Alter Bridge Offer An Altered Image

Mark Tremonti sounds half asleep when he answers the phone, but it is not any wild rock antics that have led the Alter Bridge guitarist to this state.

logo
Ultimate Guitar
6

Mark Tremonti sounds half asleep when he answers the phone, but it is not any wild rock antics that have led the Alter Bridge guitarist to this state.

It is all because he has not long arrived in the UK, on a whirlwind trip to promote his new band's CD and their upcoming O2 Academy gig this Saturday.

But one thing that did wake Mark up was recording the American rockers' new album AB III especially when he realised how dark vocalist Myles Kennedy's lyrics were.

Yet Mark, who is also the founder of Creed, believes that darkness has led to their best record yet.

When I heard the lyrics, I thought maybe Myles needed a hug! he says, laughing.

I think the common theme of the record is someone who has lost faith in anything to believe in, so it is definitely a darker record than anything we have done before.

There is nothing left to hold on to, faith wise, for Myles, and he is really putting out on this album that he has trouble believing in anything any more.

Gloomy though it sounds, it has led to a compelling record, perfectly mixed with Mark's music, which takes on a harder stance than anything in the band's past.

Alter Bridge were formed when Creed broke up in 2004. It kept Mark and his Creed bandmates Scott Phillips and Brian Marshall together, and added singer Kennedy to the mix.

But while their first two albums spawned a selection of radio-friendly tunes, this time around Mark feels the band purely focused on making the sort of album that they wanted to release.

I was not concerned with radio, or commercial sounding songs, I wanted this record to be 100% artistic.

Every record is usually artistic but you always have, at the back of your mind, that comfort of having a song written for radio.

But I got to the point where I thought, We've got to write these records for ourselves', and it comes off better that way I believe.

We are not trying to be negative for the sake of being negative, and there are some songs on it that are more positive. But I guess each album is a snapshot of where you are at the moment and that's the head-state Myles was in, and musically, that's the same space I was in.

He was not, however, in the same space as his singer when it came to the lyrics that Myles was writing. Many of the songs on AB III suggest a man who has lost all faith in anything, particularly religion, to the extent he now believes in nothing.

This is a view Mark disagrees with, and his arguments with the quartet's frontman ended up shaping the final track on AB III, a discussion that touches heavily upon various religious views.

The last song on the record, called Words Darker Than Their Wings, is a song based on a conversation between Myles and me.

He was still saying he didn't believe in anything, and I was saying, You gotta believe in something'.

I don't believe in organised religion because I think it is laughable that millions of people who worship one religion think the billions who don't are going to burn in hell because of that. If there was a God, I think a just God would not do that.

But I do have my own beliefs. Life in the universe is way too complex for it not to have a reason, or some sort of purpose. I'm not sure what I believe in, but I do think there is something out there.

Myles is still pretty stubborn about there being nothing though!

Religion has affected Mark in other ways, with Creed being hailed as the poster boys for the Christian rock movement for several years.

They were hugely successful, particularly in their homeland, even if they were often hailed with less complimentary terms by critics."

After a bitter split in 2004, the band re-united with singer Scott Stapp last year, and are now continuing to record and tour with both bands. As Mark writes all the music for both bands, how does he separate what would suit Creed and what is suitable for Alter Bridge?

Alter Bridge gives us the ability to go outside the box, which Creed doesn't. The songs are lengthier and more in-depth. Creed is a more commercial sound. When I write a song, I know which band it suits better.

One of the things we have been fighting to achieve with Alter Bridge is that they won't sound like Creed and that has always been tough.

It is something that has helped me as an artist though, because it is an exercise in artistic control.

Something else the Orlando-based guitarist tries to control is his commitments to his family. With two young sons, he tries to juggle seeing them with the demands of touring the world with Alter Bridge.

When I'm on tour inAmerica I often have my kids out with me, but when I'm over here it can be tough. We are in Europe for three weeks before I fly home for my son's second birthday.

Then I fly back for the rest of the tour and won't see him for another three weeks, but I hope we will have a few months off, so I will spend a lot of time with him.

I am lucky in that I have a wonderful family, and want to spend as much time as I can with them so I have got to keep the touring in check.

Thanks for the report to EveningTimes.

