The World of Goo Boards


    
      
        The World of Goo Boards 
        (http://www.musicfanclubs.org/cgi-bin/ggd/YaBB.cgi)
      

        Goo Goo Dolls >> Goo Goo Dolls >> Re: Name: Then & Now
        
(Message started by: nmf009 on Dec 15^th, 2007, 12:47pm)

Title: Re: Name: Then & Now
Post by nmf009 on Dec 15^th, 2007, 12:47pm

I think it's hard to say. One of the most interesting things John has said about having success in the music industry is that luck has a great deal to do with it. You might have great songs and be a solid band and have the right 'look' and never get the time of day from anyone, but if you have a mediocre song, the right 'look', and a little luck, you can be huge. And I do believe a lot of it is about being in the right place at the right time. And who knows if that luck would have struck in 2007 the way it did in 1995?

You also have to wonder why the song became a hit. If it was just the lyrics, then maybe the new version would have connected to the same amount of people. But if it was the overall song, I think the new version wouldn't have been as loved as the original version.

I think the original version is very affecting because sounds kind of sad and desperate and quietly angry. It, and the ABNG album as a whole, has a very urgent "we need someone to take notice, we're falling apart, we're tired of promises of being the next big thing, this may be the last thing we do so it better be good" feel to it that makes it feel very sincere.

The new version has none of that. I won't say that the song doesn't mean as much now to John as it did in 1994, because I have no way of knowing that. But the new version doesn't have the same intensity or meaning to me as the original version. To me, it feels more like "alright, we need to take an afternoon to record this again, but it doesn't matter what happens, it's not going to really affect my life at all." It's not awful and I don't hate it, but it does not feel as sincere to me and it's hard to say it would connect to as many people as the original.

Title: Re: Name: Then & Now
Post by Shannon on Dec 15^th, 2007, 3:26pm

on 12/15/07 at 12:47:03, nmf009 wrote:

I think it's hard to say. �One of the most interesting things John has said about having success in the music industry is that luck has a great deal to do with it. �You might have great songs and be a solid band and have the right 'look' and never get the time of day from anyone, but if you have a mediocre song, the right 'look', and a little luck, you can be huge. �And I do believe a lot of it is about being in the right place at the right time. �And who knows if that luck would have struck in 2007 the way it did in 1995?

You also have to wonder why the song became a hit. �If it was just the lyrics, then maybe the new version would have connected to the same amount of people. �But if it was the overall song, I think the new version wouldn't have been as loved as the original version.

I think the original version is very affecting because sounds kind of sad and desperate and quietly angry. �It, and the ABNG album as a whole, has a very urgent "we need someone to take notice, we're falling apart, we're tired of promises of being the next big thing, this may be the last thing we do so it better be good" feel to it that makes it feel very sincere.

The new version has none of that. �I won't say that the song doesn't mean as much now to John as it did in 1994, because I have no way of knowing that. �But the new version doesn't have the same intensity or meaning to me as the original version. �To me, it feels more like "alright, we need to take an afternoon to record this again, but it doesn't matter what happens, it's not going to really affect my life at all." �It's not awful and I don't hate it, but it does not feel as sincere to me and it's hard to say it would connect to as many people as the original.

I agree with you completely Nicole. Very well said. The new version, although pretty, lacks any of the original passion and rawness. It's just there. But it doesn't evoke the same emotion in me as the original.

Title: Re: Name: Then & Now
Post by Pon on Dec 15^th, 2007, 5:01pm

Can somebody hook me up with the new version? I really want to hear it, but i'm really broke right now. Going to school. I plan on buying, and i'm planning to rebuy all their albums....but i'm not in a good situation right. Can somebody hook me up? I downloaded the torrent version, but I believe somebody just ripped all of their old songs and put it together.

Title: Re: Name: Then & Now
Post by the frosty o on Dec 16^th, 2007, 12:04am

Ditto about everything Nicole wrote. She summed it up very nicely. I think she deserves a trophy of some kind. :)

Title: Re: Name: Then & Now
Post by nmf009 on Dec 16^th, 2007, 1:06am

Know what's better than being told I deserve a trophy? Getting one. :D

Gage, do you have any opinions on the matter, seeing as you asked and all?

Title: Re: Name: Then & Now
Post by the frosty o on Dec 16^th, 2007, 10:57am

on 12/16/07 at 01:06:47, nmf009 wrote:

Know what's better than being told I deserve a trophy? �Getting one. �:D

http://i16.tinypic.com/81tc76f.jpg
For Nicole's Awesomeness!

