|
|
Post by kasi18 on Aug 29, 2008 19:34:35 GMT
HEAR HEAR karma pexbo
|
|
|
|
Post by whiskers on Aug 29, 2008 19:43:37 GMT
yeah totally they're more honest now. i think perhaps in the end it was starting to get to them. all fun and games whilst you are livin a somewhat immature lifestyle but when you take yr career more seriously of wanting to express proper complex emotions, then you can't really do that too well unless you look at yourself first and therefore it becomes more difficult to have this kinda parallel appeal. like it's all gotta meld together, otherwise it's kinda just bullshit. plus you can't expect to be taken seriously. they're moving into that big thing where they're trying to relate to their audience or rather have their audience relate to them. i don't know many people who find it too easy to relate to a rock n roll lifestyle 24/7. however, i do know quite a few people who can relate to their songs now. even if it is straight forward accessible it's still how they're feeling. so yeah honesty. don't think they're quite so desperate anymore due to their success and they feel in a position to be more comfortable approaching these things publicly. respect to them.
sorry that was bullshit. i'm so tired i don't know what i'm saying.
think i was trying to pull in a reference from like when they grew their hair long and had beards cause they were told they were attractive almost -by the sounds of it- singularly to make the point that they arn't attractive. like they've stopped being so stubborn or something cause maybe they actually wanna have short hair like and you know still be taken seriously. oh i don't fucking know. this could go on forever. SHOW YOUR FACE. yeah that sums it up. night night.
i am annoying myself with this now.
just wanna add that exposing yourself in such a manner is an incredibly risky and scary thing to do. honest publicly is what i'm trying to say. priorities.
right if i havn't said anything or said something that came out wrong i would like to say. tough titties to myself. right. got that. hahaa i'm going mentallllllllll hahahahahahahahahahhahaaa wooo not fun. must stop. oooo tempting. hahahaa
|
|
Ziggy
Struttin' Now
"...'cause baby this is oh-ho-hoooooo-honly bringing me dowwwwahhhhowwwahowwn."
Posts: 344
|
Post by Ziggy on Aug 29, 2008 20:21:19 GMT
All I can say is I'm sick of people saying "Bands should evolve. I don't want to hear the same thing..." Led Zeppelin had the same sound for 8 albums and 12 years. It was the sound on the first album that I loved and I'm glad it continued all the way through till their last album. Was every song the same? No. Was every song obviously unique to them as a band, and stick to their niche? Yes. If I want to hear a new sound from a band, I'll listen to ANOTHER band. Just to clarify, your not gonna listen to KOL anymore because their sound has changed since their 1st album??? If I wasn't going to listen to them anymore, I wouldn't be on this board! Unfortunately, many bands go through this "evolution." I'm not going to desert a band because they have changed. All I am saying is that I don't get people that PREFER that from bands. People that say "I don't want to listen to the same album over and over. I want something new." I'm the opposite. I love consistently great music. I don't like how KOL has changed, I wish it could be Aha Shake Heartbreak forever, but I still listen to them. I still like them (never said I didn't), I just don't know if I like this new path they are embarking on, musically. I can't stand when bands feel that they need to change. And to Pexbo's response to my post: If you want to make a mature argument on this board, how about not responding with asshole remarks just because someone thinks differently than you?  EDIT- Oh and this isn't important to my post but I skimmed over what you wrote again and I thought I'd just say: they all definitely still wear skinny jeans. We aren't listening to what they say at the supermarket; we're listening to what they say on stage. |
|
|
|
Post by Jigglytuffy™ on Aug 29, 2008 20:38:22 GMT
All I will say is that I like bands who go AGAINST the status quo. For the Kings, that would be "Youth and Young Manhood" all over again. If I want that sound, I'll by the album. If they keep making that kind of sound, it's nothing new and exciting and is a waste of time frankly. I want my bands to take risks, evolve, do new things. I don't want the same old crap all the time, sorry. If the Kings want to start making blusey, "Rolling Stones-esque" kinda records next, by all means, go for it. I won't stop progress or a bands right to do whatever the hell they want. If you want to live in the past, go on and do it, but stop complaining when the rest of us are ready for the future and applaud those who take chances. There, I said what I had to say and as usual, I don't care who likes it. It pisses me off when all these close-minded people prefer bands to do the same old, same old all the time. Those are the same people who would get tired of these bands BECAUSE they sound the same. You really can't win with people like that. |
|
alexcolaco
Runnin' Free
The Sleazy Riders
Posts: 241
|
Post by alexcolaco on Aug 29, 2008 20:39:31 GMT
All I can say is I'm sick of people saying "Bands should evolve. I don't want to hear the same thing..." Led Zeppelin had the same sound for 8 albums and 12 years. It was the sound on the first album that I loved and I'm glad it continued all the way through till their last album. Was every song the same? No. Was every song obviously unique to them as a band, and stick to their niche? Yes. If I want to hear a new sound from a band, I'll listen to ANOTHER band. and led zeppelin did not have the same sound for 12 years. a band should make their sound and expand it and try different perspectives. |
|
Ziggy
Struttin' Now
"...'cause baby this is oh-ho-hoooooo-honly bringing me dowwwwahhhhowwwahowwn."
