Number Four topic

[RA]

Love Pruno, one of Dean's better guitar riffs...

[NickLorenza]

I always wondered why the band never played this one live with Scott. It didn't make sense!!! Such a rockin' tune!!!


My guesses are, either the tuning of the song was inconvenient, but that could easily be debunked.b second guess would have been perhaps something vocally about it didn't feel right or was tricky for Scott to pull off right in a live setting.  I know transitioning to that chorus feels weird to me when I've tried it. For someone with a higher voice like Chester it is probably more natural of a fit.

[nat]

I haven't got deep into this album yet, but so far I think it is rather weak and uninspired after "Core", "Purple", "Tiny Music...".

Worthy songs are: of course, "Sour Girl" and "Atlanta", and also "I Got You" and "No Way Out".
Other songs, strictly speaking, are weak and faceless, they don't cause a wish to listen again to them.
I'm a bit disappointed with "No. 4".

I agree.

At the time, the record was (heavily) promoted before it's release throughout 1998 as a "return to the Core/rock sound." This was mentioned everywhere, and I have a feeling that the band got so caught up in trying to have an album that sounded a certain way, a lot of the songs came off uninspired. Weiland kept saying they were going to save rock 'n roll with No. 4.

No. 4 is definitely the weakest of the original first five albums. It's got some good, even great tunes, but when you look at the creativity just pouring out of the two albums that sandwich it (Tiny Music & SLDD), it's obvious it was an album made because they needed to make a rock album, not because they had all this hard rock creativity they needed to get out.

To diverge slightly, I feel that's the only real problem with their self-titled album as well. It was an album made because they needed to make an album to cement the "reunion," not because they were brimming over with prolific creativity. Like No. 4, self-titled has some fantastic songs (it's hard not to with a band like STP), but I feel the only truly INSPIRED albums they did were Core, Purple, Tiny Music, and SLDD.

The other two have some great songs between them, but are a bit more derivative and seem slightly less original.

[Blue]

I haven't got deep into this album yet, but so far I think it is rather weak and uninspired after "Core", "Purple", "Tiny Music...".

Worthy songs are: of course, "Sour Girl" and "Atlanta", and also "I Got You" and "No Way Out".
Other songs, strictly speaking, are weak and faceless, they don't cause a wish to listen again to them.
I'm a bit disappointed with "No. 4".

No. 4 is a bit of a grower. I wasn't particularly impressed with it initially, either... But the more you listen to it, the more you start to realize it's actually pretty genius.

[IMJ]

It's a brilliant hard rock album that suffers greatly from poor mastering or production. If the band could remaster it to have the clarity of Core and reduce the synthetic loudness then that album would be truly great....

[TheWaterThatYouLeave]

It's a brilliant hard rock album that suffers greatly from poor mastering or production. If the band could remaster it to have the clarity of Core and reduce the synthetic loudness then that album would be truly great....

Yeah,mastering wise id agree,a casualty in the loudness wars  of the time perhaps. I mean clearly theres a couple of songs that were mixed intentionally hot (and it works) but in places the record is sonically tiring on the ear and that's never good.
 Its still a really good record though.

[Pingfah]

Indeed. I picked up the vinyl in the hope it would address some of the mastering issues. It doesn't, it sounds exactly the same as the CD.

It's a shame because it has some of the best production work of all their albums, some of Dean's textures are amazing, and trippy and swirling and cool, but then it's all rounded off by this mushy blanket over it all.

[DELEO]

I haven't got deep into this album yet, but so far I think it is rather weak and uninspired after "Core", "Purple", "Tiny Music...".

Worthy songs are: of course, "Sour Girl" and "Atlanta", and also "I Got You" and "No Way Out".
Other songs, strictly speaking, are weak and faceless, they don't cause a wish to listen again to them.
I'm a bit disappointed with "No. 4".

I agree.

At the time, the record was (heavily) promoted before it's release throughout 1998 as a "return to the Core/rock sound." This was mentioned everywhere, and I have a feeling that the band got so caught up in trying to have an album that sounded a certain way, a lot of the songs came off uninspired. Weiland kept saying they were going to save rock 'n roll with No. 4.