58 comments sorted by best / new / date

    tissue-box
    lpwjbklyn . Taking all of that, I ask, again, what does it matter? If it sounds good to YOU, then it sounds good to you and you can listen to it or not. What difference does it make whether the band is reshaping the face of music or simply recreating a familiar form for its fans? Have you ever picked up such an album in a store, rolled your eyes, and replaced it saying to yourself "Ugh, I could NEVER listen to them--too corporate/they are sell-outs/or whatever." The second thing worth delving into is this: "Corporate rock is when bands all share the same song structure, timing, tone and majority fan base." I'm pretty certain that's called a genre, not corporate rock. Most rock songs have followed the same structure (intro/verse/chorus/verse/chorus/bridge/chorus/outro), timing (4:4 or 3:4 on occasion), tone (distortion for the heavy songs, clean for the ballads), and majority fan base (metal-heads for metal, rockers for rock, etc.) for the last 60 or 70 years. I just don't understand why listening to bands that appeal to a broad range of musical fans has to serve as an indictment on said fans. Music is music man--it's really not that serious. It's meant to be enjoyed, not stratified. "Oh...you listen to THEM...do you? ::turns up nose and walks away::" If you listen to ANY band it should be because you enjoy the style of music, the way the singer sings, the lyrical content, or any other number of things--not because it can be categorized (or not) under some pretentious meaningless label that, in and of itself, is just as cliche as the music it is meant to put down.
    I love this person
    biff022
    Corporate rock. Tremonti is a great player, but both of his bands are bland corporate rock nonetheless.
    krypticguitar87
    I could careless if they are "corporate rock" because corporate rock is barely a genre, it's basically a list of bands that some people don't like and assume that they are only out to get money..... thats fine, and if you don't want to listen to a band because that's the genre they fall under, that's your loss... I enjoy tremonti's work, especially with alter bridge, and I can't wait till I have some money so I can buy this album!
    RockInPeaceDime
    biff022 wrote: @ Ghostmaker... nah... Alter Bridge aren't more popular than my favorite band. Corporate rock is when bands all share the same song structure, timing, tone and majority fan base. See Creed, Nickelback, Godsmack, Alter Bridge, 3 Doors Down, Evanescence, Linkin Park, Staind, Puddle Of Mudd, etc. Standard compressed sounds, standard choruses still riding on the coattails of "grunge" and band of the 90's. Maybe it actually is what they like and they are being honest in their musical endeavors but, they still sound the same as the rest of the "beer and lifestyle music". Maybe they are just shallow and vapid as people and that is what is reflected in their creativity (or lack thereof). Or they are making sure to sound appealing to the biggest possible fanbase and they don't really care how they sound or about exploring new ground with their music ... they just want to rawk. Either way it still sounds like something from a Budweiser commercial to me. Corporate rock.
    I guess every genre of music is "corporate rock." You described the characteristics of a genre -- similar song structure, tone, timing, and fan base. You have no argument, listen to the album, enjoy, stop being a pretentious douchebag. You ruin music.
    lpwjbklyn
    biff022 wrote: @ Ghostmaker... nah... Alter Bridge aren't more popular than my favorite band. Corporate rock is when bands all share the same song structure, timing, tone and majority fan base. See Creed, Nickelback, Godsmack, Alter Bridge, 3 Doors Down, Evanescence, Linkin Park, Staind, Puddle Of Mudd, etc. Standard compressed sounds, standard choruses still riding on the coattails of "grunge" and band of the 90's. Maybe it actually is what they like and they are being honest in their musical endeavors but, they still sound the same as the rest of the "beer and lifestyle music". Maybe they are just shallow and vapid as people and that is what is reflected in their creativity (or lack thereof). Or they are making sure to sound appealing to the biggest possible fanbase and they don't really care how they sound or about exploring new ground with their music ... they just want to rawk. Either way it still sounds like something from a Budweiser commercial to me. Corporate rock.
    I agree with all three of you and would ask the same question that I ALWAYS do when I hear someone refer to a band or a style of music as corporate/generic rock, selling-out, or going mainstream: who cares? @biff -- You said a few things that are worth exploring in greater detail. "Or they are making sure to sound appealing to the biggest possible fanbase and they don't really care how they sound or about exploring new ground with their music ... they just want to rawk" Two issues here. The first is this: bands can NEVER win when it comes to exploring new ground; you will ALWAYS have people who hate the new direction. Look at the Foo Fighters--they began adding more acoustic elements to their last few albums and people balked (just look at any news article about said albums on this website to see what I mean). Then you have bands who stay the course and do the