This album is a fucking disgrace. I've been a Cornell fan for many years and I even enjoyed Carry On to an extent; although up till now it was his weakest album. For the longest time I even liked Cornell more than I did PJ. I get sick of people branding people who hate Scream as those "living in the past" and "resistant to change" and all that bullshit. This is not experimentation, it's called selling out, it's called trying to become relevant again, it's called $$$$$$$$$$$$$. Try out Mark Lanegan if you want to hear experimentation done right. Hell, even Pearl Jam for that matter. Only my opinion, of course.
I'm still trying to make my mind up with mark, i have his albums with isobell campbell and they are just shit :S
Soulsavers was pretty interesting. Still gotta listen to his 'solo' stuff.
Temple of the Dog is mostly Pearl Jam. "Hunger Strike" is undeniable.
CC was the one that spearheaded it. Ed wasn't even "in" the band.
He hasn't made a truly relevant rock record for 10 years. I don't know why everyone is so upset. imo, it's no worse than him half assin another rock album, or makin some artsy fartsy album that about 15 people are gonna listen to.
Only CC know if he made the record for the right reasons. Who are we to say otherwise?
All these claims of selling out and it being all about money are ridiculous...
Artists sell out the second they sign a contract. It's ALWAYS about money whether you like the music or not.
I don't think it can be denied that there are certain levels of "selling out". I say, as long as it doesn't affect the music, who cares?
no offense but that's silly. i mean it's like...
"oh i like this album so the fact that the artist signed a contract and is making big money is totally cool with me."
vs.
"oh this album sucks big time so the fact that the artist signed a contract and is making big money is really annoying and makes me mad...what a sell out!"
1. technically, ANY artist that signs a contract for the purposes of making money/making profit by doing music is selling out because once they signed on the dotted line it goes from being totally pure and about fun to money and becoming a commodity.
and
2. any person making any comment about any album is just an opinion, SO...it is silly/ridiculous to label someone a sell-out JUST because they released an album that you think is shitty.
1. technically, ANY artist that signs a contract for the purposes of making money/making profit by doing music is selling out because once they signed on the dotted line it goes from being totally pure and about fun to money and becoming a commodity.
and
2. any person making any comment about any album is just an opinion, SO...it is silly/ridiculous to label someone a sell-out JUST because they released an album that you think is shitty.
i get your point, but you're kind of ignoring valid arguments against the album here. can you see the points of view (like mine) that are disappointed in Cornell releasing this album as the finished product, because it could have actually really good. every single song on this album has writing credits going to Timbalands writing team of 5/6 people.....how much of this album did Cornell actually write?
as for Timbaland, i like a lot of the stuff he's been involved in before. Nice, dense beats for pop music - he's made interesting stuff for very average groups in the past. Here however, there arent interesting or diverse rhythms even, its all "ProTools for dummies" poor quality production.
for me, thats the main point. it comes across from listening that the whole lot of them got VERY bored very quickly and didnt bother their arses making a better album. they started, and just kind of...stopped. then they market the shit out it. thats lazy and talking about the album in comparison with DarkSideOfTheMoon (like Cornell did), and saying its their best work ever (Timabaland) is just flat out bullshit coming from a guy who previously, was quite honest about how he did/did not like his latest albums.
those, i think, are all good signs of a guy abandoning most of the things he stood for previously. thats selling out.
I'm firmly in the "Chris Cornell can do what he wants, but it doesn't mean I have to like it" camp. When all is said and done, the album is just... crap. It's not even a decent pop album. It's bland, boring, mediocre, unoriginal etc. etc. The people defending it seem to actually be defending Chris Cornell, rather than the album itself... whereas surely if the album sucks as much as it does, that's what matters most? If he had come out with a fantastic RnB / pop masterpiece, I would be defending him as well, but he hasn't (far from it in fact).
Metacritic.com currently has the album rated as the worst album so far in 2009 (out of 116 releases) and the 54th worst album out of 4180 released since the start of 2000. That, my friends, is very bad.
What makes me disappointed is the thought of what he could have done, compared to what he has done.
All these claims of selling out and it being all about money are ridiculous...
Artists sell out the second they sign a contract. It's ALWAYS about money whether you like the music or not.
I don't think it can be denied that there are certain levels of "selling out". I say, as long as it doesn't affect the music, who cares?
no offense but that's silly. i mean it's like...
"oh i like this album so the fact that the artist signed a contract and is making big money is totally cool with me."
vs.
