New Album 2017

[Jessafur]

There is an acoustic version of decades from the acoustic bootleg that went up in the lounge earlier in the summer.

[Coochiemudlo]

Wow, would love to hear that.

[Prairieboy]

I get it. I finally get it now. It's taken a few listens but the whole album makes sense now. The fade-outs, the strings, the 80's sound of the guitars, everything. It's a bit of a departure - kind of like LOES which has now become one of my favourite albums after initially being put on the shelf for a bit. Well done Matt, Stu, Blake, Peter, Warne and everyone else. To have created something like this that will last forever is quite a feat.

 

Matt - I hope you are able to make it through this difficult personal time. Your songs mean more to us fans than you'll ever know. Yes, there are the casual fans who just know the hit singles. But for the rest of us...those of us on The Bored...your music reaches deep inside of us. You've somehow been able to articulate through your music what each of us has felt day in and day out for so many years now. Something that we can't articulate. As I sit at home by myself on a dark, cold Sunday evening listening to this album over and over again, I don't feel alone. Somehow - buying your music and merch and going to your concerts just doesn't seem to be enough to repay you. I hope you know how much we all appreciate your artistry...and how your music has carried each of us through our own individual storms. One foot in front of the other...

[RileyLewis]

I get it. I finally get it now. It's taken a few listens but the whole album makes sense now. The fade-outs, the strings, the 80's sound of the guitars, everything. It's a bit of a departure - kind of like LOES which has now become one of my favourite albums after initially being put on the shelf for a bit. Well done Matt, Stu, Blake, Peter, Warne and everyone else. To have created something like this that will last forever is quite a feat.

 

Matt - I hope you are able to make it through this difficult personal time. Your songs mean more to us fans than you'll ever know. Yes, there are the casual fans who just know the hit singles. But for the rest of us...those of us on The Bored...your music reaches deep inside of us. You've somehow been able to articulate through your music what each of us has felt day in and day out for so many years now. Something that we can't articulate. As I sit at home by myself on a dark, cold Sunday evening listening to this album over and over again, I don't feel alone. Somehow - buying your music and merch and going to your concerts just doesn't seem to be enough to repay you. I hope you know how much we all appreciate your artistry...and how your music has carried each of us through our own individual storms. One foot in front of the other...

 

What difficult time are you referring to?

[Guest Idioteque]

Check Matt's recent Instagram post, he's going through some things but I don't think it's an appropriate topic to spell out here.

[Williammunny11]

Yes, recent posts really put a different slant on some of the lyrical content from the new record.

[Crusader]

Hi folks,

 

I've removed some posts in this thread. I'd appreciate it if we keep the discussion here about the music rather than other people's personal lives.

 

Thanks

[Williammunny11]

I want to comment for a second on the production from this last record:

 

I feel like Matt and Warne have outdone themselves.  I LOVED Chaotic...felt like it was lush and nuanced without ever sounding over-labored...Something Line A Storm continues this trend and then some.

 

Everything from the drums to the vocals is beyond perfect.  It has been a pleasure to listen to at high volume.

[Coochiemudlo]

Yep totally agree.  Production is were this album really shines for me.

[andydanger85]

Absolutely. Strings on the title song seem like they were recorded in my living room every time I listen to the song. Actually, I have been addicted to the title song pretty hard all week. Those hard down-strums and the main riff are infectious. 

[Williammunny11]

The 'big' drum-sound on both the title track as well as "Bullets" is also nice to hear.  Tight, dry drums seems all the rage these days but I much prefer the kind of drum mix Matt and Warne settled on here.

[Guest Idioteque]

I had my fingers crossed for a better drum sound than what we got on IMNW: Revisited. It all sounded way too mechanical, like a drum machine.

[Williammunny11]

I had my fingers crossed for a better drum sound than what we got on IMNW: Revisited. It all sounded way too mechanical, like a drum machine.

 

I think that it fit the vibe of what they were going for though, a 'stripped down' approach to the material.  I enjoyed that release quite a bit actually.  My only gripe is that there wasn't 'more' to it...more strings...more production...more overdubs...especially with songs like Born To Kill.

 

But, I suspect it was recorded very quickly and was more intended to approximate Matt Good the live singer/songwrite, as opposed to being a 'full-band' release.

[Guest Idioteque]

Yeah I remember reading about that E.P being a quick process, I just can't get into it for the life of me. It really just sounds like I'm listening to tired, sleepy musicians in band practice with a drum machine haha. It's such a laid back little E.P which could have been their goal.

 

The BM songs translated great live when I saw him though, I'd love to see what he can pull off with the Underdogs tracks.

 

All my complaints I ever say are so minimum to what I actually enjoy from the music, for example I really wish Matt would strip down (calm down) and get back to basics.

