Trilogy Discussion

[Thatsername]

12 hours ago, kaylubd said:

THIS! Also, he's a writer and people didn't seem to get that. Just because you write about something doesn't mean it's related to you or about your or even about your life. I used to get that a lot in writing class too. People would ask if I was okay and stuff and I'm like...it's not about anyone...just something I wrote.

Agreed! I've said several times before that I believe that a lot of the trilogy lyrics are metaphors. The whole Lady Cobra / Nightlife thing is a perfect metaphor for the temptations of a rockstar- (or celebrity in general) lifestyle. I've always thought that Billie is talking about the tempations of drugs, alcohol and money rather than just sex. I know that many people hate the trilogy for the "cringeworthy lyrics", but I actually think that some of the lyrics are very interesting and deeper than you'd think after the first listen. It's just my theory though and I could be totally wrong

[CherryBombs&Gasoline]

Wow, that's a weird discussion. Personally, I am of the opinion that it is a false conclusion to think that every song by every musician always represents something they have been through themselves. Look, if you write a song, it is perfectly possible to write from the point of view of a fictional character (e.g. Bang Bang). Sure, there are songs which were inspired by the personal life of the one who wrote the song, but I seriously doubt that this is always the case. A musician is an artist who tries to tell a story or convey emotions. Every song is personal because it represents an artist and his thoughts and feelings, but you can also convey these feelings and thoughts without telling the story of your life in every single song. Do you know what I mean? You don't have to be a killer in order to write about mass shootings. And you don't have to be a cheater in order to write about cheating. But that's more about lyrics in general, not about the trilogy in particular.

[Yosuke Hanamura]

With Oh Love being included in the new greatest hits album releasing November 17th, I feel it's a good of a time as any to post this.

According to online sources, the supposed order of what is considered "the best" of the Trilogy is ¡Tre! to ¡Uno!

Is that really true though? People usually end up talking about ¡Uno! the most when it comes to good Trilogy songs, with people only really referring to 99 Revolutions when it comes to ¡Tre!. Is there a reason for that? Is the supposed popular belief incorrect according to fans?

[Eric]

The Trilogy is a classic. All three albums!

greatest hits needs more UNO DOS AND TRE songs

[Stefano Bras]

The popular belief is that the Trilogy is shite and their worst work yet.

IMO it is definitely not their worst effort since that spot may be taken by 39 and Kerplunk (and Insomniac, but that's just me ) solely because of their quality and considering it was their first stuff.

Also people tend to trash the trilogy because it was too lenghty and "they should've done one album with the best tracks" but according to what I've seen in GDC everyone has different favourites, so I'm glad they just took the bet and release everything, it's a hell of a ride to listen to the entire thing front to back.

Songs like Rusty James, Wild One, Stray Heart, Brutal Love and Dirty Rotten Bastards could easily had been instant classics if Billie didn't have had the meltdown.

[Yosuke Hanamura]

7 minutes ago, Stefano Bras said:

The popular belief is that the Trilogy is shite and their worst work yet.

You completely missed what I was asking.

[Stefano Bras]

7 minutes ago, Yuri Plisetsky said:

You completely missed what I was asking.

Hmmm.. alright, sorry bud. I just thought it was relevant to the topic.

Like I said, the popular belief is that the three albums are equally horseshit. But if you ask it to the people who enjoyed the trilogy, I believe most will say their favourite is ¡DOS! and their least favourite ¡UNO!

[That Dude]

I love the Trilogy like I love all their work, but unfortunately the songs from these albums didn't perform well for whatever reason, and "Oh Love" is technically the only Trilogy to do anything in the charts that mattered.  Like I've said many times, I would have loved to see Kill the DJ, Stray Heart, The Forgotten and X-Kid on a greatest hits collection, but they simply weren't.  

I don't know how it is in other places, but in my corner of the world, I don't really hear many Green Day songs on the radio.  Just the Dookie and Idiot ones because that's the way most people think of Green Day I guess.   

[TimmyChunks]

52 minutes ago, Yuri Plisetsky said:

You completely missed what I was asking.

 

1 hour ago, Stefano Bras said:

The popular belief is that the Trilogy is shite and their worst work yet.

IMO it is definitely not their worst effort since that spot may be taken by 39 and Kerplunk (and Insomniac, but that's just me ) solely because of their quality and considering it was their first stuff.

