New album In the works

[Tim]

Originally Posted by FooZealand

2) No band on earth right no would make a better album when told to "Go do your thing, and just fucking have fun". No band will make a more of the same album right now than the Foos told to appease ticket sales and audiences wanting more of the same.

I dunno who needs to hear this but they really don't get told what to do. The concept albums are whatever come from "that's what Dave wants to do" but it really boils down to whatever they think will be cool and fun. They might get told to do when it's where to show up for press/promotional stuff after the record is done but I don't think they've really had a suit making notes on how a record should be since maybe Colour and the Shape, and even that was probably more internal that anyone from the management company or the label.

The suits' job is to take the band's vision/output and to market it, whatever it ends up being, not to tell em how to make the sausage.

[Eugene Bubba Stokes]

Originally Posted by Tim

I dunno who needs to hear this but they really don't get told what to do. The concept albums are whatever come from "that's what Dave wants to do" but it really boils down to whatever they think will be cool and fun. They might get told to do when it's where to show up for press/promotional stuff after the record is done but I don't think they've really had a suit making notes on how a record should be since maybe Colour and the Shape, and even that was probably more internal that anyone from the management company or the label.

The suits' job is to take the band's vision/output and to market it, whatever it ends up being, not to tell em how to make the sausage.

Hey, brah. Has Dave ever said what made him stray so far from his early punk rock roots (Nirvana, Scream)? I'd think that a lot of diehard Nirvana fans that didn't ultimately cross-over to become fans of the Foo probably chose not to do so due to the huge departure in sound from what many of us would have hoped for and expected (ex. grunge/punk rock to safe n poppy dad style rock).

[matineeidyll]

Enough with the "brah", this is 2019 and you're not a dudebro extra in a 90s teen movie.

[Eugene Bubba Stokes]

Originally Posted by matineeidyll

Enough with the "brah", this is 2019 and you're not a dudebro extra in a 90s teen movie.

Scuze me? Dudebro? You wanna step, Mick Dundee?

[Johnson_Foo]

Originally Posted by Eugene Bubba Stokes

Hey, brah. Has Dave ever said what made him stray so far from his early punk rock roots (Nirvana, Scream)? I'd think that a lot of diehard Nirvana fans that didn't ultimately cross-over to become fans of the Foo probably chose not to do so due to the huge departure in sound from what many of us would have hoped for and expected (ex. grunge/punk rock to safe n poppy dad style rock).

Wouldn't say the first two or three albums can be argued to be dad style rock but each to their own. Maybe Dave changed a little as he got older?

[FooZealand]

Originally Posted by Tim

I dunno who needs to hear this but they really don't get told what to do. The concept albums are whatever come from "that's what Dave wants to do" but it really boils down to whatever they think will be cool and fun. They might get told to do when it's where to show up for press/promotional stuff after the record is done but I don't think they've really had a suit making notes on how a record should be since maybe Colour and the Shape, and even that was probably more internal that anyone from the management company or the label.

The suits' job is to take the band's vision/output and to market it, whatever it ends up being, not to tell em how to make the sausage.

OK that's a fine catch on one take of what I wrote and I totally accept and agree with what you say given your take on what I said.

Only my wording was from my head as I wrote and the words didnt really clearly "quite" mean what I was thinking. Also I write like a mother (you know that - often way more than needed so I was trying to trim shit back a bit).

SO

On that point:

"No band on earth right now would make a better album when told to "Go do your thing, and just fucking have fun". No band will make a more of the same album right now than the Foos told to appease ticket sales and audiences wanting more of the same."

just to clarify (I hope) its intent:

* I didn't mean I thought the band get's told in any way what it has to do as far as album concept or production (especially now).
* I simply meant if (hypothetically) someone was to chat to Dave while he was hunting for inspiration about what worked, what didnt, and what would be a great direction to at least think of going... then I WOULD BE TELLING HIM "Go do your thing, and just fucking have fun" (like just don't really think it out at all this time).

And sorry - caps not shouting at you, just emphasis on (I'm hoping) a whole other way of reading what I wrote.

And that's versus the bit where (rather than about whole next album creation and concepts), I do indeed (from the "than the Foos" wording) much more imply (or maybe simply wonder, and I know I'm not alone here) how much absolute hands off approach management, accountants or who the fuck ever else has a say, as to why consecutive gigs end up sooo repetitive. And even that's posed as a rhetorical question.

