Jump to content
 

The blink 182 general discussion topic


Aria

Recommended Posts

How exactly did you have a problem with BCR initially? We didn't know it was a big deal until 2006 when Mark spoke about it. Other than just speculation, no signs of riffs were in the band until late 2004. And at the time, it made total sense for BCR to be what it was. The songs were not what Blink was doing at the time. It was heavier, darker, and would of been a drastic shift in tone if they had made that the new blink record with Mark's stuff thrown in it. I think it would be unfair for Tom to make blink become BCR to fulfill his artistic goals (which BCR was, a vanity project), because the two bands are quite different (I'm excluding blink material post BCR)

I don't see how they are taking a huge shit on their legacy as a band....they just don't constantly tour and promote blink.  In fact, I respect that they will actually set time apart from the well-known success of Blink to try new stuff and do things that won't make them shit ton of money. It would be easy to just be in blink all of the time, and it would be most lucrative of them. It's nice to have Tom move all his AVA shit into a band I don't care about.

You must have missed the Kerrang article from 2003. It was clear at that time that Mark was pissed off at Tom over BCR. Of course Kerrang likes to hype things, but that article was pretty down.

I think BCR could have been a natural progression for Blink 182.  They were due for a serious album, and like I said, I think BCR represents the darker side of Blink way more than Untitled. I consider Untitled more of the experimental side of Blink. BCR was dark pop punk. Untitled was not pop punk. If you brought in Mark on that BCR album it might have even been better.

They are taking a huge shit on it. Their live show sucks because they can't rehearse new songs, Tom won't get his ass to the studio to record together so the album sounded pieced together, the album was unnecessarily delayed for 2 years, cancelled Europe tour, the album is not being promoted at all. I don't have a problem with them taking a break, but not when it hurts the band that got them to where they are in the first place.

Serious question.............don't you think Blink deserves everything they got?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two questions there Oliver

- what do you mean by 'deserve everything they got'? In terms of success in the past or that they deserve to get little noteriety for Neighborhoods because of the delays and poor promotion?

- you got any links to that '03 Kerrang article?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must have missed that article, because I don't remember much about it. I remember the "fuck Tom Delonge" article though, lol. I think that was Kerrang...

Anyway, do you have a link to it?, I wouldn't mind reading it.

I can't comment on the show because, well I haven't been to a blink show since 2009. But it was amazing when I went. Probably the best they've been, well ever. And I thought you liked the new album? I thought it was a good record, but yeah, they need to record together. I feel that shows. The album being popular has nothing to do with their legacy though. They aren't Madonna or Metallica. They don't need to be constantly selling millions of records and shoving their music down people's throats. Real bands don't do that anyway. The new album got decent scores and seemed to satisfy the majority of fans, so it's not like they suck musically anymore.

I'm not sure what you mean by that last question. What did they get exactly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did like Neighborhoods, a lot. Like you, I just think it could have been even better if there had been more collaboration.

I will see if I can find the kerrang article. I remember reading it when it came out and again a few years later. I am sure someone else here knows what I am talking about. It was a real downer article. It talked about how hurt Mark was over BCR and how when the topic was brough up he got very uncomfortable, and how Tom and Mark had to have deep conversations about it. This was right before Untitled came out. Which is why when Tom was interviewed about the Blink split in 2005 his defense was  that Mark had never gotten over the BCR thing and became very paranoid that Tom was looking to jump ship.

It does seem weird that something like that would cause such hurt feelings, but apparently it did. Obviously Mark has learned to deal with it at this point.

When I say "deserve everything they got" I mean they need to give Blink a 100% effort and I don't think they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think all the "collaboration" and cohesiveness issues are just made more prominent in your heads because that's all we've been hearing in the press.. otherwise I doubt we'd really be able to tell. And can someone please tell me how Neighborhoods is any less cohesive than untitled? I'm pretty sure untitled was the most all over the place album they've ever done.. and this was when they were all together under the same roof the entire time.

Now contrast an album like untitled, which is super diverse and not that cohesive (compared to their other records), in which they were working together in the same room more than any other album -- with neighborhoods, which is also diverse and not that cohesive (compared to their other records), in which they were working further apart than they ever have been on any other album... and?

The point I'm trying to drive home is that when you put blink under one roof you get an album that is super diverse and seems to lack collaboration, and when you separate them like now, you get the same result, more or less. I mean, c'mon. Untitled under one roof = Mark writes here's your letter, and Tom writes Asthenia. Neighborhoods where they were in different cities = Mark writes HAG and Tom writes Ghost on the dance floor.

C'mon people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And can someone please tell me how Neighborhoods is any less cohesive than untitled?

Well, Tom's vocals sound different from one track to another. The same with guitars (and not in the same way as Obvious sounds different to I Miss You). The songs also don't blend in together as well as on Untitled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think all the "collaboration" and cohesiveness issues are just made more prominent in your heads because that's all we've been hearing in the press.. otherwise I doubt we'd really be able to tell. And can someone please tell me how Neighborhoods is any less cohesive than untitled? I'm pretty sure untitled was the most all over the place album they've ever done.. and this was when they were all together under the same roof the entire time.

Now contrast an album like untitled, which is super diverse and not that cohesive (compared to their other records), in which they were working together in the same room more than any other album -- with neighborhoods, which is also diverse and not that cohesive (compared to their other records), in which they were working further apart than they ever have been on any other album... and?

The point I'm trying to drive home is that when you put blink under one roof you get an album that is super diverse and seems to lack collaboration, and when you separate them like now, you get the same result, more or less. I mean, c'mon. Untitled under one roof = Mark writes here's your letter, and Tom writes Asthenia. Neighborhoods where they were in different cities = Mark writes HAG and Tom writes Ghost on the dance floor.

