|
Post by EvanescentEvil on Feb 3, 2013 17:36:05 GMT -5
^Oh cool! Where did she say that Here you go. Skip to 3:29. I think there was also another interview where she mentioned them, but I can't recall right now.
|
|
|
Post by AeternusAmatorius on Feb 9, 2013 1:53:24 GMT -5
Actually, Amy has stated several times herself that the band wasn't really given the chance to be imaginative or whatsoever on Fallen. Wind-Up wanted a completely commercial and (seemingly) soulless sell-out product. And that's what they got, at least to some extent. Ev needed to make it big. TOD, for instance, probably wouldn't have gotten them that big, despite it being my favourite album of theirs. It just lacked the push and hit formula of Fallen that got us all into the band. And as much as I agree that song structures on it are overall boring, dull and stuff, I'm not gonna admit it's a bad album. I can't call songs such as MI, BMTL, GU, EF or Imaginary bad. That would simply be ridiculous. They may not be good enough but they still have something special to them. Lyric-wise, the album is just beautiful and so damn poetic... Way better than the lyrics to CMWYS (for example) mind you. I'm also not sure whether the band actually had enough time to polish all the songs since Amy also had to take performing lessons in between and on top of that, some of the songs were written during the pre-production of the album. (If my memory serves me well.) I mean, let's face it; both TOD and Ev3 took years to be written and fine-tuned. Ev couldn't afford doing so with Fallen. And still, it's their most successful album up-to-date. That says a lot already. Well Evanescence was in pre-production for about two years (they were signed in 2001) before they got the go-ahead to record demos/the album. Sure they recorded A LOT of the "Fallen" demos at home and others during pre-production so they weren't actually rushed. "Fallen" did take years to write, they just weren't big during that time so those years didn't really see the light of day in the fans eyes. Heck "Whisper" was written from 1998 (judging from the SAEP release) to 2002 andthere is a demo between the one we have as the "O Verona/2002" version and the "Fallen" version. "Imaginary" and "My Immortal" were written before 1998 to 2002. "My Last Breath" was written after 9/11/2001. "Bring Me To Life" had MULTIPLE versions before the two demos we have and the eventual final version. "Haunted" has the most (4), known, demos of that era.
|
|
|
Post by ladylollydragon (Kazlan) on Feb 9, 2013 2:48:40 GMT -5
I don't have a problem with Fallen, I really don't. It'll always hold a very special place in my heart. Having said that, I'm not sure if I agree when people say that it lacks imagination or that it seems unfinished. I think people need to remember how young Ben and Amy were when they wrote most of these songs. The Open Door and the Ev LP were written when Amy had a lot more experience as a musician and a person, and those songs didn't have Ben Moody's input at all. I don't think Fallen should really be compared to the complexity of the other albums because the writers weren't as complex when they wrote it. They were still a baby band, and so Fallen is naturally going to be less grown-up than TOD/EV.
|
|
|
Post by EvanescentEvil on Feb 9, 2013 5:46:39 GMT -5
I've noticed that the majority of EvFans think Ev's best abum is TOD, and people who are not much into Ev think Fallen is their best. I remember that first time I listened to Fallen in 2003, I wasn't very impressed. Songs sounded a lot alike, and it took me about 2 or 3 more listens to grow on me. It's not that it's a bad album, it's just all right. Plus, I believe if Fallen came out today, it wouldn't have that much of success. Evanescence were ridiculously lucky back then because goth/rock/nu-metal was at its highest popularity.
|
|
elodieartour
Baron/Baroness of EvThreads
You don't know Me...
