Guest Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 Ceadog, I think theanswer has taken offense to your statement about biggest trolls not including him. Saying dumb things and using hashtags outside of Twitter doesn't make him a troll, I'm afraid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anaïs. Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 I'm firmly in the camp of Breakdown being vastly superior to the Trilogy, but I'd argue the production on both has issues. Obviously the Trilogy's production has been discussed to death, but Breakdown is clearly far, far too compressed. There are so many layers going on that it needs to breathe to have maximum impact. The argument for overcompression is that it makes music more powerful, but it's been proved time and time again that it's not true. If you can, get hold of the uncompressed HDTracks remaster. The output is quieter, but that's what volume buttons are for. It increases the dynamic range, so the louder parts have far greater, appropriate impact. It's been proved time and time again that less compressed music sounds better. Couldn't agree more with the rest of your post, though. Alas, I can't afford to shell out $30 per album (hell, I'm still trying to scrimp together enough to get the normal edition of The Downward Spiral), or I'd totally go for the HD Tracks of 21CB and AI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 Alas, I can't afford to shell out $30 per album (hell, I'm still trying to scrimp together enough to get the normal edition of The Downward Spiral), or I'd totally go for the HD Tracks of 21CB and AI. I've heard rumours of a torrent of the HD version of AI floating around Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anaïs. Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 I've heard rumours of a torrent of the HD version of AI floating around Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 And I just found the HD version of 21stCB in under 30 seconds, it's all out there mate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clipperqueen2020 Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 why not just get the vinyl. the vinyl is jsut as good if not better than the hd tracks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 why not just get the vinyl. the vinyl is jsut as good if not better than the hd tracks. Have you ever tried to download a record? It's a pain in the ass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex_Everything Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 While there are such things as "good music" and "bad music," things like this are purely opinion. It's all preference. I think there's a huge contrast between the quality of Uno, Dos, and Tre, for myself. I don't rank the trilogy as its own single being in my favorite Green Day albums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anaïs. Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 A lot of this conversation has revolved around judging the trilogy based on a criteria that it wasn't even intended to fill. I don't think Green Day expected every song to be on the same level as their other studio albums, otherwise they wouldn't have released such a large body of material. Instead of over analysing every song as though were were cherry picked for a 13 track record, we should be looking at the trilogy for what it is - an experiment. An experiment released by an ageing band who felt that it was time to go in a less serious direction. I've got my own problems with it as a fan but don't you think its a bit extreme to go on, and on, and on ripping apart songs that weren't even intended to compete with some of the band's greatest work? This is completely contradicted by Billie's statement that the band considers the Trilogy to be the best work they've ever done. Like it or not, the band overestimated themselves and thought they were capable of turning out 37 songs that were consistent with (in their minds, better than) their previous high standard, and failed abysmally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anaïs. Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 To them, maybe it is? Maybe there's more to making a record than to top any song they've ever written before? Their enjoyment was well documented, they were relaxed on tour (when it got going), and the trilogy was in that sense very much a success. It was an experimental project that they clearly enjoyed. They're not wrong in saying that they feel it is their best work. It's not like any of them said "the songwriting is a much higher standard than anything we've ever written before, and THAT'S the reason why we think it is the best". I'm not sure what else they could be talking about. They didn't say "This is the most fun we've ever had recording music." They didn't say "This is the best tour we've ever done." They said "This is the BEST MUSIC we've ever made." Such a blanket statement really isn't open to retconning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudley dawson Posted January 9, 2014 Author Share Posted January 9, 2014 This is completely contradicted by Billie's statement that the band considers the Trilogy to be the best work they've ever done. Like it or not, the band overestimated themselves and thought they were capable of turning out 37 songs that were consistent with (in their minds, better than) their previous high standard, and failed abysmally. "failed abysmally"...IN YOUR OPINION. If BJ thinks this is the best music they've ever made, so be it. I don't agree with that either, but I certainly respect BJ's opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuzz Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 Maybe to Billie it is the best music he's written. Maybe he has different criteria to what feels most fulfilling to him as a songwriter. I'm reminded of a comment of his about the poor reception of Warning. He said something like "I liked our music when it seemed no one else did" of something to that nature. Just because other people criticize it or it does relatively bad commercially doesn't mean it's not the most fulfilling to him in some way. The process of creating can be much more fulfilling to the artist than the final product may seem to someone outside looking only at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anaïs. Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 I'm not arguing that Billie can't have his own opinion on his music (though I'm of the opinion that he's dead wrong), I'm just pointing out that Trilogy apologists can't claim that the band didn't want it to match the quality of their previous work, because they clearly thought it did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudley dawson Posted January 9, 2014 Author Share Posted January 9, 2014 I'm not arguing that Billie can't have his own opinion on his music (though I'm of the opinion that he's dead wrong), I'm just pointing out that Trilogy apologists can't claim that the band didn't want it to match the quality of their previous work, because they clearly thought it did. It comes pretty close, certainly closer than 21stCB did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anaïs. Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 It comes pretty close, certainly closer than 21stCB did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spike Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 It's hardly surprising that some people love the Trilogy and don't like Breakdown, and that some love Breakdown and not the Trilogy. They're very different styles. But what I absolutely disagree with is that more effort went into the Trilogy or that it in any way matches the quality of Breakdown. The band have said themselves that the Trilogy was organic which, in their case, is never a good thing. They're fantastic musicians and Billie is a great lyricist WHEN THEY TAKE THE TIME TO CRAFT THEIR WORK. It's not unreasonable to expect a band to strive to make things better than first drafts, and they just didn't. The fact they try to justify it by saying there are loads of songs is meaningless. Any self respecting musician would take quality over quantity every time. It doesn't matter how much they enjoyed making it. Good for them if they did, it doesn't make the output any better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JOE THE X-KID Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 I actually hope Green Day keep the whole rock and roll/garage feel with the next album, but much less produced and more distortion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 But the Trilogy was pop punk with the exception of about half a dozen songs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JOE THE X-KID Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 But the Trilogy was pop punk with the exception of about half a dozen songs? Well, I guess I just mean the whole stripped down feel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross_19 Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 In response to the OP, I agree strongly that the trilogy is undrated a lot, however i can't give an opinion on whether it's better or not than another Green Day album or not, because i can't... I prefer one album one week, then another next, i see all of their work as being awesome in different ways because Green Day are so amazing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteTim Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 I actually hope Green Day keep the whole rock and roll/garage feel with the next album, but much less produced and more distortion. If it was less produced than the trilogy itd sound worse than the trilogy The trilogy is the least produced album since Kerplunk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spike Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 If it was less produced than the trilogy itd sound worse than the trilogy The trilogy is the least produced album since Kerplunk I think it's a bit counter-intuitive really. The lack of production on the guitars and drums makes the vocal production that they've used for years far more obvious, and as a result the vocal filter sounds like shit on the Trilogy but absolutely epic on songs like BOBD. I really wish they'd taken that into account. Does anyone else suspect that this whole thing could be Rob Cavallo's fault? Like after the tension between him and the band after he wasn't brought in for 21st Century Breakdown, it wouldn't surprise me if he backed off when it came to making suggestions for songs on the Trilogy, in terms of arrangement and getting the best performances out of the band. It's often overlooked how much difference a good producer can make in terms of songs and, when you take into account he's collaborated with them for a long time, it's an interesting theory to consider. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JOE THE X-KID Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 I think it's a bit counter-intuitive really. The lack of production on the guitars and drums makes the vocal production that they've used for years far more obvious, and as a result the vocal filter sounds like shit on the Trilogy but absolutely epic on songs like BOBD. I really wish they'd taken that into account. Does anyone else suspect that this whole thing could be Rob Cavallo's fault? Like after the tension between him and the band after he wasn't brought in for 21st Century Breakdown, it wouldn't surprise me if he backed off when it came to making suggestions for songs on the Trilogy, in terms of arrangement and getting the best performances out of the band. It's often overlooked how much difference a good producer can make in terms of songs and, when you take into account he's collaborated with them for a long time, it's an interesting theory to consider. I don't think he's that much of a cynical bastard haha If it was less produced than the trilogy itd sound worse than the trilogy The trilogy is the least produced album since Kerplunk I'd say everything before the American idiot is less produced than the trilogy, well the vocals atleast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteTim Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 I think it's a bit counter-intuitive really. The lack of production on the guitars and drums makes the vocal production that they've used for years far more obvious, and as a result the vocal filter sounds like shit on the Trilogy but absolutely epic on songs like BOBD. I really wish they'd taken that into account. Does anyone else suspect that this whole thing could be Rob Cavallo's fault? Like after the tension between him and the band after he wasn't brought in for 21st Century Breakdown, it wouldn't surprise me if he backed off when it came to making suggestions for songs on the Trilogy, in terms of arrangement and getting the best performances out of the band. It's often overlooked how much difference a good producer can make in terms of songs and, when you take into account he's collaborated with them for a long time, it's an interesting theory to consider. Yeah they should not used the vocal filter or at least lowered the amount used I think thats why folks say its over produced when it's not really As far as Rob he wouldnt do that he seems to go by what the band wants his other albums he produced in the same time frame sound good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JOE THE X-KID Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 I actually love the way the instruments are mixed, very in your face and natural sounding. It's the vocal filter that let's it down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.