"oh this album sucks big time so the fact that the artist signed a contract and is making big money is really annoying and makes me mad...what a sell out!"
I see where you are comin from, but I disagree, a bit. This is where it gets cloudy. I mean, who decides who is a "sellout" right? I don't think you could rank bands individually, by any means, but I think there are a few different levels of "selling out:
Well, people generally aren't the best judges b/c of the emotional attachment generally involved, one way or the other.
The changin musical landscape also makes it nearly impossible to judge.
I think you can step back and kinda look at bands body of work from the progression of their music and where it turns up, the time period, etcetcetc and judge from there.
It's obviously not an exact science, but I think you can separate between the Fugazis, Pearl Jam's and KISS's of the world fairly easily.
The people defending it seem to actually be defending Chris Cornell, rather than the album itself].
That's what gets me. No objectivity. CC did it - he's a god - everything he does is fantastic - he can do no wrong - he cannot have inferior output - etc.... . It would seem these uberfans do not make the distinction between the myth and the man and not giving glowing reviews of the album is taken as a personal attack on Chris! Scream is rubbish for the reasons you state. Does that make CC rubbish? Far from that. Are those not liking Scream 'living in the past', 'not looking to the future' (and all that kind of crap)... nope. We just recognize an inferior album when we hear one - maybe his next one will be of superior standard (whether it is a rock/grunge one, a classical one, folk, country... whatever... .just as long as it is QUALITY). So until then I guess I will still listen to CC but not his new album (actually... I guess that I am then officially living in the past! Damn).
i get your point, but you're kind of ignoring valid arguments against the album here. can you see the points of view (like mine) that are disappointed in Cornell releasing this album as the finished product, because it could have actually really good. every single song on this album has writing credits going to Timbalands writing team of 5/6 people.....how much of this album did Cornell actually write?
as for Timbaland, i like a lot of the stuff he's been involved in before. Nice, dense beats for pop music - he's made interesting stuff for very average groups in the past. Here however, there arent interesting or diverse rhythms even, its all "ProTools for dummies" poor quality production.
for me, thats the main point. it comes across from listening that the whole lot of them got VERY bored very quickly and didnt bother their arses making a better album. they started, and just kind of...stopped. then they market the shit out it. thats lazy and talking about the album in comparison with DarkSideOfTheMoon (like Cornell did), and saying its their best work ever (Timabaland) is just flat out bullshit coming from a guy who previously, was quite honest about how he did/did not like his latest albums.
those, i think, are all good signs of a guy abandoning most of the things he stood for previously. thats selling out.
okay but what you are saying here is still: "the album sucks" vs. "the album could have been good." It could have been anything...it's still an opinion to think it is not a good record. It is entirely possible for someone to like Scream.
I see where you are comin from, but I disagree, a bit. This is where it gets cloudy. I mean, who decides who is a "sellout" right? I don't think you could rank bands individually, by any means, but I think there are a few different levels of "selling out:
Well, people generally aren't the best judges b/c of the emotional attachment generally involved, one way or the other.
The changin musical landscape also makes it nearly impossible to judge.
I think you can step back and kinda look at bands body of work from the progression of their music and where it turns up, the time period, etcetcetc and judge from there.
It's obviously not an exact science, but I think you can separate between the Fugazis, Pearl Jam's and KISS's of the world fairly easily.
i see what you're saying, that's cool, but my point remains. yes, you can separate among bands but when an artist signs a contract to make a living being a professional musician, they are selling out right then and there. it does not matter how many albums they produce or whether the albums they produce are good quality or bad quality in the eyes of music fans.
basically, for everything everyone is saying...all the claims are merely opinions. they have no bearing on whether or not he is selling out. making an album that a lot of people dislike does not make you a sell-out. it just means that in many's eyes, you made a shitty record. nothing more, nothing less. but it's still possible for people to like it.
of course he has "all new friends". why would any of his old friends want to hang out with this tool that he's become? It's sad, really. he was one of my favorite singers. maybe the Temple of the Dog and "Alice Mudgarden" need to step in for an intervention.
