Jump to content
 

The blink 182 general discussion topic


Aria

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Russel Coight said:

I disagree. Tom was only the lead songwriter on untitled really. Everything up to that was pretty 50/50. Neighbourhoods is prob more Tom too but not hugely. You’re not giving mark enough credit as a song writer in blink-182. Mark is just as much the lead song writer as Tom was.

Mark wants to play shows as blink-182. He wants to play those songs he recorded and wrote for blink-182 live. It’s definitely not all about the money. The money is a huge factor absolutely but it’s not the only one.

I never understood why we act like money and art are mutually exclusive ... not that you're saying it or anything but your comment put this thought in my head. 

It's weird that we pretend making a good living somehow lessens musical integrity. You don't really see that mentality in any other form of entertainment. It's bizarre.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Speedo said:

I never understood why we act like music and art are mutually exclusive ... not that you're saying it or anything but your comment put this thought in my head. 

It's weird that we pretend making a good living somehow lessens musical integrity. You don't really see that mentality in any other form of entertainment. It's bizarre.

This is basically what I mean. Why wouldn't he give himself the chance of making the most money he can?

The stupid one in this sense is Tom that walked away from the paychecks. But cudos to him if he's happier to do so

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Cheerios4u98 said:

I love the bridge especially. I don’t think it could ever happen because it’s technically a Steve Aoki song and not a blink-182 song, but I would love to hear a blink-only version.

Yeah, I also wouldn't be opposed to hearing it live either, but I doubt that'll ever happen.  Shame, it's clearly a blink song through and through but essentially remixed by Aoki, I'd love to hear such a blink-only version too.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, M!ke said:

Yeah, I also wouldn't be opposed to hearing it live either, but I doubt that'll ever happen.  Shame, it's clearly a blink song through and through but essentially remixed by Aoki, I'd love to hear such a blink-only version too.

What song was produced by Pharrell? Is that released yet? It wasn't on the NINE album right?

Or have I dreamt that they did a song with him

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, twentytwenty said:

... because it doubles the audience and his income as to he would do it under a different name

...because he loves those songs and loves playing them. Mark loves the money definitely but he loves the songs and band as well.

Lets just agree to disagree before we just go back and forth 5 time more lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Speedo said:

I never understood why we act like money and art are mutually exclusive ... not that you're saying it or anything but your comment put this thought in my head. 

It's weird that we pretend making a good living somehow lessens musical integrity. You don't really see that mentality in any other form of entertainment. It's bizarre.

Totally agree! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Speedo said:

It's weird that we pretend making a good living somehow lessens musical integrity. You don't really see that mentality in any other form of entertainment. It's bizarre.

this is bound up with rock and roll in the united states (initially) being and outsider art of the underclass and of people of color. you don't see it in genres outside of rock-oriented ones. and with punk-oriented genres, this is doubly compounded again; even more outsiders, more underclass (again, at the start).

but not in pop or any other music genre; there is no discussion of frank sinatra or katy perry "selling out."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, daveyjones said:

this is bound up with rock and roll in the united states (initially) being and outsider art of the underclass and of people of color. you don't see it in genres outside of rock-oriented ones. and with punk-oriented genres, this is doubly compounded again; even more outsiders, more underclass (again, at the start).

but not in pop or any other music genre; there is no discussion of frank sinatra or katy perry "selling out."

You see it in almost every genre as well, anything that has an underground following. People tend to want to possess bands they find early on, like little secret gems they have apart from the rest of the world. I get it, I felt the same about Against Me!, when I found them in 2002. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, daveyjones said:

again, coming from rock—an outsider, underclass art. hip-hop and electronica also came from similar roots. i meant to suggest that the root is rock.

Texas Country came around well before rock and roll, its more rooted in folk and blue grass and the problem is still quite prevalent. Blues as well. I don't know that rock is the defining characteristic, maybe just maybe a platform.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Depf said:

man, they almost saved punk rock. wasn't a major label that ruined them. it was the last fat wreck release being lyrically themed around this whole selling out thing whining that did them in

New Wave?

Edit: Nope. Searching for a Former Clarity, looked it up. I never really cared what label they were on.

It's lyrically themed around that because that is what the huge outrage was about at the time. It's what they were living ... it's exactly my point from before and the reason I used them as an example. They were scene darlings until they started getting noticed and attracting major labels and then all of a sudden they suck and they're tourists and sell outs. It's a lame fucking argument from do-nothing wannabes and the people who preach it are mentally retarded.

  • Like 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main issue with people is the control it takes out of the hands of the band members and into the record label (along with pressure from the label to make certain "artistic choices") which sometimes ends up affecting the sound. Against Me, for example, made a lot of stylistic changes when they moved to Sire Records to appeal to milder audience, and I think people hated the move towards commercialism more than the actual commercial success.
If a band wants to give up control of their sound for money, it's still their sound and their choice to make. They may want to be able to afford a home and have kids or whatever. I would hope that people today are more open minded towards bands that go on to mainstream success though.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only true difference in 'sound' I get from Against Me! Is purely production value. The actual songwriting improved for their middle records but instrumentally and thematically I'd argue there's little difference. The biggest difference is from TransDys onwards because Lauras had a bit more open chord style songwriting, and running narrative style melodies more than structured patterns. I actually prefer her later work but there's still magic in the middle records. They've always done what they wanted to do but the punk fans decided it was selling out, even though that clearly isn't true. They've had so much flack for just doing well. It's fucking pathetic, frankly. 

  • Like 5
  • Crab 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Kay said:

The only true difference in 'sound' I get from Against Me! Is purely production value. The actual songwriting improved for their middle records but instrumentally and thematically I'd argue there's little difference. The biggest difference is from TransDys onwards because Lauras had a bit more open chord style songwriting, and running narrative style melodies more than structured patterns. I actually prefer her later work but there's still magic in the middle records. They've always done what they wanted to do but the punk fans decided it was selling out, even though that clearly isn't true. They've had so much flack for just doing well. It's fucking pathetic, frankly. 

Transgender Dysphoria Blues has renewed my love for the band, I love it as much as I love Reinventing Axl Rose and Eternal Cowboy

  • Like 5
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, daveyjones said:

this is bound up with rock and roll in the united states (initially) being and outsider art of the underclass and of people of color. you don't see it in genres outside of rock-oriented ones. and with punk-oriented genres, this is doubly compounded again; even more outsiders, more underclass (again, at the start).

but not in pop or any other music genre; there is no discussion of frank sinatra or katy perry "selling out."

It was huge in folk music as well. Dylan going electric and shit. Rock music was the ultimate selling out in that scene. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, thongrider said:

It was huge in folk music as well. Dylan going electric and shit. Rock music was the ultimate selling out in that scene. 

oh yes, electric guitars were for pop music at the time, his fans thought it was a huge betrayal.

  • Like 1
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...