"Casual" fans want xyz, band has X hours, band now has SO much "xyz" they could play the same show EVERY night and all the casual fans go home utterly thrilled. I'd go home pulling apart the slight vocal or chord fuckups...

And sure they do change stuff up - just not enough. Not for me personally (nobody goes to every gig but you can now pretty much hear every gig), and not as much as I think they should for anyone... where if a casual fan heard 66% what they knew and 34% stuff they'd never heard, I'd think they'd go home both very happy AND wonder a lot more about the shit they didnt know... the shit (maybe 10 to 20 years old for the FF) it would be impossible to hear (like it was for me at my first gig seeing Kiss in 1980).

KISS - Wellington NZ 1980 (12 Years Old lol)

That left me hunting down bands as I got older and maybe appreciating them more (though there were physical release to hunt and hold too, so there's that of course). Now you don't have to hunt further than the ends of your fingers and I'm honestly left wondering how much further than that the "appreciation; goes in many cases (after the like button gets automatically pressed). So to me all the less reason to appease the masses, especially when you've made millions already - are you in a rock band or a fucking corporation? And trust me the irony there over Gene Simmons being the mastermind of the biggest rock "corporate merch entity" well before the internet ever existed isn't lost on me lol.

(Maybe more odd I know first hand about Dave's first Kiss gig - and it was a fair while after mine lol).

Anyway, if that approach IS still all down to the band (and sure, it poss is) and since both Chris and Taylor have both quoted various "we go along with what we have to play" comments over the recent years, then Dave needs at least more noise about how it's just one viewpoint that (while valid) at the very least could use changing up wholesale now and again - if for no other reason than to SEE what affect it has. It's been left the same approach now for too long to know if anything else is better OR worse.

Surprises make gigs. That's definitely proven.

"Break a leg" is a famous superstitious performance quote, from a time where literally wishing good luck was seen as bad luck, so it was reversed. So who knows what was said at Ullevi, and it was a shitter for Dave, but it turned the night and arguably the tour into something immensely memorable and I'm sure raised ticker sales through all the press. Not saying it should have happened - just that hey - ultimate unexpected tragedy was also unexpectedly beneficial.

And I known personally that the 13th Dec 2011 Western Springs "Earthquake" occurred when Dave announced we are filming for the first ever live video for These Days. Don't know what happened in Australia (maybe not enough sensors or too big a land mass etc), but the entire runway next to me jumped up and down do much I had to let go of it, and the last nine songs were the most energised I've ever seen any crowd or the band live. Of course you can't ask for that every gig. But it simply screams that the unexpected is what drives reaction.

It's a super well worn comment by us long time fans, but it would just be nice to see the band say (a bit more in tours at least) that we just we don't care about who cares what we play; nobody can ever call us programmed puppets. When right now yes some of us (sometimes) kinda can. So that was my point on the second part of that comment.

[wicked_gravity]

Originally Posted by matineeidyll

Enough with the "brah", this is 2019 and you're not a dudebro extra in a 90s teen movie.

LOL, i read 3 of his/her posts and I was just about to address the brah thing too. Glad to see I'm not the only one annoyed by it.

[Kevthedrummer]

Originally Posted by Eugene Bubba Stokes

Hey, brah. Has Dave ever said what made him stray so far from his early punk rock roots (Nirvana, Scream)? I'd think that a lot of diehard Nirvana fans that didn't ultimately cross-over to become fans of the Foo probably chose not to do so due to the huge departure in sound from what many of us would have hoped for and expected (ex. grunge/punk rock to safe n poppy dad style rock).

Strange, the first album is very Nirvana to me... I would say it wasn't until the third album that they became poppy radio rock.

I guess as an artist you develop. Some people enjoy the ride, others not so much. There were plenty of people still trying to do Nirvana, Dave probably wanted to find his own sound. He's settled more on the 'dad rock' stuff but hey, he's a dad and most of his fans will be parents by now!

I like you

[Ria]

So, is it too soon for them to start posting some pics, teasing.. something? If they decide they are going to do it like this and share stuff. I've seen the photo that feelnumb posted with Pat's picks and i wouldn't mind an update

[FooZealand]

Originally Posted by Kevthedrummer

Strange, the first album is very Nirvana to me... I would say it wasn't until the third album that they became poppy radio rock.

