I don't hate this as much as I thought I would but I will never be able to get into new Blink if the vocals keep sounding so flat and robotic. I really hoped that would be the lesson they learned from California if nothing else.
My buddy worked on a Kendrick song here in Tallahassee in George Clinton’s studio and I’m almost positive his name wouldn’t be found on any credits, haha. It sucks. At least he got to work on it/with amazing people though.
I like it. A bit of an odd choice for a first single but I can't fully know that without listening to it in context of the whole album. Seems like it would fit nicely on California for sure
That's why I said "feels like" because it's not produced in a way that allows those instruments to shine through the mix in a rock and roll way (other than the drums which do shine through). I would prefer if Blink honored their roots at least a little with a raw rock and roll sound.
I actually did because it felt like a natural progression of the band. Also sure, Tom's live voice wasn't always the best, but he was still entertaining to watch on stage.
I've been a fan of pop punk for as long as I've liked music, and I've never found a Blink track I really loved. This might be the first one I can imagine having in rotation in my library.
It's okay, I'm not sure it will stick but oh well. For a band that has written at least 10 hit songs, we know that they can write. Hoping the rest of the album is different and experimental but still Blink. Something like Untitled pt 2.
I have to give this band credit, they've managed to lose a key member yet still say relevant to same demographic that they were 20 years ago. The unrequited love for this band on this site has always irked me but I was probably a bit older than most people (13 when Dude Ranch came out) here were when they first got exposed. I didn't mind the last record but felt like it was really a course-correction from Neighborhoods as a way to keep the brand alive. This song feels like....a way to stay in the 2019 music conversation which is a bit troubling for band members well into middle age but, if it works for them, good for them.
I can't wrap my head around people who suggest bands (or athletes) should stop existing when they say so in the name of "legacy". An artist, band or athlete's legacy is for them alone, and if they're more concerned about retaining an old image of themselves for appeasing entitled fans - then yeah, that's the point I'd want them to hang it up. If a band goes in a direction I don't like, their old music will always still be available to me, and the new music won't tarnish it for me (their behaviour is another matter, but I digress...), but I can't understand getting so mad about a band no longer meeting my expectations, or then feeling it's up to me to determine when they should have stopped their craft.
Worst thing you can ask of a band is that they repeat the same thing they did on a previous record. If they did that and didn't move forward, in what way is that fulfilling for them as artists?
I will say Mark always sounds good. Not my favorite lyrics from him but his voice has always fit the bill for their sound.
I generally liked California despite the juvenile (for my taste) lyrical content, but this isn't really for me.
Don't know why everyone is hating on this. Seems like a natural progression for them and I love it. Getting mad Jimmy Eat World vibes from that breakdown also, not a bad thing! Looking forward to hearing more! EDIT: Speaking of Jimmy Eat world, I'm hoping those guys put a new album out this year too, it is around that 3 year period lol.