I haven't played it in a while. I still give Merrygoround, Hey and Orange Amber the regular spin, but generally I'm pretty tired of it.

I guess I'll play it when the tour gets closer.

Not really.

Never really got into it, i have a couple of songs on my mp3 player.

But im even bored of MerryGoRound now.... She is Gone gets a listen to now and again though.

I haven't listened to it in ages, I listened to it every day for weeks when I brought it, but now now not so much. I'm much more into Violent Soho's new album at the moment.

I listen to it almost everyday. Not all of the songs, though. Most of 'em, though!

I listen to ture as the night almost everyday.

i cant get tired of melodia for some reason, sometimes I give it a few weeks break if I'm over doing it, but its still my fav.

Who isn't Melodia is a great album. All the people disappointed with it had these preconceived ideas of how the album should sound and how long the songs should be and how it should be a return to Highly Evolved etc... I wisely did not expect anything from this album, just some awesome new Vines music and people who did the same were rewarded.

i still listen to it sometimes. idk when i'm in the mood i guess. i don't think i will ever listen to any of their albums as repetitively as HE tho i guess bcuz its the album that got me into them.

Its not that people wanted another Highly Evolved, its people were expecting it to be the standard of Highly Evolved.

Lyrically, Melodia is pretty shocking. He's a rocker being an obvious choice. AS3 where it paints a pretty basic picture which a 2 yr old could draw....

The Vines had a lot of complexity in Highly Evolved, lyrically and musically. Everything on Melodia is just so thin and barely has any depth to it.
It annoys me when people keep trying to argue that The Vines can't keep writing HIghly Evolved.... no ones asking for that.

But so far, no album after that has come to the standard of Highly Evolved. Winning Days was the closest in my opinion, but just wasnt quite consistant enough.

Craig had an entire life time (well 24 years) to come up with ideas for Highly Evolved. Every album since he has had 2 years.

Highly Evolved is no more complex than Melodia... the lyrics were very straight forward so was the music, just the songs were longer and parts were more considered and thought out and their was a shit loud more guitar overdubs giving it that illusion that it is complex. Get Free is no more complex then He's A Rocker.

I don't think depth was what they were going for with Melodia... it's meant to be a more uplifting album with fun rockers after all the shit that happened if you ask me.

Get Out -- fun rock song
Manager -- fun rock song
AS III -- uplifting acoustic song
He's A Rocker -- fun rock song made from Craigs experiences
Orange Amber -- uplifting pop rock song
True As The Night -- definitely tons of depth in this song sounds like a personal reflection
Braindead -- Fun rock song clearly made from some negative feelings
Kara Jayne -- Uplifting acoustic ballad for his love interest
MerryGoRound -- Fun rock song Hey -- Rock song made from some negative feelings
A Girl I Knew -- Depth again
Scream -- Fun rock song
She is Gone -- Depth again

I don't see how HE had more depth anyway...

"If you feel low you can buy love from a pay phone, I don't feel low"
"Who am I to be this way Dreamin so insane"
"Gotta get outtathaway!"
"I'm gonna get free ride into the sun!"

No difference in lyric writing really..

Completely random i just noticed Melodia is the only Vines album that doesn't feature clipping... their first 2 albums feature quiet a fair bit of clipping and Melodia is mastered by the same guy .... so just goes to show you major labels are fueling the loudness war. Now for the next album they just need to stop hard limiting their songs which makes the verses as loud as the choruses and the mastering will be 5 star quality.

Sure, take out a single line from any song and it will sound rubbish.
Although i think all those lyrics are far more poetic than anything on Melodia.

Can you honestly say you see no significant drop in quality between let say the 2 Autumn shades song.

Autumn Shade:
slip into the autumn shade
I could sleep for days
But I like the sun when
I can hear another sound
It's a long way down
Keep my head up

Who am I to be this way
(I've been)dreamin so insane
But I like the sun when
Falling through another plane
Never one the same
Keep my head up

ASIII:
In the early mornin'
Underneath the autumn shade
I don't need no more
Remindin' of the day

Now the leaves are fallin'
And the sun won't be around
And the words I am a singin'
To the clouds

I mean.... really. ASIII has to be the most pointless song on the album. It describes a verrrrrrrrry basic picture. and thats it.

theres no poetry to his lyrics like it used to be, and what he used to say it was. I remember reading an interview where craig said lyrics should be poetry.
Theres definately no poetry on Melodia.