exact same thing for twenty years and they get lambasted for "repeating the tried and true formula" and "not straying too far from their safety zone." While Disturbed haven't been around THAT long--they're getting shit for doing just that: repeating the same formula, if you will. Taking all of that, I ask, again, what does it matter? If it sounds good to YOU, then it sounds good to you and you can listen to it or not. What difference does it make whether the band is reshaping the face of music or simply recreating a familiar form for its fans? Have you ever picked up such an album in a store, rolled your eyes, and replaced it saying to yourself "Ugh, I could NEVER listen to them--too corporate/they are sell-outs/or whatever." The second thing worth delving into is this: "Corporate rock is when bands all share the same song structure, timing, tone and majority fan base." I'm pretty certain that's called a genre, not corporate rock. Most rock songs have followed the same structure (intro/verse/chorus/verse/chorus/bridge/chorus/outro), timing (4:4 or 3:4 on occasion), tone (distortion for the heavy songs, clean for the ballads), and majority fan base (metal-heads for metal, rockers for rock, etc.) for the last 60 or 70 years. I just don't understand why listening to bands that appeal to a broad range of musical fans has to serve as an indictment on said fans. Music is music man--it's really not that serious. It's meant to be enjoyed, not stratified. "Oh...you listen to THEM...do you? ::turns up nose and walks away::" If you listen to ANY band it should be because you enjoy the style of music, the way the singer sings, the lyrical content, or any other number of things--not because it can be categorized (or not) under some pretentious meaningless label that, in and of itself, is just as cliche as the music it is meant to put down.
    natuMzzri
    Well anyways i havent listened to their new one yet, however, i cant see them being anything special, ever. They're ok, but i guess to me they were just amusement during the 5 or so years that creed was broken up. not that Im comparing them to creed. And about the quote, i really feel bad for myles: I dont believe in organised religion because I think it is laughable that millions of people who worship one religion think the billions who dont are going to burn in hell because of that. If there was a God, I think a just God would not do that." That's one of the most misinterpereted concepts of christianity. God gives YOU a CHOICE whether you want to burn in Hell. He doesnt want you to go to Hell but he's not going to give you a free pass into heaven for ignoring and disobeying him your whole life. I hope Myles grows up one day and realizes this, because he does have some talent. This is the biggest joke i've seen on Alter bridge comments: Tremonti, humble? Really? I think one the reasons Creed broke up is because Mark and Scott Stapp's egos got too big for eachother. But, whatever. This albums getting a lot of positive reviews and comments so i guess i'll check it out. FrayDawg, I hope this cancels out my 'trollin' and 'hatin' comment...
    krypticguitar87
    strat0blaster wrote: biff022 wrote: Corporate rock. Tremonti is a great player, but both of his bands are bland corporate rock nonetheless. Why do people bother saying things like this? Why does it have to be _____ rock? Why can't it just be music that you either like or don't? If you don't like it, don't make excuses or reach for highbrow 'art' terms; just say you don't like it and it's not for you and move on.
    that would be too much for some people, lots of people are butt hurt that they aren't as good as these guys, or feel inferior, so they use these high and mighty terms to make themselves sound smarter and try to make fun of the others.... yeah it's totally pointless, but I guess if it makes it easier for them to sleep at night.....
    biff022
    @zbtrocker, I actually agree with you, the only way to actually know 100% is to be in the room when they sell out. But you are wrong about the eye of the beholder... like I said, the objective truth is there, whether we can put on finger on it or not. There have been high points in cultures throughout history, and there have been low points, and by and large the passing of time is the only mechanism that sheds light on the quality of these cultures. Subjectivity is a label we use when we have no other frame of reference to provide perspective on an issue because we are too close to said issue. By they way, saying that "it's all subjective... you're wrong", is pretty contradictory, don't you think? @Sean117 I checked up on your Mayfield Four, and citing a band that debuted in 96 hot on the heels of grunge mimicking the Seattle sound doesn't do much for your argument. Reminded me of Candlebox or Collective Soul.
    Fraydawg
    natuMzzri wrote: meh, now that creed's back together they can end this whole alter bridge crap.
    They see you trollin', They hatin'.... Anyways, very good album, its taking a while to grow on me as it is different to the other two, but each listen makes it better.
    RockInPeaceDime
    Anyone who has heard this album and still thinks it's "corporate rock" (whatever the **** that is, stop making things up to be negative) is probably deaf. The album is plainly soulful, with some heavy songs thrown in, insanely good vocals and lyricism, very well structured, not overly done, etc. etc. It is a solid-ass album.