C'mon people.

I kind of see your point, but to add what Msandt said, Mark said that Blink 182 would never would if they recorded in seperate sutdios.

In fact it was the major sticking point in 2005 when they finally broke up. So I think Mark would know more than anyone that Blink was better when collaborating in the studio.

There are certain song on Neighborhoods (Fighting the gravity and HAG) where you can tell there is exactly ZERO input from Tom. He didn't contribute anything, he didn't play a note of guitar. There isn't anything like that on Untitled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did the foo fighters, the who, or U2 run around naked and cash in on teen fans? no. they were at least semi-serious, adult-oriented bands.

And their popularity has faded, regardless.

No, but that actually proves my point.  Their music fuelled their success, not their image.  The Who/Roger Waters/Paul McCartney are old as fuck but still sell out arenas because of the quality of their music.  Don't think their popularity has faded much, maybe mainstream appeal, but they still have massive fanbases.

What it seems like you're saying is that Blink relied on their youthful image to sell albums, whereas the musicians I just listed relied on the quality and talent of their music to generate sales.  Correct me if I'm wrong though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did the foo fighters, the who, or U2 run around naked and cash in on teen fans? no. they were at least semi-serious, adult-oriented bands.

And their popularity has faded, regardless.

No, but that actually proves my point.  Their music fuelled their success, not their image.  The Who/Roger Waters/Paul McCartney are old as fuck but still sell out arenas because of the quality of their music.  Don't think their popularity has faded much, maybe mainstream appeal, but they still have massive fanbases.

What it seems like you're saying is that Blink relied on their youthful image to sell albums, whereas the musicians I just listed relied on the quality and talent of their music to generate sales.  Correct me if I'm wrong though.

You just twisted the argument to something else. Blink's image was arguably more important than their music at the height of their popularity. That is why their popularity is destined to fade imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did the foo fighters, the who, or U2 run around naked and cash in on teen fans? no. they were at least semi-serious, adult-oriented bands.

And their popularity has faded, regardless.

No, but that actually proves my point.  Their music fuelled their success, not their image.  The Who/Roger Waters/Paul McCartney are old as fuck but still sell out arenas because of the quality of their music.  Don't think their popularity has faded much, maybe mainstream appeal, but they still have massive fanbases.

What it seems like you're saying is that Blink relied on their youthful image to sell albums, whereas the musicians I just listed relied on the quality and talent of their music to generate sales.  Correct me if I'm wrong though.

You just twisted the argument to something else. Blink's image was arguably more important than their music at the height of their popularity. That is why their popularity is destined to fade imo.

So true. It seems funny how at the time(enema) they always pushed that they were just being themselves and such (which I truely believe they were) but yet they were still so pushed by the label it seems to have that image and relate to teeneagers

that didnt really come across how I wanted it to so try not to hate on me for saying it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did the foo fighters, the who, or U2 run around naked and cash in on teen fans? no. they were at least semi-serious, adult-oriented bands.

And their popularity has faded, regardless.

No, but that actually proves my point.  Their music fuelled their success, not their image.  The Who/Roger Waters/Paul McCartney are old as fuck but still sell out arenas because of the quality of their music.  Don't think their popularity has faded much, maybe mainstream appeal, but they still have massive fanbases.

What it seems like you're saying is that Blink relied on their youthful image to sell albums, whereas the musicians I just listed relied on the quality and talent of their music to generate sales.  Correct me if I'm wrong though.

You just twisted the argument to something else. Blink's image was arguably more important than their music at the height of their popularity. That is why their popularity is destined to fade imo.

Well first off, those bands DID cash in on teenagers.  Just because their lyrics or image aren't as immature as Blink's doesn't make them adult-oriented.  The Who, and other classic rock bands, cashed in on the baby boomer generation, who were teenagers during their prime.  Foo Fighters have a relatively young audience (this board being an example), and the main reason their audience is slightly more mature is because of a large portion of their fans coming from the days of Nirvana/Sunny Day Real Estate.  Yet they are consistently in the spot light and building their fanbase, because they consistently put out quality music. 

I didn't twist any argument.  At the end of the day, these bands are just as popular and successful as ever.  Blink is probably on the decline, as you said, largely due to the lack of appeal in their band's image (harder to appeal to the teeny bopper fans now, as they age). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

blink's image may have been important to certain people.  But it was never about that for me.  I must be in the minority in that the music video for What's My Age Again never did anything for me.  I never laughed at it, but I also never hated it.  It also wasn't the bane of their existence for me, like they so much make it out to be.  I mean every interview one of them always says something along the lines of, "we're not the same band that ran around naked anymore."  I never used that moment to define the band at all.  Its kind of annoying how they seem to force the discourse upon themselves and their fans that the running around naked music video was the defining moment for the band.  Its always been about the quality of the songs for me, not that I haven't enjoyed many of their music videos.  But when you get down to it, nothing else matters for me about these three guys except what the music that they make together sounds like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i would still enjoy blink if they weren't they way they are/were.. with the humor, but not as much. everyone likes things because they can relate to it. with blink i have the same fucked up sense of humor. the first time i heard MTTS, saw the WMAA video i laughed and laughed. told myself damn these guys are right up my alley.

thing is, they are still the same as they were. so i still dig them. could careless how mainstream they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me, their music and image played equal parts. They went hand in hand. The guys reminded me of myself and their lyrics spoke to me about shit i was going through at the time.

I think I love the new album because it has been doing the exact same thing to older me..The lyrics really speak to me.

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...