Posts: 344
|
Post by Ziggy on Aug 29, 2008 20:42:51 GMT
All I can say is I'm sick of people saying "Bands should evolve. I don't want to hear the same thing..." Led Zeppelin had the same sound for 8 albums and 12 years. It was the sound on the first album that I loved and I'm glad it continued all the way through till their last album. Was every song the same? No. Was every song obviously unique to them as a band, and stick to their niche? Yes. If I want to hear a new sound from a band, I'll listen to ANOTHER band. and led zeppelin did not have the same sound for 12 years. a band should make their sound and expand it and try different perspectives. Led Zeppelin is one of the most consistent rock n' roll bands in history, always heavily influenced by blues, expanding into hard rock and psychedelic rock. Not every track was the same, but every album offered the same plethora of music as the next. Please explain to me when they diverged from their sound. Which year, album, song? Enlighten me. But back to KOL... the reason I don't like the change is because of what the change is. Their first two albums offered a sound completely unique. I couldn't call that sound anything but "Kings of Leon" because I hadn't heard it from any other band. As they have "evolved" they have become more and more influenced by other bands and their sound has become less and less unique. Other than the bass lines and Caleb's voice, I find that unique sound to be diminishing rapidly. THAT is why I don't like the change. ps. If my opinion of this band upsets you, get over it! You can have your opinion, and I can have mind. |
|
|
|
Post by kim111 on Aug 29, 2008 20:43:59 GMT
isnt it just a perspective of what sounds the same all the time??? to me all of the kaiser chiefs songs sound pretty much the same but i bet a fan of them would have a good argument against that.
dunno if it makes sense to anyone who doesnt live in my weird little brain
|
|
|
|
Post by Jigglytuffy™ on Aug 29, 2008 20:48:32 GMT
and led zeppelin did not have the same sound for 12 years. a band should make their sound and expand it and try different perspectives. Led Zeppelin is one of the most consistent rock n' roll bands in history, always heavily influenced by blues, expanding into hard rock and psychedelic rock. Not every track was the same, but every album offered the same plethora of music as the next. Please explain to me when they diverged from their sound. Which year, album, song? Enlighten me. And what if I was to say that Kings of Leon, on their albums, offered the same "plethora of music", while delving into other forms of rock as well? Whatever point you are trying to make is lost by your own words... |
|
Ziggy
Struttin' Now
"...'cause baby this is oh-ho-hoooooo-honly bringing me dowwwwahhhhowwwahowwn."
