Jump to content
 

Five Years of Skiba


Champ182

Recommended Posts

I don’t rate an album because it was nominated for a Grammy. If an album is good it doesn’t need to win awards or whatever.

But in the discussion of the bands legacy being ruined or whether what the band is doing is currently “working” or not it is absolutely relevant. Obviously the music industry thinks it’s working otherwise it wouldn’t have got a nomination. The general public think it’s working otherwise it wouldn’t have made any noise towards consideration. When all is said and done people will look at blinks history and a Grammy nominated album definitely won’t be considered as a legacy ruiner.

Just because a few of the die hard fans don’t like the current music doesn’t mean you just to ignore everything else that’s been happening.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if I hated the new music (which I don’t) I’m so glad the band has continued because I still have the chance to see blink-182 live every few years and I’d hate not to have that. I’ve seen blink twice with Matt and they were both incredibly fun nights that brought me pure joy in a time when depression is really kicking my ass. I’m so glad the band didn’t call it quits, those are some really great memories.

  • Like 3
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Russel Coight said:

I don’t rate an album because it was nominated for a Grammy. If an album is good it doesn’t need to win awards or whatever.

But in the discussion of the bands legacy being ruined or whether what the band is doing is currently “working” or not it is absolutely relevant. Obviously the music industry thinks it’s working otherwise it wouldn’t have got a nomination. The general public think it’s working otherwise it wouldn’t have made any noise towards consideration. When all is said and done people will look at blinks history and a Grammy nominated album definitely won’t be considered as a legacy ruiner.

Just because a few of the die hard fans don’t like the current music doesn’t mean you just to ignore everything else that’s been happening.

awards for everything entertainment related is nearly all politics. sum 41 was nominated for a grammy years before blink and it was for a song off an album absolutely nobody paid attention to. it doesn't mean anything, sorry. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, wannabe corn dog said:

awards for everything entertainment related is nearly all politics. sum 41 was nominated for a grammy years before blink and it was for a song off an album absolutely nobody paid attention to. it doesn't mean anything, sorry. 

Your opinion isn’t fact, sorry.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/22/2020 at 1:38 PM, Ry-Bread said:

Grammy nominated albums ruin legacies lol. What a fan-base. If only they would've hung it up after that X-mas EP they didn't even care enough about to physically release, they'd have punk rawk #legacy statues by now!!!

Oof this is a bad take.

None of any of Blink's peak albums (Dude Ranch - Self Titled) were ever nominated for a Grammy. I guess California > the rest of their discography. The Grammys are a joke and are a terrible way of measuring an album. Only morons that enjoy flimsy, appeal to authority arguments believe otherwise. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Tom Bot said:

Oof this is a bad take.

None of any of Blink's peak albums (Dude Ranch - Self Titled) were ever nominated for a Grammy. I guess California > the rest of their discography. The Grammys are a joke and are a terrible way of measuring an album. Only morons that enjoy flimsy, appeal to authority arguments believe otherwise. 

Actually read his post. He isn’t saying that because California got a Grammy nom that it’s better then any peak blink album. Just that it won’t be recognised by anyone outside a portion of the die hard fans as a legacy ruiner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Russel Coight said:

Actually read his post. He isn’t saying that because California got a Grammy nom that it’s better then any peak blink album. Just that it won’t be recognised by anyone outside a portion of the die hard fans as a legacy ruiner.

In isolation, sure, you make a fair point.

He's referring to people that don't like the Skiba era and are saying it's ruining the band's legacy. However, those people did not bring up the Grammy nomination. Ry brought it up in a dumb effort to try to legitimize the Skiba era and to show they're still making great music. It's a lazy appeal to authority, just as stupid as using sales numbers to argue the quality of music. 

  • Like 2
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no “legitimizing” the Skiba era, it is more than legitimized with multiple successful albums, tours, etc. lol. The “how could anyone enjoy this, they are ruining everything” crowd is an extremely small fraction based on nothing more than personally disliking new material and/or missing Tom’s influence. (Both of which are fine, I get it.)

