(Music) 10 Years: Feeding the Wolves

[xilly]

I don't know if any of you guys are fans of the band 10 Years or not, but their debut album "The Autumn Effect" is a fantastic album and these guys quickly became one of my favorite bands. They released their second album "Division" and it had a few good tracks, but it just wasn't nearly as good as their first album. With the release of "Feeding the Wolves", these guys have not only come back up to match their first album, they've actually out done it.

Here's a sample song:

[Jarochai Alabaster]

They had a couple decent songs and one or two good songs on TAF, but overall they're nothing special. More often than not their lyrics suffer from a poor choice of wording that forces the song to toss basic english to the wayside, when the only thing stopping them from rewriting lyrics that fit the meter of the music is creative laziness. Or stupidity.

Also, cookie-cutter grunge rock band is cookie-cutter.

[xilly]

They had a couple decent songs and one or two good songs on TAF, but overall they're nothing special. More often than not their lyrics suffer from a poor choice of wording that forces the song to toss basic english to the wayside, when the only thing stopping them from rewriting lyrics that fit the meter of the music is creative laziness. Or stupidity.

Also, cookie-cutter grunge rock band is cookie-cutter.

Being a judge of creative laziness is a bit unfair, and really should only be subjective to the artist themselves. I can agree that there are times these guys could have done better choosing different words to fit the bars, but I could make the same argument for plenty of other acts as well: Nirvana's heroin rambling, Pink Floyd's acid rambling, Pretty much anything Soundgarden Audioslave Chris Cornell has ever done, Tool's mantra of filling the void with weird sound effects (wind blowing) or repeated words (stupid shit, silly shit), etc.

I can agree with your cookie cutter statement, but his voice is what sets them apart from their cookie cutter mold. They have a definite sound, even though the elements may seem taken from pre-assembled jars.

EDIT: Another thing, I applaud these guys for actually trying and succeeding in making an album better than their last attempt. So many bands have put out albums this year and they're mostly just phoned in, half assed attempts. Linkin Park's new album is just all over the place, StoneSour's new album is alright but nothing stellar, and Disturbed's new album is terrible even with a decent U2 cover (and a not so decent Judas Priest cover).

[Minute]

Also, cookie-cutter grunge rock band is cookie-cutter.

This

[Harlowe]

Music is always subjective, but it doesn't seem like you actually know shit about Nirvana, Pink Floyd, Soundgarden or Tool if you are going to defend the lackluster of this band by rambling incoherently about some serious (and in Nirvana & Pink Floyd's case iconic), successful artists. Seriously, heroin rambling, acid rambling, mantra of wind-blowing and repeated words? That's such non-nonsensical butthurt all because a couple people weren't impressed with something from your multiple "stuff I like" posts. It makes you sound to seriously dense to "get" any of their music or appreciate the real talent they had.

I personally found 10 Years (especially Feeding the Wolves) to be too Linkin Park/Evanscence-esque, sort of pop-vanilla-goth, like a Twilight soundtrack.

By the way, a couple people I know in Knoxville said they're a shitty band that's been around forever, constantly attempting to change their sound until they get famous. He said it appears they finally jacked-off enough to capture the hearts of the nu-metal retards who don't know what losers they were for so long in K-town.
Those were his words - not mine, I just think they sound "Twilight" to me.

[xilly]

Music is always subjective, but it doesn't seem like you actually know shit about Nirvana, Pink Floyd, Soundgarden or Tool if you are going to defend the lackluster of this band by rambling incoherently about some serious (and in Nirvana & Pink Floyd's case iconic), successful artists. Seriously, heroin rambling, acid rambling, mantra of wind-blowing and repeated words? That's such non-nonsensical butthurt all because a couple people weren't impressed with something from your multiple "stuff I like" posts. It makes you sound to seriously dense to "get" any of their music or appreciate the real talent they had.

Do you even realize how stupid you sound here? You start off by saying "music is always subjective" and then act like I just don't "get" the artists I used as examples. Hypocrisy is on the phone for you, line one. You do also realize that "non-nonsensical" would mean that it makes sense, right?

