Chili Peppers New Album

FX Meister

You said it all there upmeath. Prepare to be told you're wrong though

funky penguin

upmeath wrote:

despite being just 17, ive had a knowledge and appreciation of the chilis' existence since around 93/94. my father is a record shop owner and i grew up listening to breaking the girl, under the bridge and give it away, with the clash and sex pistols firm favourites at home too. first of all, being from california doesnt give you the right to think you own the world, if you do think that you have an inbred texan to compete with. there's so much room in the music market for a rebellious voice at the minute, a void remains post-ratm and commercial machines like the chilis use their voice to express what? aeroplane was the beginning of a downward slide for the chilis. everything ever since has been meaningless lyrically, mediocre in light of their early thrash/punk/funk fusion and they put no effort into entertaining.

I agree with the entertaining part, cos the set list for Landsdown, slane and phoenix park was pretty much identical.

However, Chilis never said that they were gonna be the voice for the nation. They never claimed to be the band to listen to if you hate Bush. They have always maintained that they are doing this purely for the reason that they love doing it. And no doubt they love getting paid for it aswell.

I can understand you being disappionted if your looking for the new Rage, cos the chili's certainly aren't.

I also dont think his lyrics have declined, in fact I think "Otherside" is a far cry from the likes of "Party on your Pu**y" (dont get me wrong, i think they are both great songs.) But then again, you could prefer the latter, of course, if its what your after.

upmeath

few real long-term chilis fans would argue with this opinion. i've discussed it with them. im not saying that they're about rebellion or any uprising, im just saying we need something new there and they have the recognition to be it. they're afraid to be different now that warner have dissipated the energy they once had as funkmeisters. true, otherside is a song with feeling, but who wants to know about flying away on a zephyr, painting your nails or being addicted to the shindig. anthony wants to be a rapper, and funny enough every other rapper in LA seems to have a genuine message, not just a Junior Cert English student's approach to writing poetry (ie. get any two words that rhyme, stick a few more non-sensical words in between and bam! you have a verse!)

dimerocks

ill just say one thing.
universally speaking probably the most monotonous 3 or 4 minutes in history, it sounds like a broken record....like a broken record....like a broken record.....and so forth

funky penguin

upmeath wrote:

few real long-term chilis fans would argue with this opinion. i've discussed it with them. im not saying that they're about rebellion or any uprising, im just saying we need something new there and they have the recognition to be it. they're afraid to be different now that warner have dissipated the energy they once had as funkmeisters. true, otherside is a song with feeling, but who wants to know about flying away on a zephyr, painting your nails or being addicted to the shindig. anthony wants to be a rapper, and funny enough every other rapper in LA seems to have a genuine message, not just a Junior Cert English student's approach to writing poetry (ie. get any two words that rhyme, stick a few more non-sensical words in between and bam! you have a verse!)

Thats an interesting point about warners fizzling out their funkiness.
It could very well be true, but they have always said (john moreso than any) that they have changed into a more mellow on purpose, the reson being they dont want to grow old and stale.

I think its a good idea, as they wouldn't be as famous as they are now if they had continued with albums like Uplift or Mothers Milk.

But, in the long run, end of the day, when push comes to shove, and any other relevant cliche, I do prefer their early stuff. I wish they played more of it live, and had more funk on their new albums. Pitty.

curtains

upmeath wrote:

the irish rock fan wants something explosive, something monumental, memorable, touching and interactive.

but when they actually get it they usually throw it back in the artists faces(hint hint the mars volta at witness).

btw i agree with a lot of what you say but i don't know how you can use 'the chili peppers... four trian wrecks on stage' in an argument and then mention metallica.

now if only john frusciante would come and play here, someone who really looks his audience in the eye....

funky penguin

Didn't he say he was never gonna go on tour with his solo material? Such a pitty. It would be nice if the chilis maybe played one of his songs live once in a while.

Blisterman

How does he have any time? How many albums did he make last year on top of touring with the peppers?

curtains

Seven.

But he siad he will tour with Josh Klinghoffer after the next chili peppers tour. He has toured before and regularly plays in Los Angeles at the 'Performance' shows.

retsamsdraob

Someone told me they were going to have loads of guest starts on new album? - disgusted

upmeath

yeah but metallica arent a commercial machine, never will be. chilis were hijacked by warner because they had a sad story of drug abuse, death, and a bassist who knew how to slap. their shows are comparable to an mtv european music awards ceremony- all glitzy and clean, but of **** all relevance to the concert goer, hollow and meaningless. money-generating too. true, metallica have a sad story too, with cliff's death and james' addictions, but i cant see how anyone has ever told them to go out and make them money, or how their music has been readjusted to appeal to more people. it is true that since the black album the material has become allthemore drop-d barre-chord nu-metal, but they're still churning out stuff that has feeling, meaning, and a general badass aura about it that's been in their blood since day one. when james hetfield shouted "dublin, metallica is with you, are you with metallica?" last june in the rds, it made the hairs on the back of your neck stand up because they actually bring something to a stage, not just a hullabaloo, brouhaha and flashy lights.

