Quote:
Originally Posted by starstruck
i would argue that more people would have liked it and been more interested in the album.
|
I personally think Nixon is the more commercial and interesting track. You can't really 'argue' it either way though, it's entirely subjective.
I've always felt that 'Lifeblood' failed because the Manics were
always going to fail in 2004. Nicky often talks about how all their contemporaries have split up, reformed etc and it's become a bit of a joke, but as usual he is (or was, originally) making a good point - the Manics have never really gone away so the public have never had a break from them. I think that to a lot of people in 2004, the Manics were an 'old' nineties group who they'd seen enough times before. And to younger people they were something infinitely worse - a band their hated older siblings or cousins might have liked a few years earlier. I really think they could have put out
anything in 2004 - EMG, SATT, whatever - and it would have tanked, because people were just bored of them at that point.
That, and a complete lack of promotion, which is something they've suffered from ever since really.
Whenever I brought up 'Lifeblood' in conversation in 2004, the response was always either a confused expression and the words
"oh... do they have another album out?" or a grimace and the words
"oh... do THEY have another album out?".
They needed a failure and a few years off for people to take to them again, they really did.