I completely get why people don't like this album, or won't give it a chance. Honestly, from the small 30 second clips of 2 songs I heard, and all of the Cornell hating going around here (wow, isn't that a break from the norm), I felt kind of disgusted. Amazing how popular perception can sway your views on something. Anyway, I'm as big a Cornell fan as anyone, love all the TOTD, Soundgarden, Audioslave and especially his first two solo albums. I've heard about 1 minute clips of all the new songs, and I have to say I kind of dig it. I love CC's voice, and I listen to a broad range of musical styles (rap, pop, techno, blues, rock, etc) so I'm not really surprised that I'm enjoying it. I can see the standpoint of CC's a sell out, a lot of rock people don't like dance, etc etc. Take CC, the man and his history, out of the equation, and it really is pretty decent. Timbaland has some cool beats up his sleave, and well, I guess I could listen to CC just read the telephone book.
24 years old, mid-life crisis
nowadays hits you when you're young
okay but what you are saying here is still: "the album sucks" vs. "the album could have been good." It could have been anything...it's still an opinion to think it is not a good record. It is entirely possible for someone to like Scream.
i see what you're saying, that's cool, but my point remains. yes, you can separate among bands but when an artist signs a contract to make a living being a professional musician, they are selling out right then and there. it does not matter how many albums they produce or whether the albums they produce are good quality or bad quality in the eyes of music fans.
basically, for everything everyone is saying...all the claims are merely opinions. they have no bearing on whether or not he is selling out. making an album that a lot of people dislike does not make you a sell-out. it just means that in many's eyes, you made a shitty record. nothing more, nothing less. but it's still possible for people to like it.
Of course it's possible that people will like an awful album - plenty of people are out there buying 50 Cent and Nickelback. It doesn't detract from the fact that it's an awful record. Whether it makes him a sell-out or not is probably dependent on your opinion of Cornell pre-Scream: I don't think the album itself makes him a sell-out, but I do think the marketing campaign and everything surrounding the album constitutes a giant slap in the face to a lot of his fans.
Of course it's possible that people will like an awful album - plenty of people are out there buying 50 Cent and Nickelback. It doesn't detract from the fact that it's an awful record. Whether it makes him a sell-out or not is probably dependent on your opinion of Cornell pre-Scream: I don't think the album itself makes him a sell-out, but I do think the marketing campaign and everything surrounding the album constitutes a giant slap in the face to a lot of his fans.
okay...you said, "It doesn't detract from the fact that it's an awful record."
Of course it's possible that people will like an awful album - plenty of people are out there buying 50 Cent and Nickelback. It doesn't detract from the fact that it's an awful record. Whether it makes him a sell-out or not is probably dependent on your opinion of Cornell pre-Scream: I don't think the album itself makes him a sell-out, but I do think the marketing campaign and everything surrounding the album constitutes a giant slap in the face to a lot of his fans.
okay...you said, "It doesn't detract from the fact that it's an awful record."
that is not a fact, it is an opinion.
Well, yes, but it's the right opinion. I don't subscribe to the whole "music is always subjective" nonsense. Of course there's objectively bad music. And Scream is definitely bad music.
Of course it's possible that people will like an awful album - plenty of people are out there buying 50 Cent and Nickelback. It doesn't detract from the fact that it's an awful record. Whether it makes him a sell-out or not is probably dependent on your opinion of Cornell pre-Scream: I don't think the album itself makes him a sell-out, but I do think the marketing campaign and everything surrounding the album constitutes a giant slap in the face to a lot of his fans.
okay...you said, "It doesn't detract from the fact that it's an awful record."
that is not a fact, it is an opinion.
Well, yes, but it's the right opinion. I don't subscribe to the whole "music is always subjective" nonsense. Of course there's objectively bad music. And Scream is definitely bad music.
wrong. opinions are not right or wrong, that's why they're OPINIONS!
Well, yes, but it's the right opinion. I don't subscribe to the whole "music is always subjective" nonsense. Of course there's objectively bad music. And Scream is definitely bad music.
wrong. opinions are not right or wrong, that's why they're OPINIONS!
In your opinion.
But seriously, I've made this point before: are you really telling me that if someone thinks the Corrs are better than Bach, we have to take them seriously? People can like whatever music they want, but it doesn't change the fact that some music is bad. And we all like some bad music.
Well, yes, but it's the right opinion. I don't subscribe to the whole "music is always subjective" nonsense. Of course there's objectively bad music. And Scream is definitely bad music.
wrong. opinions are not right or wrong, that's why they're OPINIONS!
In your opinion.
But seriously, I've made this point before: are you really telling me that if someone thinks the Corrs are better than Bach, we have to take them seriously? People can like whatever music they want, but it doesn't change the fact that some music is bad. And we all like some bad music.
