I just finished listening to it. It's not as bad I thought it would be after hearing the atrocious "Juicebox" a couple months ago. That said, it's not exactly great either. I like the Strokes. I thought "Is This It?" was worthy of the hype -- a welcomed change of pace to what was going on in alternative rock at the time. But the new album just doesn't impress. A few tracks stand out, but too many of them sound like bad imitations of their formerly great selves.

I just listened to it today (finally!) and it pretty much sucks. I'm not really a Strokes fan, but these abortions of songs are a total disappointment.

You can accuse Franz Ferdinand of being a Strokes ripoff, but I'll bet their third album won't mostly consist of whining about how hard it is to be famous. At least Casablancas is right: he doesn't have anything to say.

I like it, mucho.

hal

I've listened to it about three times. I think it isn't the best Strokes album but it really is not very bad at all. The key is if you did not like Room On Fire then you will hate this.

Musically the two are nearly alike; as this new one has the lyrical darkness of the former album. The fact is that Room On Fire is still the better album. The Hooks are just better on that album then here.

Track Picks: You Only Live Once, Juicebox, On the Otherside, Ize of the World (terrible ending however that hurts the song), Evening Sun.

I'm listening to it now. I'm..enjoying it.

It's not...you know, great. It's not Is This It. It sounds like The Strokes, but a little more...processed, and subdued. (Whereas, if I was describing why I liked Is This It, I would use the words 'organic' and 'energetic'.)

It lacks..the spark. But it's a solid record. I don't know how many albums I'll buy this year, but if I bought the same amount I did last year, I'd say...top 50, not top 20. At this early impression.

Edit: Upon further listening, I'm noticing an interesting relationship.

The less a track sounds like 'The Strokes', the better it sounds. 'Ask Me Anything', for instance, sounds nothing like the Strokes, and it's really good.

It's like they lost the 'spark' that made it possible for their earlier style to be good, but they still have the talent to make other styles sound good.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Bobthespirit,

quote:

Originally posted by Bobthespirit:
The less a track sounds like 'The Strokes', the better it sounds. 'Ask Me Anything', for instance, sounds nothing like the Strokes, and it's really good.

Those were kind of my thoughts too. The few tracks where they tried to expand their sound like "Ask me Anything" and "Electricityscape" sound pretty good, but way too many of the songs sound like retreads of stuff they've done. How many times can you record a rehash of "Soma"?

My assessment of the new Strokes:

I listened to it twice in two days. I liked it each time. I immediately forgot what I liked about it and why. It's like junk food: briefly filling, but forgettable and somehow regrettable.

Long-term prospects: I doubt I'll even REMEMBER this record in December, 2006 as I'm making a best-of list, and if I do remember it, I'll recall being ambivalent.

For the life of me, though, I don't get the Franz/Strokes comparisons. Other than being 'alternative rock bands' with guitars, do they really sound alike? Where the Strokes are redoing retro garage rock, Franz is redoing artsy, groove-heavy post-punk. I personally see nothing similar about the two bands...

I've listened to it a couple more times and I don't hate it as much as I did at first. On first listens, crappy songs and good songs sort of mix together and it's hard to separate them. And there's a bunch of crappy songs on this. But now that I've heard it a couple times, there are also a couple good ones. After about a week from now, when I feel the urge to hear the Strokes, this won't be the one I reach for. To be honest, I think the other Strokes should fire Casablancas and get someone who actually can write lyrics, sing well and in a compelling manner, and engage the audience (I've never seen them but I've heard he's lame live, i.e. Fork's live review from Thursday). You know, all those things we expect of a frontman.

Yeah I did make the Strokes/Franz comparison, not my own idea because I don't really see it either, other than the ubiquity of their debuts on the radio. Just something I saw somewhere. Franz get unfairly compared to a lot of bands; usually they're a lot better than the other.

The Strokes and Franz Ferdinand are both in the same vague genre, and they both became successful both popularly and critically within a couple years of each other. The Strokes are like Franz Ferdinand in pretty much the same way Nirvana is like Pearl Jam.

quote:

Originally posted by philosopherEric:
I listened to it twice in two days. I liked it each time. I immediately forgot what I liked about it and why. It's like junk food: briefly filling, but forgettable and somehow regrettable.

That about sums it up.