Posts: 124
|
Post by elodieartour on Feb 9, 2013 9:15:18 GMT -5
I don't have a problem with Fallen, I really don't. It'll always hold a very special place in my heart. Having said that, I'm not sure if I agree when people say that it lacks imagination or that it seems unfinished. I think people need to remember how young Ben and Amy were when they wrote most of these songs. The Open Door and the Ev LP were written when Amy had a lot more experience as a musician and a person, and those songs didn't have Ben Moody's input at all. I don't think Fallen should really be compared to the complexity of the other albums because the writers weren't as complex when they wrote it. They were still a baby band, and so Fallen is naturally going to be less grown-up than TOD/EV. Gotta agree on that one. I don't think it's fair to judge 20-year-old musicians on their first ever -official- release. Not to mention that the fact most songs were written years back only makes for even less maturity in their sound. I mean, seriously; who expects adolescent musicians to sound all professional and grown-up? Those things take time, y'know. Becoming a decent and pro musician takes years of hard work and practice. No matter how creative, imaginative and/or skillful Ev used to be even back in the day, they were still unexperienced youngsters after all. Now that they've matured, it's natural they're capable of making different, better music. (That statement counts for all parties that have ever been included in Ev.) @aa: What's with that "O Verona/2002" version? Never heard of it, to be honest...As for the timing, it's also true. Ev hit the market at the very right moment, the peak of female-fronted rock/metal. In fact, a lot of people used to believe they had pioneered the genre which was obviously ridiculous, judging by bands such as Nightwish and Within Temptation. On the other hand though, Ev also got funded back in the 90s, so it's a tricky question who was first; the chicken or the egg.
|
|
|
Post by ladylollydragon (Kazlan) on Feb 9, 2013 9:29:52 GMT -5
^Precisely. A band has their whole life to write their first album, but it's often full of material from their teenage years. I have a friend that is a bit of a musical purist, and he is always insistent that a band's first album is their best because they have their whole life to write it. It usually goes through the most revision, is perfected until there's no possible way they can improve on it anymore. I, however, prefer the second and third albums of a band because they've had a lot longer to find their sound, to grow up and write as adults.
|
|
elodieartour
Baron/Baroness of EvThreads
You don't know Me...
Posts: 124
|
Post by elodieartour on Feb 9, 2013 12:03:28 GMT -5
^Precisely. A band has their whole life to write their first album, but it's often full of material from their teenage years. I have a friend that is a bit of a musical purist, and he is always insistent that a band's first album is their best because they have their whole life to write it. It usually goes through the most revision, is perfected until there's no possible way they can improve on it anymore. I, however, prefer the second and third albums of a band because they've had a lot longer to find their sound, to grow up and write as adults. Yeah, all that happens a lot and I fully agree with you. Hardly ever is the debut album of an artist their best one, even if it becomes a classic. Just take some of the most popular bands in the rock/metal genre, from Ev and Linkin Park to Epica and Nightwish. All their first albums weren't bad, like, at all. However, they still needed a push, more skills, more practice, further creativity, broader freedom of expression, etc. Not to mention that many of those acts have actually changed line-up throughout the years - a step that would always bring up new changes/slight touches to their sound. Furthermore, many of those long-term successful bands have expanded their musical horizons greatly. So yes, experience -does- matter. Especially in the music industry. PS: Playing live on a regular basis pays off insanely well, too!
|
|
|
Post by ladylollydragon (Kazlan) on Feb 9, 2013 19:19:16 GMT -5
^Precisely. A band has their whole life to write their first album, but it's often full of material from their teenage years. I have a friend that is a bit of a musical purist, and he is always insistent that a band's first album is their best because they have their whole life to write it. It usually goes through the most revision, is perfected until there's no possible way they can improve on it anymore. I, however, prefer the second and third albums of a band because they've had a lot longer to find their sound, to grow up and write as adults. Yeah, all that happens a lot and I fully agree with you. Hardly ever is the debut album of an artist their best one, even if it becomes a classic. Just take some of the most popular bands in the rock/metal genre, from Ev and Linkin Park to Epica and Nightwish. All their first albums weren't bad, like, at all. However, they still needed a push, more skills, more practice, further creativity, broader freedom of expression, etc. Not to mention that many of those acts have actually changed line-up throughout the years - a step that would always bring up new changes/slight touches to their sound. Furthermore, many of those long-term successful bands have expanded their musical horizons greatly. So yes, experience -does- matter. Especially in the music industry. PS: Playing live on a regular basis pays off insanely well, too! You know exactly what I mean! There's no way that The Open Door and Fallen could have been similar, even if Ben Moody had stayed with the band because Rocky and John were now being consulted in the writing process. As it is, I think Terry's guitar style brought a lot to the table, while John's contributions seemed to make the music more grounded, in a good way, if you know what I mean. And those two writers have grown a lot since they were in Evanescence. I mean, if you compare Fallen with We Are the Fallen's Tear the World Down, there are similarities because Ben wrote the guitars, and you can definitely hear John's grounding influence, but the sound of the album is still more polished, more complex, more mature that Fallen. I can't really listen to Fallen anymore, probably because of the standard of Evanescence music that I've become accustomed to with the EvLP, but it's still a fantastic album. Honestly, how many of us EvFans fell in love with Evanescence because of Fallen? There are still fans who claim Fallen is their best album, but I think they're holding on to the past, really. Fallen isn't their best album. It never will be. It will always be their first, though, and that's worthy of respect.
