Faith No More appreciation thread

[mr dave]

Originally Posted by SoundgardenRocks

Would you guys say FNM's last two albums are worth it if I enjoyed Angel Dust?

Absolutely, though which one you'll like better really depends on what you enjoyed most about Angel Dust.

There's less 'metal' in the mix of both due to Big Jim's subsequent departure from the band after Angel Dust but both albums are solid. King for a Day Fool for a Lifetime is more varied with a lot more slower tracks including a couple of crooners. But then it's got tracks like Ricochet and Gentle Art of Making Enemies which are f*cking great.

Album of the Year is more of a straight ahead rock disc. There are no real standouts but there are no weak tracks either, very solid. Even if the band was being facetious with the title, there are plenty of people (myself included) who do consider it to be the rock album of 1997 especially in terms of mainstream releases.

[SGR]

Originally Posted by mr dave

Absolutely, though which one you'll like better really depends on what you enjoyed most about Angel Dust.

There's less 'metal' in the mix of both due to Big Jim's subsequent departure from the band after Angel Dust but both albums are solid. King for a Day Fool for a Lifetime is more varied with a lot more slower tracks including a couple of crooners. But then it's got tracks like Ricochet and Gentle Art of Making Enemies which are f*cking great.

Album of the Year is more of a straight ahead rock disc. There are no real standouts but there are no weak tracks either, very solid. Even if the band was being facetious with the title, there are plenty of people (myself included) who do consider it to be the rock album of 1997 especially in terms of mainstream releases.

Thanks alot mr dave!

Really, you think it's better than say, OK Computer?

[Howard the Duck]

OK Computer sucks and is probably the second worst Radiohead after "Pablo Honey"

[warrior of metal]

There only good song is the War Pigs cover. The vocals are too high pitched and wimpy and I don't know why some people consider them a metal band.

[ElephantSack]

I don't consider them a metal band by any stretch of the imagination. "The Real Thing" is really the only album that features that vocal styling. And to be honest, whenever I listen to "The Real Thing", I skip the cover of "War Pigs". When you've seen as many bands cover that ****in' song as I have, enough is enough.

[Janszoon]

Originally Posted by warrior of metal

There only good song is the War Pigs cover. The vocals are too high pitched and wimpy and I don't know why some people consider them a metal band.

Why do I have a sneaking suspicion that your entire opinion of this band is based on The Real Thing?

Originally Posted by ElephantSack

I don't consider them a metal band by any stretch of the imagination.

Seriously? I realize they did quite a bit on later albums that wasn't metal, but at their core they were certainly a metal band.

[mr dave]

Originally Posted by SoundgardenRocks

Thanks alot mr dave!

Really, you think it's better than say, OK Computer?

I wouldn't necessarily call OK Computer a rock disc but I do still find myself listening to that FNM disc more often.

Also - J;zzlobber is f*cking metal. In every sense of the words hehehe

[ElephantSack]

I don't know. In my opinion, a band that exhibits traces of Metal in certain songs, shouldn't be considered a Metal band. To me, that's pigeonholing. It's that when I think of Metal, and I think of Faith No More, it just doesn't click. I will admit that certain songs, like "Caffeine" and "Malpractice" are certainly heavy as hell, but even if you were to look at another Patton band like Mr. Bungle, who exhibited a lot more Metal influence in their work, would you call them a Metal band? To me Faith No More, overall, is a Rock band, and a damn good one, too.

[mr dave]

^Well said, I can definitely agree with that.

[Janszoon]

Originally Posted by ElephantSack

I don't know. In my opinion, a band that exhibits traces of Metal in certain songs, shouldn't be considered a Metal band. To me, that's pigeonholing. It's that when I think of Metal, and I think of Faith No More, it just doesn't click. I will admit that certain songs, like "Caffeine" and "Malpractice" are certainly heavy as hell, but even if you were to look at another Patton band like Mr. Bungle, who exhibited a lot more Metal influence in their work, would you call them a Metal band? To me Faith No More, overall, is a Rock band, and a damn good one, too.

I think something you're overlooking here is how metal has evolved. These days I would consider it a genre unto itself, one which has come to be defined more and more by extreme metal over the years, but back in the 80s and early 90s it was a sub-genre of rock. So, sure, FNM were a rock band, because metal was a type of rock back when they were active.

I'm kind of confused as to why you'd say Bungle had more of metal side than FNM I have to say. It was really only their first album that had much metal going on at all.