Kaiser Chiefs New Album

[robbied69]

downloaded it today. I quite like it. A few catchy songs on it.

 

[sunshine]

Its a good album - i like it!

 

[Simster]

vERY FEW BANDS FOLLOW UP WITH QUALITY 2ND ALBUM

I'm not sure. I'd say the third album is usually where the shit comes in. However, Kaiser Chiefs were always a one trick pony given the fact that the first album had about 3 good tracks on it, and a bunch of shit fillers.

 

[Man of Harveys]

vERY FEW BANDS FOLLOW UP WITH QUALITY 2ND ALBUM

Very true - can't remember it was who said you have 16 years to write your first album, 16 weeks to write your second.

 

[crodonilson]

I think it's decent enough, not as good as the first album mind.

Personal favourite is 'Heat Dies Down'

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

Very true - can't remember it was who said you have 16 years to write your first album, 16 weeks to write your second.

churchill?

 

[Drumstick]

I'm not sure. I'd say the third album is usually where the shit comes in. However, Kaiser Chiefs were always a one trick pony given the fact that the first album had about 3 good tracks on it, and a bunch of shit fillers.

Every one of the songs on 'Employment' were excellent!

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

born to be a dancer is pure BRILLIANCE on employment

 

[Man of Harveys]

churchill?

What?

 

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

Hmmm, I'm going to be CONTRAVERSIAL.

I thought the K.C's first album was a bit shit. One good song and the rest not up to much. I've only had a quick listen in HMV to their second album but from what I heard it sounded much better than their first effort.

Razorlight are shit. The first album was wank. The second one is awful. Shame on anyone that likes that steaming pile of shite.

 

[Gwylan]

I'm not sure. I'd say the third album is usually where the shit comes in.

Nah, good bands get it back by the third album; London Calling was a third album after the crap that was Give 'em enough rope. And Trout Mask Replica (IMHO the greatest rock album of them all) was a third album.

That's not to say all third albums are great, if the band is going nowhere, a third album won't help.

 

[Simster]

Nah, good bands get it back by the third album; London Calling was a third album after the crap that was Give 'em enough rope. And Trout Mask Replica (IMHO the greatest rock album of them all) was a third album.

That's not to say all third albums are great, if the band is going nowhere, a third album won't help.

Oasis anyone? Complete WANK from the moment they finished their second album.

 

[CHAPPERS]

Good bands make sure every album is good.

 

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

Oasis anyone? Complete WANK from the moment they finished their second album.

But then their contemporaries Radiohead produced an absolute bona fide great of a third album in 'O.K computer', very possibly the greatest album of all time.

 

[Gwylan]

Good bands make sure every album is good.

Actually, that's a good question. How many bands who have released, say at least five albums. can boast no duds?

I'm racking my brains on this - even Can, my all-time faves, released a couple of poor ones.

 

[CHAPPERS]

Oasis anyone? Complete WANK from the moment they finished their second album.

I don't agree with that. I thought Be Here Now was decent and would have been pretty highly acclaimed had it been released by anyone else. Standing on the Shoulders of Giants was pretty poor though and eathen Chemistry probably only had 4/5 good songs on it.

 

[CHAPPERS]

Actually, that's a good question. How many bands who have released, say at least five albums. can boast no duds?

I'm racking my brains on this - even Can, my all-time faves, released a couple of poor ones.

I reckon you could say everything the Super Furry Animals have released has been unadulterated quality but that's only because I'm a HUGE fan of theirs.

 

[Man of Harveys]

I think it massively depends on whether albums are by people who are existing songwriters.

Take the Beatles - the first album is good but it's a combination of old Hamburg-era covers and some early, rudimentary songwriting attempts from their youth (I Saw Her Standing There, say) - much the same applies to With The Beatles, although there are budding signs their songwriting improving. But as their confidence grows, by the time we get to a Hard Day's Night, both sides are full of CLASSICS and, barring small set-backs along the way, never really stopped improving.

Oasis, on the other hand, "toploaded" - all the good stuff that they'd written and been playing live for years went on the first two albums. By then, the coke had taken over and they just didn't have the talent in enough depth.

 

[Man of Harveys]

Actually, that's a good question. How many bands who have released, say at least five albums. can boast no duds?

I'm racking my brains on this - even Can, my all-time faves, released a couple of poor ones.

The Beatles, of course, plus the magnificent Steely Dan. I own everything they've ever done and there are only 2-3 tracks on all of their albums that I don't absolutely adore - some of their obscurer album tracks are some of my all time faves of all time, to quote DJ Mike Smash.

 

[Drumstick]

What?

Oh no no no no no no


Had to be done!