Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Melody Bot, Oct 26, 2017.
I'd say it's better than DED (I hated that EP), but Neighborhoods, no way! (yes, this is a controversial opinion)
but California is better than what'd we'd have gotten with Tom in the band (absolutely nothing. I'll take a few good songs over nothing)
The title track from “Dogs Eating Dogs” is alone much better than all of California- an album that dares to find out how many “na na na’s” it can cram into one fucking song.
As if any of Tom's Spahyyydorrs are better.
I was so hyped about Neighborhoods, but it felt like there was way too much of Tom's vocals and his writing style. There's about 5 songs on it I really liked, and they're usually the ones Mark leads on. DED was awful.
I don't see how anyone can say they're a fan of early Blink work, but dislike California.
All subjective opinions of course!
Neighborhoods is a great record and severely underrated.
California is half baked at absolute best.
You’ll have to provide me a clip of this “Spahyyydorrs“ from Tom since I don’t know what this is lol.
I really enjoy Neighborhoods. It’s not as cohesive as I would like it to be but I still think it’s a great record. It’s far more interesting to me than California (which has 3 good songs on it but the rest blend together into mediocrity song writing backed by great production) and will be a record I will still listen to years down the road...
It's just any time Tom says the word "spider," which he's done in at least 3 songs. I just hate the way he pronounces it. Always makes me cringe.
25 seconds in
Joe: So you're obsessed with UFO's?
Tom: Uhhh....I don't call it that anymore, they're called advanced aerial threats.
~Turns off podcast~
You should just keep going for comedic purposes.
"She creeps up like a spider, then wants you deep inside her"
There isn't a single song on California this crap is better than. Easily the worst Blink song i've ever heard.
Obviously music is subjective. But it seems hard for me to believe that someone could say 'Neighborhoods is better than California' on ANY grounds other than 'I prefer Tom to Skiba.'
And you know what? That's fine and valid and totally okay. I disagree. But whatever.
I just wish more folks would come out and say it instead of trying to degrade what's objectively a fantastic record in California, or pretending Neighborhoods wasn't a universal disappointment to all blink fans for very clear and obvious reasons. Just say, 'I like Tom better than Skiba.' Cool. Done. No need for the arguments that border on lunacy that are always said instead of that.
I absolutely love this man.
All I can say is I highly disagree with you. This song is easily better than 85% of California. This being called “the worst Blink song I’ve ever heard” is just insane to me but everyone is entitled to their own opinion...
I just can’t agree with it at all lol
I appreciate the friendly disagreement!
It’s not that I like Tom over Skiba (I’m a huge Alk3 fan)- it just sounds like overproduced generic pop punk. There’s a few songs I dig like Cynical, Los Angeles (but only because of Skiba), Left Alone, and Kings of the Weekend (if I ignore the shitty lyrics). The only song I think is truly great is the title track.
Even the songs I actually dig still don’t beat out jams like Natives, Up All Night, Kaleidoscope, This is Home (one of the best tracks on Neighborhoods), and M.h 4.18.2011 at all.
So it really shouldn’t be that hard for you to get. The writing on California is generic. Let’s sing about cities in California, write about being teenagers even though we are 40 (cringe), and when he can’t think up lyrics to tie songs together- we will just sing “na na na nanana” on almost EVERY SINGLE SONG ON THE RECORD. Like... what... just stop.
Oh and Neighborhoods wasn’t a universal dissapointment. I’m friends with a lot of people who loved the record. Everyone’s entitled to their own opinion but anyone who trashes Neighborhoods and act like California is a great record is just silly. Production is top notch, sure, Travis plays like a beast, but the songwriting and creativity is not there IMO.
*internet high five*
There's no reason to argue about this. But no one vehemently argued that Neighborhoods was awesome until California came along (or, at least very few people did - maybe you were one of them! I don't know). That record is getting a TON of pro-atom revisionist history. And California was well reviewed, sold extremely well, and fits perfectly side by side with the poppy blink of Enema and Jacket - the 'na na nas' were never an issue until, again, it wasn't Tom singing.
Maybe you were always annoyed with the na na nas. Maybe you've always held a contrarian viewpoint of these records (again - totally fine!), and weren't disappointed with the rest of us with Neighborhoods (including Tom and Travis, who have been openly critical of how that record was made and its end result). But for the most part, the Venn diagram between what you're saying and the pro-Tom/anti-Skiba crowd is essentially a filled in circle.
And of course, you can feel how you want. But for the most part, the perspective seems awfully transparently skewed for reasons that have nothing to do with the relative quality of the music.
I hear you on the na na na's, not my favorite type of vocal delivery. Not just for this album though, for many artists who do it. Sometimes it works, usually it doesn't though. I thoroughly dislike Tom's la da dat da da da da dat da part on Wishing Well. Kind of ruins the song for me.
I forgot neighborhoods existed. No joke.
"Zero upside" seems a bit hyperbolic. Your criticism reads very vaguely also. What's structured poorly? The corporation? The offering? Can you expand on why the structure of the offering isn't conducive to long term capital appreciation?
I mean, fair. Of course every dollar every wealthy celebrity spends on anything other than charitable efforts could be argued as not ideally placed. There are also lots of reasons, mostly from a governance and visual perspective why you would want to pay your CEO a fair salary.
Not trying to speak for someone else but read the document on his site about the investment. It’s a shitty deal by any metric.
I mean, I didn't read the entire 63 page circular but I skimmed it and I'm not even saying that I think it's a good investment. It just seems like the analysis in this thread pretty much extends to "shitty." I'd be more interested to hear specifics of why the more vocal people in this thread, such as Jason, think the investment is such a "bad deal."
I mean literally zero. I (and others) wrote about it in far more detail in multiple other threads.