It would be interesting for someone to collect the albums backwards... California is still a completely mad and crazy album, even though it's overshadowed by the first two. I think this album may be a better introduction to Mr. Bungle than the first one for someone who hasn't heard them before! I collected them in order, obviously, but it'd be neat to have discovered it in reverse order.
Love these reviews! I agree with pretty much everything you’re both saying, but some additional thoughts: California is a more distilled version of the Bungle band sound and compositional / production skills. I understand the commentary that Bungle were trolling fans and creating controversy (by not being as controversial musically this time) but this album isn’t just throwaway pop songs, the instrumentation and detail is beautiful and refined. I think they are making a meta commentary on their own career and place in the world of art / music but not just by trolling fans, it’s by playing into a “3rd album summary” context, that idea that the 3rd album is usually when a band finds its sound! Here Bungle are doing that, but in a knowing, sarcastic way. Aside from the meta commentary though, this album still works for me, in having such brilliant constituent parts! Patton’s vocals especially. And the aforementioned eastern music influences. They were still exploring new music cultures and incorporating these without being lazy and exploitative with it. As someone else here wrote; this is probably the best album to discover Bungle with, as it’s still nuts, but the ideas are often more pleasant and richly coherent.
Boy, you guys made some people mad! I think what makes this album interesting is that it has a kind of aesthetic theme running though it. They focus on genres like lounge, surf rock, rockabilly, traditional pop etc that all kind of evoke this 1960s (or maybe 50s?) feeling. Sweet Charity sounds like it could be on Pet Sounds (so I guess it would have to be 60s then). It's like a period piece. The album art fits with this, too. That said I do prefer their first album, but I appreciate what I think they were going for on this one.
It's less wild, sure, but does "less interesting" have to mean "boring"? In other words "the previous two are more fun hence this one isn't". Almost comes off that way. There are only nuances that separate the quality of the three albums, yet you managed to find entire "egg" of a difference between them, even two "eggs" between albums 1 and 3. That's actually even more bizarre than the music itself. If you'd never heard the first two, you'd be awed by California. Albums are to be judged as separate entities first and foremost, not how the band developed or didn't develop, because albums aren't tied with umbilical cords to each other. If anything, the fact they they completely refused to clone themselves from album to album should give them an advantage. You're prog guys, right? Are they too wild for you? I heard all three albums as they came out, 91/95/99, and I loved the fact that they were different every time. Just because I thought California is their WEAKEST does not mean it's WEAK. Nuances, right? Eggs aren't very nuantic. But otherwise an enjoyable set of reviews.
lol! That's quite an achievement. But yeah, this tend to be the pattern when we review unknown stuff (I'd only heard the first album)- we only get one week per album so that's when fatigue starts to set in. If we'd started with California, I'm sure we'd have been much more complimentary. It's still my least favourite, though, even though I like it. Obviously this does mean there's a question about the point of our videos, but the answer is there isn't one!
Who needs a bloody point! The reviews are entertaining and even somewhat informative which is rare on RUclips (let alone Bitchfork, NME and the like). You don't take yourselves too seriously which is a bonus. Pretentious toffy-nosed wankers waxing poetic about shitty hipster albums is precisely what I don't want, hence your channel succeeds.
Kiedis can't even carry a tune, sings off-key even on some albums, whereas Patton is widely agreed upon to be one of the best rock vocalists ever. The gulf between them could not be any bigger - and neatly explains the root of the hatred, Kiedis being enormously jealous of a singer and a band that could have outchilipeppered the peppers at their own game, if they only wanted to. Kiedis is not even a musician, he's just a stage clown, a junkie poseur.
Bit harsh, but yeah - the passage of time gives the game away - Kiedis sound pretty rubbish, now. The latest live performance by Patton I've heard was still amazing. Great technique, great feel.
This album blew my mind. I kept waiting for the spastic metal riff to come out of nowhere. And when It didn't? Amazing. Yes...I was on acid upon first listen...but no matter! They were feeling a more structured thing going on, a verse-chorus thing, and went with it. "To the bitter end", as Patton said. It's a beautiful thing. Damn, thanks for talking about my favorite band!!
The joke is on you gents, this album has become legendary. It's just too good - I seriously advise you keep trying with it because this is their masterpiece. Love Disco Volante but this is awesome.
Maybe I'm biased as a massive fan, especially this album, but 'boredom' seems a strange word to describe an album that ends with what sounds like the souls of the damned being sucked down into the void. Was interesting to see your thoughts on each of the albums, though.
imo the most surprising band ya’ll have reviewed. Seriously these guys were fantastic. First time I’ve laughed at music too. I know you keep saying expectation is a prison but I honestly wouldn’t mind another 5 Mr. bungle albums
I was referring to that festival where Kiedis refused to play unless Mr Bungle were removed from the line up, which was one a a few last straws from the sounds of things.