Posts: 344
|
Post by Ziggy on Aug 29, 2008 20:49:56 GMT
Led Zeppelin is one of the most consistent rock n' roll bands in history, always heavily influenced by blues, expanding into hard rock and psychedelic rock. Not every track was the same, but every album offered the same plethora of music as the next. Please explain to me when they diverged from their sound. Which year, album, song? Enlighten me. And what if I was to say that Kings of Leon, on their albums, offered the same "plethora of music", while delving into other forms of rock as well? Whatever point you are trying to make is lost by your own words... I would say I don't know what you're trying to say and to please explain yourself. Now you are trying to say that KOL as a band has been the same as Led Zepp?? Is that it? Because I said that Led Zepp has remained consistent with one sound, while KOL has not. Are you saying that KOL has remained consistent to one sound? Please explain how...  |
|
alexcolaco
Runnin' Free
The Sleazy Riders
Posts: 241
|
Post by alexcolaco on Aug 29, 2008 20:50:40 GMT
and led zeppelin did not have the same sound for 12 years. a band should make their sound and expand it and try different perspectives. Led Zeppelin is one of the most consistent rock n' roll bands in history, always heavily influenced by blues, expanding into hard rock and psychedelic rock. Not every track was the same, but every album offered the same plethora of music as the next. Please explain to me when they diverged from their sound. Which year, album, song? Enlighten me. yes i know and i agree with you. i'm myself a led zeppelin fan. its exactly what i'm saying they've made their music based in some many aspects and all of them being sessions musicians they tried to explore more. and kol are getting more and more the studio feeling and making great songs and diferent but good music.  |
|
Ziggy
Struttin' Now
"...'cause baby this is oh-ho-hoooooo-honly bringing me dowwwwahhhhowwwahowwn."
Posts: 344
|
Post by Ziggy on Aug 29, 2008 20:56:28 GMT
Led Zeppelin is one of the most consistent rock n' roll bands in history, always heavily influenced by blues, expanding into hard rock and psychedelic rock. Not every track was the same, but every album offered the same plethora of music as the next. Please explain to me when they diverged from their sound. Which year, album, song? Enlighten me. yes i know and i agree with you. i'm myself a led zeppelin fan. its exactly what i'm saying they've made their music based in some many aspects and all of them being sessions musicians they tried to explore more. and kol are getting more and more the studio feeling and making great songs and diferent but good music. Ah, I get what you're saying. I misunderstood at first. You're right. I kind of compare Led Zepp to The White Stripes. They have had the exact same sound from album 1 -it's completely unique to them, but each album still offers something different. A band can keep their sound and stay the same throughout their entire career while still having a lot to offer!  They don't have to "evolve" into a completely different band to stay fresh! |
|
|
|
Post by Jigglytuffy™ on Aug 29, 2008 20:57:16 GMT
And what if I was to say that Kings of Leon, on their albums, offered the same "plethora of music", while delving into other forms of rock as well? Whatever point you are trying to make is lost by your own words... I would say I don't know what you're trying to say and to please explain yourself. Basically, to me, the Kings have continued to make great, consistent albums while taking chances and trying new things. The Rolling Stones, the Who, Led Zeppelin, they all did the same thing. For starters, those bands come from a different time and place. Comparing the Kings to Zeppelin won't get you anywhere. Bands like Zeppelin came from a period when it was okay to explore what you could do with music, lyrically and sonically. Today, the game is much different, with a lot of record companies calling the shots. It's hard enough trying to make a record you like, but when you have people "waiting for the hit record", you start compromising your sound. I don't feel as though they did that. They still make the good stuff without compromising their sound. So what if you don't like it. If you're that delusional to put them in the same sentence as Led Zeppelin, then you probably didn't really know what the Kings were about to begin with... Eh, this is not going to get anyone anywhere, but little things like this really piss me off to no end. I love Zeppelin, the Stones and mainly, the Who, but the Kings are not them, will never be, and I wouldn't want them to be. That is following a status quo. It's a "been there, done that". Why would you want them to stick to the same formula? Is it because it "works and will sell"? That's playing it safe and that's what's wrong with music today. Too many bands/singers playing it safe. |
|
Ziggy
Struttin' Now
"...'cause baby this is oh-ho-hoooooo-honly bringing me dowwwwahhhhowwwahowwn."
