Jekyll & Hyde Comparisons

[LexingtonPethead]

This has probably been discussed here on the zone before, but I'm going to add my 2 cents worth anyway...

I've been buying several CDs lately from bands like Jonah 33, Anberlin, 7 Places, 12 Stones, Sanctus Real and others... bands who are now "peers" of Petra since the release of their all-out-rock Jekyll & Hyde CD.

A lot of these bands have a great rock sound and have lyrics that point to and lift up the name of Jesus, and I have to say I'm very happy to see that there are bands out there who are not ashamed to speak the name of Christ.

But as good as these new bands are, when you listen to them and then give Jekyll & Hyde a spin, to me, J&H is by far the runaway favorite. The songs are catchier, and Bob's experience as a professional really shines as he writes plays each guitar riff. J&H is superb in every way I can describe it from an artistic point of view.

I guess I just have to scratch my head in total amazement when I see people get into these other bands and then dismiss or even discredit Petra just because they've been around for 30+ years.

Those of you who run into this, how do you deal with it? I get so frustrated when this happens that I literally have to bite my tongue in order to not offend ignorant people who are either clueless or biased.

[Shell]

You may regret asking that. First I bust their kneecaps. Then I tie them to the nearest chair and force them to listen to J&H over and over again until they say they like it. And if that doesn't work I make them watch Gilligan Island reruns over and over.

No, really, it's a waste of time to try and argue with them; just let them think what they want. You can't reason with someone who thinks that, their minds are already made up. They're just missing out on a good band.

[LexingtonPethead]

That's a good one, Shell. And... you are right. I've never been able to convince anyone who had preconceived ideas of Petra.

But I do like the idea of busting their kneecaps!

[Michael]

None of the arguments against Petra really hold any water. People have every right to not like Petra, of course, but all the "they sound like an 80's band" "He sings too high" stuff is just baloney. But the fact is, if we engage in arguments against people about it, it will just cause them to solidify the opinions they already have. IMHO, the best thing we can do is make information about the CD available in every way we can, and not get tied up in arguments, in person, online or otherwise. I don't debate it any more; I respect "I don't like it" but I won't try to convince anyone that some no-substance argument they made up to support their opinion isn't true. They know it isn't true.

[LexingtonPethead]

Yeah, you're right about all that, Michael. But what really gets me is that people make their "no substance" arguments in the first place. Like you said, they know their complaints aren't legit... so what's their point?

Is it that some people just can't admit that a group of 50+ year old rockers do a better job at modern rock than a band of 22 year olds?

[separateunion]

In the end, I think it all come down to a matter of opinion and personal taste. I personally find JAH to be too simple for my tastes.

[LexingtonPethead]

In the end, I think it all come down to a matter of opinion and personal taste. I personally find JAH to be too simple for my tastes.

Well, you're right about it coming down to a matter of opinion and personal tastes.

But I can't find anything simple about J&H. Unless you're making indirect comparisons to bands like Living Sacrifice, which are in an entirely different genre' (and would therefore be like comparing apples & oranges), I would have to categorically disagree with your opinion about simplicity.

Actually, Bob has never played better than he has on Jekyll & Hyde. Many of Bob's riffs are very complex, especially when compared to similar bands, the intricacies of Jekyll & Hyde are very obvious to the untrained ear. If you can't hear the difference, then I suggest you buy a better sound system. No offense, but I think you're missing a lot.

[separateunion]

When I say "simple", I'm not referring to the guitar playing, but rather, that musically, it lacks depth. All there is is vocals, guitar, bass, and drums. Not only that, but Bob plays the guitar pretty much the same throughout the whole album; little distortion or effects or anything. That's what I mean by simple.

Most bands today layer guitars, use distortion, add effects and extra instruments that aren't in the band, and overall, just make a much larger orchestration from a very basic sounding song. Petra has the basic sound very well with JAH, but I just look for a larger sound with my music.

Take a listen to Smashing Pumpkins "Siamese Dream" or evne "Mellon Collie And The Infinite Sadness" to see what I mean. Both albums totally blow JAH out of the water in musicianship.

And just so you know, I have an excellent sound system, and I know what I'm talking about when it comes to music. I've been listening to it most of my life as well as playing several different instruments.

[LexingtonPethead]

Thanks for elaborating. Actually, I would agree with you based on your explanation.

I've also noticed the "bare" spots but almost forgot about them until you gave your more detailed opinion. Based on that, I can see what you're referring to, and you are right... they are there.

