| Author | Message |
|---|---|
 Post subject: AbsolutePunk.net interview answers all questionsPosted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 9:08 am 
OK not all questions but sure covers a lot of ground about what they went through as a band the past 18 months, it's a very extensive & informative read. Also reinforces many aspects why we love 'em so much. http://absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?p=66520402#post66520402 @Eisley added via Twitter: "Leaving a comment - an absolute." _________________ http://www.twitter.com/drstrangeblog http://www.last.fm/user/getinline I can't find the time to write my mind the way I want it to read. |
|
|
Joined: 05 Mar 2008 | Posts: 2003 | Location: Iowa
|
|
   |
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 9:35 am
I loved that interview! Especially where Sherri says, " It feels kind of like starting over!" That's so amazing! It's a brand new world, full of endless possibilities! Also when she says, "We turn on pop radio, and nothing sounds like us!" The point exactly! Sooner or later, people are going to get tired of the same old thing, and then...  _________________ Mike=] |
|
|
Joined: 05 Nov 2007 | Posts: 1453 | Location: Orlando, Florida
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:25 am
Eisley, the most personable down to earth band of their generation. The music and personalities match. Pop is for kids and people who want to remain young forever. People will get sick of it, but there's always another generation of kids who just want to dance and sing along. What needs to happen is for people to not lose interest in music as they age and fill their lives with other things of varying importance. _________________ yup, that's my name. FOR YOUR RATING PLEASURE: 4 LIKE Buttons, 1 NEUTRAL, 1 VEXED, 5 DISLIKE buttons. LC > FB          
 = personal fave  = Eisley fans should dig it
|
|
|
Joined: 09 Apr 2008 | Posts: 9654 | Location: Greater St. Louis Area
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 4:07 pm
Extremely reassuring w.r.t. their future potential to hear them finally come clean, so to speak, about Combinations... after years of B.S. about the control they had and how it was the way they wanted it to be. Never was reconcilable with the evidence. Also Understatement of the year: "all the success we've had isn't because of the label"... ...Not talking about records sold (for which distribution helps), but if I remember, they were at the height of their fame, buzz, cred and press adulation right before they signed with Warner... it was all downhill from about that day on.... There's a good chance that it was more or less entirely creative interference and cheezeball mismatched marketing from the label that has very nearly destroyed them. Sounds from the interview like it was even worse than at least I had assumed. Bodes well for their potential with them making the calls again. Their aesthetic intuition served them well before some arrogant corporate wipes decided they knew better. |
|
|
Joined: 06 Jan 2008 | Posts: 1762 | Location: Dallas
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat May 01, 2010 1:03 am
It's interesting that they feel the tracklisting for Combinations was influenced by the label. I Wonder what songs Sherri didn't want to include? Moreover, we'll never get to hear the songs that would have gone on it instead. Imagine how awesome they would have been
|
|
|
Joined: 02 Sep 2007 | Posts: 1313 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat May 01, 2010 1:47 am
ks1990 wrote: It's interesting that they feel the tracklisting for Combinations was influenced by the label. Well, on a major, one generally assumes.... ...and per my reading of the interview, it sounded a little stronger than "influenced". |
|
|
Joined: 06 Jan 2008 | Posts: 1762 | Location: Dallas
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat May 01, 2010 2:32 am
inorbit wrote: ks1990 wrote: It's interesting that they feel the tracklisting for Combinations was influenced by the label. Well, on a major, one generally assumes.... ...and per my reading of the interview, it sounded a little stronger than "influenced". Well, yeah, obviously. I already knew that there was heavy label pressure on that album, but they never really discussed it that much at the time. We knew that sometimes it appeared as though Sherri was dissatisfied with the finished product, almost penitential at times. Whereas now, the truth surrounding the album has been elucidated, we have become aware that they feel the label's intervention compromised their personal vision of the record. Perhaps 'influenced' was the wrong word selection. 'Determined' would have been more appropriate. I still maintain that there was never anything to be apologetic for. The album, in and of itself, is a great piece of work and is a good representation of the band. |
|
|
Joined: 02 Sep 2007 | Posts: 1313 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat May 01, 2010 3:16 am
ks1990 wrote: I already knew that there was heavy label pressure on that album, but they never really discussed it that much at the time. I actually think I remember them denying it once or twice... In retrospect perhaps a tad over defensively. ks1990 wrote: We knew that sometimes it appeared as though Sherri was dissatisfied with the finished product, almost penitential at times. I missed that entirely. I seem to remember much more about how thrilled she was to be working with Gibbs (as opposed to the motley assortment on Room Noises that they felt less of a connection with), and about how that time around it was much more their record, and how happy they were about it. Once again, in retrospect, possibly out of a need to vindicate what little creative independence they had managed to assert in the selection of the producer, etc. versus their experience with Room Noises. An uncharitable interpretation would be that it was just sales spin, but I liked to think I saw a small glimmer of healthy defiance in there somewhere (token though it may have been). ks1990 wrote: Whereas now, the truth surrounding the album has been elucidated, we have become aware that they feel the label's intervention compromised their personal vision of the record. Perhaps 'influenced' was the wrong word selection. 