Absolutely not. Hate to argue, but you are dead wrong. You need to pull out a dictionary.
It is NOT my opinion that opinions are not right or wrong, that's a fact! That's the definition of opinion!
From dictionary.com...
opinion - 1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
Personal views are by definition not right or wrong, hence why they are referred to as personal views!!!
Stating that, "it doesn't change the fact that some music is bad" is flat out incorrect. The word fact does not enter into it...it IS subjective...just because you absolutely positively HATE a certain band or piece of music does not mean that everyone agrees with you. Where do you people get this sense of entitlement from?
To say that "some music is just bad" is NOT a fact...no matter how much you would like it to be! IT IS AN OPINION!!!
But seriously, I've made this point before: are you really telling me that if someone thinks the Corrs are better than Bach, we have to take them seriously? People can like whatever music they want, but it doesn't change the fact that some music is bad. And we all like some bad music.
Absolutely not. Hate to argue, but you are dead wrong. You need to pull out a dictionary.
It is NOT my opinion that opinions are not right or wrong, that's a fact! That's the definition of opinion!
From dictionary.com...
opinion - 1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
Personal views are by definition not right or wrong, hence why they are referred to as personal views!!!
Stating that, "it doesn't change the fact that some music is bad" is flat out incorrect. The word fact does not enter into it...it IS subjective...just because you absolutely positively HATE a certain band or piece of music does not mean that everyone agrees with you. Where do you people get this sense of entitlement from?
To say that "some music is just bad" is NOT a fact...no matter how much you would like it to be! IT IS AN OPINION!!!
Haha, wow... did you even see the wink? That was a "joke". It was "funny".
Anyway, I'm not saying that I'm the know-all decider of what music is good or bad - though I have some ideas. But I also know it would take an incredibly stupid person to say that the Corrs or Nickelback are better than Bach or Beethoven. You might like them more - enjoy listening to them more - but they're not better. Important distinction.
I refer you to John Walker, who says it much better than I could hope to.
I hope that an example of this is more immediately palatable via pop music. Take The Corrs’, ‘Play It On The Radio’. Someone might well enjoy this song. They might associate it with happy memories, or simply derive pleasure from the painstakingly simplistic structure. It’s immediately accessible, it’s instantly possible to sing along with, and it’s so astonishingly cynically titled that it will receive endless, eternal radio play. Thus it will gain familiarity, popularity, and enjoyment. But does that make it a good piece of music? Does it merit 95% when measured against all music? Could you put it alongside Bach’s St. Matthew Passion and say, “these two are equally as good”?
I would hope all ridiculous protests would be dropped this far in, and one could say, “No, it’s not as good. But I still really enjoy it and want to listen to it.”
And good. That is very good. In this particular case, with this particular song, it makes me worry for you, and the entire music industry, but good. Because we’ve reached a point where we can accept that even though one might rather drill their ears than listen to Mozart, and like nothing better than dancing around our room singing the voice-synthesised harmonies of Westlife into our hairbrushes, they might still recognise that Mozart is a better composer than Ronan Keating.
Haha, wow... did you even see the wink? That was a "joke". It was "funny".
Anyway, I'm not saying that I'm the know-all decider of what music is good or bad - though I have some ideas. But I also know it would take an incredibly stupid person to say that the Corrs or Nickelback are better than Bach or Beethoven. You might like them more - enjoy listening to them more - but they're not better. Important distinction.
I refer you to John Walker, who says it much better than I could hope to.
Hah! This is unbelievable. You are absolutely incorrect. Saying they are not better is STILL an opinion!
If I say, "Pizza is delicious," that does NOT make it a fact. It does not mean that pizza is delicious, it means that I THINK pizza is delicious. It is my opinion, my personal belief.
If I say, "Pearl Jam released an album called 'No Code' on August 27, 1996," that is a fact. It is a documented fact that can be proven.
To use your example, you compared Bach and Beethoven to the Corrs and Nickelback.
Whether I enjoy listening to Beethoven/Bach more or the Corrs/Nickelback more, has absolutely NO bearing whatsoever on who is "better." There is NO basis of fact on which to base the statement, "Beethoven is better than Nickelback." It remains an opinion.
Haha, wow... did you even see the wink? That was a "joke". It was "funny".