Getting more depth WOULD be nice to have in a Jekyll & Hyde follow-up. I kinda think, though, that they intended J&H to be more of a raw, clean, less-tinkered-with sound than they have done in the past, which CAN be a good thing. It does show how good the songs are on their own merit without having to "manufacture" the sound.

I would doubt that your Smashing Pumpkins CD would hold up to Jekyll & Hyde had it been produced in the basic style as Jekyll & Hyde. Not that those bands you mentioned aren't talented (that's not what I meant so don't jump on that), but the expertise Bob brings to the studio is why a "simple" sound can sound as good as it does. I just don't think many bands can do it as well as Petra does.

Also, I have often wondered what J&H would sound like if the Elefante's had produced it. Now THAT would be an all-out rock CD that few people could find fault with!

[MichaeLeah]

I think you guys might have missed some of what Petra was trying to do on this album. The idea for the project was to make a "classic rock album." The whole idea was to make a raw sort of album. To compare that to a highly produced album is like comparing apples and oranges. It is like listening to Sgt. Pepper and then complaining that Bob Dylan's (early) music is to simple sounding. If you do that you miss the point. Petra went out and accomplished what they wanted to do. And they did a very nice job of it. If you want to classify in comparison to secular rock I think something that is similar is Led Zeppelin. Some of Bob's rifts sound very Jimmy Paige-ish. J&H sounds a lot like some of the later Zeppelin. Heavy production doesn't prove that a band is good. In fact, in a lot of cases in today's music it proves that an artist isn't very good. Petra created an album they can reproduce on stage. It is plain ol' classic rock and roll. And when compared against its own kind, it is very good. If I am in the mood for rock with symphonic overdubs then I will listen to something else like the Beatles or something. It is really difficult to find much criticism for this album. It is one of the best albums Petra has ever made.

Michael (my wife is Leah)

[epdc]

BRAVO!!!!! I`m totally agree with you. If we want to classify this album in another category we would find like a thousand of things "not good". But if we consider what was Petra trying to do it is definitely AWESOME

And I don`t care what people think, I LOVE IT
(though i can`t hear it because my tape/cd recorder is not working)

BY THE WAY, Welcome to the zone Michael second (Michael Jones is the first one)

[separateunion]

Not to say that I don't like the album, but as far as what I like the most, JAH doesn't cut it. I'd prefer Beyond Belief over it.

Once again, using the Smashing Pumpkins example, Billy Corgan actually proves he is a much better musicianship by making the music more intricat with the layered guitars and stringed backgrounds. Mayonaise is one of the most freaking amazing songs, and the guitar parts are simply breath taking.

[executioner]

I really don't like the stuff that can't be played live. I saw Smashing Pumkins in concert in 99', and alot of what they did came from the sound crew. All the backing vocals were not live, and most of the rythmn guitar.
One way you can tell that there is alot of stuff at shows not done live is look at the drummer; If he has two ear pieces then there is both vocals and instruments that are not coming from the stage. I hate that I come to the band play not a soundboard.
Petra did an awesome job on JAH. They accomplished what they wanted. If it's not your cup of tea that's ok, but a least compare it to something in its range and not something you get from a different genre.

[separateunion]

The Smashing Pumpkins were touring for Adore in '99, and Adore was an album that was mostly electronica and synthesizers. Their first two albums were very rock oriented, although not as straight rock as Petra plays. The genres are somewhat similar. However, genre has nothing to do with how "bare" an album sounds.

I have not heard the entirity of 12 Stones debut album, but "Broken" has a much larger sound than any song on JAH, which is what I like to hear on a STUDIO album. If you want a live sounding album, make a live album. Once again, this is all my personal preference.

[executioner]

So what you are saying is that JAH was a mistake right? I think what you are trying to do is compare apples to oranges and we all know that doesn't work . In no way do I hear or see a similar sound in anything Petra and The Smashing Pumkins have done. Don't get me wrong I like some stuff from them, but I think it would be wrong to compare them. I really like JAH because I think it is what Petra wanted to do heart wise, and not going for what the record company wanted foresay. I want music and lyrics from the heart and I think Petra captured this on JAH. JAH was intended to be bare and raw, and it was intended to have those gaps with no sound at all. If you don't like it that's fine, but please try and be relevant and try and compare it in a fair manner. I'm not trying to start an agrument, but please compare JAH with something in it's area. On the 12 stones effort they are a Creed clone, and sounds nothing like JAH or Petra for that matter. BTW Creed is talking like they will not be making another album if anyone cares.