There are plenty of people who enjoy new blink, and I don’t know why people try to belittle us because YOU don’t like the new stuff! 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Ry-Bread said:

There is no “legitimizing” the Skiba era, it is more than legitimized with multiple successful albums, tours, etc. lol. The “how could anyone enjoy this, they are ruining everything” crowd is an extremely small fraction based on nothing more than personally disliking new material and/or missing Tom’s influence. (Both of which are fine, I get it.)

There are plenty of people who enjoy new blink, and I don’t know why people try to belittle us because YOU don’t like the new stuff! 

I think I’m willing to bet the amount of people that like the skiba era and hate the skiba era combined are less than the amount of people that don’t even know there was a member change in the band.

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tom Bot said:

In isolation, sure, you make a fair point.

He's referring to people that don't like the Skiba era and are saying it's ruining the band's legacy. However, those people did not bring up the Grammy nomination. Ry brought it up in a dumb effort to try to legitimize the Skiba era and to show they're still making great music. It's a lazy appeal to authority, just as stupid as using sales numbers to argue the quality of music. 

I don’t think he brought it up to convince people that their opinions on the quality of the music are wrong but to show that the opinions of those on blink-182online that don’t like the new era aren’t all that matters and in regards to the grander scope is actually a very small minority.

Too often you see on here saying the band should of just broke up instead of continuing just because they don’t like the music but when there’s obviously a way larger group of people as well as a whole new group of people enjoying the music it’s silly to the say they should have just ended. The Grammy nomination is just an easy way to demonstrate that. There is other ways too. Have a look on Instagram or Twitter for Cali era tattoos. There are plenty. For an album that supposedly ruined the legacy of the band there a quite a few people willing to get something representing that printed on their body for life. And as Ry pointed out we on here that like the new stuff get belittled for liking it. There shouldn’t be an issue with us pointing out that we are not alone in liking it.

I can’t speak for any of the other new-era fans on here but when I start on like this I’m not expecting anyone to change their opinion of the music but that thugs aren’t as bleak as their opinion of it might suggest. People love to complain more than praise. I can barely think of any times when out of nowhere a discussion has arisen out of one of us praising the band. It always starts every week or so with someone negatively talking about the band so of course it’s going to seem like the negative opinions are larger then the positive but that’s because the people content with the status of the band don’t feel the need to bring it up anywhere near as often. It’s human nature I guess for it to be like that though. I’ve worked in hospitality my whole life and let’s just say one day we served 20 people and 1 of them had a bad experience that would be the person we would hear from the most.

And yeah I totally realise I’ve gone on a huge rant here lol but I read your comment when you posted it but then had to concentrate on work for the next two hours but meanwhile kept thinking of more to say so I just went on and on haha.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ry-Bread said:

There is no “legitimizing” the Skiba era, it is more than legitimized with multiple successful albums, tours, etc. lol. The “how could anyone enjoy this, they are ruining everything” crowd is an extremely small fraction based on nothing more than personally disliking new material and/or missing Tom’s influence. (Both of which are fine, I get it.)

There are plenty of people who enjoy new blink, and I don’t know why people try to belittle us because YOU don’t like the new stuff! 

I used the word "legitimize" in the sense that Blink are still producing great quality music, which is obviously subjective and in the ear of the beholder. A grammy nomination isn't going to prove anything, especially when there are weak years in music and a lot of it is based on reputation over merit. 

I agree with the sentiment that Skiba didn't ruin the Blink legacy. Mark and Feldy did by fucking up their sound and writing albums that capitalized on nostalgia and not what they, personally, could relate to. But I don't really care for legacy arguments - it's great they're still making music and touring, even if it's not my cup of tea. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i wonder at this point if its a contractual thing between skiba and being involved in the writing process.  something along the lines of hes guaranteed to be involved and credited through 2 album cycles and tours and after that things are able to be revisited and if mark + travis decide to do a collab and brand it at blink-182 they have the right too.  

ie he was involved in the steve aoki collab because it lined up with that time period but since wasnt involved in:

-chainsmokers (or their live performance at the forum in la)
-the used songs that only featured mark/travis seperately.
-goody grace (video and jimmy kimmel)
-xxxtentacion collab
-powfu remix
-oliver tree (song and artwork)

it seems there are too many examples for it to not be the case

  • Like 2
  • Wow 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...