Posts: 344
|
Post by Ziggy on Aug 29, 2008 21:06:23 GMT
I would say I don't know what you're trying to say and to please explain yourself. Basically, to me, the Kings have continued to make great, consistent albums while taking chances and trying new things. The Rolling Stones, the Who, Led Zeppelin, they all did the same thing. For starters, those bands come from a different time and place. Comparing the Kings to Zeppelin won't get you anywhere. Bands like Zeppelin came from a period when it was okay to explore what you could do with music, lyrically and sonically. Today, the game is much different, with a lot of record companies calling the shots. It's hard enough trying to make a record you like, but when you have people "waiting for the hit record", you start compromising your sound. I don't feel as though they did that. They still make the good stuff without compromising their sound. So what if you don't like it. If you're that delusional to put them in the same sentence as Led Zeppelin, then you probably didn't really know what the Kings were about to begin with... Eh, this is not going to get anyone anywhere, but little things like this really piss me off to no end. I love Zeppelin, the Stones and mainly, the Who, but the Kings are not them, will never be, and I wouldn't want them to be. That is following a status quo. It's a "been there, done that". Why would you want them to stick to the same formula? Is it because it "works and will sell"? That's playing it safe and that's what's wrong with music today. Too many bands/singers playing it safe. Okay, well I'm going to avoid going into a deep discussion of why I completely disagree with your analysis of classic rock. I will say, however, that perhaps if more bands took a hint from the greatest bands of all time that you listed, perhaps we would have much better music today. The misunderstanding here is that you think KOL has stuck with the same sound from point 1, right? I think their sound has drastically changed. As I explained in a previous post, they have gone from being completely unique to being heavily influenced by other music. Again, the only thing unique I still hear from them is Caleb's voice and Jared's bass line. I understand that many fans are embracing this new sound, stating that they want KOL to change with the new album because they would get tired of the older music. All I am saying is that I don't like the changes they have made because they have given up the unique qualities of their music that I liked the most. This argument has been going on for awhile on this board and it's never going to end so lets just leave it at that. We're all still KOL fans, afterall. Just some more than others. |
|
|
|
Post by Jigglytuffy™ on Aug 29, 2008 21:19:26 GMT
*looks around* No, I'm the one saying their sound has changed and for the better. I think they've cultivated a "new sound" while still maintaining what makes a Kings song...a Kings song.  What exactly is the generic "classic rock"? It's a word someone use to categorize all the rock music that was in the 60s-70s. The 80s had their own versions of rock and unless a bands name is Van Halen, they don't really constitute... I mean, there are so many different sub-genres, but I guess I'm deviating from the topic... And if wanting to try something new, fresh and challenging means they are selling out, well then I guess they are sellouts and should be proud of it. And you know, all of their shows will continue to "sell out" as well. Even if they are selling out, who cares? Most of you all will still buy the album anyway, only further proving that they are on the right path. *shrugs* *isn't a fan of the skinny jeans* -Had to point that out. It just looks so unhealthy. I know that really isn't on subject, but if they don't really wear 'em at home, why do it on stage? I think the more important question is...why do people (I can include myself in here since I just made that previous comment right?) care about the clothes and hair? |
|
Ziggy
Struttin' Now
"...'cause baby this is oh-ho-hoooooo-honly bringing me dowwwwahhhhowwwahowwn."
Posts: 344
|
Post by Ziggy on Aug 29, 2008 21:41:56 GMT
Well, I will defend a bands' desire to have a certain look, because rock n' roll has ALWAYS been about image.
And I know you don't want to hear them compared to other bands, but I'm going to compare them to The White Stripes. The White Stripes have always been that minimalistic, red and white, blues-rock n' roll band. But they have had 6 albums. Each album offers their unique sound -no one could say "they're a completely different band, they're sellouts." They have maintained the sound that fans love. However, at the same time they have remained fresh similar in the sense that Led Zeppelin did (and perhaps we should avoid grouping Led Zepp with those other "classic rock" bands right now). Without abandoning their sound or changing, they have still offered listeners a huge library of work to appreciate -diverse in style, but similar in sound and production. That is what I, as a listener, like to hear from a band. I would love for KOL to always be that band that they were with Youth and Young Manhood and Aha Shake Heartbreak, but I feel that their change has been quite significant, and that sound that I love, their uniqueness, is fading.
|
|
|
|
Post by thewhiteunicorn on Aug 29, 2008 21:51:46 GMT
But there were so many beautiful songs on BOTT...they all seem unique to me. I haven't heard anything like a KOL song, they just do what they do and its original. It would suck if they decided not to make BOTT and made an album like ASH.