    zbtrocker
    You can try and break it down as much as you want, but what is good and what is not truly is in the eye of the beholder. I don't like Cannibal Corpse or Lady Gaga, but that doesn't mean that I don't respect them as artists. The only way to know whether or not they're sacrificing they're artistic intergrity is to actually be in the room with them and hear them say something along the lines of "I really like that song, but it won't get us radio play". Also, a lot of Tremonti's creativity comes from the different tunings that he uses which cause him to use varying chord voicings. You don't know what else to say because there is no way to prove that you are right. It's all subjective. You can say it's not until your blue in the face, but that won't change the fact that you're wrong.
    Rajah
    Mr_Cbone93 wrote: I like to listen to music that sounds good. Anyone else?
    *two thumbs up* Works for me. I don't give a damn what anyone else thinks of what I listen to. As a guitarist the more diverse your tastes are the better musician you will be.
    Rock.Domination
    guitaraddict44 wrote: And if you heard as much material from Myles as I have, then you would know that he is more than worthy of replacing Robert Plant in Zeppelin (As great as he is).
    I think Myles Kennedy is definitely one of the best singers in the past decade. But every time there's a vacancy in a band for a vocalist everyone recommends him. I mean, he probably wouldn't fit into Aerosmith or Zeppelin.
    some.will.seek
    Ahh friggin hell, Tremonti is just so honest in his interviews. I respect him more than any other musician in the world! His latest album is flipping amazing (but I wouldn't say it's 'better' than anything AB has done before).. and they sing about REAL things. None of this 'I want to kill myself' or 'I wanna f*** that chick'.. it's real stuff that we can actually agree and reason with. We all doubt life and things in it...
    zbtrocker
    biff022 wrote: All this eye of the beholder junk... Lots of people with the same attitude... "if you like it then more power to you" or "just enjoy what you enjoy", as if there is no objective truth to art or culture. There is. It's very difficult to discern and define but it's there regardless. Someone above said that corporate rock was the wrong term and that might be right... perhaps "formula based rock" is more like it. I further familiarized myself with some more of their songs, and "formula based" is definitely in line with what they do. They pretty much define the whole generic rock radio/beer sponsored tour band of today... they definitely do it better than most though, I'll that...lol. We can argue about what that means but the truth is, each time period in rock has had it's impostors (so the definition changes), especially since the advent of MTV, when there was more cash to grab since there suddenly was wider exposure for anyone who had a video. Thinking the Monkees impersonating the Beatles, Billy Squire copping Zep, Candlebox, Collective Soul and host of others ripping off PJ, Nirvana and other legit 90's bands. Alter Bridge (like Creed before them) lean heavily on the darker 90's bands as well, lifting riffs, translating them into a less challenging (to the listener) form, and polishing them to a radio-friendly shine. Tremonti is a great player, no denying that, but his direction as a songwriter and overall artistic integrity are lacking in originality and creativity. If you can't hear the generic formula and sound in their music (at least compared to some of their contemporaries from whom they steal... Tool, Alice In Chains etc), I don't know what else to say.
    RockGuitar92
    Mark kinda came off pushy and not very accepting of Myles religious views. Other than that he seems very nice.
    Slash181
    biff022 wrote: @ Ghostmaker... nah... Alter Bridge aren't more popular than my favorite band. Corporate rock is when bands all share the same song structure, timing, tone and majority fan base. See Creed, Nickelback, Godsmack, Alter Bridge, 3 Doors Down, Evanescence, Linkin Park, Staind, Puddle Of Mudd, etc. Standard compressed sounds, standard choruses still riding on the coattails of "grunge" and band of the 90's. Maybe it actually is what they like and they are being honest in their musical endeavors but, they still sound the same as the rest of the "beer and lifestyle music". Maybe they are just shallow and vapid as people and that is what is reflected in their creativity (or lack thereof). Or they are making sure to sound appealing to the biggest possible fanbase and they don't really care how they sound or about exploring new ground with their music ... they just want to rawk. Either way it still sounds like something from a Budweiser commercial to me. Corporate rock.