Also people tend to trash the trilogy because it was too lenghty and "they should've done one album with the best tracks" but according to what I've seen in GDC everyone has different favourites, so I'm glad they just took the bet and release everything, it's a hell of a ride to listen to the entire thing front to back.

Songs like Rusty James, Wild One, Stray Heart, Brutal Love and Dirty Rotten Bastards could easily had been instant classics if Billie didn't have had the meltdown.

Having listened to a good amount of the Trilogy both after release and also again lately, I'll say this: the popular opinion around it may be polarizing (there are many who say it's awful, and there are many who love it as well). I've never seen a GD release as polarizing as the Trilogy, and we probably won't again.

That said, while I agree there are clear highs and lows (some great material for sure, and also some that don't measure up), my takeaway is that it's a high class problem. There's a ton of material, and for me personally, I'll always take "too much" material over too little or none at all. I thoroughly enjoy about 75% of the Trilogy, and just don't listen to some of the songs that I don't like. With over 30 songs to chose from, I'll take that kind of problem any day.

The mix is also a problem to many- that's a popular fan opinion I believe. I have the issue too. But again, I'll take it- they were at a creative height, took a risk, put out a ton of creative material, and in that rush to create there's a lot to nitpick including the mix and production. But I'll never regret or begrudge a favorite artist taking creative risk and following through on this type of ambition. Hell, this is what great artists do. This isn't the popular opinion, but mine is that the Trilogy was an incredibly flawed yet more so worthwhile endeavor and I'm proud that they attempted this. The popular opinions vary widely since there is a lot of material to critique, but as a whole, I think it was an ambitious and at times very successful project. They took a creative risk, put out some awesome songs, and while some portions failed on the whole I highly respect the effort and enjoy much of the result.

[Running with shears]

20 minutes ago, TimmyChunks said:

There's a ton of material, and for me personally, I'll always take "too much" material over too little or none at all. I thoroughly enjoy about 75% of the Trilogy, and just don't listen to some of the songs that I don't like. With over 30 songs to chose from, I'll take that kind of problem any day.

 This isn't the popular opinion, but mine is that the Trilogy was an incredibly flawed yet more so worthwhile endeavor and I'm proud that they attempted this. The popular opinions vary widely since there is a lot of material to critique, but as a whole, I think it was an ambitious and at times very successful project. They took a creative risk, put out some awesome songs, and while some portions failed on the whole I highly respect the effort and enjoy much of the result.

Totally agree with your whole post  but these parts especially.  Even with the songs I don't like ,I can see the effort and creativity that went into them and I understand, and appreciate, what they were trying to accomplish

 

[greendepent]

I enjoy the trilogy. Just I feel somewhat sad that most of those songs represent a hard time for the band. Not only at personal level, but also creativity and their need of staying relevant.

 

[Grinch]

The biggest issue is that there's too many songs which sounds dumb but it's true. Some of the most classic albums put out only what the band feels is the absolute best of their material at the time. My friends who have listened to the trilogy get too bored after like most the way through Uno beause the songs simply sound the same. The production sounds pretty much the same all the way through which usually isn't a bad thing but even for me it gets tiring. My Trilogy tracklist I made was made to have a lot of variety in energy and good flow between tracks. There's not a lot of BAD tracks or anything but there's a lot of similar tracks.

Check it out if you want you might like it but it's my favorite way to listen to Trilogy-era music now!

Spoiler

 

[DookieLukie]

I've said this before and will repeat it: The Trilogy would have been better received if they released it under a side project band. The songs are sometimes weak lyrically, but in terms of sound it is a new direction for Green Day. A lot of the songs are good, but don't sound like Green Day. I've played many of these songs for friends who were shocked when I said it was Green Day. Not because it was super good or super bad; it just doesn't sound like their style. Sure, some of the songs are forgettable filler, but a lot of them take cool new directions. Even a song like "Sweet 16" has this cool surf-rock, Cali-beach vibe to it. "Amy" is the first electric guitar and vocals only Green Day song, and quite respectable lyrically. If you look at the 3 albums as a whole, there's a consistent sound and the songs really do fit well together. It's just not what Green Day typically sounds like. 

[Guest]

I think the trilogy represents a time in GD's career, and lives, that the band and fans alike would rather forget happened. As actual albums they're mostly considered lazy and uninspired. They sound and feel like a mid-life crisis. Sure some songs hold up and are actually good, but most are background noise at best. I honestly never reach for them. 