Shank

FX Meister wrote:

Ok, so you hopped on around calafornication and then bought the back catalogue, you're super. A really nice pair of chaps came up to me and me bird at the Phoenix Park gig, total scumbags from Clondalkin, rolled a few numbers and snorted a load of coke off a two euro coin. I'm sure they really love the chilli's music and that's why they were there. If you want to enjoy a band playing their music live gigs this big are not the place for it. It's money first and music second with them now, and they can't produce good music now, it's just bland crap that pales when compared to their older stuff.

For what it's worth they suck in small venues aswell, saw them in the sfx in 92, what a bunch of dicks, boring and pasionless are two words that come to mind and I was a huge fan then. Thank god for the rollins band doing an incredible set before them.

funky penguin

upmeath wrote:

yeah but metallica arent a commercial machine, never will be. chilis were hijacked by warner because they had a sad story of drug abuse, death, and a bassist who knew how to slap................... When james hetfield shouted "dublin, metallica is with you, are you with metallica?" last june in the rds, it made the hairs on the back of your neck stand up because they actually bring something to a stage, not just a hullabaloo, brouhaha and flashy lights.

Im sorry, but im gonna have to jump on this metallica arent a commercial machine thing: Cant you buy Action Figures of the band?

Plus, don't you think that Metallica says that to every city they visit?

Warner wouldn't hijack the Chili's because they have a history of drugs and guitarists dying (if anything, this would scare a company away). They made them an offer cause they saw a band that they could market and make money from. The same for EVERY other band that has been signed to a record company. Even Metallica.

As for the performance end, I've never seen the chilis indoor, but I liked what I saw at Slane. They improvised at least once on every song, and I always smile when I see Flea hop around the stage. A 40 year old man doing that for every song on the set, and I know I couldnt do it for one.

Dr. Loon

upmeath wrote:

yeah but metallica arent a commercial machine, never will be.

Ah ha ha ha ha HAHAHA hahahahahah HAHAHAHA hahahahaha!!!


Sorry.

upmeath

Shank wrote:

saw them in the sfx in 92

I was in high infants then, you don't suppose the chilis have become even more greedy since then, do you?

funky penguin wrote:

I liked what I saw at Slane. They improvised at least once on every song

Great, but I think this thread is about how they've replaced showmanship and song quality with a numbers game where they try to fill as big a field with as many irish punters as possible. I suppose you're referring to John. There is nothing too special about his musicianship, infact when he does do those improvised solos live, to a trained ear they sound **** because he doesnt hold the key of the song, he just goes pulling all these hendrix orgasm faces and bending the 17th fret on e. gob****e.

funky penguin

upmeath wrote:

Great, but I think this thread is about how they've replaced showmanship and song quality with a numbers game where they try to fill as big a field with as many irish punters as possible. I suppose you're referring to John. There is nothing too special about his musicianship, infact when he does do those improvised solos live, to a trained ear they sound **** because he doesnt hold the key of the song, he just goes pulling all these hendrix orgasm faces and bending the 17th fret on e. gob****e.

No, I was thinking more along the lines of flea.

And are you saying that one must be properly trained in music in order to appretiate it?

Who layed down the rules that every note played must be played in synch with the songs key signature?

Oh, and this thread was actually about the chilis new album (which surpried me), so I think we are both guilty of making this thread run off topic. Perhaps we should agree to disagree?

Roar

HMMM...

bit of a chilis backlash eh?

so they found a bigger audience... big whoop... fair play to em is what i say.. from the sounds of certain people here you'd swear the peppers only made albums for them..

if you dont like the new albums stop listening to em... if you dont like them playing phoenix park stop going...

for the record, i got into the chilis bout 94-95, after hearing sikamikaniko on the waynes world soundtrack.. i then bought one hot minute and built up the catalogue from there, my favourite albums being blood sugar and freaky styley, the only chilis albums i can listen to the whole way through..

i dont really like the newer stuff, but i still give it a listen.. live in hyde park i've listend to maybe twice, it's by far the least played chilis album i listen to according to my ipod stats..

curtains

I was at Slane '03, thought it was a magnificent show. Regarding John Frusciante's 'bending of strings:

There is nothing too special about his musicianship, infact when he does do those improvised solos live, to a trained ear they sound **** because he doesnt hold the key of the song, he just goes pulling all these hendrix orgasm faces and bending the 17th fret on e. gob****e.

If you really studied what he is doing you'd ntoice that what he often does is solo in a pentatonic scale and use bends to attain notes outside that scale but which still sound in tune with it.

To the person who was underwhelmed by them in 1992: I could guess why and I bet you could too.

I'm not the biggest fan of their recent stuff however I don't think they've 'sold out' in any way.

