Chevelle: Best Record
 

Any fans of this band?
Man, I think they're awesome.
They lost their bassist, Joe Loeffler, on their most recent album, Vena Sera, and yet, a stellar effort nonetheless.

I still haven't heard their first album, Point #1. I'm wondering if that's something worth getting. If it's as good as their 3 follow-ups, I suppose it is. Choosing their best album is very difficult. They all have some very heavy tunes along with melodic tunes, and each album has a different feel to it. I'll have to go with Wonder What's Next? just because it's probably their heaviest and good to rock out to. Every song on it is very good.

Major suckage... dont like... oyyy (more unintelligent babble)

Everything they've done is the best thing they've done, don't make me choose! Chevelle are easily the most brilliant band making music today. I love the painful honest vocals, the hard guitars, the breathtakingly poignant lyrics that echo pain in a way unseen since Daniel Johnston and Ian Curtis. This band perfected hard-rock nu-metal sound that Three Days Grace only wish they could achieve! Great band, five stars, etc. Perfect!

I can practically feel the sarcasm emanating out my monitor.

Hey, you guys do know that Me No Like is actually the name of their new greatest hits CD.
Heh, j/k
I don't think 3 days grace are that bad, to be honest, their new cd was alright.

I'm sure we can all agree that they have a unique sound, because to some people they might sound like 3 days grace, or many other current rock bands, but clearly they don't sound like that. The only band they could even be compared to is Tool, and yet, when you hear them, you can tell that they weren't just attempting to knock them off. They've carved their way into modern rock with sound that is eery, and very uncommercial, and yet compelling, so I'm sure you'll probably buy their CD tomorrow, Crowquill.

Of course I will, amazing band why wouldn't I buy such an amazing bands undoubtedly amazing CD?

sorry im not a fan of mainstream bands

They've never cracked it on this side of the pond so they cant be that good.

Im glad you give all bands a fair chance.... :mad:

edit:To Used: Yea, i like them alot. I do feel they have a good deal of origonality to thm. And the people who don't like them because they are now mainstream...thats great. They did not used to be. Listen to Point #1 and there 2 unreleased albums before that...noone had even heard of them then.

What's original about them?

I am not going to go into naming individual qualities, but i feel there overall sound is somewhat different than other bands.

To that im sure you will reply "Well they sound like every other mainstream band now."

In retort to that, i will just say this. I have not listened o many other bands in which I enjoy there lyrics as much as i do Chevelle's. Also i can not think of ONE of band that has that same sound as they do. The closest i can think of is Tool/Perfect circle, which is similar sounding because it is there main influence.

edit: Also i like there broad ariety of sounds throughout there albums/songs. Songs like Panic Prone, Bend the Bracket are a nice hange from the usual faster heavier sound. Then there are faster moving songs with what i think are very good drum beats such as Another Know It All and Brainiac. There are many other different varieties which i will not go into now, but i encourage you to give them another chance if you are judging them based soley off thre single or bigger songs such as the Rd and Vitamin R which are by far not the best songs they have put out.

You know if you're going to bother backing up your opinion on why they're original why say it all? I hear nothing original in their sound, they're your typical nu-metal/hard rock band. List the reasons to their originality or don't call them original.

I think you can figure that out for your self. The same reason i would call another other band original. If you want a list here it is:

1. Many of the beats in here last 3 records are very creative. (at least in my opinion, coming from 8 years of drumming) gallops..etc

2. The singing/vocals are thought out much more than most other bands. ex: The singer NEVER rhymes because he feels that takes away from the lyrics creating only a catchy song that has no sustenance.

3. Have not directly copied any other bands in there sound. And i don't think labeling them as "just another numetal band" is fair or does them any justice at all.

If you'd like i will make this list even longer. But for times sake i will stop.



edit: And to reverse it and put you in my position, how about Elliott Smith. I think he is just another average singer/songerwriter/multi instrumentalist. There were people such as Conor Oberst that came out with music before him that sound VERY similar, therefore making Elliott Smith just another average musician.

And keep in mind this isnt trying to Bash your taste or anything like that, just to help clear up the point i am trying to make :)

Good drumming doesn't make a band original, we don't call Slipknot original and Jordinson is frequently hailed as a good drummer even from people who don't listen to Slipknot.

Hahaha

Thats a rhyme, even if its a shitty one to rhyme me with me.