|
|
Worm Baby
Viscount/Viscountess of EvThreads
終̴̟̲̦͎̭͙̺͑͂ͥ̌̉̓͐ͯ̔͆ͧͥ́̚͠わ̟̘̙̠̞͎̗̘̺͍͙̬͓̜̣̗̮͔̃͂ͭ͂̑ͧͧ͠り̶̛̱̯͎̪̜͕͎͓̰̟̬͎̹̘̹͖͆̏̎̈́̃͜͢͟ͅ
Posts: 798
|
Post by Worm Baby on Feb 9, 2013 19:21:50 GMT -5
Here you go. Skip to 3:29. I think there was also another interview where she mentioned them, but I can't recall right now. Thanks for posting this! What Amy had to say about John and Rocky makes perfect sense. I probably heard this interview back then, but I didn't remember it. I'm glad that she could still be respectful and understanding of their feelings about the whole situation. Though I definitely think they could've handled things better. If they felt creatively unsatisfied and negative about the band and music, they should've taken the high road like Will did and just parted ways before the album came out, rather than just stay on board for the money while making plans to bail behind Amy's back. But despite all that, I don't think it's quite right to refer to John and Rocky as purely hired tour musicians for Fallen. Let's not forget the contributions they made to Ev over the years. They both have songwriting credits on Fallen itself. They both also helped out before that. Rocky's credits in Ev go as far back as the first EP. They had both been there and helped since the beginning, likely without even being paid for it. I'm sure that in the beginning they dedicated their time and effort because Amy and Ben were their friends and they believed in this band. I really believe that during Fallen, they put their personal lives and other projects on hold for more than just money. So I think it's kind of unfair to just call them hired musicians.
|
|
|
Post by AeternusAmatorius on Feb 9, 2013 21:16:20 GMT -5
I've noticed that the majority of EvFans think Ev's best abum is TOD, and people who are not much into Ev think Fallen is their best. I remember that first time I listened to Fallen in 2003, I wasn't very impressed. Songs sounded a lot alike, and it took me about 2 or 3 more listens to grow on me. It's not that it's a bad album, it's just all right. Plus, I believe if Fallen came out today, it wouldn't have that much of success. Evanescence were ridiculously lucky back then because goth/rock/nu-metal was at its highest popularity.
I had the same thing happen to me. I listened to it when I got it, I only liked Imaginary and Whisper, didn't listen to the album for about a few months, listened to it again and the rest is history! In my opinion, I believe that Fallen had the success that it did for a few reasons. 1) Promotion was awesome back then! You had MTV, VH1, etc... playing music videos. Wind-Up wanted them to be a success so they put the extra effort in to making sure they were promoted to be a hit and Evanescence were what Wind-Up wanted them to be. 2) they had BMTL and MI on the DD soundtrack. 3) because of the soundtrack position, they had the success that they were capable of. elodieartour: This version:
|
|
carolexodus
Viscount/Viscountess of EvThreads
Posts: 900
|
Post by carolexodus on Feb 12, 2013 8:52:04 GMT -5
I've noticed that the majority of EvFans think Ev's best abum is TOD, and people who are not much into Ev think Fallen is their best.