 

If you take out the orchestras in Something Like A Storm then its not even a full song, it surprised me how much praise that track got because there's almost nothing going on in it. Take away alot of the overdubs/effects & unnecessary amount of vocal harmonies, you're left with incredibly hollow songs.

 

A ton of his work can stand alone as full band albums with additional instruments added onto already complete songs to make them bigger than life, some of the songs on the new album feel half completed & just stuffed with synths, keys or strings to make it sound more fuller/complete? I don't like that at all.

 

Matt's most recent albums are almost made to be enjoyed as an entirety, not made for singles anymore which I support. But when you do listen to the recent singles & listen to the rest of the album they don't really go together. Is it a political album? is it a rock album? is it a 80s synth rock album?

 

Idk. I love chaotic neutral & accept the chaoticness of it, but an album called "Something Like A Storm" barely ever made me feel like I left the harbor on a Sunny Monday morning.

 

As stated in previous comments I do love the album and I avoided kinda going into detail about my cons with it, I just never been in the type of situation with his music where I can look at the tracklist & say "I'm probably never going to listen to half of these again".

Edited October 31, 2017 by Idioteque

[Williammunny11]

Yeah I remember reading about that E.P being a quick process, I just can't get into it for the life of me. It really just sounds like I'm listening to tired, sleepy musicians in band practice with a drum machine haha. It's such a laid back little E.P which could have been their goal.

 

The BM songs translated great live when I saw him though, I'd love to see what he can pull off with the Underdogs tracks.

 

All my complaints I ever say are so minimum to what I actually enjoy from the music, for example I really wish Matt would strip down (calm down) and get back to basics.

 

If you take out the orchestras in Something Like A Storm then its not even a full song, it surprised me how much praise that track got because there's almost nothing going on in it. Take away alot of the overdubs/effects & unnecessary amount of vocal harmonies, you're left with incredibly hollow songs.

 

A ton of his work can stand alone as full band albums with additional instruments added onto already complete songs to make them bigger than life, some of the songs on the new album feel half completed & just stuffed with synths, keys or strings to make it sound more fuller/complete? I don't like that at all.

 

Matt's most recent albums are almost made to be enjoyed as an entirety, not made for singles anymore which I support. But when you do listen to the recent singles & listen to the rest of the album they don't really go together. Is it a political album? is it a rock album? is it a 80s synth rock album?

 

Idk. I love chaotic neutral & accept the chaoticness of it, but an album called "Something Like A Storm" barely ever made me feel like I left the harbor on a Sunny Monday morning.

 

As stated in previous comments I do love the album and I avoided kinda going into detail about my cons with it, I just never been in the type of situation with his music where I can look at the tracklist & say "I'm probably never going to listen to half of these again".

 

Hey man, if all we ever did was praise Matt's work unequivocally then there would be little point to visiting here...a discussion requires varying points of perspective.

 

To that point, I hear what you are saying: perhaps some of the songs on Something... wouldn't hold up to the 'does it sound good on just a single guitar' test...but I would counter that much of Avalanche doesn't pass that test...nor does a huge chunk of Queen's catalog (a band whom I feel has no equal).  The point is that some artists use the studio to simply 'capture' a moment, others use it almost like an instrument itself.  Matt has done a good job of doing both throughout his career in my opinion.

 

I agree that this latest album definitely works best when consumed as a whole (which I struggled with as well bc I was not big on any of the first three singles), but if I'm being honest, most of the music that I still hold dear didn't necessarily grab me from the getgo.  Be it Radiohead or Miles Davis or what have you, the records I hold most dear are not necessarily easily digested.

 

But perhaps that is more a matter of my change in taste over the years aligning somewhat with Matt's change in approach.  I still maintain that had he not made LOES I might not be still checking him out.  But that record, the dense, brooding, indulgent piece of art that it is endeared me so much to him that nearly a decade later his cds have never left my car.

[Guest Idioteque]

It's not the "would this hold on a single guitar & still sound good" that bugs me, it's that there's some songs that barely hold together with just the band. Dave Grohl had a motto "What would Queen do?" when recording their newest album because it started to get too big/heavy, but they inevitably said screw it because Queen always went balls to the walls in the studio & pulled everything off live. So as weird & complex as Bohemian Rhapsody is for a regular recorded track, they still flawlessly perform it because they can use the tools & instruments to do so.

Avalanche is a real orchestral rock album so I wouldn't expect to hear any of it live but even then Matt has gone on to perform alot of that album with just a band or solo. I love Zero Orchestra, but watching it performed live really leaves a bitter taste in my mouth, Days Come Down did the same thing during the Live Youtube event. I'd rather pay more knowing that extra $50-$100 is bringing in a crew of violinists or saxophone players on the road than listen to samples on keys any day, crazy enough I'd rather hear a keyboard player play a piano. Lights of Endangered Species is breathtaking to me because it's an entire album full of musicians, like a group of tradesmen got together & built a house from the tools that they had.