Doubt/Out

Aside/Behind/Cry

And this is just taking them from their hits, in Red they rhyme again with again. Chevelle not only rhyme, but they rhyme in a very standard format and uncreative manner. So far your points have amounted to nothing. The Vocals aren't original in any manner, he's just borrowing Maynard's quiet/loud vocal style.

Then why do they sound like Three Days Grace, Finger Eleven, Staind, Cold, Breaking Benjamin, Trapt (who have very similar vocals to this band with supposedly original vocals) and several other bands I could list?

I would because only one point is valid (the first one) which I didn't even check on because I won't subject my ears to them more than I have to and that point really had nothing to do with originality.

For one Conor Oberst didn't come before Elliott Smith and they sound nothing alike. Elliott borrows his acoustic styling more from artists like Nick Drake, or even closer some of Big Star's acoustic stuff (it really depends on which era) while Conor was more influenced by Daniel Johnston and Bob Dylan. Completely different influences and they had completely different sounds. Their acoustic stuff sounded nothing alike, you don't even have to be familiar with folk or acoustic music to realize that. The vocal stylings are totally opposite, Conor screams and has a very unsteady voice while Elliott is once again, on the other end of things with very hushed whispered vocals. When Conor started diving into alt-country later in his career Elliott was diving into very unique baroque pop with slight psychedelic influences. How many songs have you heard that sound like King's Crossing or Shooting Star? I've never hailed Elliott as being original until his later days when he became original. You need to actually listen to something and make sure you know what you're talking about before you go and make completely ignorant comments.

So not only does the point you're making hold no ground because I've only talked about certain points in their careers being original but they don't even sound alike and you obviously had no clue what you were talking about.

I did not say "good drumming" do not misquote me. I said creative also known as original. I will say it again many of the beats used are not found in any of these bands you stated "Three Days Grace, Finger Eleven, Staind, Cold, Breaking Benjamin, Trapt".

Except for the few instances where there is "ryhmes" which i hardly consider that, you have not proved anything. I do not feel the singing is at all similar to ANY of the bands you listed, all of which i have heard much of. (i think rarely having this happen is almost unavoidable anyways)

Also you did not address the point made about Elliot Smith... which puts you in the EXACT same boat as me, left trying to defend yourself against someone who has completely different musical tastes.


edit: You are one of the few people on here i do enjoy arguing/debating with. (Unlike a good deal of people with "superior" taste)

Yeah creative drumming still doesn't make a band original, once again look at Slipknot. Jordinson's drumming isn't similar to any of his contemporaries from KoRn or System of a Down yet we still don't hail them as original. Why? Because drumming is a very small thing in the large scheme of your originality and so far it's the only thing this band has going for them.

Have you not heard Trapt or Tool? How aren't the vocals similar? And how aren't those rhymes? Do I need to define rhymes for you?

I didn't even understand what your point was.

i mean all the bull pies they are pushing out on the radio nowadays.....i like some mainstream bands but not many

First off you don't have to be a jack^ss while arguing your side of this. With that aside...

I strongly disagree with the Coner Oberst sounding different, and yes i have listened to almost everything they have both put out. I do not like Elliot Smith but i still have his first album from 1994 up till his recent 2007 release.

And yes Conor Oberst did come before him... His solo album was released a year before Elliot Smiths in 1993. (Water)


Example: YouTube - Elliott Smith - Whatever ( Folk Song in C ) LIVE < Elliot Smith

YouTube - Conor Oberst - Hubcap < Conor Oberst

Sounds very similar to me, and thats one of many examples. yes difference in singing, with more screaming aggression coming from Oberst. But nothing you couldn't say as a difference between bands such as Chevelle and Stained.


Edit: And to be honest, you obviously do not give bands such as Chevelle an even remotly fair chance before judging them right off the bat.

You're making unfounded statements and not explaining your opinions, that isn't my fault.

How do they sound similar then?

You realize that unreleased solo "album" was a preteen Conor Oberst yelling into a friend's four track right? It sounded nothing like anything Elliott did and if it wasn't for the internet or Bright Eyes no one would even knew or cared it existed. So if you're going to consider that Conor started before Elliott than it should be pointed out Elliott also had an unreleased material from his high school days with a band called Stranger Than Fiction and there was also A Murder of Crows, The Greenhouse and Heatmiser all of which pre-dated Conor's "album."

Before i go off talking about this, which i most certanly will, in time, answer this question since it is the entire reason we are arguing in the first place.