There is nothing intelligent about Nirvana, period. They happened to be "those guys" who made the right connections and got noticed. They were, in essence, the "cookie cutter" as you say band that is as bubblegum and made for mainstream as it gets. This isn't taking away from Dave Grohl who's made a very successful career instead of just riding the Nirvana coat tails for royalty checks, but Nirvana is, was, and always will be, a shitty band. Soundgarden is another band who was only discovered because of Nirvana's whole "ushering in the Seattle grunge" era thing that MTV did. Never mind the fact that guys like Pearl Jam, Sonic Youth, and Mudhoney were out there doing it and doing it better without the commercial success. Seriously, how the fuck can you kiss Nirvana's ass when Kurt Cobain was saying in interviews that they basically wanted to be The Pixies? Do YOU actually know anything about these bands?

As far as Pink Floyd goes, there were tons of bands doing that same shitty psychedelic stoner music in the 60's. Pink Floyd is an anomaly, kind of like Beck. They don't deserve the fame they've gotten, but they got it, and there they are. The same people that were smoking pot and doing lsd at Pink Floyd shows had kids that spent the 90s in small coffee shops listening to Beck and Rage Against the Machine because they were artsy yet rebellious. Those people had kids who are now sitting in a Starbucks somewhere, blogging about hipster trends, and listening to Dave Matthews like he's the second coming of Jesus.

Tool.. They are talented guys. Mr. Keenan has a remarkable and certainly undeniable voice, and the band uses some ridiculously intricate details when crafting their work (unique and often mathematical timing structures, etc) but 9 times out of 10, what they create is musically brilliant but boring as fuck. I saw Tool back in 2000 on the Lateralus tour and it was seriously the most boring fucking concert I've ever sat through. 45 mins in, I spent the next hour wanting the concert to end and wondering what the fuck I'd just paid $40 bucks to sit through. Seriously, 15 mins of the set was two contortionists hanging from wires twisting around all while a repeated sound of what sounded like someone throwing up looped over and over. I got a better Tool experience the next night when a friend brought over Salival and we put it on in Surround Sound. I wished I had bought that cd/dvd instead of going to the concert, although Tricky was a great opener and that's how I was introduced to Massive Attack.

As far as your friends in Knoxville.. everyone hates local bands when they become famous. We did the same thing here in the Louisville Area when Flaw got signed, same with Days of the New and My Morning Jacket.. though they all played sold out shows nightly before they were "discovered". People from Nashville say the same thing about Paramore, Framing Hanley, and other bands from that area too. What's your point, other than another sad attempt at a dig?

Look, I shared this with you guys simply because I enjoyed an album and thought some of you may do the same. I didn't post this to start a OMG UR MUSIX SUX LOL thread.

[Harlowe]

Do you realize what an attention whore you look like? You are suddenly posting all over the board like a spaz and getting defensive because no one liked a band you were crowing about in one of your many recent music/gaming critique posts. So defensive and butthurt, you try knocking iconic bands in an effort to defend your band.

Just because you post a wall of text in response, doesn't make your opinion (or taste) any more refined than others. I think your taste is shitty (you are actually keeping up with Linkin Park after all), but as I said, it's subjective so, who cares.

You posted something you liked, people responded with their opinion of that band and it wasn't exactly positive, you then got defensive about it. If you were just here to share, you wouldn't have gotten butthurt to begin with.

[Minute]

OMG UR MUSIX TASTE SUX LOL

[Harlowe]

Oh, as to the first part. You don't get it. I was inferring that TASTE in music is obviously subjective, which is not the same as just the ability to appreciate or recognize talent and the ability to skillfully write in others. I felt your comments on other bands in defense of people not being thrilled with this one, were idiotic and not at all thoughtful. Even now in your wall of text it just sounds like more butthurt and regurgitated wiki info.

Obviously not directed at you Minute, just posted after you. =)

[xilly]

Keep going with that evasive stance, Harlowe. It looks good on you.

I'll stop posting music, and leave my taste of "shitty" music somewhere else.

[Minute]

I'll stop posting music, and leave my taste of "shitty" music somewhere else.

HURRAY!!!

[Harlowe]

I'll stop posting music, and leave my taste of "shitty" music somewhere else.

Well crap. Then I'll have to wait for the next Twilight soundtrack to find new music.

[Falundir X`Viento]

I stopped reading when someone said Nirvana was 'cookie cutter'.

Something very amusing about that statement.