No. 4 is definitely the weakest of the original first five albums. It's got some good, even great tunes, but when you look at the creativity just pouring out of the two albums that sandwich it (Tiny Music & SLDD), it's obvious it was an album made because they needed to make a rock album, not because they had all this hard rock creativity they needed to get out.

To diverge slightly, I feel that's the only real problem with their self-titled album as well. It was an album made because they needed to make an album to cement the "reunion," not because they were brimming over with prolific creativity. Like No. 4, self-titled has some fantastic songs (it's hard not to with a band like STP), but I feel the only truly INSPIRED albums they did were Core, Purple, Tiny Music, and SLDD.

The other two have some great songs between them, but are a bit more derivative and seem slightly less original.

You are fucking crazy. There is no weak link in the first 5 albums, its just personal preference. No. 4 is fucking amazing!

I understand you liking more "experimental" STP, but all first 5 stand on their own. Period. Few bands will ever have 5 albums at that level of pure divine songwriting. Name even ten and I'll buy you a cookie.

[Flyingmerpa]

It's all subjective, but fans of the following bands could argue (in no order):
1. The Beatles
2. Led Zeppelin
3. Rolling Stones
4. Bob Dylan
5. Rush
6. Bowie
7. Chili Peppers
8. The Doors
9. Radiohead
10. The Who
11. Pink Floyd
12. Neil Young
13. Tool (hardcore Tool fans, lol)
14. Black Sabbath

[Sklashboombash]

You are fucking crazy. There is no weak link in the first 5 albums, its just personal preference. No. 4 is fucking amazing!

I understand you liking more "experimental" STP, but all first 5 stand on their own. Period. Few bands will ever have 5 albums at that level of pure divine songwriting. Name even ten and I'll buy you a cookie.

I second this. I can't believe I'm reading so many people ragging on No. 4.
Every record they did had drastically different production, so I don't get the poor production comments either. Sure, the drums sound "trashy" (for lack of a better word), but it gives that album personality.

[Pingfah]

It's not production, it's mastering.  BO'B did a fine job as always, it was the final master that crushed the sound down. The end product very clearly lacks the dynamics of their previous albums, and I'm sure it wasn't a production decision, it was probably the record company insisting on having a loud record.

[NickLorenza]

Yes, each album sounds drastically different, but that's part of the magic, part of the appeal of STP. It's not just Scott's vocals that changed over time. The guitar tones changed just as much. STP's sound made fluid shifts between albums, and I don't think there are many bands that could pull off what they did without alienating significant portions of their fans.  Yes, I know that the shift Tiny Music presented wasn't received well by all when it came out, but I think it served as a filter that perhaps allowed them to lose a few bandwagoneers, but better established their base foundation of fans.  STP never really alienated the real fans.  Even in the reunion, that album was very uninspired, but definitely wasn't alienating to the fans.


No. 4 is a fantastic album front to back. Definitely does not sound anything like the others.  Atlanta is the glue that holds it all together.

[Sklashboombash]

It's not production, it's mastering.  BO'B did a fine job as always, it was the final master that crushed the sound down. The end product very clearly lacks the dynamics of their previous albums, and I'm sure it wasn't a production decision, it was probably the record company insisting on having a loud record.

Yeah, I got ya on the whole loudness war thing, but I’ll respectfully disagree. The mastering didn’t necessarily crush it like, say, Death Magnetic where you hear digital distortion everywhere.
I remember on more than one occasion, Scott mentioned in interviews that he was a fan of “going back to basics” and making a more raw album. I always took No. 4 to be somewhat close to what he was referring to.

And because no two albums sound alike, I really feel like it was a creative/artistic decision to make it sound the way it did. But that’s just my interpretation.

[seattlesound]

The talk of No. 4 being the weaker of the first five is strictly an opinion of a person... tastes are different, I personally have always loved no 4. It ranks right behind SLDD for me, and that says a lot. Both those two records have been on a level of their own with me for quite some time.

The instrumentation I feel could throw off some listeners, IMO some songs kinda come at the listener from the side door and that could be mistaken for not sounding polished or something... however I hear the inspiration and genius that is there. I feel like Scott's lyrics are wonderful and convey the energy and emotion of that time very well...

[Blue]

I know it's blasphemy ,but honest to God to me the weakest of the first five is Core... They were all so green when they made it, it doesn't have nearly the dynamics of the next few.