Everything in melodia is so literal. Theres a huge lack of metaphors or deep feelings.

You say Highly Evolved is no more complex than Melodia, but then say depth isnt what they were going for on Melodia, but admit the songs (musically) were more considered and thort out on HE?? Your basically contradicting yourself there.

To me the use of the words "fun rock" is trying to put a postive spin on lazy rushed short rock song.

I dont think you quite understand what Im talking about depth either.

You list A Girl I knew as depth. Although it may be about a more serious topic than something like AS III or Scream, it doesnt have depth. All it does is talk about the obvious feelings you associate with breaking up with someone, never goes deeper than really the tip of the iceberg.

The Vines are not that poetic or deep, they don't quote Sonnet 19 every moment they get - however, another band I quite enjoy, to underestimate things, uses a lot (and I mean, a lot) of Plath references and people complain that it's too complex and unnecessarily veiled in metaphors. Because they don't get them. I shit you not. I don't get it, people are never happy with this sort of thing, or to paraphrase Craig, when you're on a boat, all you want is to ride a bicycle.


My guess is that it was intentional. Craig deliberately shortened the songs to get rid of anything excessive even when labels told him to "put another chorus at the end", maybe he did the same with his lyrics - he just put down what he felt, without pretty ornaments and empty metaphors. I mean, I'm sure not everybody understands the "Beatles are bigger than Jesus" line, even.


I think you might have a very narrow perception of what poetry is. This isn't meant to sound insulting or condescending, I just think you hold a very conservative, for the lack of a better word, view on poetry. I'm not trying to defend Craig's lyrics as the epitome of modern poetry because we all know better, but maybe you need to dig deeper than just scrape on the surface. Just because you don't see a metaphor or an antithesis, it doesn't mean they aren't there and that the lyrics have no artistic value whatsoever. It might also mean you're too quick to write them off.

Misplaced Keys, can The Vines do no wrong in your book??
I understand that yeh there are some stuff that The Vines will have done that I may not get. But i mean... surely there are times that the Vines have just clearly made a mistake.

Theres only so much positive spin, and blind faith that Craig has made these "mistakes" on purpose.
I dont write this because im a disgruntled musician jealous of The Vines, nor do I write this because I think The Vines suck.

I write this because I felt Melodia was far lower than what they are capable. The standard shown on HE shows how great they can be, is it my fault if I expect them to keep that standard?


In Craigs video interview at SXSW he said that he thought the lyrics were more mature on this album, so I dont think the simpleton lyrics were intentional.

Now i know poetry takes different shapes and form. And AS3 is a form of poetry, I didnt specifically say it wasnt.

Everyone understands the Beatles are bigger than Jesus line, one because he explained it, and two because its hardly very complex.
Its a play on the line that the beatles once said, and to him The Beatles music is more powerful to him than organised religion. Its not a genious line.


I would say listen to something like Hurt by NIN (or the cover by Johnny Cash which has a bit more profounding impact) now thats deepness!!! Something which Melodia does lack.

Which brings me to my next point, that were actually arguing the same thing.
Melodia... in terms of having a deepness to it, doesnt! No-one yet has said thats not true, and for me thats the biggest turn off about the album.

I just don't think Melodia is such an abomination you seem to believe. Shocking how opinions can differ.

What are you saying? That Craig the Simpleton just couldn't do better? I do think that simplicity was what they were at least partially going for. But it's my word against yours, so we'll just have to wait that someone asks Craig about it.

One, people on this very board didn't get it, two, anyone that isn't familiar with The Beatles' history wouldn't get it, three, anyone not knowing Craig's explanation would have to be familiar with The Beatles' history to get it. My point was, even the simplest of things are sometimes misunderstood or not understood at all, and perhaps Craig was just trying to be as clear as possible.

Hurt by NIN? This? This is your example of superior lyrics? ...Really?

Yes, I think we can all agree that Melodia isn't a deep album, but what boggles my mind is that you only noticed this now. They've never been known for depth and allusions to Petrarch, I don't see why it is a problem now.

Sometimes i think you just skim read the bits you want.