The answer at the end of the day is probably economics as usual. All Matt can do is write alone & bring his material into the studio to be worked on by Warne & the band with a tight schedule. Queen, even Foo Fighters can gather all the members together & work out every note in rehearsal or in the studio for months, I can accept Matt doesn't have that luxury. I can also accept that Matt is a solo artist so the listeners focus will always inevitably fall on him, does he need a bunch of guitar solos if he's not the one writing or playing them? Nah. 

My complaints can be summed up more as worries about how the album will translate live. I'm looking at more of the technical aspect, it's hard to believe in magic even after spending a small amount of time in the industry. Seeing 100-piece string sections put together on keyboards, entire rhythm sections being duplicated instead of played, autotune etc. It really makes you appreciate the old days of analog & actually working on your craft (yes, analog was abused heavily too, Lars sliced & spliced all his drums on the Black Album, Robert Plant had his pitch tampered with etc). 

Will 95% of casual music listeners notice when a guitar is run straight into a plugin or mic'd with an amp? probably not. I'm not saying Matt did all of this in his new album, I don't know. But from old footage I've seen & from what he's talked about, Matt's fine with using some of the things I mentioned so it's absolutely fine by me. It's happening in practically every genre of music at this point, for decades. It's the industry standard today. 

So as a musician I can appreciate hearing beautiful strings, but I can't appreciate not hearing beautiful strings being played by a musician. 

Economics, economics, economics. 

Side note, Matt killed that youtube event. I think there's a slippery slope of not balancing audio/visual aspect of a concert, there needs to be an acceptable middle ground. Because you never leave a rock concert humming the light show, and you never leave a rock concert trying to figure out who the f*ck played what.

[Williammunny11]

Tony, you know you're awesome and I always think it's rad how in-depth your posts are. But you say "I'd rather pay more knowing that extra $50-$100 is bringing in a crew of violinists or saxophone players on the road than listen to samples on keys any day, crazy enough I'd rather hear a keyboard player play a piano."

 

It seems we are getting into a trend on this board of who would pay upwards of 200, 300, 400 dollars for the "perfect" Matt Good show. But most people are living pay check to pay check. I'm sure most musicians who have orchestral elements to their songs would love to bring in a whole symphony. Roger Waters can mount a full-scale production like The Wall in this day and age because each person in that huge arena pays a big sum of cash for that once in a lifetime opportunity. I saw the show and it was incredible. But I don't mourn the days when MGB played in hockey arenas. If you couldn't afford seats up front or the pit, it all sounded so far away. It's nothing like the smaller venues Matt plays now. Also I honestly don't think 50 or 100 bucks more would be enough to bring in more players given the cost of rehearsal, transport, lodging, etc. We might pay more but most fans wouldn't and there's the rub. Vancouver and its surrounding suburbs is a fucking expensive place to live. I had to move because the cost of living there was not feasible. At the end of the day everyone has to make a living.

 

When it comes to economics, ironically enough Matt's solo acoustic shows are my personal favourites. And probably the most cost-effective shows. I'm guessing.

 

I must be in the minority but I absolutely relish the differences between live performances and studio versions of songs. For me it is boring if it sounds exactly the same.

 

The strings were a "real" quartet on SLAS (the song). Don't know about the other songs.

 

This!

 

It's a purely subjective thing with no 'right' or 'wrong' answer, but to me I would always rather NOT hear the album performed perfectly...might be my punk rock roots flashing here but I am all for re-interpretations live.  And synthesized strings and such don't really bother me...but again, as a huge Nu Wave fan, it all makes sense to me.  I think Tears for Fears have produced some of the most amazing albums of all time and there's so much processing and manipulation (especially on those early records) that it's hard to tell where the computer ends and the human begins.

 

That might have played into the production choices this time around.

[Guest Idioteque]

Again, that's the middle ground that can be discussed. It's easy to classify MGB/MG as 2 different eras of 1 guy. What's easily dismissed is the dozen or so albums he has, his career is almost as long as The Tragically Hip or Metallica or Green Day. Then you divide the fans who only like his MGB days, the people who only like his solo work & the casual fans, hardcore fans. I agree you'd need a legitimate benefit to bring an additional member on the road, they can't just play 2 songs in an entire setlist. So "themed" concerts like an orchestra, or Matt playing solo with a pianist, weird stuff like that I find interesting & believe could sell in certain markets in Canada. I've seen bands pull off way harder shit & succeed.

