Number Four topic

[Alex]

You can see it:
"Core" is a real breakthrough album (imo). Just the first lines and seconds of first track, "Dead & Bloated", are very catchy, powerful, mighty. Every track of "Core" has it's own face, melody, mood, diferring from previous track from the very beginning and very first seconds.
"Core" sound is more sharp and, forceful. Album sounds great by itself. And deeper: remember the atmospheric intro of "No Memory" and remember "Wet My Bed", there is a great deep vibe, that you can step into.
I can't feel such depth in "No. 4", the vibe seems to be flat.
As I said, probably I should listen to "No. 4" closer and attentively.
But comparing to "Core", there is nothing to talk about. "Core" hits in your heart and body (so does "Purple" and "Tiny Music..." except probably 2-3 tracks).
Some tracks on "No.4" do it too. But not whole album, not even close.

[Pingfah]

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.

I totally agree. It's great for a debut album and full of really great songs, but their studio craft was just not there yet. They completely eclipsed it with their next 2 albums. And No.4 is a welcome return to that sort of songwriting, but despite the mastering problems it is still a much better made album.

[Blue]

You can see it:
"Core" is a real breakthrough album (imo). Just the first lines and seconds of first track, "Dead & Bloated", are very catchy, powerful, mighty. Every track of "Core" has it's own face, melody, mood, diferring from previous track from the very beginning and very first seconds.
"Core" sound is more sharp and, forceful. Album sounds great by itself. And deeper: remember the atmospheric intro of "No Memory" and remember "Wet My Bed", there is a great deep vibe, that you can step into.
I can't feel such depth in "No. 4", the vibe seems to be flat.
As I said, probably I should listen to "No. 4" closer and attentively.
But comparing to "Core", there is nothing to talk about. "Core" hits in your heart and body (so does "Purple" and "Tiny Music..." except probably 2-3 tracks).
Some tracks on "No.4" do it too. But not whole album, not even close.

Obviously emotional response is subjective, but to me songs like Glide, Sour Girl, I Got You, Atlanta, and even Pruno hit me in the heart far greater than anything off of Core.

But my point more is that the band showed so much more musical proficiency in Purple-SLDD than they did in Core. Dean's solos weren't as strong, Robert hadn't found his voice as a bassplayer, Scott hadn't even begun to discover his vocal range. About Kretz was the only one who was close to a fully developed musician.

But it could also be argued that there was and urgency to their music that they don't have latter on.

[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.

You are fucking crazy.

Tell me something I don't know.

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 don't need any more carbs, thanks, but there are plenty of bands that fit your bill. It's not that amazing a feat, really. Any of the following groups have at least five albums that are at least as good, if not better, than any STP:

1. Zeppelin (close your eyes and pick any 5 Zeppelin albums)
2. The Who (ditto)
3. Sabbath (any of the Ozzy or Dio albums, plus Born Again)
4. Van Halen (see Zeppelin)
5. They Might be Giants (basically anything they did pre-2000)
6. Smashing Pumpkins (say what you will about SP, but you can't deny BC is a songwriting genius)
7. Pink Floyd (see Zeppelin)
8. Chili Peppers
9. Deep Purple
10. Tool (they only have five studio albums, and I'd rank almost all of them above the entire STP catalog)
11. Faith No More (see Zeppelin)
12. Blue Oyster Cult (these guys have 15 studio albums, there are at least 5 masterpieces among them)

This is just from a 30-second glance in my own iTunes library. There are many, many, MANY more examples.

[Stop That Pigeon]

I don't need any more carbs, thanks, but there are plenty of bands that fit your bill. It's not that amazing a feat, really. Any of the following groups have at least five albums that are at least as good, if not better, than any STP:

1. Zeppelin (close your eyes and pick any 5 Zeppelin albums)
2. The Who (ditto)
3. Sabbath (any of the Ozzy or Dio albums, plus Born Again)
4. Van Halen (see Zeppelin)
5. They Might be Giants (basically anything they did pre-2000)
6. Smashing Pumpkins (say what you will about SP, but you can't deny BC is a songwriting genius)
7. Pink Floyd (see Zeppelin)
8. Chili Peppers
9. Deep Purple
10. Tool (they only have five studio albums, and I'd rank almost all of them above the entire STP catalog)
11. Faith No More (see Zeppelin)
12. Blue Oyster Cult (these guys have 15 studio albums, there are at least 5 masterpieces among them)

This is just from a 30-second glance in my own iTunes library. There are many, many, MANY more examples.

1. They lacked any pop sensibility but hard to argue with overall. It's personal taste but I'll take STP.
2. A powerful group but lacking in so many areas. Not consistent enough by any means.
3. This has to be a joke?! 1-dimensional, no sense of harmony, counterpoint or any musical subtlety whatsoever versus...STP. It's not the same ball park, it's not even the same game.
4. Love VH, Fair Warning especially but they never had any depth. Not comparable imo.
5. This I like. STP goes way beyond obvious "rock" comparisons, there's so much in there. If you'd thrown in Paul Simon or Joni Mitchell, we'd have a conversation.
6. Talent, yes. Variety and consistency, no.
7. Which Floyd? If you're talking Dark Side...etc that peaked and ended with Animals so that's 3 albums.
8. STFU. Seriously.
9. Seen them, loved them. But lack of depth and variety kills this one.
10. If you don't like pop music, you miss a lot of what makes STP special. Love Tool but Maynard does not do pop.
11. Nonsense.
12. Clearly personal on your part. I often do the same thing myself but you'd need to provide some context imo.

