Ok, when did the Red Hot Chili Peppers go mainstream?
Sep 3, 2002 at 8:08 PM Thread Starter Post #1 of 21

acidtripwow

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jun 21, 2001
Posts
1,959
Likes
13
Back when "Blood Sugar Sex Magik" came out I was living in Dallas. I remember hanging out with a friend of mine doing bong hits and just listening to music. My friend put this CD on and I thought it was quite different and unique. It wasn't really my cup of tea. Back then I was really into Hard Rock/Heavy Metal music. The louder the better I liked it!

Fast forward to last week when a co-worker hands me "By the Way" and tells me to take listen. He thought it was very good. I told him I'm not a big fan of The Red Hot Chili Peppers. He said it was not typical RHCP and I should listen anyway. I took a quick listen and thought it wasn't too bad so I decided to burn a copy. I then took the copy and listened to it it on my portable system on my train ride home. The more I listened the more I really liked this CD. It doesn't sound anything like what I remember the RHCP sounding like all those years ago. It was definitely more "mainstream." When I got home I popped it into my home system and could really tell that this was a very well produced CD also. I have listened to it a few more times and think this should be in the running for CD of the year for 2002. Two thumbs up. By the way for those that know spanish take a listen to "Cabron." I just had to crack up when I heard that song.

B000067CPX.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg
 
Sep 3, 2002 at 8:30 PM Post #2 of 21
...i bought this album even though i am not a RHCP fan...i guess i was looking for more catchy tunes like the single "By the Way"....unfortunately the whole album is a lot different than that single...
 
Sep 3, 2002 at 8:30 PM Post #3 of 21
ohh.. so you like it when they go pop..

yeah, its been a few years now. probably that one with the aeroplane, but even b/s/s/m was always pretty trendy (i'm scoffed at for not being into rhcp as a rule of thumb)
 
Sep 3, 2002 at 8:43 PM Post #4 of 21
MTV has played tons of RHCP stuff, earliest I remember being the "Give It Away" video from Blood Sugar Sex Magic. So, in that sense, they've been mainstream for quite awhile.
 
Sep 3, 2002 at 9:00 PM Post #5 of 21
Acid
I really like thier new mature style which began with "californication" CD much better vs the funk, rap, punk style of "blood sugar sex magic" and earlier stuff. I find this new stuff more inspired, creative and just plain artistically better.

I really like the 60+ minute CD length also.
 
Sep 3, 2002 at 9:07 PM Post #6 of 21
That same co-worker is bringing in Californication tomorrow so I can take listen to it. He said it is a lot like By The Way.

Yes, "By The Way" is very long for a CD these days and not a bad song on the whole CD.
 
Sep 3, 2002 at 10:37 PM Post #7 of 21
Quote:

Originally posted by acidtripwow
That same co-worker is bringing in Californication tomorrow so I can take listen to it. He said it is a lot like By The Way.

Yes, "By The Way" is very long for a CD these days and not a bad song on the whole CD.


You haven't heard Californication? It's a great album, but i think your gonna be appalled by the sound quality.
 
Sep 4, 2002 at 2:23 AM Post #9 of 21
Go take a look at the old By the Way thread. I won't ruin this one with my "RHCP used to be so much better" whining.

Well, okay, I'll keep it to a minimum. As pop goes these days, I suppose Californication and By the Way aren't bad. But that's not the Chili Peppers. No, no. The Peppers are their George Clinton-produced albums. Even more, it's what came after -- Flea slapping his bass like a red-headed step chile, Kiedis spitting out rhymes like they're skanky beer, and some goons murdering a guitar and beating a drum kit senseless. There's no "by the way, I tried to say I love you" in the Red Hot Chili Peppers!

Maybe one of these days I'll cave and buy their new albums. (I'm looking real hard for something new to buy. ...) After all, constant evolution of sound is a Chili Peppers' mainstay -- from their hot-and-heavy garage debut album to their pure funk to their white-boy hip-hop'n'metal to the anomaly of One Hot Minute (yes, I have a bunch of Jane's Addiction and ***** for Pyros discs in my collection) to whatever the hell you want to call this new crap. But I'm not ready yet.

kerelybonto
 
Sep 4, 2002 at 8:43 AM Post #10 of 21
Quote:

Originally posted by kerelybonto
G There's no "by the way, I tried to say I love you" in the Red Hot Chili Peppers!


... exactly; these are the guys who wanted to 'party on your *****', for ****ssakes!

i really prefer the earlier stuff up to B/S/S/M. it seems like they've lost the manic, hard edge they used to have, as well as the off-the-wall sense of humour that was such a big part of the earlier albums. i don't know, it just seems like they got that big mainstream hit with "under the bridge' and now they've gone and 'matured' in order to maintain the audience they caught with that song.

Flea and John F. seem a lot more restrained muscially nowadays, which is a waste since you just know these guys can totally rip it up.

don't get me wrong, the new stuff isn't totally bad, but i miss the days of mad funk jams and songs about Magic Johnson. what i don't miss are the pictures of them using their socks in innovative ways hahaha.
 
Sep 5, 2002 at 2:31 AM Post #11 of 21
There's nothing greater than seeing a band evolve over the years. Can't you guys just leave it at that? How strange would it be to see a bunch of 40 year old rockers "party on your *****"
 
Sep 5, 2002 at 2:44 AM Post #12 of 21
Quote:

Originally posted by RoninDiesel
There's nothing greater than seeing a band evolve over the years.


I agree with that. unfortunately, it seems like whenever a band claims to be 'evolving', more often than not the end-result is a more toned-down, radio-friendly sound. Metallica is a prime example; from an awesome thrash band to a 3-minute radio-rock band, all in the name of 'evolution'. (oops, maybe i shouldn't have opened that can of worms
biggrin.gif
).

... i'm all for evolution if it means retaining a band's core sound, and expanding on it, rather than taking the easy way out and writing 'mature' pop songs.
 
Sep 6, 2002 at 5:58 AM Post #13 of 21
RoninDiesel, I liked the first ten or twelve years of their evolution. I just don't like what they sound like now.

And is John Frusciante even 30 yet?

kerelybonto
 
Sep 7, 2002 at 7:07 AM Post #14 of 21
Ugh. You wouldn't know Flea made any sort of contribution to this album by merely listening to it, and Kiedis is not at his best doing melodic love songs. What a waste.
 
Sep 7, 2002 at 2:38 PM Post #15 of 21
Quote:

Originally posted by eastsidemetalhd


I agree with that. unfortunately, it seems like whenever a band claims to be 'evolving', more often than not the end-result is a more toned-down, radio-friendly sound. Metallica is a prime example; from an awesome thrash band to a 3-minute radio-rock band, all in the name of 'evolution'. (oops, maybe i shouldn't have opened that can of worms
biggrin.gif
).

... i'm all for evolution if it means retaining a band's core sound, and expanding on it, rather than taking the easy way out and writing 'mature' pop songs.


i dont think the chilli peppers sold out at all. they've definitely just evolved with age. Like most people, we all started out hard and fast but with age we appreciate the slower, lyrical, melodies of a good song. it doesnt have to be 110% go, go, go anymore. that's why most bands maturing tends to slow down, along with my listening taste.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top