I'd pay money to see Matt play just his new album,
I'd pay money to see Matt play an orchestra focused show,

I'd pay money to see Matt play acoustic,

I'd pay money to see Matt play only MGB,

 

You can go on & on. If I did a poll with choices like that I'd be curious which would win & which fans probably wouldn't care for. At the end of the day there's a market for anything, if it's possible to squeeze just 100 people in a room & charge $250 a head to see something rare & magical that can be as sustainable as a regular new album tour? It depends what the demand is & if the end product can break-even or bring in revenue. Would anyone care about a orchestra show? Would an Underdogs revisited tour sell out the floor of the pacific coliseum? Who knows. The concept really has nothing to do with Matt, I'd pay $2000 to see ACDC play a 1 hour loop of Thunderstruck. We all have our "dream concert" we'd cut out a liver for. 

I don't have alot of money, some would say down right brooooke haha. But it really doesn't bother me seeing $200 GA tickets for Metallica & just accepting I can't go, I see it as a waste of energy to start getting resentful towards how expensive the city is or my living condition. That ticket is still going to cost $200 in Edmonton or Montreal, I'm grateful enough to live in a Country like Canada. Roger Waters sold incredibly poorly in Alberta from the videos I've seen, even the best of the best take hits. 

When you watch your friend play +60,000 crowd festivals across Europe then come back home to a regular day job, it opens your eyes to the economics of a struggling musician. But I can't also ignore all the musicians I've met currently touring the world with entire crews & +5 member bands nowhere near the reputation or steady fanbase as MG, and Matt has problems touring with a keyboardist within his own Country. It's a heavy topic, it truly is. It's so gross discussing people you truly admire & appreciate but money is involved it's so dirty, it's reality at the end of the day. 

I agree with Kurt Cobain & Jagger when they say that studio albums should be the best possible live performance you can give for whatever you're recording. MGB live recordings sound pretty identical to their studio albums because they took what they did on stage & just pressed play, there's months & months of hard work that polished those tracks into diamonds. I think we'd all be surprised by the reasoning for the differences between studio/live from his recent tours, and it's probably being that they never played any of the songs together as a band until after the album was done & they need to rehearse for an upcoming tour. 


I don't own the new album yet so I can't see anything to do with credits, if there's actual strings then great. I'm just stating it's something he's done before using software (if I remember correctly from his interviews).

Disclaimer: I spilled my bag of french roasted coffee everywhere in the kitchen at 7am, so if I come across as cunty, I'm not trying to be.

[Guest girl]

I'd pay money to see Matt play just his new album,

I'd pay money to see Matt play an orchestra focused show,

I'd pay money to see Matt play acoustic,

I'd pay money to see Matt play only MGB,

 

No doubt, with all the Canadian rock merch I gave to you for free and paid a small fortune for.

Maybe you should tone down the MG complaining a tad, especially when the MG VIP upgrade package rolls around next tour. No more final nail in the coffin business.

Edited November 1, 2017 by girl

[Gomo]

Having listened to SLAS a few more times I will say the fade outs don't bother me. The length doesn't bother me. I like the album as a whole, but I dunno, I just probably wouldn't rank it above most of his other solo albums. I guess I'm a little salty nothing from the original SLAS demo made the cut because I loved that SO much.

 

Still happy to have the album of course, but unfortunately due to ECONOMICS I don't think I'll be able to get up to Canada for a show on this tour. I have to plan my honeymoon and I have to save up $$$ and time off for 3 friends' weddings next summer.

Edited November 1, 2017 by Gomo

[Guest Idioteque]

I had my snickers, it's all good Girl haha. I really wouldn't call it complaining, just hypothetical discussions about potential future concert ideas that's all, out of love & curiosity. Matt & Warne contain more knowledge about the industry than I'll ever know, throw a rock & you'll hit somebody with more knowledge than me. I'm strictly going off what I've experienced from other musicians & the community when I was a angst teen roaming Van. 

Ah I probably won't aim for VIP regardless because if it's something I don't like then it's more "complaining" but if it is something I like then that means I gotta leave my house. I don't really go to concerts anymore, I couldn't even tell you the last show I've been to, maybe TOOL? Idk, got burnt out. 

[IamNick]

I like the organ in Bullets In A Briefcase, reminds me of LOTGA.

 

Also, i love the fade-outs.

 

And Men At The Door is the weakest track, not a big fan. Overall I'm positive on the album though.

Edited November 1, 2017 by IamNick

[Gomo]

And Men At The Door is the weakest track, not a big fan.

 

why?

[IamNick]

why?

Well it starts off strong, and it feels like it's going to go somewhere, but then the chorus comes in which i don't like, and then nothing really happens and the song ends. The song is a tease because it starts of so well but is ultimately very flat.

 

It's funny because i actually really like the album except for this one song.

[Guest Idioteque]

Sounds great live from what I've seen.

 

Nvm I was thinking of Men At The Door.