not going into irrelevant argument. I'm just correcting you when you say that mastering adds something to the songs. Can't you see that we are basically agreeing on the final conclussion but I only telling you that you're wrong about that concept? No, you can't, and you keep on pushing and twisting your own words. same behaviour you did a few weeks ago. And yes, it's important to know some details to understand 100% what happened and talk about it properly.

"The devil is in the details".

 

Quote

the album booklet and feldmann said he was a "producer/co-writer". if you think about it, he could get the co-writer credit for at least 2 reasons even if he wasn't an active writer: he had pre-recorded samples/ideas to help any band to write songs faster (his engineers talked about it), and the band used some of those. or he could have enforced a contract with the label, that the band must give him co-writer credit for his help, for being with them in the studio. (yeah, you wrote it a hundred times that it's illegal, but it's totally legal. i can give you ownership of something without getting anything in return. the illegal way would be its inverse: you claim ownership without my permission. but it's not the case... the label/band was able to legally give credits for nothing... i'm not saying that it is what happened. i'm saying that: it could have happened. the probabilities of "feldmann as a real co-writer", "usage of his old ideas", and "nothing but a contract" are the same... see: schrödinger's cat.) your conclusion after a logical reasoning is that "the booklet says he's a co-writer, it must be true, feldmann wrote everything." :S

Jesus, again. You discussing the official credits and ignoring all the legal stuff that is involved when someone claims or takes writing credits. That's is so ignorant that does not need more answer. Jsut speaks by itself.

Again: your attempt to make up the reality is not making your opinion the real deal. The real deal is what you get from official sources. That's it, not what you say because, I don't know, you would like to happen other way. Your interpretation can be what you want. I mean...

 

Quote

do you see the pattern? we have info bits from official sources. i present you a logical explanation of how you can translate it. then the answer from the boards is an illogical word-analysis, like official sources would tell you the absolute truth in 2 word sentences. "if they say it's about california, it cannot be about anything else", "mark must tweet 'i don't want to see you again, you donut eating bastard', then i'll believe that blink can leave feldmann", "oh, if travis says masters, tom's probably innocent", "feldmann said he co-wrote the album with the band, it must be true, because if the public co-writer credits were just the result of a contract he would have said he's not a co-writer"...

 

Do you see the pattern? We actually have official information, and you keep on going bananas trying to re-build reality. Is amazing. You can write, in fact, a non authorized chronicle of this period in the band, hahaha.

Is absolutely ridiculous, man. I mean, go ahead and rewrite Nazi history, for example. Hahaha.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Chase said:

100% agreed. I became a hard-core Blink fan in 2009, right after the reunion announcement. I bought every album, fell in love with Untitled, followed the studio updates...and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited...

Those 2 years of broken promises and pushed deadlines were miserable. Absolutely miserable.

I remember when Neighborhoods finally leaked, about a week before I was going to see them for the first time live on the Honda Civic Tour. I binged the album leading up to the show to learn the lyrics to GOTDF (since I knew they were playing it live). The night of the concert, I will never forget the juxtaposition of my excitement versus Tom half-assing the performance on stage with the stupid Love beanie and AVA guitar strap.

I'm not even going to go into the 2011-2016 bullshit that we all sat through, nor do I claim to know how bad it must have sucked for everyone on here who was lucky enough to see Blink in their heyday. But I'd rather have Feldmann and "NA NA NA WHOA" than go through that again.

I never forget hearing live versions of After Midnight and GOTDF in paris around 2011. i was stoked to hear better studio versions. cause i could picture it in my head.

but the final thing sounded very different from how it sounded in my head at the time.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, jordidanen95 said:

I never forget hearing live versions of After Midnight and GOTDF in paris around 2011. i was stoked to hear better studio versions. cause i could picture it in my head.

but the final thing sounded very different from how it sounded in my head at the time.

 

This is why I almost always wait until release day to hear any versions of songs.

I end up overplaying the first singles and then it doesn't fit the album for me anymore. I'll usually listen once or twice and then wait for the full release.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...