I'd have to check this stuff, but either way the basics are that RHCP did a fair share of damage to Bungle's career, then went on to become a stadium arcadium ballad band much like the Scorpions, proving that there is no justice in the world and that socks don't stay on cocks for long. And that most people are tone-deaf sheep. Bungle's albums will be revered in 500 years, RHCP's nobody will know 50 years from now. Unless of course ISIS wins, in which cases no metal or rock will be remembered whatsoever and our descendants will fall on their knees 5 times a day, in a state of perpetual slavery.
It won't take long for that to happen, I reckon. (The first thing, not the second thing you said!). The further we get from FNM being active, the less their fame will mean in critical terms. People already know Faith No More, so it's usually a case of people discovering Mr Bungle, whereas if you introduce both bands to most people who've not heard of either, they'll probably like FMN, but be blown away (positively or negatively) from Mr Bungle. Great band vs. fantastic band!
@@MrLtia1234 the main reason why the Chili Peppers had them removed from the festival bill was because Mr Bungle re-ignited the "feud" in 1999 by doing (and filming) a parody of the Chili Peppers while making fun of their former drug addictions and Hillel's death. Which I would agree with the Chili Peppers that this disrespect should not go unpunished. That being said, the feud is IMO become a parody of itself. Californication >> California Chili Peppers >> Any Mike Patton project Mike Patton >> Anthony Kiedis PS. Kiedis didn't like Patton's on-stage persona and antics. He felt they were copying himself and didn't appreciate it when they were playing the same festival. Kiedis didn't want Patton to do his "thing" and cause confusion about the 2 frontmen.
Songs like Pink Cigarette, Retrovertigo, Ars Moriendi, Vanity Fair... that is some quality song writing
It would be interesting for someone to collect the albums backwards... California is still a completely mad and crazy album, even though it's overshadowed by the first two. I think this album may be a better introduction to Mr. Bungle than the first one for someone who hasn't heard them before! I collected them in order, obviously, but it'd be neat to have discovered it in reverse order.
Totally agree!
Love these reviews! I agree with pretty much everything you’re both saying, but some additional thoughts: California is a more distilled version of the Bungle band sound and compositional / production skills. I understand the commentary that Bungle were trolling fans and creating controversy (by not being as controversial musically this time) but this album isn’t just throwaway pop songs, the instrumentation and detail is beautiful and refined. I think they are making a meta commentary on their own career and place in the world of art / music but not just by trolling fans, it’s by playing into a “3rd album summary” context, that idea that the 3rd album is usually when a band finds its sound! Here Bungle are doing that, but in a knowing, sarcastic way. Aside from the meta commentary though, this album still works for me, in having such brilliant constituent parts! Patton’s vocals especially. And the aforementioned eastern music influences. They were still exploring new music cultures and incorporating these without being lazy and exploitative with it. As someone else here wrote; this is probably the best album to discover Bungle with, as it’s still nuts, but the ideas are often more pleasant and richly coherent.
Great post! Better than our review, anyway. Cheers!
@@MrLtia1234 Cheers, I'm flattered, but I really enjoyed your Bungle analysis. It's great to hear these sorts of breakdowns of that music!
Brilliant genre bending post-rock, space-age pop record; Just not for everyone..
Boy, you guys made some people mad! I think what makes this album interesting is that it has a kind of aesthetic theme running though it. They focus on genres like lounge, surf rock, rockabilly, traditional pop etc that all kind of evoke this 1960s (or maybe 50s?) feeling. Sweet Charity sounds like it could be on Pet Sounds (so I guess it would have to be 60s then). It's like a period piece. The album art fits with this, too. That said I do prefer their first album, but I appreciate what I think they were going for on this one.
First time I hear anyone describe this album as boring. Compared to what? Generic bands? Dull wanky prog albums?
Compared to the other two Bungle albums!
It's less wild, sure, but does "less interesting" have to mean "boring"? In other words "the previous two are more fun hence this one isn't". Almost comes off that way. There are only nuances that separate the quality of the three albums, yet you managed to find entire "egg" of a difference between them, even two "eggs" between albums 1 and 3. That's actually even more bizarre than the music itself.
If you'd never heard the first two, you'd be awed by California. Albums are to be judged as separate entities first and foremost, not how the band developed or didn't develop, because albums aren't tied with umbilical cords to each other. If anything, the fact they they completely refused to clone themselves from album to album should give them an advantage. You're prog guys, right? Are they too wild for you? I heard all three albums as they came out, 91/95/99, and I loved the fact that they were different every time. Just because I thought California is their WEAKEST does not mean it's WEAK. Nuances, right? Eggs aren't very nuantic.
But otherwise an enjoyable set of reviews.
lol! That's quite an achievement.
But yeah, this tend to be the pattern when we review unknown stuff (I'd only heard the first album)- we only get one week per album so that's when fatigue starts to set in. If we'd started with California, I'm sure we'd have been much more complimentary. It's still my least favourite, though, even though I like it.