I know for me personally I look back on that time with disappointment. I had tickets to 2 small shows that were cancelled and it just crushed me. I remember being really worried about the band I had loved since 1994, especially about Billie. That time was pretty scary, actually.

[Hermione]

5 hours ago, Stefano Bras said:

 

Hey we already have a thread for the trilogy where what the popular belief about it is and which is the best are some of the main things that gets discussed. So I've merged your thread with it and discussion can carry on here.

5 hours ago, Stefano Bras said:

 

Like I said, the popular belief is that the three albums are equally horseshit. But if you ask it to the people who enjoyed the trilogy, I believe most will say their favourite is ¡DOS! and their least favourite ¡UNO!

I think you have a point, like amongst people who don't rate the albums highly I think Uno is most liked for (apparently) being the most like "old school" Green Day, and Tre gets respect for being more serious in tone, while Dos is dismissed for being "immature" (although it's actually a mid life crisis themed thing that totally fits Billie's age at the time lol).

But it is different with people who rate the albums more highly. I think maybe people who rate the albums more highly are often also people who are more into the dirty/rock n roll/party/FBHT type side of GD? So Dos appeals more, along with the trilogy as a whole and not just the bits that are the least trilogy sounding/most similar to other GD albums. Either that or there just happens to be a lot of people who love Dos on GDC , I'm not sure.

[Grunt]

I'm glad to have been around and in tune while my favourite band released 3 whopping albums within the span of half a year. No artists do that these days. Even a double album is still pretty risky. More is MORE! I personally enjoy most of the songs from all three albums. With Green Day being my top band, I'd rather have heard songs by them that I'm not as crazy about rather than have not heard them at all. 

 

Cuatro was also a fun look at them working away at the studio. 

Edited October 15, 2017 by Grunt

[pacejunkie punk]

7 hours ago, DookieLukie said:

I've said this before and will repeat it: The Trilogy would have been better received if they released it under a side project band. The songs are sometimes weak lyrically, but in terms of sound it is a new direction for Green Day. A lot of the songs are good, but don't sound like Green Day. I've played many of these songs for friends who were shocked when I said it was Green Day. Not because it was super good or super bad; it just doesn't sound like their style. Sure, some of the songs are forgettable filler, but a lot of them take cool new directions. Even a song like "Sweet 16" has this cool surf-rock, Cali-beach vibe to it. "Amy" is the first electric guitar and vocals only Green Day song, and quite respectable lyrically. If you look at the 3 albums as a whole, there's a consistent sound and the songs really do fit well together. It's just not what Green Day typically sounds like. 

Green Day for me is a band that has never sounded like one thing yet people always wanted to label them according to the sound of Dookie. I dispute that because something doesn’t fit others’ expectations of what Green Day should sound like that therefore they can’t release something as Green Day. They’ve shown enough range in their career that they should be able to defy labels and I honestly don’t think they care. American Idiot was a new direction for them at the time and a crazy idea. Should that have been a side project because it wasn’t “typical” Green Day (whatever that means)?

6 hours ago, tigress said:

I think the trilogy represents a time in GD's career, and lives, that the band and fans alike would rather forget happened. As actual albums they're mostly considered lazy and uninspired. They sound and feel like a mid-life crisis. 

A couple comments to make here. First, I have to argue on the contrary that this was actually an extremely creative period for Billie, to the point where he couldn’t stop writing songs. I agree some more curating and editing may have been needed to get down to the best of the best but the problem was they started with over 60 and cut them in half and still they had so many good songs.

What I find interesting is you can draw a straight line from American Idiot to the Trilogy. By that I mean that because they released AI, Michael Mayer heard it and decided it would be a great musical, this led to bringing Billie to Broadway and then the Broadway stage and he credits that time as his first chance in years to be surrounded by so many young creative people outside his circle. He basically wrote the Trilogy during this period. He describes it as writing during the day and performing as St. Jimmy at night. That stage demon (a character that temporarily took over) and the youthful party NYC environment he was immersed in basically spawned what you hear on the records. So no AI, no Trilogy.

And the other comment leads from that — if it sounds like a midlife crisis it’s because of course it was. Read about his time working with the AI cast; he was nearly twice the age of many of them, partying like he was still in his twenties yet fully aware of the age difference. That has to get in your head and freak you out when suddenly all these people you’re working with see you as “Dad”.  It was his last blowout.

[Beerjeezus]

I was listening to The Replacements a while ago and it dawned on me that the trilogy sounds kind of like them. 