'Determined' would have been more appropriate. I find the truth as we now know it very reassuring, now that it is out there. The previous representation didn't make any sense, and to the extent it might have been true, was a bit disappointing ks1990 wrote: I still maintain that there was never anything to be apologetic for. The album, in and of itself, is a great piece of work and is a good representation of the band. Especially now they can be a little more open about what happened, there is nothing to be apologetic for at all. They made the best decision they could when they were trying to find their way in the uncharted territory of their burgeoning fame, and signed with Warner. Unfortunately, they then had to play the game entailed by that decision for the duration of their contract. Fortunately , they had enough integrity not to become as quite malleable as Warner would have liked. Unfortunately, this made their experience at Warner less successful for them, monetarily, than it might have been. Fortunately, they remain a worthwhile band. Unfortunately, Warner managed to exert sufficient creative control to undermine their ability to be successful based on the attributes they brought to the table and that had generated the success that attracted Warner in the first place. Fortunately its over. Unfortunately, their back catalog and legacy of that phase of their career is not what it could have been, and doesn't represent Eisley's sound or ethos with great accuracy. There are still good songs on both of those albums (more so on Room Noises than Combinations), and if you've seen Eisley a few times, you can hear them shining through in places. But those albums don't really sound anything like the Eisley that everyone had been so impressed with. They did do MUCH better with the EP's during that period though, I will say. They put out some interesting work on those, label or no. I wonder if perhaps they retained more control in that format. Thankfully, and its what saved them in my mind, they never lost the ability to truly deliver live. We will have to agree to differ on Combinations though. It has a couple of bright spots, but it isn't a particularly flattering album for them. If that sounds harsh, its much kinder than the alternative, which would be to say that they aren't actually much better than than that. I personally think Combinations, as it turns out, probably cost them more fans than it gained them, which is unfortunate, because if you go to see Eisley, they are still a very good band. I think also that their proclamations of satisfaction with and ownership of Combinations at the time, along with denials of label control on the album cost them something. Fair enough if it was all true, but a shame now that we know they simply felt compelled to represent things that way that were otherwise. I think the reception of Combinations might have been a bit more charitable had more been known. The most encouraging thing I've heard yet about the new album is their report that Warner rejected it. Given what we now know of Warner's tastes and sensibilities these days, that may be one of the more flattering recommendations an album could receive. |
|
|
Joined: 06 Jan 2008 | Posts: 1762 | Location: Dallas
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat May 01, 2010 6:53 am
I would love to know what songs on Combinations they would've kept off... |
|
|
Joined: 13 Apr 2007 | Posts: 1374 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat May 01, 2010 7:41 am
Speculating, of course, But I think it could've been a much stronger album with "Like the Actors" instead of "A Sight to Behold" and "Marsh King's Daughter" over "Combinations" (not necessarily in the same order on the album) Never been a fan of the horribly cheesy arrangment on MKD, but I love the song. In the perfect Eisley world of my head, "Come Clean" would've been far less repetitious toward the end and had an additional verse, so what do I know 
It kind of bugs me, as someone mentioned before, that at the time they were saying Combinations was completely honest, completely them, whatever...and now they're saying it's not. But what's done is done. Forward motion!
|
|
|
Joined: 12 Sep 2005 | Posts: 1182 | Location: Houston
|
|
 |
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat May 01, 2010 7:41 am
Jared x wrote: I would love to know what songs on Combinations they would've kept off... Me too. And what songs they would've put onto it. Like, if there were any other demos from The Baby they would've put on there. ^ No "A Sight to Behold"? I'm not gonna lie, I love that song so I'm very glad that it made it. The way it's orchestrated is amazing, to me. Still one of the songs I listen to over and over again. It might just be because I love the Stacy's vocals on that song. Also, the harmony at the end, ah, pure bliss and that chord at the end of the bridge; gets me everytime. There's something about that song in it's entirety that I think is brilliant. But then again, that's just me. However, I do think LTA and MKD should've still made it on the album. I actually changed my album for a while to where it opened with MKD and it honestly changed the feel of the album completely cause it opened on more of a happy note but it made the album feel more finished, imo. _________________ cynlovescandy wrote: kulvir wrote: I bet R. Kelly approves of peeing in the shower. The world is R. Kelly's shower. It's a golden world. Nowhere Man wrote: mr pine wrote: is there a difference between dubstep and techno?