    Right coming from someone who has Biff (im assuming your implying Biffy Clyro) in your name? ha well Corporate rock means many things, people have different interperations of it (which just then is created as an opinion) but i personally think and heard that actually is a another term for describing a generation of rock music. (rest is off wiki from Arena Rock page as its basically the same thing, i couldnt put it better myself so i copied this) It was established by heavy metal, hard rock and progressive rock bands in the 1970s. Arena rock songs feature "slick productions", an emphasis on vocal harmonies on the choruses and an "unnatural emphasis on large, anthemic hooks and choruses", the last trait "setting it apart from its influences". Arena rock is sometimes pejoratively termed "corporate rock" by critics. Arena rock is defined by its loud audiences in concerts. It is music performed live in stadiums and arenas. Arena rock shows often feature "smoke bombs, laser light spectaculars, large amplifiers and video screens", as well as "guitar pyrotechnics". So in other words bands like AC/DC, Led Zepplin, Rainbow.... all following suit in those ways of presenting music.... Alter bridge dont do this. The only way to describe what your saying is that they use a common song structure like most bands have for the last 30 years +
    Ducky-Kun
    Saw them live last night in Amsterdam. Even better than when they recorded the DVD two years ago. Best night ever.
    biff022
    All this eye of the beholder junk... Lots of people with the same attitude... "if you like it then more power to you" or "just enjoy what you enjoy", as if there is no objective truth to art or culture. There is. It's very difficult to discern and define but it's there regardless. Someone above said that corporate rock was the wrong term and that might be right... perhaps "formula based rock" is more like it. I further familiarized myself with some more of their songs, and "formula based" is definitely in line with what they do. They pretty much define the whole generic rock radio/beer sponsored tour band of today... they definitely do it better than most though, I'll that...lol. We can argue about what that means but the truth is, each time period in rock has had it's impostors (so the definition changes), especially since the advent of MTV, when there was more cash to grab since there suddenly was wider exposure for anyone who had a video. Thinking the Monkees impersonating the Beatles, Billy Squire copping Zep, Candlebox, Collective Soul and host of others ripping off PJ, Nirvana and other legit 90's bands. Alter Bridge (like Creed before them) lean heavily on the darker 90's bands as well, lifting riffs, translating them into a less challenging (to the listener) form, and polishing them to a radio-friendly shine. Tremonti is a great player, no denying that, but his direction as a songwriter and overall artistic integrity are lacking in originality and creativity. If you can't hear the generic formula and sound in their music (at least compared to some of their contemporaries from whom they steal... Tool, Alice In Chains etc), I don't know what else to say.
    Kenbeek
    biff022 wrote: ...as if there is no objective truth to art or culture. There is. It's very difficult to discern and define but it's there regardless.
    If there is, what is it then? Cause I don't believe there is.
    fenderstrattele
    saw them live last night in Amsterdam, it was f*cking amazing!!! although Mark was sometimes a little sloppy in the solos here and there, but who cares it was amazing, and Myles is the best vocalist of today!!!
    Quoteman
    What's incredible, is that Germanic Scandinavians and Vikings invented a word for those who feel Mark Tremonti IN THE 14th CENTURY. that word is "wrong"
    Patrijz
    fenderstrattele wrote: saw them live last night in Amsterdam, it was f*cking amazing!!! although Mark was sometimes a little sloppy in the solos here and there, but who cares it was amazing, and Myles is the best vocalist of today!!!
    I actually thought he was playing pretty tight... some solo's he does little variations, which I can understand and support ! It was a great show anyways... I can understand both sides of the discussion... Although I think AB has more depth then any band I heard of in their 'genre', I do agree that the sound itself isn't that original. But I happen to like that sound, along with the depth of their songwriting!
    PSM
    biff022 wrote: ...as if there is no objective truth to art or culture. There is. It's very difficult to discern and define but it's there regardless.
    Oh really? Would you care to enlighten us all as to what this objective truth in art is? If it's something you can personally discern and define, as you said, then you should have no trouble telling us all what it is and explaining it. And actually, I'd be much more interested in first hearing what your factual, universally-accepted definition of art is, since you can't answer the first question without initially defining this. Start with this first, please, then move on to your objective truth. And thanks in advance for defining a word and solving a debate that's been argued over for millenia by many of the world's and history's top minds, including philosophers, artists, and others. Oh yeah, and I've love to point out to you that some of the most revered and admired compositions in history by composers such as Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, and other major composers were 100% formulaic in terms of structure and overall sound, not to mention right down to the rules set in place regarding specific intervallic relations and even movement from one certain tonal center or key to the next. And almost all were written as commissions to supply income to the composers, often times strictly as entertainment for the courts or public masses. According to the "facts" in your argument, we can pretty much throw away some of the most loved and inspired music and art in the history of the world.
