daniel_v

That's cool, everyone is free to have their opinions. I need to stop bitching all the time anyways and just be content. There are still some fantastic demos in there anyways including Cold Water, Los Almos, No Liars, and Kid Down the Well. Really looking forwards to hearing those and even if I don't like the finished product we still have the lo-fi demos Matt was nice enough to share. It's all good.

Wow....just...wow. That is mind boggling. Just goes to show you the difference between what the artist/creator hears and wants, and what some listeners/fans hear and want. Really appreciate that you're willing to share stuff like that with us though Matt, and it's your album so obviously you can do whatever you want, but I have to agree with most of the posts- losing Night Orders is a huge blow. Same with We Have Done This Before (would have loved to have heard that one live). To me there are "far" weaker demos you've done before sonically as well (Tiger, while different sonically from anything you've done before goes pretty much nowhere, and Girls in Black and Army are almost entirely built on straight bass lines which you have done to death in previous songs before too such as Giant, Great Whales, and Fought to Fight it). But again, your album. We're all just spectators so I respect that your opinion is the one that matters in the end. Plus I get that it's unfair to judge the unfinished product based on demos so who knows. Either way best of luck with the recording process!

You know, with regards to a few of the demos, especially We Have Done This Before, I feel the same thing- sonically it's very much in LOES territory. Whether or not that's a good thing is up for debate though. On a personal level, when it came to the album versions of certain songs- especially something like Non Populas- I was actually disappointed in the lack force the drums and guitar were recorded with at the end. It felt like something was missing that was only found when the song was translated live- mainly strong rhythm guitar and much heavier drums. That's not to say NP isn't a great song, but the live version feels like the proper version for some reason to me. With WHDTB, during the bridge in the second version (which I have to state again is fucking fantastic), it seemed like it was going to build towards a really interesting and proper climax, but then it just kind of jogs towards the end in a fairly mediocre fashion. Don't get me wrong, I love the quiet and subtle demos Matt has created for the album so far (Los Almos and Cold Water being top among them), so I'm not saying everything needs to be Explosions in the Sky rock out loud. I also understand the drive to avoid what Matt once dubbed "Metallica power chord distortion", and try builds in a different fashion, but in songs where there are builds or 90 degree turns it's somewhat off putting to hear them not really get to a proper climax. Shallow's Low is another example of that for me on LOES. Great melody and build, but the drums never really hit full steam and instead of using some heavy guitar in the rhythm and background near thend, he relies very strongly on horns and piano, and unfortuantely it feels like the song falls short of what it intended to do. Same with with the title track- lots of synth and piano, but compared to the live version, the song feel somewhat like it's missing its guts. I'm hoping when he goes into record WHDTB it is recorded the way it would be played live. I realize studio and live preformances are completely different animals because when you go into the studio you generally haven't preformed the song live yet, but some reworking of the 3rd section, or at least much louder and powerful guitar/drum work would be preferable, imo, to recording in the same vien that the above mentioned tracks of LOES were.

Tips, if you still need the demo version of NP let me know. I can e-mail it to you.

I really enjoyed No Liars too, actually. Definitely more upbeat and has some interesting progressions as far as the song structure goes (the verse to chorus switch is great). As usual I loved the stripped down indie sound- almost has an Underdogs meets Ryan Adams feel to it for this one. Also, not sure why, but I really liked the lead guitar. The only thing that missed me about it was the end. Felt that it could have led into a decent little rock out at the end and instead it just ends sort of abruptly.

Just curious if anyone has picked up the new album and, if so, what their thoughts on it are. For my own, I picked it up when it came out back in October and have been loving it since. There's only 2 songs I skip when listening to it. Great production, great mixing, great song writing/structures, great range, great keyboard, great guitar (as usual), and the new drummer is fucking fantastic. They're not breaking any new ground, but it's straight vintage Moist and still manages to sound different from their first 3. After waiting 14 years for a new album it didn't disappoint.

Agreed, really enjoy that part. Hopefully the final version has more of that in the track.

Hahaha, thanks for the link. Haven't seen this in a decade and a half. And not that I care, but wasn't Scott Stapp in this episode too?

hahahahahahahaha If we can't have Chaotic Neutral I would seriously love that. Don't mind Tiger by the Tail, but if given a choice between that and CN, I'd have to go with CN.

Sorry, never you saw you post this originally. It's interesting you say that because I am of the exact opposite opinion. I always thought the studio version was the boring, bland conventional version of that song. It sounded like, save for Jeff's voice, it could have been written by any one of a hundred bands out there. There was no urgency or honest feeling I got when I listed to it. It was like they needed a "rock song" they could market so it was written. The live version certainly had a "grunge" aspect to it, but I wouldn't accuse it of trying to be something it wasn't. To me it was always just Jeff and the band trying to do something in a different way and making it their own.

Agreed. Looked forward to it for a very long time and it was probably one of the biggest disappoints of the year. Very underwhelming.

Watching that again really makes me miss the days of music videos from Matt. I understand they're not economically feasible these days, but damn...there were some great vids that Matt, Bill, and the band helped create. The plot of SD in this one was, as others have commented, really intriguing. I love the look Matt gives when the girl runs off to save the business woman. Different ways to interpret it of course, but it seemed like one of regret and lethargic sadness- like he knew it needed to happen but that such knowledge didn't make it any easier to bare or know it was going to happen.

Yeah, GITW cover was pretty impressive too. The build, both in the acoustic cover and the live band cover is perfect and I'd say it sounds like MG simply because Matt took it and made it his own which is really the only way to do covers anyways.

You know what? I take that back. His acoustic versions of Pledge and Indestructible are incredible.