Imo (and it is just that), very few acts have produced 5 consecutive albums of increasing craft that demonstrate a wide range of influences, abilities and musical understanding. STP, for me, belongs in the same bracket as The Doors, Steely Dan, Paul Simon, Little Feat, The Band. That's the level. And No4 was a cool record. Not their best but you could imagine them doing Cole Porter on there, ain't gonna happen with any other modern group.

[Flyingmerpa]

The 5 RHCP records from Mother's Milk to By The Way are great.

[Aaron]

Pidgeon,
Are you really saying there is no variety in the Pumpkins catalog?  Seriously?  I agree that Pumpkins are a love them or hate them band, but they probably have more variety in their catalog than any band coming out of that era.  I agree that their albums are inconsistent after you reach Machina, but I would say the same of STP after you reach No.4 despite that STP is my clear fav.

[CoconutBackwards]

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.

Tell me something I don't know.

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 don't need any more carbs, thanks, but there are plenty of bands that fit your bill. It's not that amazing a feat, really. Any of the following groups have at least five albums that are at least as good, if not better, than any STP:

1. Zeppelin (close your eyes and pick any 5 Zeppelin albums)
2. The Who (ditto)
3. Sabbath (any of the Ozzy or Dio albums, plus Born Again)
4. Van Halen (see Zeppelin)
5. They Might be Giants (basically anything they did pre-2000)
6. Smashing Pumpkins (say what you will about SP, but you can't deny BC is a songwriting genius)
7. Pink Floyd (see Zeppelin)
8. Chili Peppers
9. Deep Purple
10. Tool (they only have five studio albums, and I'd rank almost all of them above the entire STP catalog)
11. Faith No More (see Zeppelin)
12. Blue Oyster Cult (these guys have 15 studio albums, there are at least 5 masterpieces among them)

This is just from a 30-second glance in my own iTunes library. There are many, many, MANY more examples.

I like to think I can at least respect all differing opinions, but that one is really pushing me to the limit.

[Pingfah]

Pidgeon,
Are you really saying there is no variety in the Pumpkins catalog?  Seriously?  I agree that Pumpkins are a love them or hate them band, but they probably have more variety in their catalog than any band coming out of that era.  I agree that their albums are inconsistent after you reach Machina, but I would say the same of STP after you reach No.4 despite that STP is my clear fav.

I think a lot of people just hear Corgan's voice and nothing else when they hear SP.

For my money, Oceania and Monuments are right up there with the best stuff they/he ever did. Monuments particularly (despite its short run time) is a fantastic album and showed some real willingness to experiment with the SP sound. Only Zeitgeist has a few wobbles (IMO) but is still a decent album. So I am not sure I agree that they have ever been particularly inconsistent at any point. In my estimation they have only produced one album across their whole career that falls short of excellence, and it doesn't fall that far short.

[Aaron]

Pidgeon,
Are you really saying there is no variety in the Pumpkins catalog?  Seriously?  I agree that Pumpkins are a love them or hate them band, but they probably have more variety in their catalog than any band coming out of that era.  I agree that their albums are inconsistent after you reach Machina, but I would say the same of STP after you reach No.4 despite that STP is my clear fav.

I think a lot of people just hear Corgan's voice and nothing else when they hear SP.

For my money, Oceania and Monuments are right up there with the best stuff they/he ever did. Monuments particularly (despite its short run time) is a fantastic album and showed some real willingness to experiment with the SP sound. Only Zeitgeist has a few wobbles (IMO) but is still a decent album. So I am not sure I agree that they have ever been particularly inconsistent at any point. In my estimation they have only produced one album across their whole career that falls short of excellence, and it doesn't fall that far short.

Totally agree.  If you cant get past Corgan's voice, they're an impossible band to like.  I'm a big fan of the Pumpkins too, but I definitely understand why people dont like them/Corgan.  However, I do feel there are the most sonically diverse band out of the 90s alternative era. 

Totally agreed on Oceania.  Monuments did grab me as much, but Oceania is one of the best albums front to back of the past decade (in my opinion).  I do think the period running between Machina and Zeitgeist was weaker though.  I like Zeitgeist, but my chief complaint is the same complaint is that is sounds too much like they were trying to make a pumpkins record".  Just doesn't have that same soul, not unlike STP's self titled... again, in my opinion.  Oceania was a true return to form though.

[Chris Pepper]

I like No.4.  Down is one of my favorites from the band.  Especially as part of an encore during a set.