Anyway, I'm not saying that I'm the know-all decider of what music is good or bad - though I have some ideas. But I also know it would take an incredibly stupid person to say that the Corrs or Nickelback are better than Bach or Beethoven. You might like them more - enjoy listening to them more - but they're not better. Important distinction.
I refer you to John Walker, who says it much better than I could hope to.
Hah! This is unbelievable. You are absolutely incorrect. Saying they are not better is STILL an opinion!
If I say, "Pizza is delicious," that does NOT make it a fact. It does not mean that pizza is delicious, it means that I THINK pizza is delicious. It is my opinion, my personal belief.
If I say, "Pearl Jam released an album called 'No Code' on August 27, 1996," that is a fact. It is a documented fact that can be proven.
To use your example, you compared Bach and Beethoven to the Corrs and Nickelback.
Whether I enjoy listening to Beethoven/Bach more or the Corrs/Nickelback more, has absolutely NO bearing whatsoever on who is "better." There is NO basis of fact on which to base the statement, "Beethoven is better than Nickelback." It remains an opinion.
Okay, let me try it this way: some opinions are worth more than others. Especially when certain opinions are self-evidently stupid. And certain opinions are so self-evidently correct that they might as well be fact - ie. Bach is a far superior composer to the Corrs.
Okay, let me try it this way: some opinions are worth more than others. Especially when certain opinions are self-evidently stupid. And certain opinions are so self-evidently correct that they might as well be fact - ie. Bach is a far superior composer to the Corrs.
How can some opinions be worth more than others? An opinion is an opinion is an opinion.
If you are placing more value on one opinion than another, that is your choice to do so. It still does not make it a fact.
Calling an opinion stupid is basically a disagreement with that opinion - which, guess what - is also an opinion!
An opinion cannot be fact, as much as you would like it to be, no matter what.
As much as you might personally disagree, the statement, "Bach is a far superior composer to the Corrs" is an opinion.
I'm not saying that this is what I personally think, but if someone likes the Corrs better than Bach, then, as far as that person is concerned, the Corrs are better!
Okay, let me try it this way: some opinions are worth more than others. Especially when certain opinions are self-evidently stupid. And certain opinions are so self-evidently correct that they might as well be fact - ie. Bach is a far superior composer to the Corrs.
How can some opinions be worth more than others? An opinion is an opinion is an opinion.
If you are placing more value on one opinion than another, that is your choice to do so. It still does not make it a fact.
Calling an opinion stupid is basically a disagreement with that opinion - which, guess what - is also an opinion!
An opinion cannot be fact, as much as you would like it to be, no matter what.
As much as you might personally disagree, the statement, "Bach is a far superior composer to the Corrs" is an opinion.
I'm not saying that this is what I personally think, but if someone likes the Corrs better than Bach, then, as far as that person is concerned, the Corrs are better!
This album is a fucking disgrace. I've been a Cornell fan for many years and I even enjoyed Carry On to an extent; although up till now it was his weakest album. For the longest time I even liked Cornell more than I did PJ. I get sick of people branding people who hate Scream as those "living in the past" and "resistant to change" and all that bullshit. This is not experimentation, it's called selling out, it's called trying to become relevant again, it's called $$$$$$$$$$$$$. Try out Mark Lanegan if you want to hear experimentation done right. Hell, even Pearl Jam for that matter. Only my opinion, of course.
I'm still trying to make my mind up with mark, i have his albums with isobell campbell and they are just shit :S
Soulsavers was pretty interesting. Still gotta listen to his 'solo' stuff.
That's cool. His Isobel stuff was good, but not great - but again I thought the collaboration was far more interesting than this Cornell and Timbadick bullshit. I think I liked about half of the songs from each Isobel album. Soulsavers was fuckin' awesome and I can't wait to hear their new album (with Mark again) this year. You should really, really, really consider giving Mark's solo work a chance. THAT is where it's at. I loved Euphoria Morning and liked Carry On, but Mark is a much more accomplished solo artist, IMO. Start with Whiskey for the Holy Ghost and go from there. You won't be disappointed!
okay but what you are saying here is still: "the album sucks" vs. "the album could have been good." It could have been anything...it's still an opinion to think it is not a good record. It is entirely possible for someone to like Scream.
uhm, no actually what i was saying that ignoring negative criticisms of the albums as just "opinions" is the argument a 6 year old would use. of course its an opinion. if you said that u liked the music and left it at that, id have not called you on it. disregarding "opinions" purely on the basis that they arent your opinions is condescending, and frankly, stupid. thats all i was saying.
and yeah, of course its possible for someone to like it. i never said it wasnt. But i am saying it is ok for others to criticise it. im a pearl jam fan, im used to people i know not getting what i see in music.
you'll just be in a far greater minority if you like this album, that's all.