I've only noticed that on Evthreads, though. I've noticed that the majority of Evfans outside this community tend to pick Fallen or Ev3 as the band's best album. And i'm talking about real fans that have listened to all their albums, not the casual listeners who only know BMTL. I think that the TOD love is more intense on Evthreads than outside of it, for some reason.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2013 9:07:05 GMT -5
I agree much of what is being said on this page concerning Fallen. It's exactly how I feel. Ev3 is truly their BEST album, for more reasons than it just being the most recent. The amount of heart and soul in it is more clear than it ever was in Fallen. Not that there wasn't in the debut album, but, like others have said, the album really isn't as mature, because the writers weren't. Ev3 is the adult out of all the albums, it's more rounded out and there is way more depth to it. However, I can see how many prefer TOD. Each album is special in its own way. Fallen is special in the sense that...it changed things on the music scene.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2013 11:45:57 GMT -5
I have to disagree with that last part, because Fallen didn't actually change the music scene. It created the illusion of originality, but it did not actually innovate in the slightest. The only good that came from Fallen was a more general acceptance of women in the mainstream of the genre (despite the existence of many successful alternative rock women who already existed... In fact, one could argue that it didn't actually help women at all, but created another illusion that it did) but if it wasn't Ev making a female clone of what was popular at the time, it would have been someone else. I'm really, really militant with this lately, that Fallen was a mediocre album released by misguided artists making something that wasn't really even close to their original artistic vision. This is why Fallen sounds nothing like Pre-Fallen and quite different from Post-Fallen as well. It's like if you took Ev's real music and filtered it through the lens of mainstream 2003, sending a half-formed, shallow album out into a world of people just waiting to eat up its gimmick... It was engineered success from the beginning.
I also agree with carolexodus. TOD is weirdly popular around Evthreads, but it is more polarizing than popular everywhere else. Among mainstream critics, TOD was actually more successful than Fallen if I remember correctly, but among nonprofessional critics largely concerned with their hipster-points, all the problems that TOD had (that were more present on Fallen, but ignored) became like some horrible tragedy of music. It's like the sophomore slump placebo effect really hit TOD hard. In reality TOD is no worse than Fallen and produced two singles of the same quality (CMWYS and Lithium, which were both superior to EF and GU)... And a rather creative single unlike anything they had ever released before (that said, Good Enough is one of the more well-liked songs among non-Ev-fan-critics because it is different)... But for some reason everyone directed any problem they ever had with Evanescence at the album. One thing that really stands out is this: When TOD first came out, TONS of Fallen fans hated it for sounding so different. At the same time, TONS of non-Ev fans hated it for sounding exactly like Fallen. How did this happen? I could try to answer that, but I can't think of anything other than the problem Ev has always faced: Confusion. Are they mainstream? Are they not mainstream? Are they rock? Are they not? Everyone criticized TOD for not fitting what they expected Evanescence to be, but everyone had different expectations... Meaning TOD only satisfied those who loved the band itself, rather than jumping on and off the ship depending on the album (or song, in the case of BMTL and MI).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2013 12:12:50 GMT -5
Evanescence is so completely different from other band. Each member stands out, and the band itself stands out as a whole with their own tune and message without even trying. It just simply is. The reason? Amy Lee. There is just something about her that's different as a person, and a musician. She said so herself that she felt different and I think that is clear in the way she is with the band, the music, and her life. Amy doesn't care what anyone else thinks. Many are intimidated by that and for that reason are prepared to hate Evanescence, not for who they are, but the message of the truth they are afraid to face. Evanescence's music speaks a lot of life lessons and truths. Some people refuse to change because they are terrified of it--they think it means that they will lose who they are. But that isn't true. Changing means an improvement, an enhancement on who you are, not to take away from it. Evanescence is truth, and people are afraid of it. Not everyone, but some of them, enough for this band to be slightly in the background, just under the general mainstream but occasionally peeking out into the world as the years go by.
@melt I do agree with what you said to some degree. Well a major degree. What I meant was it paved the way for women to see that it really makes no difference the gender of the person who is the face of the band. Other female fronted bands came after them that were influenced by Evanescence to some degree, such as We Are the Fallen and Noctura.
|
|
|
Post by AeternusAmatorius on Feb 12, 2013 14:26:12 GMT -5
@melt I do agree with what you said to some degree. Well a major degree. What I meant was it paved the way for women to see that it really makes no difference the gender of the person who is the face of the band. Other female fronted bands came after them that were influenced by Evanescence to some degree, such as We Are the Fallen and Noctura. But other female fronted bands, such as Within Temptation, Epica, Nightwish, Lacuna Coil, etc... were before Evanescence (though granted most of the aforementioned bands usually do not get much promotion in the US). Granted, you are right that Evanescence (due to the popularity of Fallen) and Amy have given a lot of women the confidence that they've never had before, in rock, in the US. Though she did not help the scene in the sense/aspect of creating female fronted bands.
|
|