Alright, I just bought the album today(FIoE) I have a varied opinion. I like it, but I don't. I don't like it because i kind of miss the old Strokes. I like it because they have great songs, and it's finally good of them to have a cd with more than 11 songs and over 32 minutes.

quote:

Originally posted by Bobthespirit:

The less a track sounds like 'The Strokes', the better it sounds. 'Ask Me Anything', for instance, sounds nothing like the Strokes, and it's really good.

That pretty well sums it up for me. There's a great ep in here of a new sounding Strokes struggling to get out. Some songs were too long or too wordy or both. Still, so far, I like it better than their previous album.

First Impressions of Earth is not a great album. There are several songs that could only be considered total filler ("Killing Lies", for example) and Julian Casablancas should be downright ashamed of some of the lyrics here ("I was hiding from the world/I was a squirrel" comes to mind).

But to simply dismiss it because of the band's overhyped past seems unfair. The majority of the reviewers here and elsewhere seem to think that the band is just trying to make another "Is This It?" and garner all sorts of critical adulation once more. But that just isn't the truth. If you move beyond the occasionally awful lyrics and the band's past "Next-Big-Thing" image, you will find a flawed and fascinating snapshot of a band who has watched the hype dissolve and be replaced by bitter disappointment. When Casablancas moans, "I've got nothing to say", he means it, and it is almost heartbreaking to listen to. Even on the more upbeat tracks, such as the galloping closer "Red Light", this attitude seems to pervade the lyrics: "The sky's not the limit and you're never gonna guess what is" is the line that closes the album, suggesting a band who feels betrayed by their own limitations and their own seemingly wasted promise.

There is more to this album than initially meets the ear, so give it a chance. Plus, with truly brilliant songs such as "Electricityscape", the band deserves better than even they seem to think they do.

Do The Strokes really count as indie rock? Every release so far has been on RCA/Rough Trade (R.I.A.A. labels), and, therefore, not actually indie.

quote:

Originally posted by Filmore Holmes:
Do The Strokes really count as indie rock? Every release so far has been on RCA/Rough Trade (R.I.A.A. labels), and, therefore, not actually indie.

Really, they shouldn't count as indie. My guess is that whoever started this thread was using the alternate definition of indie as "music that indie publications rate highly."

EDIT: But then, by that definition (non-RIAA), the Fiery Furnaces aren't indie either.

quote:

Originally posted by RavingLunatic:

quote:

Originally posted by Filmore Holmes:
Do The Strokes really count as indie rock? Every release so far has been on RCA/Rough Trade (R.I.A.A. labels), and, therefore, not actually indie.

Really, they shouldn't count as indie. My guess is that whoever started this thread was using the alternate definition of indie as "music that indie publications rate highly."

EDIT: But then, by that definition (non-RIAA), the Fiery Furnaces aren't indie either.

It's semantics but I think it's relevant.

For the record, I think it's relevant too.

Okay, let's all have a vote on 'Best semantics debate that crops up on message boards that has no absolute proveable 'right' answer'.

1) Can a major label record be 'indie'?
2) Is Zelda an RPG?
3) What would win between a Star Wars ship and a Star Trek ship?

It's close, but my vote is #3. Because, if you prefer Star Trek, Star Trek wins, and if you prefer Star Wars, Star Wars wins. You can at least make some concrete statements in any reasonable context for the first two.

I kinda like the new Strokes album, although I need to hear it more. I've never been a big fan. ALL their albums seem decent but not great, so the hate this one's gettin' is a little strange. They didn't make Is This It III this time, right? I've just NEVER found myself returning over and over to any Strokes album. Maybe it's because I've got too many late '70s albums which I've listened to at least 500 times.

quote:

Originally posted by Bobthespirit:
Okay, let's all have a vote on 'Best semantics debate that crops up on message boards that has no absolute proveable 'right' answer'.

1) Can a major label record be 'indie'?
2) Is Zelda an RPG?
3) What would win between a Star Wars ship and a Star Trek ship?

It's close, but my vote is #3. Because, if you prefer Star Trek, Star Trek wins, and if you prefer Star Wars, Star Wars wins. You can at least make some concrete statements in any reasonable context for the first two.

Yeah, that question is too vague. Are you pitting The Enterprize against the Millennium Falcon? A Klingon Bird Of Prey against an X-Wing? What? At least there's some evidence with one and who cares what Zelda is classified as.