Fated. Very simple song and his vocals and guitar rhythm at the end are simply amazing.

Glad everyone seems to be enjoying the new takes on different songs and full props to Matt for trying something different. However, I have to admit, when it comes to a song like Omissions, I really wish he wouldn't do that. One of things I always thought made Omissions such an impactful and classic song was that it was picked, not strummed. When I caught the version he played with Jay back in September I remember thinking to myself: "WTF?" The fact of the matter is that most people who play can strum. Scroll down a list of MG cover videos and it's just people strumming along MG songs. Each to their own but I find it horribly fucking plain and boring. When it comes to a song like Omissions, just strumming it removes the beauty and haunting effect it originally carried and replaces it with a flat, drawl progression anyone could have come up with. But then again maybe that's just me. To me, the genius of Matt's work comes in his ability to combine melody with various other instruments and progressions, so I've never really been a fan of his acoustic stuff unless it is something like Rooms where he accompanied it with other instrumentation. What'd I'd love to see one day is an acoustic show where he's backed up by a few other musicians (maybe Anthony on piano and Jimmy on guitar) or even a full band acoustic similar to what OLP did back in 2000 for their I and I back at Much Music. But again, just a personal opinion. Not bitching because, like I said, I give full props to Matt for being willing to switch things up and try new things in the first place.

Girl actually just posted it in the NF + Lounge about a week ago. It's still up :)

Hey everyone, just curious if anyone is going to the Edmonton show on the 3rd of July. Thought it might be fun to plan some kind of a meet up before/after the show. Anyone interested?

The extended ending was beyond words. That is easily some of the most powerful work I have ever heard from him and any incarnation of MGB. Really wish he would do that more often with other songs too (and maybe just once on a studio track).

Yeah, that one is Sharks of Downtown (as confirmed by Geoff). I'm sure Much Music has the entire damned performance stored in their vaults somewhere at MMHQ. Greedy bastards. I'm pretty sure I e-mailed them about it years and years ago. Can't remember the response I got back or if they even replied.

So I was looking around on the Geoff's memorial page on Facebook recently, and I realized that the video of Geoff, Matt, Ian, Dave, and Charlie Quintana working on the unreleased track, Revenge, had been taken down. Originally it was posted by Judy Renouf right after the page was set up. Really enjoyed the bass work it showed Geoff doing (that guy always had such a unique rhythm and technique), the different takes of Matt playing, Charlie and Ian drumming, and the band discussing how the song should progress. Anyways, I was just curious if anyone had a copy of the video floating around and, if so, if they'd be willing to post it (provided Matt didn't have a problem with it that is).

Found it: http://www.nearfantastica.com/bored/topic/9148-ask-geoff-memorial-thread/page__st__520

If I remember correctly, I believe the comment was made in reference to when they first started working on the songs for BM before he had left the band, which I'll agree makes more sense than it would in reference to Underdogs (I'll have to look since I believe it was made in the "Ask Geoff" thread). Underdogs still had a bit of his influence on it for sure (especially in the songs you mentioned). It would also make sense since in his eulogy to Geoff Matt admitted that when Geoff left he felt "uncomfortably relieved", so I would imagine there were some creative differences that had been clashing for a little while (unless he was referring to something else. The previous comment is of course nothing more than speculation).

Oh, for sure, and you're completely entitled to it. Different people hear different things when they look at or listen to the same thing. That's the great thing about art. I guess it just comes down to what you mean by "influence" though. To me, when you say "influence", I think of the flavour and style each member brought to each song, rather than who did the song structures. As I said, I very much hear every member's distinct style in just about every song (save for maybe I, The Throw Away). As we both apparently agree, Matt probably did do most of the song structure arrangements, but the texturing of the songs with each members flavour of playing still, for me anyways, makes it more of an "MGB record" than simply an "MG record". But again, that's just my opinion. I hear it; you don't hear it. There's nothing wrong with that. It's just a difference of opinion.

I think it depends what you mean by "MG record". As others have noted, as far the song structures and progressions go, it was very much an MG record, as most before that were as well. However, I've always thought of AOB as being close to LOTGA for being the most representative of the playing styles of each member. Don't get me wrong, I loved everything after else after LOTGA and before AOB, but those two records, for me anyways, were the most instrumentally "true" representations of what each member could bring to the table. I know Matt said he hated that because he felt like the songs suffered as a result (hence his "serve the song rather than yourself" comments that he has made in the past), but I've personally always felt that the most interesting songs from Matt were the ones where the Ian, Dave, Rich and Geoff were given the freedom to record what felt the most natural to them. Of course, not being a member of the band, I can't say that they were prevented from doing so, but with regards to the bass and the drums, I do remember Geoff commenting that Matt had asked him to do a lot of "straight 8" bass lines which he wasn't too happy with. Likewise, I have to admit, as much as I love Ian as a drummer, his drumming was highly dumbed down after LOTGA. So when it came to AOB, one of the things that I liked about it as a listener was that, aside from the song structures themselves, most of the instrumental workings were quite dynamic. Ian's drum fills, Rich's climbing bass lines, and especially Dave's lead licks in just about all of the songs (but especially Man of Action, Carmelina,The Workers Sing a Song, and A Sort of Protest Song) really brought the them to a higher level for me. In fact, if I could offer just one criticism of Matt's solo work in certain cases, it would be that the lead guitar is really lacking during what should be the climax points (see Last Parade, Great Whales, and Letters in Wartime for example). Anyways, in reference to the OP's question about it being an "MG record, I have respectfully disagree and argue that it was one of the few MGB albums that really felt like an "MGB album" in the sense of full member freedom (for better and worse).