If SFBM was Live's First Album, how would it be received? Options

[edstipe]

One thing I have noticed about the reviews that have been posted for SFBM (and not only there, but by members of this board giving their opinions as well), is that many of the reviewers noted what Live used to sound like, and have based part of their judgement of SFBM on their perspective of the band's new sound as opposed to their old sound.

This begs the question, how would SFBM be perceived if it were Live's first album rather than their seventh, thereby giving no opportunity to be judged based on previous notions of the band?

Would it be laughed off as a futile attempt at a band to mimic the sound of U2 and similar established groups? Would it be embraced as a record that shows the potential for a band with serious pop-rock hooks and melodies? Or would it fall somewhere in between?

Any thoughts?

[seriakiLLa]

Difficult to say, but yeah, I would guess it will be received much better, it would be because they would be identified with another genre, and will be having a considerably different fan base.

Hmm.. this gets me to think then. SFBM being the first album, then followed by TDTH, SS, MJ, TC. Wow, they would be hailed as one of the most progressive bands of our generation.

[serene23]

Difficult to say, but yeah, I would guess it will be received much better, it would be because they would be identified with another genre, and will be having a considerably different fan base.

Hmm.. this gets me to think then. SFBM being the first album, then followed by TDTH, SS, MJ, TC. Wow, they would be hailed as one of the most progressive bands of our generation.

Yeah, the album would be received much better, though, the lyrics really are cringeworthy at times. What happened to Ed as a great lyricist? MJ and TC were great, then they slowly but surely turned to crap. Its funny, "Show" and "Sofia" seem to get the most heat in these reviews, and those are my 2 faves.

This post has been edited by serene23: Apr 21 2006, 2:15 pm