    biff022
    If you are going to quote someone, get it right. I didn't say that I can personally discern and define objective truth in art. I said it exists, though it is difficult to discern and define. I can see why you reacted (the whole silly rant about philosophers and brilliant minds) so sarcastically having misread what I said. I'll ignore what you said about Bach, etc since it is asinine to compare Alter Bridge to these people. As for throwing away beloved and inspired art... why would you do that? If art isn't beloved and inspired it will go away on it's own. To clarify, there is objective truth as to what good art is. That's what we are talking about here right? The definition of art question that you brought up is irrelevant as I never claimed Alter Bridge to not be art. It's just not good art. That's where objective truth regarding art lies... in it's evaluation. I'd also point out that there is a difference between good musicianship and good art. Alter Bridge, in Kennedy and Tremonti, have absolutely great musicians. But their artistic integrity is questionable. Since the addition of commerce into art, any art form can go one of two ways. Take music. Music can be created from the heart without regard to what will sell, or can be created for commercial value. Or, it can run along a continuum between the two roads... there are bands like Aerosmith, who really were copycats, but were earnest in their endeavors (in their early days at least). They were somewhere along the continuum. They were trying pretty honestly to be original, but were either not talented enough, or too inundated by the popular music of the time to branch out and be truly creative. Alter Bridge exist along this continuum as well. Just a lot closer to the commercialized end of the spectrum. I realize that this is basically unquantifiable, but ask yourself this question, "are they any bands/artists in music that you absolutely know are sell-outs?" If you answer yes, then you must also realize that someone can use your same argument to defend that band too. Remember, just because we can't define something or measure it or quantify it now, doesn't mean we won't ever be able to. This can be applied to art and music.
    Waterboy799
    the album is downright fantastic, i'd urge any alter bridge fan to listen to it immediately.
    strat0blaster
    biff022 wrote: Corporate rock. Tremonti is a great player, but both of his bands are bland corporate rock nonetheless.
    Why do people bother saying things like this? Why does it have to be _____ rock? Why can't it just be music that you either like or don't? If you don't like it, don't make excuses or reach for highbrow 'art' terms; just say you don't like it and it's not for you and move on.
    Mr_Dobolina
    biff022 wrote: @ Ghostmaker... nah... Alter Bridge aren't more popular than my favorite band. Corporate rock is when bands all share the same song structure, timing, tone and majority fan base. See Creed, Nickelback, Godsmack, Alter Bridge, 3 Doors Down, Evanescence, Linkin Park, Staind, Puddle Of Mudd, etc. Standard compressed sounds, standard choruses still riding on the coattails of "grunge" and band of the 90's. Maybe it actually is what they like and they are being honest in their musical endeavors but, they still sound the same as the rest of the "beer and lifestyle music". Maybe they are just shallow and vapid as people and that is what is reflected in their creativity (or lack thereof). Or they are making sure to sound appealing to the biggest possible fanbase and they don't really care how they sound or about exploring new ground with their music ... they just want to rawk. Either way it still sounds like something from a Budweiser commercial to me. Corporate rock.
    I couldn't have said it any better. I also don't get the fascination with Myles. He's good, yes. But good enough to replace Plant in Zeppelin? No way. I want to like this band because Tremonti is unbelievably skilled, but because of the aforementioned reasons I can't.
    thedarkblues06
    flxz wrote: Krieger91 wrote: I wanna listen to this album now.. then hurry the hell up, ABIII is an amazing album!
    Quoted for truth. Alter Bridge is truly amazing, and has more talent than 90% of the bands trying to make a name for themselves today.
    charger356
    I have the utmost respect for Tremonti. He seems like he is a humble guy and he has his head in the right place. On a side note, I heard "Words Darker Than Their Wings" yesterday. Very powerful song... Can't wait to pick up this album tomorrow.
    JSmith38
    I work in retail and have gotten a few copies in already. It takes every ounce of strength I have not to just sneak one out
    maidenbridge666
    i feel sorry for u guys in the US not being able to hear this fantastic album yet. being from the UK ive had this album for nearly a month now and ive seen them play the new material live! ur in for a real treat when u get it! this thing ROCKS!!
    qotsakyuss
    biff022 wrote: Corporate rock. Tremonti is a great player, but both of his bands are bland corporate rock nonetheless.
    This
    DirkLance