Obviously this does mean there's a question about the point of our videos, but the answer is there isn't one!
Who needs a bloody point! The reviews are entertaining and even somewhat informative which is rare on RUclips (let alone Bitchfork, NME and the like). You don't take yourselves too seriously which is a bonus. Pretentious toffy-nosed wankers waxing poetic about shitty hipster albums is precisely what I don't want, hence your channel succeeds.
Cheers! Yeah, proper music journalism sucks.
Kiedis can't even carry a tune, sings off-key even on some albums, whereas Patton is widely agreed upon to be one of the best rock vocalists ever. The gulf between them could not be any bigger - and neatly explains the root of the hatred, Kiedis being enormously jealous of a singer and a band that could have outchilipeppered the peppers at their own game, if they only wanted to. Kiedis is not even a musician, he's just a stage clown, a junkie poseur.
Bit harsh, but yeah - the passage of time gives the game away - Kiedis sound pretty rubbish, now. The latest live performance by Patton I've heard was still amazing. Great technique, great feel.
This album blew my mind. I kept waiting for the spastic metal riff to come out of nowhere. And when It didn't? Amazing. Yes...I was on acid upon first listen...but no matter!
They were feeling a more structured thing going on, a verse-chorus thing, and went with it. "To the bitter end", as Patton said. It's a beautiful thing. Damn, thanks for talking about my favorite band!!
The joke is on you gents, this album has become legendary. It's just too good - I seriously advise you keep trying with it because this is their masterpiece. Love Disco Volante but this is awesome.
Thise review is sucks. California is the best album of all time!!! And thise guys called it boring...
Maybe I'm biased as a massive fan, especially this album, but 'boredom' seems a strange word to describe an album that ends with what sounds like the souls of the damned being sucked down into the void. Was interesting to see your thoughts on each of the albums, though.
would you gentlemen ever review Primus?
They should review the debut and ignore the rest, because if Bungle's third bored them, what will Les's incessant bass wankery do?
@@Rrtnns Hahaha idk I think Primus was great until maybe Punchbowl, Green Naugahyde is also great
imo the most surprising band ya’ll have reviewed. Seriously these guys were fantastic. First time I’ve laughed at music too. I know you keep saying expectation is a prison but I honestly wouldn’t mind another 5 Mr. bungle albums
They'd all be different though (brilliant!)
You got the order wrong. Kiedis sabotaged Bungle way before the 3rd album, years earlier.
I was referring to that festival where Kiedis refused to play unless Mr Bungle were removed from the line up, which was one a a few last straws from the sounds of things.
I believe that was before the 3rd album, but you may be right.
I'd have to check this stuff, but either way the basics are that RHCP did a fair share of damage to Bungle's career, then went on to become a stadium arcadium ballad band much like the Scorpions, proving that there is no justice in the world and that socks don't stay on cocks for long. And that most people are tone-deaf sheep. Bungle's albums will be revered in 500 years, RHCP's nobody will know 50 years from now.
Unless of course ISIS wins, in which cases no metal or rock will be remembered whatsoever and our descendants will fall on their knees 5 times a day, in a state of perpetual slavery.
It won't take long for that to happen, I reckon. (The first thing, not the second thing you said!).
The further we get from FNM being active, the less their fame will mean in critical terms. People already know Faith No More, so it's usually a case of people discovering Mr Bungle, whereas if you introduce both bands to most people who've not heard of either, they'll probably like FMN, but be blown away (positively or negatively) from Mr Bungle.
Great band vs. fantastic band!
@@MrLtia1234 the main reason why the Chili Peppers had them removed from the festival bill was because Mr Bungle re-ignited the "feud" in 1999 by doing (and filming) a parody of the Chili Peppers while making fun of their former drug addictions and Hillel's death. Which I would agree with the Chili Peppers that this disrespect should not go unpunished. That being said, the feud is IMO become a parody of itself.
Californication >> California
Chili Peppers >> Any Mike Patton project
Mike Patton >> Anthony Kiedis
PS. Kiedis didn't like Patton's on-stage persona and antics. He felt they were copying himself and didn't appreciate it when they were playing the same festival. Kiedis didn't want Patton to do his "thing" and cause confusion about the 2 frontmen.
Maybe when u have some real fun in your life, you ll appreciate the craziness of this record
Thanks, dad.
Songs are on point but probably better studios to record in. Picture them with older technology.
Obviously don't get it
Laughter emoji
Did you just say Grandma Brownies Chocolate Chunker Wunker Bunkers, Now With Even Bigger Chunks Of Chocolate Chunks?
4:05
Poor review
Thanks, dad.
@@MrLtia1234 Oh comedians too, well done you! Should of known by the review I suppose.
@@mrnmo6781 You are very cross. Don't be cross.
@@MrLtia1234 who's cross? I'm happy your care home let's you stay up this late.
@@mrnmo6781 You're still cross, I can tell. I bet you're even more cross after the last few minutes.