Title: Re: Name: Then & Now
Post by Agent Orange on Dec 16^th, 2007, 7:34pm

OK, I'm hearing it for the first time - I just bought it from iTunes (I'm not buying for the whole GH-Vol 1 CD).

I like it but I like the original more. You can really hear the difference in John's voice, it's so much lower now.

I think it would be a hit now, b/c they're already an established band and get the airplay they need to make it a hit.

I agree with Nicole, it lacks the urgency of the original version.

PS Name is one of the VERY few GGD songs my husband likes. He heard it when I first played it and said "God that's awful. Why'd they redo it."

Title: Re: Name: Then & Now
Post by DWG on Dec 16^th, 2007, 8:37pm

As the old saying goes...

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"

I haven't heard the "re-Name" yet.

Title: Re: Name: Then & Now
Post by DWG on Dec 16^th, 2007, 9:23pm

on 12/16/07 at 21:11:48, Gage Naylor wrote:

Brings whole new meaning to the Name Change thread, heh heh.

lol.

Title: Re: Name: Then & Now
Post by nmf009 on Dec 16^th, 2007, 9:40pm

Ha ha... I wish they listened to what we said on here...

Cancel your January gigs. Go write your album. Do the exact opposite of what you did recording LLI. Any questions, you know how to reach me. :D

Title: Re: Name: Then & Now
Post by laurengoo on Dec 19^th, 2007, 2:49pm

on 12/16/07 at 21:11:48, Gage Naylor wrote:

Brings whole new meaning to the Name Change thread, heh heh.

Edit: Whoa, first they take our blue o and use it on the re-release of LLI, now they take our Name Change title literally. I'm starting to believe they DO watch our board.

;DWe're inspiration.

Title: Re: Name: Then & Now
Post by Pon on Dec 23^rd, 2007, 12:21am

HA! I finally heard it..for free on Rap city..Rapshody or whatever. Yeah, the old one is definitely better. It kinda shows how much John changed. This one is not bad at all, but I wouldn't let it make the cut comparing it to the old one. I also don't like how his voice is right now. The way he sings songs now vs the mid 90s is very different. Mid 90s is better.

I also think this is an example of how country he sounds. He sounds more country than ever...a lot of soul in it too.

Also, u notice how in the old name, he has that Bryan Adams need to clear your voice kind of sound. That was so popular back then...lol.

Title: Re: Name: Then & Now
Post by nmf009 on Dec 23^rd, 2007, 1:21am

I don't hear anything country about the new version. I do occasionally hear a slight twang live or in one or two select songs, and I do think John would sound very good singing a country song, but I don't hear it in Name.

John's voice wasn't just 'Bryan Adams' because it was popular back whenever. He actually changed the way he sang between DUTG and GF. He used to sing from his throat, which caused his vocal chord issues. Now he has received proper vocal coaching and sings from the stomach (the 'correct' singing method), and that has changed his sound (smoother instead of the old gritty sound). Not to mention his voice has gotten deeper as he's aged...

Title: Re: Name: Then & Now
Post by Pon on Dec 23^rd, 2007, 9:50pm

haha. We can argue all day about the way he sings, but there is a correlation between their music and time. Don't tell me that their crazy guitar solos had nothing to do with the 80s. Now guitar solos are history....that's just a coincidence?

Remember when they hard that Earlheart concert I believe, the country concert where the goo's played? The rednecks seem to be enjoying them. I'm not saying they country...just country enough...hehe.

on 12/23/07 at 01:21:25, nmf009 wrote:

I don't hear anything country about the new version. �I do occasionally hear a slight twang live or in one or two select songs, and I do think John would sound very good singing a country song, but I don't hear it in Name.

John's voice wasn't just 'Bryan Adams' because it was popular back whenever. �He actually changed the way he sang between DUTG and GF. �He used to sing from his throat, which caused his vocal chord issues. �Now he has received proper vocal coaching and sings from the stomach (the 'correct' singing method), and that has changed his sound (smoother instead of the old gritty sound). �Not to mention his voice has gotten deeper as he's aged...

Title: Re: Name: Then & Now
Post by tkc1989 on Dec 24^th, 2007, 6:08am

I actually prefer his singing on the new version. He has a more powerful voice, and the melody he sings in the second chorus is awesome.

Title: Re: Name: Then & Now
Post by Rockin_Munchkin on Dec 26^th, 2007, 7:04pm

I just heard the new version and the one thing I notice is that the song does not seem near as heartfelt. The simplicity and the emotions expressed in the original are what make Name a beautiful song. It didn't need to be "polished". I don't think this version is bad, but I don't think it would have become a hit either.