    biff022 wrote: Corporate rock. Tremonti is a great player, but both of his bands are bland corporate rock nonetheless.
    What does that mean exactly? Do they sing about the stock market and how to buy a foreclosed home for cheap? I don't understand what business has to do with the style of music being played. If you're saying they make radio music or sell out to the highest bidder, I have to disagree with you. Maybe Creed did that at the end of their career, but I'm tired of Creed and AB being grouped. I think AB have a respectable thing going right now and they're just making the music they want to make. They're getting a lot of support outside of the US, so I feel like that says something about integrity. They're not on the poor level of say a band like Nickelback or Buckcherry who are lost in their Ameri-rock and can't decide if they want to sing a song about drunken sex or saving the world with peace. Business is part of the music world. If there were no labels or endorsements, we might not hear about these bands. Why is AB "corporate?" Because they make CDs? Remember, any artists with their name attached to anything sold their brand. Even hailed guitarists like Vai or Satch have a signature guitar---how is that not "selling out" to a degree? Is that corporate rock? They're making music...doing what they love. And they're getting paid for it. Why would they not take that deal? IMO, AB is making genuine music. It's not the craziest or best music I've ever heard, but I think they're legitimate.
    Ghostmaker
    biff022 wrote: Corporate rock. Tremonti is a great player, but both of his bands are bland corporate rock nonetheless.
    DirkLance wrote: What does that mean exactly? Do they sing about the stock market and how to buy a foreclosed home for cheap? I don't understand what business has to do with the style of music being played.
    Corporate Rock: A label to be placed on a band that is more popular than the favorite band of person speaking. The new album is awesome, can't wait to pick it up tomorrow.
    biff022
    @ Ghostmaker... nah... Alter Bridge aren't more popular than my favorite band. Corporate rock is when bands all share the same song structure, timing, tone and majority fan base. See Creed, Nickelback, Godsmack, Alter Bridge, 3 Doors Down, Evanescence, Linkin Park, Staind, Puddle Of Mudd, etc. Standard compressed sounds, standard choruses still riding on the coattails of "grunge" and band of the 90's. Maybe it actually is what they like and they are being honest in their musical endeavors but, they still sound the same as the rest of the "beer and lifestyle music". Maybe they are just shallow and vapid as people and that is what is reflected in their creativity (or lack thereof). Or they are making sure to sound appealing to the biggest possible fanbase and they don't really care how they sound or about exploring new ground with their music ... they just want to rawk. Either way it still sounds like something from a Budweiser commercial to me. Corporate rock.
    hudsonstradlin
    Ghostmaker wrote: biff022 wrote: Corporate rock. Tremonti is a great player, but both of his bands are bland corporate rock nonetheless. DirkLance wrote: What does that mean exactly? Do they sing about the stock market and how to buy a foreclosed home for cheap? I don't understand what business has to do with the style of music being played. Corporate Rock: A label to be placed on a band that is more popular than the favorite band of person speaking. The new album is awesome, can't wait to pick it up tomorrow.
    Hahahahaha you win at life. It's a great album. I have a dubious copy of it (Suck it, Gene), but I'm definitely gonna buy the CD.
    transplants182
    biff022 wrote: @ Ghostmaker... nah... Alter Bridge aren't more popular than my favorite band. Corporate rock is when bands all share the same song structure, timing, tone and majority fan base. See Creed, Nickelback, Godsmack, Alter Bridge, 3 Doors Down, Evanescence, Linkin Park, Staind, Puddle Of Mudd, etc. Standard compressed sounds, standard choruses still riding on the coattails of "grunge" and band of the 90's. Maybe it actually is what they like and they are being honest in their musical endeavors but, they still sound the same as the rest of the "beer and lifestyle music". Maybe they are just shallow and vapid as people and that is what is reflected in their creativity (or lack thereof). Or they are making sure to sound appealing to the biggest possible fanbase and they don't really care how they sound or about exploring new ground with their music ... they just want to rawk. Either way it still sounds like something from a Budweiser commercial to me. Corporate rock.
    I'm under the impression that you've only heard maybe 2 or 3 of their songs.
    Amuro Jay
    biff022 wrote: @ Ghostmaker... nah... Alter Bridge aren't more popular than my favorite band. Corporate rock is when bands all share the same song structure, timing, tone and majority fan base. See Creed, Nickelback, Godsmack, Alter Bridge, 3 Doors Down, Evanescence, Linkin Park, Staind, Puddle Of Mudd, etc. Standard compressed sounds, standard choruses still riding on the coattails of "grunge" and band of the 90's. Maybe it actually is what they like and they are being honest in their musical endeavors but, they still sound the same as the rest of the "beer and lifestyle music". Maybe they are just shallow and vapid as people and that is what is reflected in their creativity (or lack thereof). Or they are making sure to sound appealing to the biggest possible fanbase and they don't really care how they sound or about exploring new ground with their music ... they just want to rawk. Either way it still sounds like something from a Budweiser commercial to me. Corporate rock.
