EvanJ
6x Platinum Member
Joined: September 2003
Posts: 6,371
|
Post by EvanJ on Mar 5, 2004 19:19:01 GMT -5
|
|
Mega248
Diamond Member
Joined: September 2003
Posts: 12,333 
|
Post by Mega248 on Mar 5, 2004 19:22:26 GMT -5
The station here has been playing this for a couple months now. It's a great song. Hopefully this'll make the top 30 at least.
|
|
crash46
7x Platinum Member
Inspired Mediasource
Ones who does not have Triforce can't go in.
Joined: November 2005
Posts: 7,224
|
Post by crash46 on Apr 2, 2004 1:23:22 GMT -5
So that's what this is. I knew New Found Glory had some new song out, and for over 2 weeks, I thought I had been hearing that, when it was actually this.
And then I shook my head for about four minutes. This is way too generic. Considering how much I loved the three singles from Start Static, I don't think I've ever been more disappointed in a new single. I mean, I knew this type of music was part of their repetoire, but it's not what you release to lead off the new album.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2004 5:52:39 GMT -5
It's boring.
|
|
|
|
Post by Walking Contradiction on Apr 2, 2004 15:07:28 GMT -5
I wanted to like this song, since I really liked "Pretty Girl (The Way)" and I thought that deserved to be a hit. But I can't say it's doing anything for me...just sounds like a generic pop-punk song to me, kind of like a less obnoxious version of Good Charlotte's "The Anthem." I don't expect (or want) much from this one.
|
|
Matt4319
Administrator
Joined: September 2003
Posts: 15,215
Staff
|
Post by Matt4319 on Apr 11, 2004 14:04:21 GMT -5
I really like this one. I can see where people would think it's generic GC or NFG, but I think Sugarcult has more alternative credibility than either of them.
|
|
Mega248
Diamond Member
Joined: September 2003
Posts: 12,333
|
Post by Mega248 on Apr 11, 2004 14:32:53 GMT -5
Now I can see why people are calling this generic. All I'd heard until a couple weeks ago was the acoustic version, which I loved. However, the non-acoustic version is pretty uninteresting and not nearly as good. The song will likley conitnue to rise on my personal chart though because of the acoustic version.
|
|
Matt4319
Administrator
Joined: September 2003
Posts: 15,215
Staff
|
Post by Matt4319 on Apr 11, 2004 15:05:15 GMT -5
Now I can see why people are calling this generic. All I'd heard until a couple weeks ago was the acoustic version, which I loved. However, the non-acoustic version is pretty uninteresting and not nearly as good. The song will likley conitnue to rise on my personal chart though because of the acoustic version. LOL... it was actually the opposite for me. I thought the acoustic version was decent, but liked the "real" version more. Here's how it's done on my personal chart. 91-88-87-78-(first heard non-acoustic version)-57 The way it's going now, it should make at least the top 20. |
|
EvanJ
6x Platinum Member
Joined: September 2003
Posts: 6,371
|
Post by EvanJ on Apr 11, 2004 15:35:50 GMT -5
|
|