I never said Craig was a simpleton, Ive been saying the complete opposite. Im saying they can do better than what Melodia has to offer, a hell of a lot!

And if you look at my posts you will see its not all of a sudden ive decided Melodia isnt good lyrically, ive always said it.
Seeing as youve always argued against my post like some vendetta against me, I would have thought you would have remembered.
Yes peoples opinions differ, i respect other peoples opinion.
But you seem to forget that you opinion is no more highly regarded than anyone elses.

I'm sorry, I didn't quite understand your reasoning. You said that "I dont think the simpleton lyrics were intentional." Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this imply that he intended to write good lyrics, but they unintentionally turned out simpleton-like? Doesn't that mean he just couldn't do better for whatever reason, which I said? Doesn't that mean his writing skills are now, unintentionally or not, simpleton-like?

I meant their entire back catalogue, not just Melodia. I know you've been saying this album isn't lyrically good all along. The Vines have never been hailed for their poetic genius, not on Highly Evolved, not on Winning Days, not on Vision Valley. They aren't that deep, HE lyrics weren't that ~deep and meaningful~. I think you expected too much from Melodia - I understand that, though, it feels different in hindsight, kind of like childhood memories always look happier and better than they really were.

Vendetta? Really? I have nothing against you as a person since I don't know you and all, but you do say a lot of stuff that I often find quite ridiculous, especially since you're never too light on derogatory exaggerating terms that you rarely have any real arguments for (see, I tried to take you seriously up until your example of poetic grandeur that is that NIN song). You don't have to wave the "OMG you're just being mean and vindictive" flag because it just makes you look butthurt. My advice is: more argumentation, less whine.

No real argument??
Lets go back to your original post in which you argued my claim.

You used the words "My guess is...". Which makes you pointer arguements nothing more than blind faith that the simplified lyrics are on purpose.

To me the simpleton lyrics are like that just because they are rushed. It was said in this thread by another poster that it HE was more considered and thought out.

If your going to slate my "arguing techniques", how bout you look at your owns.
On what basis have you formed your arguement, other than what I have done which is on personal opinion.

You argue against my point with wild guesses and stabs in the dark in hope that Craig has done, what I consider to be mistakes, on purpose.

You're arguements have been no more valid than mine. As I said before, you seem to just pick and choose what you read.

As proven by you statement saying that I'm making out craig is a simpleton.
I've repeatedly said Im not arguing that THe Vines suck, but am arguing they can do better!! Which implies they are not simpletons.

BUt then again im expecting you to ignore that last paragraph just like you do with all statements which you cant argue back to.

Yes. Yes, that's right. You know why I used "my guess is"? Because I can't be sure about it. That's called a guess, a proposal, not an argument or a solid statement. Now, when you said that "the simpleton lyrics are like that just because they are rushed", you didn't say "the lyrics might be rushed" or "my guess is that the lyrics were rushed", when you can't be sure about it. Here you're masking your guess as a truthful statement. When I will ask you to back it up, you will have nothing to back it up because it's a guess, not a fact. That's why phrases like "my guess is ...", "this could be ..." are useful in everyday conversation. With those words, you simply emphasize that it is a BLOODY GUESS.


This really is a common internet thing, for some reason people rarely can't differentiate between an opinion and a statement.
"i think all those lyrics are far more poetic than anything on Melodia." = opinion
"Theres definately no poetry on Melodia." = statement
"Theres a huge lack of metaphors or deep feelings." = statement
"Everyone understands the Beatles are bigger than Jesus line" = statement

You have to back up your statements, preferably with something vaguely resembling facts. I know it's easier to hide behind "it's just my opinion and opinions are never wrong" facade, but at least try. Or just stick to opinions.

We've been through this before: I don't have an argument. I'm saying your argument is flawed and you need to work on that.

Also, good arguments are never, ever based on personal opinion. They're influenced by personal opinions, but based on facts. Basing them on your personal opinion is bad debating technique. See, it's simple.


The only problem is that the burden of proof is on the person making a claim, which is you. All I have to do is show you your "points" are not always necessarily true, and your point is a flawed point.

No i made a statement/opinion, you ARGUED against it!
It is just as much as your responsiblity to base your arguements with facts or proof as it is mine. As i keep saying, your word is no more reliable or creditted than mine.

