The Killers - Wonderful Wonderful (September 30, 2017) Album • Page 7

No, that one was just incompetent across the board. This one is just kind of odd.

 

I truly hate "The Man" but also think "Run For Cover" is their best song since Sawdust so who knows how I'll end up feeling about this

 

I do not hate The Man. It's a swaggy jam.

 

The Killers Talk 'Grown-Up' New Album 'Wonderful Wonderful'

 

So excited for this one.

 

The man rules and so does run for cover

 

New song tomorrow at noon, gonna be Zane Lowe's World Record.

 

It was "Wonderful Wonderful" and it isn't really like anything they've put out before.

 

In a good or bad way?

 

Title track is really cool. Very unexpected; I figured it would be brighter and poppier...just based on the word 'Wonderful' haha.

It's on Spotify.

 

Love The Killers, but this shit is super duper lame.

The Killers Say New Rock Bands Aren’t as Popular Because They’re “Not Good Enough” | Pitchfork

 

Interesting song. I think it will grow on me. Reminded me of U2 a little.

 

Good way.

 

Yea this is the worst take. Such a frustrating way for a band like them to look at music.

Wonderful, Wonderful was way different than I thought, but it was pretty cool. I'm excited to hear it in context of the rest of the album.

 

"Wonderful Wonderful" is far better than "The Man" but still don't really see myself coming back to it.

"Run for Cover" is excellent though.

 

I don't think he's necessarily wrong. How many watershed bands have come out in the past seven years that have simultaneously managed to be undeniably game-changing, but also grab the attention of the mainstream? The 1975, maybe? But you can clearly see those type of movements happening within other genres, like hip-hop and pop for instance, but when was rock's last big moment? Probably the early/mid-2000's.

I'm not saying bands since then have been bad, and I'm sure he's not either. There's a lot of great music being made within the parameters of the genre. He's just saying for a band to shift the paradigm in a way the Strokes or those other early '00s bands did, the songs have to be there to grab people's attention away from whatever they're listening to now. And right now, they're not. Acts with mainstream appeal aren't doing much to be fresh and new these days.

Either way, I think it's an interesting conversation to have. I just don't think the over-simplification of his statement for a headline is doing anyone any favors, haha.

 

Eh. I just think the way people consume music is different. A reason that quote is completely tone deaf in my eyes. Streaming has changed everything. There are more great bands today that people have access to. And only so much time in the day. Bands aren't funneled into the mainstream conscious like they used to be.

 

I totally agree. But to be fair, this shift in music consumption is also addressed in the interview, which is what led to the question regarding a new band being able to grab attention in the way those early 00's bands had.

I think the point they were trying to make was there is so much music out there at one's disposal, and it's all consumed so quickly, that for some band to come along and change things in the way bands of their ilk had, it would simply take a fantastic band to do so. And he believes that hypothetical game-changing, mainstream-shifting rock band isn't out there yet.

That's how it reads to me, at least. Regardless, I'm sure he'll be asked to clarify in his next interview.

 

I ranted about this on Twitter yesterday.

 

The "what bands have had moments since the mid-2000s" argument is flawed. Rock back then had a radio format, critics who still thought indie rock was the pinnacle of modern music, and taste-making TV shows like The OC that made rock music "cool." They also didn't have people writing "rock is dead" thinkpieces every six minutes, or bands like The Killers saying stupid shit like this.

Instead of looking at how many newer rock bands have had success along the lines of that early to mid-2000s class, think about how many of the newer class probably could have scored hits if they had started between the mid-1990s and the mid-2000s. Probably a lot.

 

I couldn't tell where Wonderful, Wonderful was going for the first minute and a half and that's a good thing.

 

Wonderful Wonderful is fucking awesome, wow. I know nothing of this band outside of Hot Fuss (which I love) and a couple tracks from Sam's Town but I'm officially stoked for this one.

 

Again, I'm not pretending the Killers and bands that came out around the same time didn't have their advantages. I mean, they literally acknowledge as much in that interview (which apparently nobody is reading). The door they used to get in closed right behind them.

With that said, I do generally agree with his statement. I think rock is going to come back around into the mainstream in a big way, eventually. But the bands who have attempted what some of those of the early 00's accomplished-- to hit all those check marks of crossover mainstream appeal, quality, and uniqueness-- just haven't been good enough to nail all three yet. I don't take that to mean the music itself is bad, just not as good as they need to be in order to really knock it out of the park with regards to those goals. How many bands are even trying to do that today?

Now, is it much more difficult to do so now, given the current climate of music consumption? Yes, absolutely, nobody is denying that. But is that band who's going to storm out of the gates with something new and creative, ready to grab everybody's attention and excitement, out there right now? Are they just toiling away on their second or third record with a song that's going to turn not only the whole industry on its head? I highly doubt it, but I'd love to be wrong.