Comments
I'm still trying to make my mind up with mark, i have his albums with isobell campbell and they are just shit :S
Soulsavers was pretty interesting. Still gotta listen to his 'solo' stuff.
CC was the one that spearheaded it. Ed wasn't even "in" the band.
He hasn't made a truly relevant rock record for 10 years. I don't know why everyone is so upset. imo, it's no worse than him half assin another rock album, or makin some artsy fartsy album that about 15 people are gonna listen to.
Only CC know if he made the record for the right reasons. Who are we to say otherwise?
I don't think it can be denied that there are certain levels of "selling out". I say, as long as it doesn't affect the music, who cares?
no offense but that's silly. i mean it's like...
"oh i like this album so the fact that the artist signed a contract and is making big money is totally cool with me."
vs.
"oh this album sucks big time so the fact that the artist signed a contract and is making big money is really annoying and makes me mad...what a sell out!"
1. technically, ANY artist that signs a contract for the purposes of making money/making profit by doing music is selling out because once they signed on the dotted line it goes from being totally pure and about fun to money and becoming a commodity.
and
2. any person making any comment about any album is just an opinion, SO...it is silly/ridiculous to label someone a sell-out JUST because they released an album that you think is shitty.
i get your point, but you're kind of ignoring valid arguments against the album here. can you see the points of view (like mine) that are disappointed in Cornell releasing this album as the finished product, because it could have actually really good. every single song on this album has writing credits going to Timbalands writing team of 5/6 people.....how much of this album did Cornell actually write?
as for Timbaland, i like a lot of the stuff he's been involved in before. Nice, dense beats for pop music - he's made interesting stuff for very average groups in the past. Here however, there arent interesting or diverse rhythms even, its all "ProTools for dummies" poor quality production.
for me, thats the main point. it comes across from listening that the whole lot of them got VERY bored very quickly and didnt bother their arses making a better album. they started, and just kind of...stopped. then they market the shit out it. thats lazy and talking about the album in comparison with DarkSideOfTheMoon (like Cornell did), and saying its their best work ever (Timabaland) is just flat out bullshit coming from a guy who previously, was quite honest about how he did/did not like his latest albums.
those, i think, are all good signs of a guy abandoning most of the things he stood for previously. thats selling out.
Metacritic.com currently has the album rated as the worst album so far in 2009 (out of 116 releases) and the 54th worst album out of 4180 released since the start of 2000. That, my friends, is very bad.
What makes me disappointed is the thought of what he could have done, compared to what he has done.
I see where you are comin from, but I disagree, a bit. This is where it gets cloudy. I mean, who decides who is a "sellout" right? I don't think you could rank bands individually, by any means, but I think there are a few different levels of "selling out:
Well, people generally aren't the best judges b/c of the emotional attachment generally involved, one way or the other.
The changin musical landscape also makes it nearly impossible to judge.
I think you can step back and kinda look at bands body of work from the progression of their music and where it turns up, the time period, etcetcetc and judge from there.
It's obviously not an exact science, but I think you can separate between the Fugazis, Pearl Jam's and KISS's of the world fairly easily.
That's what gets me. No objectivity. CC did it - he's a god - everything he does is fantastic - he can do no wrong - he cannot have inferior output - etc.... . It would seem these uberfans do not make the distinction between the myth and the man and not giving glowing reviews of the album is taken as a personal attack on Chris! Scream is rubbish for the reasons you state. Does that make CC rubbish? Far from that. Are those not liking Scream 'living in the past', 'not looking to the future' (and all that kind of crap)... nope. We just recognize an inferior album when we hear one - maybe his next one will be of superior standard (whether it is a rock/grunge one, a classical one, folk, country... whatever... .just as long as it is QUALITY). So until then I guess I will still listen to CC but not his new album (actually... I guess that I am then officially living in the past! Damn).
okay but what you are saying here is still: "the album sucks" vs. "the album could have been good." It could have been anything...it's still an opinion to think it is not a good record. It is entirely possible for someone to like Scream.
i see what you're saying, that's cool, but my point remains. yes, you can separate among bands but when an artist signs a contract to make a living being a professional musician, they are selling out right then and there. it does not matter how many albums they produce or whether the albums they produce are good quality or bad quality in the eyes of music fans.
basically, for everything everyone is saying...all the claims are merely opinions. they have no bearing on whether or not he is selling out. making an album that a lot of people dislike does not make you a sell-out. it just means that in many's eyes, you made a shitty record. nothing more, nothing less. but it's still possible for people to like it.
