General Music News

megxyz128 · Post by **megxyz128** » 1/20/2005, 8:01 am

"Lover I Don't Have To Love" was on the top 89 of 2004.

areusad831 · Post by **areusad831** » 1/20/2005, 1:07 pm

thats by the radio stations choice...it will never be one of the most played because labels pay big money for big rotation.

megxyz128 · Post by **megxyz128** » 1/20/2005, 3:03 pm

but if people keep calling in requesting a song that they played maybe once or not at all, then they are going to have to play it. i mean, it's far fetched but not impossible.

starseed_10 · Post by **starseed_10** » 1/20/2005, 4:23 pm

if 89x plays it, then a lot of chum stations probably will, and it'll be at least reasonably popular

olpcc · Post by **olpcc** » 1/25/2005, 10:57 pm

well the amg reveiw takes the counter appoarch and rips conor apart

allmusic.com

happening fish · Post by **happening fish** » 1/25/2005, 11:10 pm

the basic claims i gathered from that review were that he's not mainstream-sounding enough, and that he lacks "emotional impact". which... wow?

olpcc · Post by **olpcc** » 1/25/2005, 11:46 pm

the review felt very anger like he was made at all the press for making conor more than he should be, sounded like he wanted something that sounded exactly like lifted

dream in japanese · Post by **dream in japanese** » 1/26/2005, 7:58 am

so i was fliping through channels last night and all the sudden i stop cause i saw conor...he was on much news, being interviewed :wtf:

starseed_10 · Post by **starseed_10** » 1/26/2005, 7:59 am

shit.

happening fish · Post by **happening fish** » 1/26/2005, 10:09 am

:OOOOOOO

olpcc · Post by **olpcc** » 1/26/2005, 10:23 am

thats notthat big of a deal he has been on mtv2 in interviews a couple times over the past ocuple years

olpcc · Post by **olpcc** » 1/26/2005, 11:14 am

also hey mercedes broke up a couple days ago, but bob nanna is going to work on a solo album which will be better then any hey mercedes record

starseed_10 · Post by **starseed_10** » 1/26/2005, 11:48 am

damn right.

and this could possibly mean braid gets back together
.....which would make me happy

megxyz128 · Post by **megxyz128** » 1/26/2005, 1:16 pm

bob nanna comes into my subway sometimes. true story.

Dread · Post by **Dread** » 1/26/2005, 2:36 pm

olpcc wrote:the review felt very anger like he was made at all the press for making conor more than he should be, sounded like he wanted something that sounded exactly like lifted

Is that how you really interpreted it? I don't see it that way at all. If the same guy reviewed Lifted, he would've torn that to shreds, too. I think it's pretty clear he just doesn't like any Bright Eyes, new or old. There's no way that if he liked any of the older stuff he would've torn into the two new albums like he did. And so, allmusic.com's discography of Bright Eyes is very lopsided with 4.5/5, 4.5/5, 4.5/5, 2/5, 2/5.

They should've got someone a little more objective to review it. Someone, say, who doesn't clearly hate the kid's music.

dream in japanese · Post by **dream in japanese** » 1/26/2005, 4:10 pm

oh man, it sounds like that guy has a personal vendetta against conor. he was hardly reviewing the albums but rather just ripping conor apart.

evanw60 · Post by **evanw60** » 1/27/2005, 10:23 am

I thought his points were completely valid.

"how certain strands of modern rock is judged solely on whether it's a personal emotional expression or not, never taking into account such niceties as craft, in either music or lyrics, or in the sheer impact of the music." - totally valid

"but with I'm Wide Awake and Digital Ash, he isolates the country-rock confessionals on the former and saves the messy modernistic indie rock for the latter, as if to counter the criticisms that he can't focus." - totally valid

"Stripped of the careening, dramatic, meandering arrangements of Lifted, Oberst's music seems not simpler, but simplistic, the plodding music acting as a bed for monochromatic melodies that merely serve as a delivery mechanism for all those words he's poured out on the page." - again, totally valid
" Far from being the second coming of Dylan, Oberst is as precious as Paul Simon, but without any sense of rhyme or meter or gift for imagery, puking out lines filled with cheap metaphors and clumsy words that don't scan." - totally and completely valid

I thought it was an excellent review. The reviewer had an opinion, he clearly stated it, and backed it up. What more do you want? If you want a glowing review, go read ANY other review of the album out there (the allmusic review also makes mention of that).

Dread · Post by **Dread** » 1/30/2005, 1:38 am

It's contradictory to what the rest of the website has said about his music. Like I said, he clearly doesn't like "Lifted" either. But look at the review on the site. What's that? 4.5 out of 5 stars for the previous three albums? They got Stephen Thomas Erlewine to review the CDs because he's the most well-known of their critics. It is clearly his opinion, but it's also clear that he never gave them a shot when he doesn't like any of the kid's music, new or old, to begin with. He wasn't being objective. It's like handing him an Abba CD and saying "Here, review this. But be objective." And it also makes the website look shoddy, with those 4.5/5 reviews, and then two 2/5 reviews. So they should either have him go back and rip all of Bright Eyes' music (which he clearly already did in that review) so the reviews are a bit more succinct with each other , or they should've gotten one of the previous reviewers. Did the chick who reviewed "Lifted" like them? If not, why? What was wrong with these two albums compared to "Lifted" which she highly praised? I'd much rather hear her opinion (if it was a her, and I think it was).

You can't hold too much stock in Stephen's review though. He did give Incubus' last album 4.5/5. Maybe Brandon Boyd is the next Bob Dylan.

evanw60 · Post by **evanw60** » 1/30/2005, 11:06 am

I see your point, but I think it's generally accepted that they have different people reviewing albums, and in the end, if the reviewers opinion is backed up and supported, then it doesn't really matter. Also, so what if he likes Incubus? How does that affect his opinion of Bright Eyes? It doesn't, it's all opinion. Are you saying that since he gave Incubus's last album 4.5, his OPINION of the new Bright Eyes is wrong? Get over yourself. He had an opinion, and he supported it.

nikki4982 · Post by **nikki4982** » 2/1/2005, 1:57 am

xoNoDoubt69 wrote:YUCK! no freakin remake of this song!

Ozzy and Sharon Osbourne continue to seek ways to help tsunami victims in Southeast Asia, announcing Monday their plans to record a cover of Eric Clapton's "Tears in Heaven" to benefit storm recovery efforts. And they've managed to line up a whole galaxy of stars to help.

Gwen Stefani, Pink, Velvet Revolver, Steven Tyler, Elton John, Rod Stewart and Ozzy and Kelly Osbourne are among the artists lending their voices to the song, sales of which will benefit the Disasters Emergency Committee's Tsunami Earthquake Appeal.

The recording sessions will take place on two continents, starting this Thursday at London's Whitfield Street Studios, where Velvet Revolver, Elton John and Italian opera star Andrea Bocelli will lay down vocals. The following week, Stefani, Stewart, the Osbournes, Josh Groban and Robbie Williams will record their tracks in Los Angeles. Pink is set to record in New York, and Tyler will do his vocal work in Boston.

Sharon is set to produce the track along with "American Idol" judge Simon Cowell.

I... I just died a little bit inside.

I can't imagine that Clapton's very happy about this, even if it is going to a very worthy cause.

Oh yeah, and for those of us who don't care, could you guys take the Bright Eyes talk into a Bright Eyes thread, mmk? Thanks.