How do Chevelle and Staind sound SO similar?

Before i go off talking about this, which i most certanly will, in time, answer this question since it is the entire reason we are arguing in the first place.

How do Chevelle and Staind sound SO similar?

I mean apart from the givens and simple ones resulting from being in the same genre...what else is there?

Staind was probably a bad example since they're acoustic but when they kick into the more heavy parts they're very similar, though Chevelle tends to be faster and less melodic.Similar guitar tones, both have "afflicted" vocals, lyrics dealing with depressive issues, in addition to the similar tones (on the electric guitars) all their songs are typical power chord rock with the bass mirroring the notes. Songs like the Red are more similar I guess but they still are pretty similar at points, the other bands I compared them to are more close but I guess thats why you ignored them.

The guitar styling is different, Elliotts finger picking Conors strumming and the vocals are different as I've already pointed out. Elliott's are hushed and quiet Conor's are the opposite. Stop editing posts several minutes after I reply to them, it's annoying. They are pretty similar because its just acoustic guitars and voice a naturally but typically when people talk about Conor Oberst's music they're referring to Bright Eyes because you know, that stuff was actually released.

No i picked them because you used Staind as an example twice. Again when you are faced with coming up with actual arguments on similarities you completely fail to. All you just told me was a couple things such as similar guitar tones and "afflicted vocals" which is expected of that genre.

And the bass notes and the chords etc I said more than that. How didn't I explain their similarities? Are you thick or just have some selective reading disorder?

Wow bass notes and chords. You know what you have convinced me. Like 99% of bands out there they have used a shadowing baseline and typical chords. You are right because of that they lack all origonallity and sound EXACTLY like Tool.

I have to go for a few hours, but am more than willing to continue this later.

Um, I never said they sound exactly like Tool all I said was they vocal stylings weren't original, they were just taken from Maynard. I explained quite a bit on why they sound similar. Their music is power chord based rock with similar 'heavy tones' with a bass mirroring the notes and a typical drum beat holding it all together as well as lyrics dealing with depressive issues in a standard verse/chorus format. You can get all pissy about it but the simple fact is Chevelle are doing nothing original, what I just described may sound generic and applicable to most rock bands and the reason for that is because they ARE a generic rock band.

I've been backing up my opinions and explaining them. You've been selective in your responding to them only responding to the stuff you can actually argue because the simple fact is: Chevelle aren't original they're very typical. So you can drop the Conor/Elliott argument (which I still don't understand what you're trying to achieve by bringing up since I've only ever said they were original at certain points in their career and you're arguing that Elliott just ripped off Conor's unreleased material or something I don't understand) and if you want to respond you can actually respond to the entire argument instead of just bits and parts of it that you feel like responding to.

Point #1 is a good album.

Yeah the only real comparison to Tool you can make with Chevelle is the vocal style. The music isn't nearly as well crafted as Tool. But Chevelle is still one of the better mainstream bands out there.

why do we allways compare everyone to tool?

I'm comparing the vocals to Tool. Very few bands, if any match the music of Tool. But the vocal styling is very very similar.

nothing compares to vena sera easily their best album

Chevelle does sound like Tool a bit IMO...I like all three of their albums...they may be mainstream but they rock...bottom line.

so maybe i shouldnt have voted i only have the 2nd and 3rd.

i really liked wonder whats next.

should i get any of their recents?

I liked Vena Sera a lot but only after I had to warm up to it.

I like Chevelle because I enjoy singing all of their songs myself. I like how their music makes me feel.

They're the best band out there, to me, not because they can do this or that better, but because I can relate different things they say to different things in my life. And like I said, I just like to sing their songs.

That really isn't a strong foundation for loving a band, but it's enough for me.

I enjoyed there new album. Nothing fantastic but worth the listen. I recommend there first2 albums, much less Poppy.

Sorry for the bump. I was just listening to Point #1 and wondered what the board thought of these guys. I would have to admit that I myself am a fan, especially of the first two albums. Their latest, Sci-Fi Crimes, wasn't bad either...

I liked them when I was 13. =P

Vena Sera is their best! I Get It, Saturdays, Sleep Walking Elite and so many others!

LOVE LOVE LOVE THEM

I think they're amazing, and the new album is pretty damn good, I don't think they got too soft either like a lot of other bands... Better than most new stuff I've heard in awhile..just my opinion..