CHUD.com Community › Forums › MUSIC › Music › The New Strokes Album
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The New Strokes Album

post #1 of 11
10/31/03 at 12:14pm
Thread Starter 
Gawker had a classic review of the new Strokes album posted on its home page:

"It's just like the last album, except without that song I really liked."

Anybody get this? I hear it's SUPER short.
Reply
post #2 of 11
10/31/03 at 1:14pm
I've had it since it leaked and I disagree. While it does have the same vibe as the last album, there is actual musical progression on this one, and the songs are a bit more varied. I really enjoy it, as I did with the last one, but it is far from groundbreaking.
Reply
post #3 of 11
10/31/03 at 3:16pm
I got it a couple of weeks ago. It didn't hook me immediately like Is This It did but it grew on me quick. There's not a bad song on it. It's not a departure from Is This It by any means but there's enough variation to tell the difference. I really like the little synth additions. They remind me of the Cars.
Reply
post #4 of 11
10/31/03 at 3:38pm
ditto on what everyone else says...it's not the second coming by any means, but it's a lot of fun...
Reply
post #5 of 11
10/31/03 at 5:52pm
It's an easy enough listen. Certainly not offensive by any means but hardly revolutionary. And after listening to it once I'm hard pressed to even remember one of the songs. The Strokes may ape some classic bands, but their music doesn't come close to whatever it is that made those bands classic to begin with. Droning like Lou Reed does not make one Lou Reed. Don't get me wrong, I like them ok, but they need to spend more time on their music then their style and image. Right now they're just a safe, easily digestible version of a past musical revolution.
Reply
post #6 of 11
11/3/03 at 5:19am
It's a damn solid album. Honestly, a little underwhelming, but coming from these guys that certainly doesn't mean it's misstep. I think it clocks in at just under a half-hour, thus making it a perfect little record to accompany activities that last just under a half-hour. As far as the songs not being memorable -- poppycock. The leadoff track is one of my faves of the year and "12:51" is an instant classic.
Reply
post #7 of 11
11/3/03 at 4:46pm
12:51 a classic?

Uh, no. but it is a perfect example of what's wrong with this record. They have a halfway decent...hell, a good hook with the synth/guitar line. But nothing else happens. It's just the same 4/4, "duh duh duh duh duh duh duh duh duh" sludge as the rest of this record.

It's mired in this midtempo morass of same-y beats, bad production, and a lot less hooks than the last record.

Of course, they're critic-proof that way. Almost every review categorizes these things as their STRENGTHS, so there's no room to critique that.
Reply
post #8 of 11
11/3/03 at 5:17pm
I think its a pretty great album. Its like their debut, which I think is a good thing really. Id much rather have them do an album that's like their first one....not one that completely changes what made them popular in the first place. Yes, it is really short. But oh well.
Reply
post #9 of 11
11/4/03 at 1:25pm
I got this for my wife a week ago. She already knows all the lyrics. She's giddy with "Julian-itis". You'd think I bought her a ring. She hears some Cure influence on one song and also sees a progression in tone and voice. I like it pretty well. I'm just glad to hear something besides the old one. No DVD with this one, to her chagrin.
Reply
post #10 of 11
11/4/03 at 11:17pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Micah Robinson
12:51 a classic?

Uh, no. but it is a perfect example of what's wrong with this record. They have a halfway decent...hell, a good hook with the synth/guitar line. But nothing else happens. It's just the same 4/4, "duh duh duh duh duh duh duh duh duh" sludge as the rest of this record.

It's mired in this midtempo morass of same-y beats, bad production, and a lot less hooks than the last record.

Of course, they're critic-proof that way. Almost every review categorizes these things as their STRENGTHS, so there's no room to critique that.
Ouch.

Well, the song clearly isn't classic in the sense that "Hey Jude" or "Paint it Black" is, but I find "12:51" to be a glistening pop gem. Perhaps "classic" was inappropriate, but I am prone to semantic tomfoolery. If you're tossing terms like "mired, "sludge", and "morass" around to describe these tunes, then I can't see how the Strokes would be your cup of tea at all.
Reply
post #11 of 11
11/12/03 at 2:00pm
Thread Starter 
I bought this on Saturday and have listened to it pretty non-stop ever since. Good stuff, with really really decent songs. Not a great album, and pretty candy, but it's solid.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Music
CHUD.com Community › Forums › MUSIC › Music › The New Strokes Album