Thats what an arguement is, 2 people stating facts to try and disproove the other. Not one person questioning another and expecting the sole responsibility of prooving their point to rest on the other person.

For instance if I was to say the sky is green and you were to say the sky wasnt.
If i couldnt gather any evidence that the sky was green, then it still doesnt make you right. You still need to proove it isnt green, if you couldnt, then it would mean that we couldnt establish what colour it was.

I didnt start this arguement between us, you replied to my post with a counter arguement, which is fine, its what a message board is for. But you have to have basis for your counter arguement.

The burden of proof lies on both of us, not just one subject.

Yes, by saying you're too presumptous and possibly insulting. Do you want me to justify that? Sure.

"a pretty basic picture which a 2 yr old could draw...."
"Theres definately no poetry on Melodia."
"Theres a huge lack of metaphors or deep feelings."
"the simpleton lyrics"
"Everyone understands the Beatles are bigger than Jesus line"
"I would say listen to something like Hurt by NIN (or the cover by Johnny Cash which has a bit more profounding impact) now thats deepness!!!" (actually, I just included the last one because it's wildly amusing)



That is a logical fallacy, commonly known as Shifting the Burden of Proof. Description: The burden of proof is always on the person making the assertion or proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of "argumentum ad ignorantium," is a fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.

True, but you havent just questionned my propositions, you've also given your own views on them.

i.e "Craigs simplified lyrics were intentional" "people don't understand The Beatles are bigger than jesus line"

These are your propositions. Which I in retaliation questionned, therefore leaving the burden of proof on you to back up your propositions. That is how an arguement works, and which is why I said originally that the burden on proof is on both parties, because both parties make statements and propositions (in conjunction with questioning the oppositions statements and propositions) and therefore have to back them up.

LONG POST IS LOOONG


Those were propositions meant to challenge your statements, not my own points. I can't believe I spent an entire paragraph explaining how guesses work that ended up having so little effect.
I know it's silly to try to explain what I'm about to over something so trivial, but maybe you'll find it useful some other time in your life.

What you're saying is a fallacy. To simplify, let's use your "sky is green" example.
A: "Sky is green."
B: "How do you know?"
A: "I know that, I just know it."
B: "How? Can you prove it?"
A: "I am sure of it. How do you know the sky can't be green?"
B: "I don't, but isn't it possible that it is of another colour, like yellow or blue?"
A: "Well, prove that it isn't green."

That IS what you're trying to do and that IS shifting of burden of proof. Shifting the burden of proof and refusing to provide any proof on your side indicates you might not have any to support your claims. What I'm doing, however, is questioning your hypothesis about the sky colour whatever you're even trying to argue. When you're asking me to disprove it, you're asking me to do what is essentially your job, and also securing your arse if there is nothing to back it up (remember this last bit, it will be important further down). With this fallacy, you're also assuming that there are only two opposite sides, i.e. it's either what you claim or the exact opposite of what you claim, without acknowledging that there might be a third factor we're both missing, which is another logical fallacy.


Uh, I questioned your stuff with those propositions, and you questioned them back? Should I question your questioning to my questioning? And add a turtle under a turtle under a turtle? Yeah, let's see where that gets us. No, actually that is not how it works.

In an ideal world, you'd actually provide something for me to counter other than a lot of I-think-sos and I-know-sos, but since you've refused to do that and I'm procrastinating atm ...

"AS3 where it paints a pretty basic picture which a 2 yr old could draw...."
This is plain silly. See down below.

"Can you honestly say you see no significant drop in quality between let say the 2 Autumn shades song."
"Drop in quality" = too vague.

"ASIII has to be the most pointless song on the album. It describes a verrrrrrrrry basic picture. and thats it."
You're reading lyrics explicitly in the literal sense. Interpreting the meaning of any work of literature is never based solely on plain sense. Typically, to even try to understand a work of literature, you need to indentify the tone, intention, moral, theme and interpret sound devices and figures of speech. Saying that it just paints a basic picture shows you've done none of those things.