I guess as an artist you develop. Some people enjoy the ride, others not so much. There were plenty of people still trying to do Nirvana, Dave probably wanted to find his own sound. He's settled more on the 'dad rock' stuff but hey, he's a dad and most of his fans will be parents by now!

I like you

Yeah agree with that thinking. I've had a lot of time over a lot of years to flesh that out. Won't nec be yours or anyone's take but anyway...

Punk was a moment in time against the state of the 1970's UK political and social climate. That it even "made it" as "a sound" out of the UK (by hard recordings only) was impressive. Times changed and music did too.

Also, Punk was an act of rebellion in its day. Like Woodstock before it, and Grunge after it. Rebellion is best served raw with a savage slice of angst, and oh look that's what "Teen Spirit" served up, just in the best possible packaging.

That "Punk" was still a thing through the 80's (influencing a US band "under culture" so much, and for so long) is also a massive "time" thing. Both around the time it took to get to the US, an the fact that once it took hold it was so big it held out way longer as a "major" Indy influence than in the UK where it was born.

The UK kinda exploded in the early 80's to where alternative, electronic, ska, reggae and electric guitar rock were all fighting each other in the charts. That all got to the US for sure, but nowhere near as fast as it would now, nor in the same volume. It's also why the 80's holds one of the most memorable and replayed era of tracks.

But over time some stand out massively. Elvis, Beatles, Hendricks, Sex Pistols, Joy Division, Nirvana. Add the rest you personally (hit upon and loved) over any period. They were all the "disruptors" of the status quo of their time. And interpretations of who you include or exclude are wildly various and totally down to interpretation of both your individual enjoyment and the impact you feel they had on what came after.

What is telling in the end (oddly if accurately) is what people now pay for vinyl from that era, some kinda common at the time is now hugely valuable. All those bands feature in $4 to 5 figure records - yeah over 10K), which is crazy in itself, let alone the fact nobody will get to do that with digital... hmmm I see a good reason for a vinyl revival (they first said in 2006).

Some created genres pretty emphatically, some extended them in wild directions (like the Stones, Morrison/Doors, Led Zep, Kiss...). I'm old, so I list what I know and love. But I try hard not to knock whatever new bands have that same sentiment to younger people. Because it's not about better or best - it's all about the feeling the music gives you and the memory of when you first heard it, where you were and who you were with.

Only much much later can you look back on what you yourself have "stored" and say yeah that band was better than that one etc, but it's still just an opinion that works for you (also works a lot better with vinyl than flicking through digital folders... but hey I'm just predicting the fallout).

Anyway it's when your opinion (of that change impact) at one time is the same as so many others that a real (r)evolution is born.

So I'll give a little ranking scale here, based on pure opinion.

To be part of a successful band that lasts 5+ years - you'll be forever memorable to someone, until everyone alive when you played is dead.

To be part of a successful band that lasts 10+ years - you'll be forever memorable to someone, until (at least) the children of everyone alive when you played is dead.

To be part of a successful band that lasts (circa) 20+ years - you'll be forever memorable. You broke a certain time boundary and there will be so much written about you now it doesn't really matter how you got there, when you existed or what you played. The fact you had enough support to continue means you held fans so long you cant be forgotten, as a search of a wide music time-span keeps throwing you up.

To be part of one of the few bands that truly own a given time/change dynamic, like Elvis, The Beatles, Nirvana... you are immortal and can't be forgotten. I'm very deliberately limiting the list to three. I could name more, you (ie any person) could name more - the lists would never match. But here on this board I think those three are impossible to argue with.

The fact I lived through and cant do the same for either the eighties (though Nirvana formed then I know), norties or later is insane. I hinted at some of the bands I think worthy above, but I cant outright throw them in anyone's face and say No you MUST include them. I badly badly want to add the Sex Pistols to the three - because they were really almost there, only they lasted such a short time. Same for Joy Division. Those bands have so many more bootleg releases than actual albums - and are STILL regularly RSD releases etc - that it gets crazy having to exclude them, but I do, because it's all the same music over a short time and all well remembered but not quite the same level of influence, as people that love them want to think. Things were just changing so much, so fast. And that too was BEFORE the internet.