    I think you're confusing "corporate rock" with modern day alternative/hard rock. Songs in a specific genre tend to have the same timing and song structure, and bans within specific genres themselves do commonly share a fanbase. The fact that they're on the radio a lot probably contributes greatly to that. I mean, tons of metal bands share song structures, tons of them are fast, tons of them are soaked in distortion, tons of them share the same fanbase. Does that make them all corporate metal? Don't think so. There's a difference between being a popular band and being a puppet band.
    flxz
    Krieger91 wrote: I wanna listen to this album now..
    then hurry the hell up, ABIII is an amazing album!
    guitaraddict44
    Mr_Dobolina wrote: biff022 wrote: @ Ghostmaker... nah... Alter Bridge aren't more popular than my favorite band. Corporate rock is when bands all share the same song structure, timing, tone and majority fan base. See Creed, Nickelback, Godsmack, Alter Bridge, 3 Doors Down, Evanescence, Linkin Park, Staind, Puddle Of Mudd, etc. Standard compressed sounds, standard choruses still riding on the coattails of "grunge" and band of the 90's. Maybe it actually is what they like and they are being honest in their musical endeavors but, they still sound the same as the rest of the "beer and lifestyle music". Maybe they are just shallow and vapid as people and that is what is reflected in their creativity (or lack thereof). Or they are making sure to sound appealing to the biggest possible fanbase and they don't really care how they sound or about exploring new ground with their music ... they just want to rawk. Either way it still sounds like something from a Budweiser commercial to me. Corporate rock. I couldn't have said it any better. I also don't get the fascination with Myles. He's good, yes. But good enough to replace Plant in Zeppelin? No way. I want to like this band because Tremonti is unbelievably skilled, but because of the aforementioned reasons I can't.
    You sir, are missing out on not just one of the greatest modern singers of today, but also one of the most unique bands in decades. And if you heard as much material from Myles as I have, then you would know that he is more than worthy of replacing Robert Plant in Zeppelin (As great as he is).
    Sean117
    guitaraddict44 wrote: Mr_Dobolina wrote: biff022 wrote: @ Ghostmaker... nah... Alter Bridge aren't more popular than my favorite band. Corporate rock is when bands all share the same song structure, timing, tone and majority fan base. See Creed, Nickelback, Godsmack, Alter Bridge, 3 Doors Down, Evanescence, Linkin Park, Staind, Puddle Of Mudd, etc. Standard compressed sounds, standard choruses still riding on the coattails of "grunge" and band of the 90's. Maybe it actually is what they like and they are being honest in their musical endeavors but, they still sound the same as the rest of the "beer and lifestyle music". Maybe they are just shallow and vapid as people and that is what is reflected in their creativity (or lack thereof). Or they are making sure to sound appealing to the biggest possible fanbase and they don't really care how they sound or about exploring new ground with their music ... they just want to rawk. Either way it still sounds like something from a Budweiser commercial to me. Corporate rock. I couldn't have said it any better. I also don't get the fascination with Myles. He's good, yes. But good enough to replace Plant in Zeppelin? No way. I want to like this band because Tremonti is unbelievably skilled, but because of the aforementioned reasons I can't. You sir, are missing out on not just one of the greatest modern singers of today, but also one of the most unique bands in decades. And if you heard as much material from Myles as I have, then you would know that he is more than worthy of replacing Robert Plant in Zeppelin (As great as he is).
    See "Mayfield Four"-Summergirl. Have fun getting that foot out your mouth biff022.
    uctlaum01
    for one thing, Myles was never going to replace Plant. they were looking to get a new project going that no doubt would've played LZ songs, but they were not going to go out as LZ. Page's camp squashed that pretty early on, but people will believe whatever they want. before people go labeling them as "corporate rock" let's realize that the reason they're not with Roadrunner worldwide is because RR US didn't think they had a US single (Mark said this in an interview not too long ago). imho, that just goes to show they're not corporate rock. I can't wait to get this album tomorrow! I've been holding out on listening to the bonus tracks. the first time I'll hear them is tomorrow when I listen through the CD. going to see them live twice next month!! can't wait!!
    _Grundig_
    I want to like them, I really do. But I get the feeling from Creed and AB alike that they try to layer some kind of 'edge' over something that isn't really 'fringe'. Not that fringe is a good or a bad thing, its just not convincing to me.