"Everything in melodia is so literal. Theres a huge lack of metaphors or deep feelings."
Everything is literal if you read it as such. If metaphors don't kick you in the face when you open the booklet, it doesn't mean "merrygoround" is to be taken literally. Deep feelings or lack of thereof are a matter of interpretation. Though it is worth noting that Hamish said in this interview that "There are a couple of songs where they're probably the most personal lyrics I've heard him sing." Finding metaphors and other figures of speech, however, is pretty easy (though, interpreting them is not). Merrygoround, orange amber, orange world, dead in the brain, I wanna ride into the sun, burning down the manger and so on are a few examples of figurative speech that you seem to think doesn't exist on Melodia. Again, you don't give the impression that you gave those lyrics much thought.
You also seem to hold the belief that seemingly simple and honest lyrics aren't good lyrics, as opposed to lyrics that are drowning in the sea of their own complexity pretentiousness. Why?


"surely there are times that the Vines have just clearly made a mistake."
You better tell them that, because Craig seems to think the opposite: "I am so glad we have this album, which I feel is the best we have ever done, to play to them.

"Theres only so much positive spin, and blind faith that Craig has made these "mistakes" on purpose."
I never really got that point. You seem to think those mistakes were accidental, somehow? And went undetected for two years? Surely he is the one person to have control over what he writes down?

" is it my fault if I expect them to keep that standard?"
Yes. Nobody put a gun to your head and said: "You had better expect them to keep that standard, boy!"

"In Craigs video interview at SXSW he said that he thought the lyrics were more mature on this album, so I dont think the simpleton lyrics were intentional."
Again with the unintentional schtick. Really, what's up with that?

"And AS3 is a form of poetry, I didnt specifically say it wasnt."
Well ... you did say "Theres definately no poetry on Melodia." I guess Melodia includes ASIII, and poetry includes forms of poetry, no?

"I would say listen to something like Hurt by NIN (or the cover by Johnny Cash which has a bit more profounding impact) now thats deepness!!!"
Now, this is really funny because you chose a complete cliche for your example of ~deep lyrics. And added three (!!!) exclamation marks to ... show that you're serious? i hurt myself today, what have i become?, I don't feeeeeel, I will let you down ... Have you ever read Twilight? You might find it deep.

"Everyone understands the Beatles are bigger than Jesus line"
Or, as arbitrary world notes,

Apparently, there WERE people not getting it.

If i couldnt gather any evidence that the sky was green, then it still doesnt make you right.
It doesn't mean you're any closer to being right, either. It just means you're speculating about something that cannot be established as right or wrong. In other words, you're pulling things out of your arse. This has been a problem before, remember the whole "Craig is broke" thing, when you did the exact same thing as you're doing now? You ought to learn from your mistakes. If you know in advance that you can't prove something, don't claim it because it will end up like this. If you feel uncapable of looking back at your posts from an objective point of view, allow me to compare you to evie dee. I don't know how familiar you are with her or if you appreciate the comparison, but you have at least one thing in common: you both tend to defend a position that can't be reasonably defended. You say you're only giving an opinion, not unlike evie dee who kept saying it was a feeling she had that Craig and KJ weren't together anymore. Both lack substantial proof to back up things you say. That's why evie dee was called out on her claims, that's why you're being challenged on your statements. Nobody claimed that we knew for sure Craig and KJ were in fact still together, we just told her she couldn't offer anything reliable to back her shit up; not unlike how I am now NOT offering an alternative point of view, I'm merely saying that you're speculating and have nothing to support it with. This is not to say you are wrong, sure, you can be 100% right, but as things stand, there's no reason for me to believe you are right. Since you failed, and will fail to provide evidence, I am starting to think you have no idea what you're talking about.




Now, since I was so kind to actually point out things and defend a position I wasn't obliged to in the first place, I expect that you won't let me down and actually respond.

Nice to see you would rather prolong this dispute rather than call it a day.

Anyways...

The whole The Sky is green arguement.

You are perfectly true, I would be no more right or worng if I could not prove the sky is green and you couldn't prove it wasnt.
But therefore if I am no more right or wrong, then neither are you. Therefore I have no reason to apologise or retract my statement.

On the whole basis of shifting the burden of proof, yes your example is correct. However, the example doesnt match the template to which your arguement was following.

As I said before, you questioned my proposition, then declared your own proposition.
"Craigs simplified lyrics were intentional".
Now yes, after you questioned my proposition it is my responsibility to back it up with evidence. Ive never denied that. What im arguing is that it is also your responsibility to back up your claim that "Craigs simplified lyrics were intentional" with evidence too. Something which you keep "accidently" skipping over in your replies.