Apparently John frusciante has done nothing except practise guitar all day long for the last few months. If you ask me that bodes well for the new rhcp album (which btw is in the last days of recording).

the cat

I LOVE the chili peppers!! john frusciantes solo stuff kicks ass!!

upmeath

funky penguin wrote:

No, I was thinking more along the lines of flea.

And are you saying that one must be properly trained in music in order to appretiate it?

Who layed down the rules that every note played must be played in synch with the songs key signature?

flea's their only asset and still he's terribly irritating. a good bass player none the less. im not saying you need a trained ear to appreciate it, im saying having a trained ear takes from it. you notice the flaws in his improvised solos if you play guitar yourself, or piano, or bass or anything for that matter.
the "rule" you refer to above is governed by physics and a simple idea called harmonics. have someone hold the note e for you for a while, and you go hit random keys on a piano. you'll notice that only certain notes actually fit with the e, some sound great, others create mere cacophony. im surprised john frusciante has gone so far in music without taking a leaf out of the books of hendrix musically, or any great guitarist for that matter, without knowing that much.

Drum boy

FX MEISTER, your not even making your point your just arguing that you're right and evreyone else doesn't know them and jumped on the bandwagon when they got really big, which is untrue!

curtains

upmeath wrote:

im surprised john frusciante has gone so far in music without taking a leaf out of the books of hendrix musically, or any great guitarist for that matter, without knowing that much.

huh?!?

John Frusciante pre-1992 spent all his time with the chili peppers trying to be jimi hendrix, he was one of his biggest influences.

upmeath

trying to be hendrix- exactly. always be a first rate version of yourself, not a second rate version of somebody else. frusciante looking like he's ejaculating on the back of his guitar has nothing to do with becoming hendrix. you're not reading between the lines, re: structuring solos and songs in general, please, mr frusciante, learn a few scales, keep within them, and spare fellow musicians your disharmony

curtains

No, exactly - he tried to be hendrix. he's not anymore.
I don't know if you've heard his solo material but I seriously doubt you have, I find it very annoying when people criticise his song writing skills.
IMO the 70s guitar solo is dead and buried, and people are just trying to rehash it thesedays. Some of the best music being made today comes from disharmony, take badns like the mars volta for example - the most atonal, anti-scales music I've ever heard.
frusciante's taking inspiration from people like Bernard Sumner, minimalist, melody-based guitar playing and he relies more on the notes of chords than scales.

upmeath

disharmony is synonymous with noise, and the mars volta, my friend, are not white noise. for noise, see local 14years olds in their garage bands. but chances are they'll go on to learn scales and become great guitarists. also, if the 70s guitar solo is dead and buried, why have bands like the darkness, the white stripes and the killers basically consumed anyone in musics' middle ground in the last 3 years?

curtains

Well maybe I think that because I really dislike all of the artists you mentioned, with the possible exception of the white stripes. And i am not being closed-minded actually boguht the killers album (which by the way ahs absolutley zero 70's style guitar solos, where did you get that from? i'd say they're closer to new wave, new order type stuff than that).

ExoduS 18.11

curtains wrote:

IMO the 70s guitar solo is dead and buried

No offense but the 70's made what rock is these days. Rock today gets its inspiration from rock back then... nothin has died, because its integrated with rock today. Jimmi Hendrix made the guitar solo, Friscante isnt a mark on Hendrix. I liked the RHCP alot... before phoenix park, now my love for them has died.. maybe it was from all the people who couldn't name the three members getting tickets then pretending they always were fans... or maybe it was the fact that some people found it a waste of time, like watchin robots on stage. I agree there a great band, but nowadays i see better bands.. what you need on stage nowadays is (as someone said) a new RATM

upmeath

kudos to exodus. exodus to kudos. we DO need a new ratm. the world needs a voice today more than ever before, and unless soad lose their cocaine rant-lyrics i dont think we're getting that soon. the new audioslave material isnt very rebellious either!
so curtains, you're saying that fuzzy guitar, bopping bass, drunken lyrics and humming deep purple organ (all over hot fuss) are closer to new wave bands like new order than 70s bands? there is no definition "70s" solo, but 70s guitars as a whole are the reason for the music of today, they're its lifeblood.
what does indie today (or even in the days of the pixies and the smiths) have to do with synthesisers and new order? very little, curtains.
nobody asked you what bands you liked, personally ive come to despise the white stripes with time, their old stuff is great, but that doesnt mean i blatantly disregard where they got their sound from. get a substantial record collection dating over the last four decades, and then start talking music.

Basq

Guy.Loco wrote:

This thread is for discussing the Chili peppers new album only.
Anymore waffl and it will be closed - period

Heh.... says the newbie with 17 posts and all the power!

upmeath

well its actually discussing the direction john frusciante's guitar-playing has taken in recent times, and where the fans want to see it go on the new album, where he should take influence, so i dont really see where you see us straying!!!