78 of 93 people found the following review helpful
After the dust has settled, I like this CD a lot,
This review is from: Sixteen Stone (Audio CD)
When Bush was really popular, I was not a fan. I let my bias interfere with my enjoyment of their music.
I'll get the negative stuff out of the way.
When I first heard singles on the radio in 1995 from Bush, I really hated them. So I can understand why people do not like this band. I'll state the obvious: they are totally unoriginal. They were/are Nirvana clones and just jumped on the grunge bandwagon. Pretty/pinup boy Gavin Rossdale's poor me/torctured lyrics sound contrived and calculated; just waiting to be eaten up by a nation of high school kids. In short, Bush was the Bon Jovi of the grunge/alternative movement. They were trend-followers. If Bush had come out in 1988, they would have had teased hair and played hair-metal.
Having said that, ten years after the fact, I find myself quite fond of this album. About a year ago, I stopped in at a used CD shop and bought this album out of nostalgia, as I had never owned a copy during Bush's heyday. I put it in my discman and was transported back in time; it was 1995, I was still in High School, Bill Clinton was still the President, and I had never heard of Creed or Limp Bizkit.
When I listen to "Sixteen Stone" now, I find that this is actually a very good album. It's a modern rock classic. Sure it's contrived and unoriginal, but the songs themselves are excellent. From the opener "Everything Zen" to the closing "x-girlfriend" there really aren't any bad songs. This album contains some of the very best radio-singles from 90's rock. "Everything Zen," "Little Things" and "Glycerine" are some of the most memorable songs from that era. The entire album is well crafted and written. Every song has a good hook and grove. Nigel Pulsford is an excellent guitar player and the album is chock-full of killer solos, something that was lacking in popular music just a few year later (Korn, Limp Bizkit).
In conclusion; no this band was not all that original, but they still wrote great songs. Furthermore, this album has stood the test of time. It does sound dated, but paradoxically, it also sounds as fresh today as it did when it first came out. Furthermore, everything I used to hate about this band-how it was contrived, it's cookie-cutter singles, it's pretty-boy frontman with anguished lyrics and perfect-cheek bones--everything I used to hate, I now find to be charming. "Sixteen Stone" is a 90s gem. It is a perfect time capsule and still-photo of a certain time and era. And most importantly, it rocks!
Tracked by 2 customers
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-8 of 8 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Feb 23, 2010 9:07:52 PM PST
Tyler Lavigne says:
Almost exactly how I feel about this disc. Thanks dude.
Posted on Dec 6, 2010 7:35:37 PM PST
Dequan Waters says:
Thank you for helping reviewers with yours.
Posted on Nov 24, 2011 12:10:18 AM PST
You are very articulate but you came across elitist with a very rigid view, except for your reluctant acceptance to now enjoy the CD, though still maintaining some negative jabs. Back in the day you were definitely biased, past a point of a sound basis. After all, your rigid perception was/is likely influenced and distorted by your preconceived notions of who is Bush (and of the time). Bush was/is unique and their talent is not belittled by the fact the guy may be attractive, and the band should not be penalized in talent critique for their commercial success. Excellent music and different than Nirvana. And stood the test of time, as you say. Maybe you are realizing how wrong you were. The band was very successful with professional educated adults who appreciated the modern groove and their lyrics.
In reply to an earlier post on Nov 25, 2011 9:09:52 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 25, 2011 9:11:33 AM PST
Daniel Ferguson-Maltzman says:
I like Bush, saw them a few weeks ago in fact and thoroughly enjoyed myself. But I stand by my review. It's a good album and, for me, a time-capsule from the mid 90s. That said, there was something calculated about this band. They even had their very own "In Utero" follow-up with "Razorblade Suitcase!" I'm sorry if you took offense, I was not trying to belittle people who are fans (I include myself as a fan).
In reply to an earlier post on Feb 8, 2013 7:42:27 PM PST
Jeez, give the guy some credit for coming clean...
In reply to an earlier post on May 27, 2013 10:48:40 AM PDT
bass boy says:
There was something calculated about the horrendously overrated Nirvana. It's called Tin Machine, a band that featured David Bowie, in 1989. Tin Machine's tortured sounds and barbed-wire guitar sounds predated Nirvana by two years. It's just that Tin Machine wore suits, while two years later, Nirvana wore dirty, holey clothes. I caught Bush in concert the other day and they were great to watch and hear. That's an emotion I'll never feel about Nirvana's awfully overhyped music. Give me Bush - and Foo Fighters - over Nirvana any second of the day.
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 4, 2013 3:59:21 PM PDT
Daniel Ferguson-Maltzman says:
I like Bush and all, but better than Nirvana? C'mon. That's like saying Kevin James is better than Jackie Gleason.
In reply to an earlier post on Mar 27, 2014 7:25:10 AM PDT
Not to reopen a year-old post, but finally someone else that agrees Nirvana was overhyped. Nirvana was nothing special. Just a dirty, mumbling, incoherent front man whom our hearts bleed about because he committed suicide. I'm a product of the 90's and love all that era's music, but I could never stand or tolerate Nirvana.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›