You say im pulling stuff out of my arse. Now im not going to get into the old arguement of whether Craig is rich or poor.
Now i said i didnt think he was, you said you thought he was on the basis of you or another forum member reading an article (which could not be found) saying he had $2million. I said I didnt think this was true because of the business model in which most artists are paid on wouldnt equate to that.
You claimed this wasnt true, but gave no reason to why you didnt think it was true other than blind faith.
Much like your claim that Criags lyrics were symplified on purpose. Another blind faith proposition.

You seem to hide behind the term "burden of proof" and about how I should prove my statements just because "you questioned me first". But never seem to back up any of your statements with anything. Leaving your arguement no more validity (or in some cases less validity) than mine.

Now it is noted that you did finally back up ONE of your statements, that people were having trouble understanding the lines to Manger, with an example. Therefore Ill admitt I was wrong and you have thus proven your point correctly.

However when you finally admit it is also equally upto you to prove your own propositions rather than just having ago at never having enough "substantial" evidence for my propositions, then maybe we can have a propper informed discussion on topics.

p.s Craig is obviously going to say he thinks its the best album theyve ever made. All bands do it, its called PROMOTION!
Dave Grohl said he thought One By ONe was the best album they had made when he was promoting it, though now we know its what he considers to be their worst!
Of course the Vines make mistakes, dont be so silly, their human for god sake. Theyre gona fuck up now and again!

pps. Yes it is my right as a CONSUMER to expect a certain standard when I fork out my hard earned cash and buy an album. I can't honestly think that a single person out there wouldnt be slightly peeved if after buying an album from a usually consistant artists is not upto the standard they were hoping for. And dont belittle me about my understanding of "deepness", I find this album very thin, you dont. Were obviously looking for different things. Resorting to belittling only reveals your fear of a loosing battle.

Nice to see you doing exactly the same thing, bb!


You mean, you have no reason to retract a statement you claimed to be true after you cannot possibly prove it is right? You see, a fine example for this is court. When someone accuses somebody of murder and cannot prove it, they lose the case. When you claim something that cannot be proven, you're betting on a horse that isn't even in the race.


How so?
A says X.
B challenges X by saying that another hypothesis Y is also possible.
A does not prove X, asks B to prove Y without offering proof to A's initial statement.

It is the same principle.


You have never denied it, but you've never owned up to it.
I have offered more circumstantial evidence than you have for anything you said. Namely,
"Craig deliberately shortened the songs to get rid of anything excessive even when labels told him to "put another chorus at the end", maybe he did the same with his lyrics - he just put down what he felt, without pretty ornaments and empty metaphors."

Also, common sense. He had two years to improve his lyrics, he said the album (I assume lyrics included) was the best thing he ever did, and Hamish was quoted as saying his lyrics were the most personal he's ever seen him write, all pointing to the conclusion that that's how he wanted them to be, and nothing pointing to your conclusion that those so called mistakes mysteriously appeared without Craig realising. Which I still don't get how it could be possible, by the way.


Which is different from what you've been saying ... how?


1) You admitted yourself you do carry the burden of proof.
2) Yes, yes, you should prove the statements. Oh golly gee, another correct conclusion, because I questioned them. Not a difficult concept, that.
3) I basically proved all your major points wrong or not strong enough to be valid (the stuff under the quotes in bold, from poetry on Melodia, to figurative speech, I hope you read that). That sort of means those statements have little to no validity.
4) Again, I don't have an argument. I'm questioning yours. Really, not a difficult concept.


You DON'T have enough any evidence. Once you provide any, I'll be more than happy to have a proper discussion with actual information. You know, information you won't make up.


I think you're missing the point of making music if you think it is your right to expect the artist to only do stuff that you like.


The ~deep lyrics you showcased as an example are a an old, overused cliche for reasons I listed before. You say this about A Girl I Knew: "All it does is talk about the obvious feelings" (=cliche) while your best example of deep lyrics is equally, if not more clichéd. I wasn't belittling you, I was pointing out a flaw.


Oh wow, that's deep. Actually, I'm not afraid of your nonexistant arguments at all, much less "loosing [sic]" a battle.

Im going to reply to this, by showing how you often contradict yourself in your arguements.