I like the Pumpkins, too.  I'd pay to see them put together the original band.  Iha, D'arcy, Jimmy.  They were always trying to push their sound to new places.  Tons of respect for them.

STP v Pumpkins.  In a live setting there was no comparison.  STP.  But I like their catalogs both and would match up Pumpkins and STP pretty close. 

[Stop That Pigeon]

Are you really saying there is no variety in the Pumpkins catalog?  Seriously?  I agree that Pumpkins are a love them or hate them band, but they probably have more variety in their catalog than any band coming out of that era.  I agree that their albums are inconsistent after you reach Machina, but I would say the same of STP after you reach No.4 despite that STP is my clear fav.

There's variety for sure, just not in the same way imo. Pumpkins always comes back to Billy's songs (which are great) no matter what the instrumentation is whereas STP developed both individually and together. The breakdowns on the fades of "Church On Tuesday" and "No Way Out" are classic examples of what could have been built on: the band hangs on the groove whilst melody and harmony ideas are extrapolated on top. It's high end stuff for definite.

[CoconutBackwards]

Are you really saying there is no variety in the Pumpkins catalog?  Seriously?  I agree that Pumpkins are a love them or hate them band, but they probably have more variety in their catalog than any band coming out of that era.  I agree that their albums are inconsistent after you reach Machina, but I would say the same of STP after you reach No.4 despite that STP is my clear fav.

There's variety for sure, just not in the same way imo. Pumpkins always comes back to Billy's songs (which are great) no matter what the instrumentation is whereas STP developed both individually and together. The breakdowns on the fades of "Church On Tuesday" and "No Way Out" are classic examples of what could have been built on: the band hangs on the groove whilst melody and harmony ideas are extrapolated on top. It's high end stuff for definite.

"Variety and consistency, no"

"There's variety for sure"

[nat]

I don't need any more carbs, thanks, but there are plenty of bands that fit your bill. It's not that amazing a feat, really. Any of the following groups have at least five albums that are at least as good, if not better, than any STP:

1. Zeppelin (close your eyes and pick any 5 Zeppelin albums)
2. The Who (ditto)
3. Sabbath (any of the Ozzy or Dio albums, plus Born Again)
4. Van Halen (see Zeppelin)
5. They Might be Giants (basically anything they did pre-2000)
6. Smashing Pumpkins (say what you will about SP, but you can't deny BC is a songwriting genius)
7. Pink Floyd (see Zeppelin)
8. Chili Peppers
9. Deep Purple
10. Tool (they only have five studio albums, and I'd rank almost all of them above the entire STP catalog)
11. Faith No More (see Zeppelin)
12. Blue Oyster Cult (these guys have 15 studio albums, there are at least 5 masterpieces among them)

This is just from a 30-second glance in my own iTunes library. There are many, many, MANY more examples.

1. They lacked any pop sensibility but hard to argue with overall. It's personal taste but I'll take STP.
2. A powerful group but lacking in so many areas. Not consistent enough by any means.
3. This has to be a joke?! 1-dimensional, no sense of harmony, counterpoint or any musical subtlety whatsoever versus...STP. It's not the same ball park, it's not even the same game.
4. Love VH, Fair Warning especially but they never had any depth. Not comparable imo.
5. This I like. STP goes way beyond obvious "rock" comparisons, there's so much in there. If you'd thrown in Paul Simon or Joni Mitchell, we'd have a conversation.
6. Talent, yes. Variety and consistency, no.
7. Which Floyd? If you're talking Dark Side...etc that peaked and ended with Animals so that's 3 albums.
8. STFU. Seriously.
9. Seen them, loved them. But lack of depth and variety kills this one.
10. If you don't like pop music, you miss a lot of what makes STP special. Love Tool but Maynard does not do pop.
11. Nonsense.
12. Clearly personal on your part. I often do the same thing myself but you'd need to provide some context imo.

Imo (and it is just that), very few acts have produced 5 consecutive albums of increasing craft that demonstrate a wide range of influences, abilities and musical understanding. STP, for me, belongs in the same bracket as The Doors, Steely Dan, Paul Simon, Little Feat, The Band. That's the level. And No4 was a cool record. Not their best but you could imagine them doing Cole Porter on there, ain't gonna happen with any other modern group.

Whether you agree or not, I listed 12 bands that I (and probably millions of others also, if record sales tell you anything) consider to have released more "exceptional" albums than Stone Temple Pilots. And I could probably list another 12. I'm not going to debate on a point-by-point basis when your arguments are on the level of comments like "STFU" and "Nonsense."

There's a lot of subjectivity to this, but I would suggest if you truly believe that Stone Temple Pilots are untouchable by most, if not all, of the groups I listed that you listen to more music. STP put out some great albums, and I like them a lot. Otherwise I wouldn't be here. I'm not trying to delude myself into thinking they're the end-all and be-all of rock music, however. The guitarists from many of those bands I listed are on an entirely different level than Dean DeLeo, for example: Tony Iommi, Richie Blackmore, Donald Roeser... (I only mention this because I'm a big "guitar" fan.)

[DankoJones]

Old enough now to leave the house