although i see where you're coming from,
i can't help but sense the cynicism here.
i don't see how sdre is trying to be more like mainstream rock. to me
sdre has been the most "real" band i know, and their sincerity in
their music, lyrics, and attitude have been what has kept me
completely faithful. like jeremy has said in the past, the music they
write correlates with the things that were going on with their lives
at the time. it's unfair to say that hiftbso was "wimpy"... as long
as they put themselves into it, its strength is incomparable.
jen
christopher zervos wrote:
> Here I go so please bare with me;
> I have been listening very intently about this "diary" era vs. "hiftbso"
era
> and I think that the differance between the new band and the old is pretty
> clear. People enjoyed the old sdre because THEY DIDN'T PLAY CORPERATE
> MAINSTREAM ROCK. At first listen, diary was "heavy" if nothing else. I
had
> to "train myself" as keith put it, to enjoy diary and lp2, but that's how I
> gauge a good album; If I like this immediately without ever hearing
> something similar, it's probably crap. I don't mean to say that I feel all
> of these negative things that I'm saying here about hiftbso, because I
> don't, but man is that a wimpy album! It's a lot harder to get people into
> "heavy" music than mid-tempo ballads; just ask a band like Aerosmith who
> release one wimpy single after another. The new sound is just a part of
the
> larger move by the band to be more "consumer friendly," and that's just
> fine, but you don't get to be underground rock gods like sdre did by
makeing
> an album like hiftbso. They did it by putting out two incredible, but more
> than anything, UNCOMPROMISEING lps. I like the new stuff, but in the same
> way I like radiohead; as pop music. It takes talent, but it isn't all that
> brave a thing to do. Hey, we all gotta eat.
>
> Chris