"I have offered more circumstantial evidence than you have for anything you said. Namely,
"Craig deliberately shortened the songs to get rid of anything excessive even when labels told him to "put another chorus at the end", maybe he did the same with his lyrics - he just put down what he felt, without pretty ornaments and empty metaphors."

Also, common sense. He had two years to improve his lyrics, he said the album (I assume lyrics included) was the best thing he ever did, and Hamish was quoted as saying his lyrics were the most personal he's ever seen him write, all pointing to the conclusion that that's how he wanted them to be, and nothing pointing to your conclusion that those so called mistakes mysteriously appeared without Craig realising. Which I still don't get how it could be possible, by the way."

Now correct me if Im wrong, but you ASSUMING he meant lyrics included and Hamish saying he thought Craigs lyrics are his most personal yet....

Fact in which holds up the evidence for your proposition.... or opinion which gains no validity for your proposition??

Because I was pretty sure you've been arguing that all my evidence so far has been no more than opinions and therefore loses all validity?

Google circumstantial and corroborating evidence. It's a healthy, perfectly reasonable reasoning. I am assuming that by 'album' he meant the songs on the album, which coincidentally consist of both lyrics and music. If he thought his lyrics were bad and melodies were good, he wouldn't say the album was the best thing he's ever done. It's far more probable. Common sense. As I said, when you put that against your pile of nothing, your pile oh nothing seems even sadder.



You HAVE no evidence.

Once again you skim read the bits you want, and leave the bits you dont.

What about Hamish saying he thought the albums lyrics were the most personal Craigs written?

Fact or opinion?

His opinion, also quite a valid one, since he knows him quite a bit more than either of us does. Think of it as a testimony, if you like. So Hamish saying Craig's lyrics are as personal as ever >>>>>>> you saying they're mistakes. Another point in my advantage, no love for you. Also, you still have nothing to even remotely support, like, anything you said. But do keep going.

But it is an opinion? not a fact. Which is what you've been banging on about for the past few posts.
So I dont think that really counts as evidence.

Im not looking for your support, I'll think what I like.
This seems to be a lil crusade for you, bullying forum members like me in submission.
I wont bow out, I still hold my views that Melodia is a mistake.
my arguement was against your views of how an arguement is implemented. But alas i dont think I will get thru.

Truely a lost soul.

No, basing your argument on your opinion is a fallacy, e.g. my opinion is that the sky is green so it must be true. Supporting a claim with a testimony from a person close to Craig is not irrelevant, quite the opposite when there isn't any other evidence. Really, think of it as a legal issue. On one side, you've got a testimony, on the other you've got nothing. May I remind you the burden of proof is on you?


Unbased claims are still not okay, whatever your thoughts are.


Yes, that's exactly what I am about, bullying unsuspecting defenceless forumers with perfectly reasonable logic for no reason whatsoever. In other news, these:
"AS3 where it paints a pretty basic picture which a 2 yr old could draw...."
"Can you honestly say you see no significant drop in quality between let say the 2 Autumn shades song."
"ASIII has to be the most pointless song on the album. It describes a verrrrrrrrry basic picture. and thats it."
"Everything in melodia is so literal. Theres a huge lack of metaphors or deep feelings."
"surely there are times that the Vines have just clearly made a mistake."
"Theres only so much positive spin, and blind faith that Craig has made these "mistakes" on purpose."
" is it my fault if I expect them to keep that standard?"
"In Craigs video interview at SXSW he said that he thought the lyrics were more mature on this album, so I "And AS3 is a form of poetry, I didnt specifically say it wasnt."
"I would say listen to something like Hurt by NIN (or the cover by Johnny Cash which has a bit more profounding impact) now thats deepness!!!"
"Everyone understands the Beatles are bigger than Jesus line"

are still unbased claims you failed to justify with any sort of logic. Nice dodge with the self-pity trip and pointing fingers and all, though.

Logic is not this fanbase's strong point, is it? Seriously dude, give it up. You can not argue with Ursa about the finer points of debating, especially since you don't even seem to grasp the most basic of concepts.

Over at Alternative Vision we are currently running two competitions.

Competition 1
We are giving away two copies of the recently released new album by The Vines called Melodia, the album is fantastic.