So it's a huge standout to pin one of three on Nirvana. Huger still to jump from 1970 to 1990, and find it impossible to repeat through to today.

But that actually tells us things. Real massive music moments like that are rare as hell. If you are part of them they probably will consume you. If I do add Sex Pistols, Joy Division, Doors... I get the Beatles splitting up going OK (JL got shot but the rest at least lived) but all the other artists suffered VERY badly. Elvis, Jim M, Sid V (Ritchie), Curtis, Kurt... Died peacefully in their sleep is likely nowhere to be found.

----------------------------------------------------------
So if I'm under 25 and "forcibly ejected" from one of the biggest bands of the moment (albeit with no idea that's going to be one of the biggest bands EVER), I imagine my first album is going to sound a lot like where I just came from. Least of all because a lot of it was tucked away from those same years.

And personally I'd love to still be living that music, where all of it was tied to that same sound and time and every album was rooted in that and didn't change much at all.

But I'd have shit all albums to play. The Foos would not now exist - they would have died in 99, with the last album being called super dated. They wouldn't tour, not even as Dave Grohl's band - nobody would care enough to create a gig. That "age" has gone.

But we remember it, and are able to still fucking live it and wonder about every fucking second of it (Barret / AMA / "lost" reels etc) because he went off and did the next best thing - something he can do and not "kill himself" over.

So almost certainly he wont ever get to have the Foo Fighters be one of the minuscule number of genre exploding bands that are eternally revered just by saying their name.

But almost certainly he will have built the Foo Fighters into that next best category of bands that lived so long it is forever memorable by anyone alive or dead.

And if you were Dave Grohl and were part of two of those categories, I will finally find it hard to argue with anything you ever did, because you will probably be able to count on the number of fingers of one amputated hand the number of contenders to argue with.

But until then I still wont be happy until he takes all the learning and changing and throws up something that in that moment, and that time, is the new DSOTM.

And seriously I think that's why we are all here, why we all watch and wait, loving stuff that comes out and yet maybe not quite happy. Good, but still letting us argue over exactly what is still not quite sitting right... because there are those glimpses of magic...

And if you are like me then you know it's coming... the album where it all sits and somehow works like 10x the sum of the awesome parts. It just needs that certain inspiration.

I felt St C had a lot of that. The old songs maybe helped (or their "Truefoo" rock root style), the impromptu nature, the wind down "don't give a fuck" aspect now "the recording for real is all done", and the "we gotta just belt this out for charity".

I'm sure the reviews don't escape Dave. I'm sure the 25th nature of looking back isn't either. I'm sure the fact the biggest success is still loved and is now one of the oldest songs doesn't either.

I'm pretty hyped for whatever the package of old stuff is going to be, but I'm maybe even more hyped for how "Back to Foo" the new stuff might be if the go the way I hope - where all the "new" skills get used to pare back the old sound and unleash all the band and instruments exactly right, like he did by himself when he simply wasn't trying to do it.

[O.B.gene]

Gonna capture that live energy in the studio, classic Taylor letting it slip https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...-a9187961.html

[Poppy4580]

Trust Taylor to let it slip LOL

[Ria]

Haha, hope he doesn't ''get in trouble''!

A live album?! + 'we found somewhere interesting to make a record' ..

Also, well,it's not about the record, from the Adobe keynote, Dave said he's working on the new record, the documentary with his mother, another documentary and a film! And there was something with Brandi Carlile, possibly for one of them? Maybe one is for FF25
Many projects!

[FooZealand]

Originally Posted by Ria

Haha, hope he doesn't ''get in trouble''!

A live album?! + 'we found somewhere interesting to make a record' ..

Also, well,it's not about the record, from the Adobe keynote, Dave said he's working on the new record, the documentary with his mother, another documentary and a film! And there was something with Brandi Carlile, possibly for one of them? Maybe one is for FF25
Many projects!

And there are demos! I'm guessing they didn't cost a million dollars... so that's a good start

[Tourettes2400]

Mark me down for the no concept album and just good 13 or so songs.

[StuFighter]

Originally Posted by Tourettes2400

Mark me down for the no concept album and just good 13 or so songs.

Does anyone really do concept albums anymore?

[lharris92]

Originally Posted by StuFighter

Does anyone really do concept albums anymore?

Yep.

Frank Turner's one this year (No Mans Land)