What made him a sell out is when he signed with a major label.
All the new album "officially" does is make a lot of people dislike it.
nowadays hits you when you're young
okay...you said, "It doesn't detract from the fact that it's an awful record."
that is not a fact, it is an opinion.
wrong. opinions are not right or wrong, that's why they're OPINIONS!
But seriously, I've made this point before: are you really telling me that if someone thinks the Corrs are better than Bach, we have to take them seriously? People can like whatever music they want, but it doesn't change the fact that some music is bad. And we all like some bad music.
Absolutely not. Hate to argue, but you are dead wrong. You need to pull out a dictionary.
It is NOT my opinion that opinions are not right or wrong, that's a fact! That's the definition of opinion!
From dictionary.com...
opinion - 1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
Personal views are by definition not right or wrong, hence why they are referred to as personal views!!!
Stating that, "it doesn't change the fact that some music is bad" is flat out incorrect. The word fact does not enter into it...it IS subjective...just because you absolutely positively HATE a certain band or piece of music does not mean that everyone agrees with you. Where do you people get this sense of entitlement from?
To say that "some music is just bad" is NOT a fact...no matter how much you would like it to be! IT IS AN OPINION!!!
Anyway, I'm not saying that I'm the know-all decider of what music is good or bad - though I have some ideas. But I also know it would take an incredibly stupid person to say that the Corrs or Nickelback are better than Bach or Beethoven. You might like them more - enjoy listening to them more - but they're not better. Important distinction.
I refer you to John Walker, who says it much better than I could hope to.
http://botherer.org/2006/01/16/thats-just-your-opinion/
Hah! This is unbelievable. You are absolutely incorrect. Saying they are not better is STILL an opinion!
If I say, "Pizza is delicious," that does NOT make it a fact. It does not mean that pizza is delicious, it means that I THINK pizza is delicious. It is my opinion, my personal belief.
If I say, "Pearl Jam released an album called 'No Code' on August 27, 1996," that is a fact. It is a documented fact that can be proven.
To use your example, you compared Bach and Beethoven to the Corrs and Nickelback.
Whether I enjoy listening to Beethoven/Bach more or the Corrs/Nickelback more, has absolutely NO bearing whatsoever on who is "better." There is NO basis of fact on which to base the statement, "Beethoven is better than Nickelback." It remains an opinion.
How can some opinions be worth more than others? An opinion is an opinion is an opinion.
If you are placing more value on one opinion than another, that is your choice to do so. It still does not make it a fact.
Calling an opinion stupid is basically a disagreement with that opinion - which, guess what - is also an opinion!
An opinion cannot be fact, as much as you would like it to be, no matter what.
As much as you might personally disagree, the statement, "Bach is a far superior composer to the Corrs" is an opinion.
I'm not saying that this is what I personally think, but if someone likes the Corrs better than Bach, then, as far as that person is concerned, the Corrs are better!
That's cool. His Isobel stuff was good, but not great - but again I thought the collaboration was far more interesting than this Cornell and Timbadick bullshit. I think I liked about half of the songs from each Isobel album. Soulsavers was fuckin' awesome and I can't wait to hear their new album (with Mark again) this year. You should really, really, really consider giving Mark's solo work a chance. THAT is where it's at. I loved Euphoria Morning and liked Carry On, but Mark is a much more accomplished solo artist, IMO. Start with Whiskey for the Holy Ghost and go from there. You won't be disappointed!
uhm, no actually what i was saying that ignoring negative criticisms of the albums as just "opinions" is the argument a 6 year old would use. of course its an opinion. if you said that u liked the music and left it at that, id have not called you on it. disregarding "opinions" purely on the basis that they arent your opinions is condescending, and frankly, stupid. thats all i was saying.
and yeah, of course its possible for someone to like it. i never said it wasnt. But i am saying it is ok for others to criticise it. im a pearl jam fan, im used to people i know not getting what i see in music.
you'll just be in a far greater minority if you like this album, that's all.
in your opinion, yes, they are wrong.