Competition 2
Secondly we are giving away two copies of the new P.O.D album called When Angels And Serpents Dance

For more information on the competition and to enter head to http://www.alternativevision.co.uk where all the competition details are up.



http://www.alternativevision.co.uk

I haven't begun listening to Melodia

I was listening to the album earlier today in the car. Can't wait to see the guys again in Sydney this weekend .

you really do see every show of them jealous.

i don't ever listen to my melodia copy and i miss the vines but ive moved on

I'll buy Melodia as soon as posible.

I haven't listened to it since i bought it. I was very disappointed with it, but apparently my opinion is not what it should be.
The only songs i listen to fairly regularly is He's a Rocker and K-J.

it's probably the album of theirs that i listen to the most
that could be because it's the album that really got me loving the vines

I didn't buy Melodia, even if I wanted to I can't find it in this town. I watched the Channel V concert where they play most if not all the Melodia tunes.... I hated it. And then I understood when they interviewed Craig and he said "We're writing more pop songs to make money." I've liked all three previous albums and I'm one of the rare lovers of Vision Valley (probably because of my smashing pumpkins influenced taste) but this one is very thin to me as stated before in this thread. Although Manger and Jamola aren't half bad.

It's no big deal, I still support The Vines regardless, they seem happy. I hope they keep making records and maybe they'll produce something I'll like.

EDIT: Oh I forgot to add I still like their energy live even though the songs aren't that appealing to me.

I feel like Melodia is missing some slow electric songs.

I don't know if this makes any sense but i think the vines really shine when they do slow psychedelic songs like Countryyard and Amnesia. The last two albums have not had any songs that are slowed down with electric guitars. I guess that I'm not making any sense but I really miss that style of song.

THAT'S WHY I DON'T ENJOY LISTENING TO MELODIA

Anyway, it's not that it's an awful album... It just isn't anywhere as great as Highly Evolved or my personal favorite...

WINNING DAYS

the same goes for Vision Valley.

No other Vines album can come close to touching Winning Days.

you know... the more i listen to it the more i like it.

I think people need to start listening to Melodia as Melodia and not expecting [Insert Favourite Vines Album Here] Part 2.

I'm starting to feel like a weirdo, i've been listening to the Vines since Highly Evolved and not once after buying their new albums from a music store on release days have i got home and sat there after hearing them feeling disappointed after listening to each release.

What is wrong with Melodia musically i wonder? The only problem i have with Melodia is the recording quality. Its taken a significant slide just like Vision Valley did compared to the high budget sound of Winning Days & Highly Evolved.

I find the Melodia situation sad, most old fans not digging it and all lame ass UK critics slamming it, when really its fuckin awesome.

I've only seen anything to do with Melodia once in any Magazines, and that was Total Guitar. They actually seemed to like it quite a bit. I can't remember what it said though, I might type it up later - its only about 2/3 lines.

Yet ironically there's Autumn Shade 3.

People want different things when they listen to music. Comparing Melodia to previous albums is natural whether negative or positive.

For me, Melodia doesn't feel like anything new. But if you like it then blast it from your cars and bedrooms.

And Melodia offers different things, anyone with ears can clearly hear a different sound to previous albums on Melodia, the only link between old and new is Get Out which recalls Get Free but even then Get Free doesn't feature a dominant distorted bass riff. Apart from that the only completely obvious link is they still use drum, bass and guitar.

Autumn Shade III also doesn't sound like previous Autumn Shades just like ASII didn't sound like its predecessor they all have things in common but are completely different songs.

The Vines will never slide of the rails like Billy Corgan.

They are so okay, without changes. The Vines are, in fact, one of my favorite bands right now. Maybe they should do more covers of bands, specially like "I'm only sleeping"

Personally a lot of the music (not lyrics or vocals) remind me of Fuk Yeh and other more 'punk' like Vision Valley Songs. I just have to be in a certain mood to listen to the songs. I can find their appeal, it just takes a bit to get into such poppy songs. But since I can't find the album I'm relying on the Channel V and their myspace.

The autumn shade comment was just a small joke. I personally like ASII the best.

The Vines are definitely still on the rails, never said they weren't. I don't see how Billy Corgan is relevant to all this besides the fact Pumpkin is in my name. If you'd liek to discuss Pumpkins open a new thread or PM me....