Chris Cornell New Album officially makes him a sell out

PJ Fan est. 1990

this is what i predict will happen...some of the teens of today will be like "ooo i like this, who the hell is chris cornell?" they google image search him to find a middle aged white guy...they say "ew" and stop listening...

ok that was over generalizing, but i see that being a kind of awkward point for today's teens...like it would be awkward for a rock star from the 80's and 90's who isn't doing so great on selling solo records, becoming the new hit thing on your local top 10 hip hop/r&b station

High Fidelity 2000

Say what you will about Mr. Cornell, but I'm telling you, he WILL bring Sexy back!!

I don't need to listen to it... I listened to the handful 30-second clips on verizon (or whatever) website about 6 months ago. In fact, I thought this album had already come and gone. I saw Chris Cornell in concert in Nov. 2007 and as I said in another thread, I was surprisingly impressed. It was fuckin' rawk power. Little did I know, cheap electronic music was his next step. Good luck, man. Enjoy your new groupies "in the club."

Personally, me... I can't wait for the Vedder/T-Pain collaboration! Whoo, that is going to be some killer shit. Get the Auto Tune out and get ready to be floored.

Music For Rhinos

Alright, look...

It's not Cornell himself...based on what he has done throughout his career I don't think anyone can deny that he's an amazing singer, musician and a fairly good lyricist. So he made ONE ALBUM that is completely unlike anything he has ever done before and what could be considered an erratic step in direction. SO WHAT?!?

It's not really Scream itself either...if the songs on Scream had been written recorded and released by some rap or r&b artist I don't think it would be met with such poor reception.

It's the combination of the two that has a lot of people up in arms.

However, having said that, I still like Scream. Yes, that's right, I said it. His voice is great, the music on most (but not all of the songs) is relatively pleasing to my ears and the lyrics aren't terrible either. (Not every song...there are a few songs I don't like) but overall I like it.

superfuzz30

I dont think its bad at all...for what it is...and that is a pop album. I dont really have a problem with that, but i understand coming from one of the biggest rock bands ever that this is a stretch. However, his solo stuff got way more produced on the previous effort...still good just produced.

I think Scream is alright, i cant see myself listening to it all the time, but here and there, sure.

He's done way worse....like making a mockery of Hunger Strike with Likin Park....gah.

Fahka

That new album of his is rock blasphemy at best :roll:
Why do people feel the need to be uber relevant every other year...I mean if it were to cool people i would understand but he is catering to a bunch of dipshits which in my book, makes him him worse than the dip shits

Music For Rhinos

LeatherMandi wrote:

That new album of his is rock blasphemy at best :roll:
Why do people feel the need to be uber relevant every other year...I mean if it were to cool people i would understand but he is catering to a bunch of dipshits which in my book, makes him him worse than the dip shits

not really. he obviously wasnt going for rock. he is not catering to anyone. he is chris fucking cornell and can do whatever he wants.

LukinFan

greenmanny wrote:

Shouldn't this thread be on the "Other Music" board?

exactly. second one this week like this in the porch

Travelar

Trent Reznor obviously doesn't like it....

http://twitter.com/trent_reznor/status/1313265641

You know that feeling you get when somebody embarrasses themselves so badly YOU feel uncomfortable? Heard Chris Cornell's record? Jesus.

OffHeGoes132

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.

Music For Rhinos

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.

Brisk.

OffHeGoes132 wrote:

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.

DewieCox

DS105358 wrote:

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?

DewieCox

Music For Rhinos wrote:

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?

Music For Rhinos

DewieCox wrote:

Music For Rhinos wrote:

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!"

milarso

I don't know if he's a sell out or not, but the album fucking blows...

Music For Rhinos

all i'm saying is:

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.

justam

Well, if nothing else, this new music of his makes him sound confused. :?

JordyWordy

Music For Rhinos wrote:

all i'm saying is:

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.

JimNastics

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.

DewieCox

Music For Rhinos wrote:

DewieCox wrote:

Music For Rhinos wrote:

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.