[pacejunkie punk]

1 minute ago, Jane Lannister said:

I was listening to The Replacements a while ago and it dawned on me that the trilogy sounds kind of like them. 

Absolutely, and in general he was listening to a lot of garage bands, but yes.

[DookieLukie]

11 hours ago, pacejunkie punk said:

Green Day for me is a band that has never sounded like one thing yet people always wanted to label them according to the sound of Dookie. I dispute that because something doesn’t fit others’ expectations of what Green Day should sound like that therefore they can’t release something as Green Day. They’ve shown enough range in their career that they should be able to defy labels and I honestly don’t think they care. American Idiot was a new direction for them at the time and a crazy idea. Should that have been a side project because it wasn’t “typical” Green Day (whatever that means)?

There is defying labels and then there is trying new sounds entirely. I'm fine with either; most Green Day fans aren't, nor are the casual fans. 

[emmericanidiot]

9 hours ago, DookieLukie said:

There is defying labels and then there is trying new sounds entirely. I'm fine with either; most Green Day fans aren't, nor are the casual fans. 

I would say the majority of GD fans are actually very open to new sounds, even though most of their music is of the same recognisable style there’s been significant changes over the years, if you look at something like Basket Case for example, then compare it to Jesus Of Suburbia, it’s a completely different approach. Most people’s problem with the trilogy is just that there’s too much of it. Casual fans probably appreciate it in the same way.

[stjimmy31610]

On 7/20/2016 at 8:48 PM, SomeNimrod97 said:

More people would know DRB than half of ¡Dos!, so I don't see why they didn't give it a shot. Plus, this is probably an unpopular opinion but I actually thought DRB was one of the best written songs on the Trilogy, even if it goes against the flow of the rest of the album of the 3 which I came from.

DRB is definitely my favorite song from the trilogy. Probably the only one I like at all. 

[solongfromthestars]

I feel that Billie's issues affect fans' perceptions of the Trilogy era more than they should. Which is totally understandable, because it was an awful time to be a Green Day fan, but not necessarily accurate. Before it went wrong, the era was genuinely fun and exciting for both the band and fans. If you look for signs of him going downhill now they're visible, but they weren't alarmingly clear until two or so months before iHeart. In some ways, it was equally clear he wasn't doing well at points during the 21CB era and whilst some Trilogy songs are reflective of his issues, so is a large chunk of Green Day's back catalogue. Armatage Shanks, say, is as much of a literal representation of his issues as Lazy Bones is - it was just that the Trilogy era was when things finally exploded in a way that was fully visible to us.

[pacejunkie punk]

7 minutes ago, Maria Gloria said:

I feel that Billie's issues affect fans' perceptions of the Trilogy era more than they should. Which is totally understandable, because it was an awful time to be a Green Day fan, but not necessarily accurate. Before it went wrong, the era was genuinely fun and exciting for both the band and fans. If you look for signs of him going downhill now they're visible, but they weren't alarmingly clear until two or so months before iHeart. In some ways, it was equally clear he wasn't doing well at points during the 21CB era and whilst some Trilogy songs are reflective of his issues, so is a large chunk of Green Day's back catalogue. Armatage Shanks, say, is as much of a literal representation of his issues as Lazy Bones is - it was just that the Trilogy era was when things finally exploded in a way that was fully visible to us.

That’s true. We were just talking in another thread about the meaning of All the Time. Nimrod (and the contemporaneous B sides on Shenanigans) is full of songs about out of control drinking. People listened and no one worried, they were just songs and everything seemed fine on the surface.  He certainly seemed fine in Cuatro, even if those at the secret shows say he was pretty drunk. Like you said, I couldn’t tell anything to look at him until around August of that year. It was drastic and fast at least from the outside. He had been drinking for years so I’m guessing it was the pills. Weirdly, if it wasn’t for the pills he might not have quit drinking.

[Beerjeezus]

I agree. Personally I try not to let my knowledge of the backstory affect my enjoyment of the music. Music is meant to be enjoyed on its own. I've always liked stuff like Nimrod and Shenanigans and even though it's always been obvious what some of these songs are about, it never stopped me from liking them. It's true that I didn't want to jump to any conclusions and saw them as art in the first place - that was what I wanted to believe (tbh I decided that I won't read into the lyrics after I'd read a bunch of interviews from Nimrod era that freaked me out.) And I still do this - it's just lyrics. Good lyrics for the most part. Many of their songs definitely aren't about light topic but they sure are fun.