ClumsyMonkey.net

The debut single from Them Crooked Vultures, which is composed of Dave Grohl from Foo Fighters and Nirvana, Josh Homme from Queens of the Stone Age and Kyuss, and John Paul Jones from Led Zeppelin. The song is called New Fang.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7_vH3H8LPI

Awesome song!

I had kind of forgotten about this project for a while, but this song really renewed my interest. New Fang is really good, and I'm hoping the album can deliver.

http://www.amazon.com/Hello-Hurricane-Switchfoot/dp/B002OH12P4

New album form Alternative rock band Switchfoot. Even non- switchfoot fans will enjoy some songs like Mess of Me and The Sound. It's much more heavy and instrumental then past works and less radio-friendly. Take a listen to the previews. Absolutely amazing new album.

In recent music news, John Mayer's new album sucks big ones. And this isn't from someone who's just a Continuum fan, as I've been a fan since Room for Squares.

Dude, it's god awful. Taylor Swift? He's seriously f*^%ed now. I LOVED Room for Squares, and Continuum as well.

Check out this Swedish rock band called The Wannadies. Awesome.

taylor swift is awesome. don't be hatin'

Well, Them Crooked Vultures are already talking about working on their second album, saying that "they're just now picking up steam." I'm pretty happy.

I'm really hoping the old trend of bands releasing albums like about a year apart starts picking back up... It worked well back then, and it worked well for a certain band (*cough-cough* OLP for the gap between Happiness/SM).

I can't think of one single band that could pump out a quality album year after year so I don't mind a slower pace. Sure, sometimes it happens (Happiness/SM, Kid A/Amnesiac), but almost all 70's bands I've listened to had a few good albums followed by a lot of mediocre ones.

Alot of David Bowie albums we're great and most of his albums came out a year apart.

A lot of albums are written in less than a year anyway. It's just massive tours that make the gap take longer.

faninor wrote:I can't think of one single band that could pump out a quality album year after year so I don't mind a slower pace. Sure, sometimes it happens (Happiness/SM, Kid A/Amnesiac), but almost all 70's bands I've listened to had a few good albums followed by a lot of mediocre ones.

The Beatles? They wrote and recorded all 13 albums of their albums in six years. Arguably only "Yellow Submarine" sucked. Not bad.

Joe Cooler wrote:

faninor wrote:I can't think of one single band that could pump out a quality album year after year so I don't mind a slower pace. Sure, sometimes it happens (Happiness/SM, Kid A/Amnesiac), but almost all 70's bands I've listened to had a few good albums followed by a lot of mediocre ones.

The Beatles? They wrote and recorded all 13 albums of their albums in six years. Arguably only "Yellow Submarine" sucked. Not bad.

From what I understand they stopped touring halfway through, got tired of working with each other and went their separate ways. I would not want my favorite bands to do that.

I'm not a big fan of most their music -- to me they had much stronger singles than albums -- so they didn't come to mind here. I've tried, even downloaded the new mono masters, but always find myself pressing skip when they come on foobar at work.

faninor wrote:

Joe Cooler wrote:

faninor wrote:I can't think of one single band that could pump out a quality album year after year so I don't mind a slower pace. Sure, sometimes it happens (Happiness/SM, Kid A/Amnesiac), but almost all 70's bands I've listened to had a few good albums followed by a lot of mediocre ones.

The Beatles? They wrote and recorded all 13 albums of their albums in six years. Arguably only "Yellow Submarine" sucked. Not bad.

From what I understand they stopped touring halfway through, got tired of working with each other and went their separate ways. I would not want my favorite bands to do that.

They stopped touring, yeah. Still, though, even if you follow Taylor's logic and also exclude Magical Mystery Tour on the grounds that it was only an EP in the UK, they substituted touring with hitting the jackpot four years in a row: Sgt. Pepper's, The Beatles, Abbey Road, and Let It Be. If my favourite band stopped playing shows and then gave me Sgt. Pepper's, I would praise the lord.

I guess I like their middle/later stuff more than their earlier, in general, so yes don't fit into the category. Maybe they are a rare exception considering how hugely popular and influential they were.

Their albums are just not my thing. I'm just saying time off can be good for creativity and I don't feel like my favorite bands need to be constant music-producing machines writing and recording what equates to perhaps 1 outstanding song every month.

You could feasibly throw Led Zepplin into your category.

Led Zepplin I, II, III, IV were all recorded and released within three years. "Houses of the Holy" and "Physical Graffiti were released two years apart but are also excellent.

Joe Cooler wrote:You could feasibly throw Led Zepplin into your category.

Led Zepplin I, II, III, IV were all recorded and released within three years. "Houses of the Holy" and "Physical Graffiti were released two years apart but are also excellent.

I'm a big Led Zeppelin fan but feel they were pretty hit and miss after IV. One of the bands I was thinking of actually.

I don't know man, both "Houses of Holy" and "Physical Graffiti" made Rollingstone's 500 greatest albums of all time. That has to mean something, even in this day and age.

29. Led Zeppelin
66. Led Zeppelin IV
70. Physical Graffiti
75. Led Zeppelin II
149. Houses of the Holy

Not sure exactly what it means for Rolling Stone to say an album is the greatest. Houses of the Holy and Physical Graffiti are better than their later work, I agree, but I think they were starting to slump off already.