you know besides the name? techno: uhnd chik uhnd chik uhnd chik uhnd chik dubstep: BOOM Chik.. Boom Boom Boom Chik.. PEOOOWWwwww BOOM BOWowoWOWoWOWow zipzipzipzipzipwoowooowoow EEEEEeeeeeerrr BOOM BOOM BOOM Splat! |
|
|
Joined: 02 Mar 2006 | Posts: 2522 | Location: Kansas
|
|
  |
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat May 01, 2010 7:49 am
The_Paronomasial_Mattoid wrote: Jared x wrote: I would love to know what songs on Combinations they would've kept off... Me too. And what songs they would've put onto it. Like, if there were any other demos from The Baby they would've put on there. Aristicats!! I have the softest spot in my heart for "Before", I would've given them one of my less vital fingers if it showed up on Combinations. not really. Maybe some $$$. |
|
|
Joined: 12 Sep 2005 | Posts: 1182 | Location: Houston
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat May 01, 2010 8:01 am
princesstripandfall wrote: The_Paronomasial_Mattoid wrote: Jared x wrote: I would love to know what songs on Combinations they would've kept off... Me too. And what songs they would've put onto it. Like, if there were any other demos from The Baby they would've put on there. Aristicats!! I have the softest spot in my heart for "Before", I would've given them one of my less vital fingers if it showed up on Combinations. not really. Maybe some $$$. ME TOO!!! They probably would've gotten compared to Fleetwood Mac even more though. Not that it's bad or anything. But with Ten Cent Blues and Before, it would've really shown them being influenced by Fleetwood. I was also wondering if the demos that were so well liked would've made the cut had it been in the hands of Eisley and not WB. _________________ cynlovescandy wrote: kulvir wrote: I bet R. Kelly approves of peeing in the shower. The world is R. Kelly's shower. It's a golden world. Nowhere Man wrote: mr pine wrote: is there a difference between dubstep and techno?
you know besides the name? techno: uhnd chik uhnd chik uhnd chik uhnd chik dubstep: BOOM Chik.. Boom Boom Boom Chik.. PEOOOWWwwww BOOM BOWowoWOWoWOWow zipzipzipzipzipwoowooowoow EEEEEeeeeeerrr BOOM BOOM BOOM Splat! |
|
|
Joined: 02 Mar 2006 | Posts: 2522 | Location: Kansas
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat May 01, 2010 8:12 am
princesstripandfall wrote: Speculating, of course,
But I think it could've been a much stronger album with "Like the Actors" instead of "A Sight to Behold" and "Marsh King's Daughter" over "Combinations" (not necessarily in the same order on the album) Never been a fan of the horribly cheesy arrangment on MKD, but I love the song. In the perfect Eisley world of my head, "Come Clean" would've been far less repetitious toward the end and had an additional verse, so what do I know
agree with all of the above.... might not have cured all of its ills, but it would def. have been stronger that way (for giving up nothing). The uncharacteristic repetitiveness and predictability of Come Clean and a couple of others after the first few bars or so I always attributed to the (commensurately uncharacteristic) hasty, "industry pro", paint my numbers approach with which most of the album seems to have been written and recorded. Good ideas that would in times past have been much further elaborated and developed were simply forced into stock producer-pop song structures; it sounded almost as though some Eisley songs had been taken and re-arranged by jingle writers from Warner's advertising firm. Put pretty much anything in the top and cheeze whiz comes out the bottom. How ten cent managed to slip through is the greatest mystery of all! princesstripandfall wrote: It kind of bugs me, as someone mentioned before, that at the time they were saying Combinations was completely honest, completely them, whatever...and now they're saying it's not. But what's done is done. Forward motion! Absolutely. Forward. |
|
|
Joined: 06 Jan 2008 | Posts: 1762 | Location: Dallas
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat May 01, 2010 8:52 am
now that i think about it, here's what i think whis could've been a better version on combinations Aristicats Marsh King's Daughter (less cheesy arrangement) Invasion Like The Actors Combinations Many Funerals (with slight change in musical arrangement) I Could Be There For You Before Taking Control (a few lyrical revisions) Ten Cent Blues The Mainframe My Cup Of Tea Go Away (possibly as a b-side instead) We Feel Good If You're Wondering b-sides: A Sight To Behold Lady Get Away Come Clean _________________ Oneironaut http://www.facebook.com/ChengBand |
|
|
Joined: 06 Sep 2008 | Posts: 1156 | Location: Nashville
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Laughing City Forum Index -> eisleyBlog -> AbsolutePunk.net interview answers all questions
Page 1 of 3 goto page | next >>
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
|
|
All times are GMT - 12 Hours
|
|