I think what makes the kings original and unique is their will to change.
I don't think they're sell outs, but I do think they are selling out.
Caleb says (regarding BOTT) that he didn't want to make a YAYM or ASH II, so...what did they do? They dived right into commercial rock. Stadium rock, studio rock, call it whatever. Mind you, I love BOTT and it was original but they put it together in an unoriginal fashion (pedals, backing vocals, stuff everyone else does). So, we can all agree BOTT was mainstream and more commercial, right? So, they evolved into a commercial band...and what have we heard from OBTN? 4 songs? It sounds like BOTT II to me.
So, this leads me to believe they did not evolve from ASH to BOTT, rather they "implanted", or conformed. They gave up the raw material (that damn near everyone can agree was unheard of until KOL) for stadium rock performance. I do not think there is going to be an evolution from BOTT to OBTN, because I believe they are implanted, and what is implanted does not evolve.
|
|
|
|
Post by Viscera Eyes on Aug 29, 2008 22:43:19 GMT
I would love for KOL to always be that band that they were with Youth and Young Manhood and Aha Shake Heartbreak, but I feel that their change has been quite significant, and that sound that I love, their uniqueness, is fading. Well, I find theres a quite large change between Youth & Young Manhood and Aha Shake Heartbreak. Clothing AND music wise. |
|
|
|
Post by thewhiteunicorn on Aug 30, 2008 0:22:19 GMT
Well, I find theres a quite large change between Youth & Young Manhood and Aha Shake Heartbreak. Clothing AND music wise. Yes but the change still had a the raw unleashed feel to it. The change from ASH to BOTT lost its rawness. |
|
|
|
Post by groupielove on Aug 30, 2008 1:02:30 GMT
All i will say is this - KoL have created a COMPLETELY NEW SOUND for every album they have made... of the three we've heard, they are all musically different!
Pexbo once made a really good point in another thread a very long time ago (and it stuck with me coz i agree) - it is a possibility that the boys' musical direction is heading in a different direction to mine... and thats fine.. if i dont like it, i wont listen to it. For example, I am a hugeee Foo Fighters fan.. i love all their albums (except for in your honor and ESPG).. however, that doesnt mean i stopped listening to the ones before these two albums!
KoL have made 3 splendid albums, and we've established they havent "sold out" (only their shows have haha!). i have faith in them that their risks are good ones, and i appreciate they change with each record.. i have referred to my "KOL depression" before - when i was sad about never hearing another Y&YM or ASH album again. however, i noticed, if i want to listen to something like that, then i will !!! --- that is, i will throw those cds on!
I don't think KoL have sold out.. do i miss the bangs and ripped clothing? hells yes... because to me that was so different! but as long as the music remains different, then i cant say i care much about wat clothes the wear.
|
|
|
|
Post by sofarfromhome on Aug 30, 2008 2:55:10 GMT
Just to clarify, your not gonna listen to KOL anymore because their sound has changed since their 1st album??? If I wasn't going to listen to them anymore, I wouldn't be on this board! Unfortunately, many bands go through this "evolution." I'm not going to desert a band because they have changed. All I am saying is that I don't get people that PREFER that from bands. People that say "I don't want to listen to the same album over and over. I want something new." I'm the opposite. I love consistently great music. I don't like how KOL has changed, I wish it could be Aha Shake Heartbreak forever, but I still listen to them. I still like them (never said I didn't), I just don't know if I like this new path they are embarking on, musically. I can't stand when bands feel that they need to change. And to Pexbo's response to my post: If you want to make a mature argument on this board, how about not responding with asshole remarks just because someone thinks differently than you? EDIT- Oh and this isn't important to my post but I skimmed over what you wrote again and I thought I'd just say: they all definitely still wear skinny jeans. We aren't listening to what they say at the supermarket; we're listening to what they say on stage. id be very interested to hear what they say in the supermarket actually and i think id prefer to know they were being themselves and wearing what they wanted and acting how they wanted rather than putting on a front for people. clearly fashion means more to some people |
|
