Beautiful Midnight

That drop shadow tells you everything you need to know about the quality of this release.

Beautiful Midnight is the third album released by the Matthew Good Band. It sounds a lot like the various post-grunge indie rock bands like Live and Bush. It is a concept, that's why I don't really understand why there are versions of the album with different track order. Anyway the concept in the lyrics doesn't stand out and the music is rather generic indie rock of the late 1990s.

Matthew good band. More like Matthew mediocre band. Amirite. That’s like an apple calling itself delicious. Just not accurate. Either way this album was just that 90s mediocrity that felt like it should’ve been blasted in some low budget film where it is always raining. So much better 90s music than this but this is tolerable. 5.2/10

Here's two nickels. Go buy some taste, OP. I know it ain't much cash, but anything it'll buy will be better than this.

Hokey smokes! I read the wikipedia article about this Canadian album and honestly wasn't excited to listen as I figured if I never heard of it or Matthew Good it might be some second-tier music... I finally turned off the Christmas music and put this on and was blown away! The strings used in some of these songs elevate the proceedings. So many of these songs really soar. Loved Hello Time Bomb, Load Me Up, Failing the Rorschach Test, Apparitions, The Future is X-Rated, Everything Automatic.... heck I loved everything on this album. I had a terrific time rocking out to this today. Too bad Matthew couldn't bring himself to talk nice to Seventeen magazine and work on breaking into the American music scene. Thanks to whoever suggested this - it really hit the spot!

Rating: 7/10 Best songs: Hello time bomb

Pretty decent! Don't think it's worth a 2, but I can see how some find it "run of the mill". I liked it enough for a 4.

Alternative rock.

I liked this. Funnily, it reminded me a bit of Tragically Hip, and then I found that this band is also from Canada. 4 stars.

Ok I was ready to hate but this is gas 💯

Pretty run of the mill, lightly alternative rock to my ears. Unobjectionable listen but I don't see myself seeking out more.

Rock alternativo. Ni fu ni fa.

Canadian rock that ends with a power ballad to prove they have deep feelings.

Not overly memorable, but pleasant enough. Very Brit-pop influenced, but as such it sounds like what was happening in Britain around the same time as this came out in Canada. I liked it, but didn't feel compelled to explore any of the rest of their stuff.

Rock alternativo. Ni fu ni fa.

Nice

Sounds like a bargain bin Live to me with a splash of REM thrown in.

This played while I listened

Buen rock alternativo, del estilo, no muy valorable la opinión puesto que solo hay 4 canciones disponibles. Pinta buena, parece que tiene, aunque falta averiguar un poco más.

old sounding grunge, ok I suppose but not notible.

Soothing voice. Music was a tat boring

Where full album?

Average 90’s rock, only a few songs on the album available on Spotify, based on these songs I have zero interest in trying to find the rest of the album.

More Canadian representation, this time from BC. I remember my first exposure to their music was their song Hello Time Bomb, which I heard on an album I'd purchased (Big Shiny Tunes 4). Falls into that alt rock category that occured right after grunge died. I then remember seeing a lot more of his stuff on MuchMusic after that (Load Me Up, Apparitions, The Future is X-Rated, Weapon). Something about them never fully hit with me. I mean, not awful, but something was missing. The hits were huge, but everything else was just filler. Similar style to early Our Lady Peace, Sam Roberts Band, Econoline Crush, or Big Wreck. Seeing that, it's right up my alley of musical taste, but Matthew Good was always just mid. Coulda been because Matthew Good himself was a huge douche too, I'm not sure. Favorite songs: Hello Time Bomb, Load Me Up, The Future is X-Rated, Strange Days, Jenni's Song Least favorite songs: I Miss New Wave, Born to Kill 2/5

This is likely an album that means a lot to the submitter and possibly speaks to a certain period in time, likely their mid to late teens? But stripped of that nostalgia, it just sounds like a hundred other post-grunge bands trying to sound meaningful. Big choruses, vague angst, and polished production that feels more radio than raw.

Wow, college rock lasted until the very late 90s in Canadia. This album is not held by Tidal. It's unavailable on YouTube unless one sets one's VPN to Canadaland. And honestly - it's not worth the effort. They're trying for a stadium rock sound while labouring under garage band limitations. There's nothing bad, per se, with this music. But it sure is uninspiring and tepid, trying very hard to be meaningful. I'm glad it makes you happy, submitter, but I'd struggle to think of a more mid example of this type of thing.

This looks and sounds like radio filler for rock stations to play in between the big hits. Listening to this outside of that format feels like I'm sneaking up on a helpless deer with a 12-gauge in my hands. Also next to impossible to find the full album anywhere on the internet if you live outside of Canada for some reason. Had to listen to a moldy Youtube playlist from 16 years ago that was missing two songs and had a random Maroon 5 song in there.

We're somewhere between Rush and Stone Temple Pilots here, so it's more like *Boring Midnight* to my ears. The production values brought by Warne Livesey -- who produced Midnight Oil's most famous hits -- give some welcome details and colors to those compositions, I can admit it. But those production values can't possibly hide how harmonically inert most of those songs are. I guess that the melodies of some hit singles played on local radios were "beautiful" enough to garner some memorable results on the Canadian charts. But for someone like me, those melodies sound lame. Same with the impossibly flat and meat-and-potatoes chord sequences accompanying the vast majority of those melodies. And so, as a consequence, the whole thing becomes instantly forgettable for me... Speaking of "harmonically inert" stuff, I'm gonna use the opportunity this review gives me to answer a very legitimate question the person who suggested this album asked in their raving review of Blink 182's *Enema Of The State*. But let me first quote the question, taken from that user's review: "I know some people don't like Blink or think they watered down punk, but it's just as cleverly irreverent as classic punk and way more melodic. So why hate on pop punk? A weakness of classic punk is limited musicianship and flawed vocals, and that's not here. It is FUN as hell." Music is always subjective, of course, and more power to you if you're having fun listening to Blink-182... But there are actually very clear reasons why a lot of users find their music BORING as hell. And it's not because I write the word in capital letters here that you will start to understand why Blink are very often not taken seriously. I need a little more argumentation than that. 😉 No, the only way for you to understand why someone like me rejects Blink-182 is to consider the concept of a "musical ear" and how the latter may influence your reception, emotionally or sensation-wise. Which will lead to a very long rant down there, I'm afraid. Some things can't be explained quickly. First, let me just point out that the "hate" is not necessarily about the music style itself. For example, I have nothing against "pop punk", as far as I'm concerned. I love Green Day's *Dookie*, just as I love a couple of NOFX albums -- not exactly "pop punk" in its most commonly agreed definition, but punk still filled to the brim with pop melodies... I believe that if you downplay subjective tastes to an extent, each musical style objectively provides good stuff and absolute dross anyway. And this, even if the latter can reach commercial success. It's in the nature of the capitalist beast to sometimes "elect" winners that might not necessarily deserve their success, after all... But that's a whole other debate I will certainly not touch upon here. No, as I said earlier, the real question is the "nature" of your musical ear, which is both innate and acquired -- most probably in quite equal parts. To be clear, some people who have never played a note of music in their lives may have a quite sensitive "musical ear". So this has nothing to do with being a proficient or even a stellar musician, and I think it's here very important to debunk the sort of misconceptions most commonly implied in that idea of "proficiency". Ironically, there lies the sort of elitism you're exemplifying yourself when you state this, dear anonymous user: "A weakness of classic punk is limited musicianship and flawed vocals". Yeah, a lot of punks are not the best guitar players or singers on a technical level (same with quite a few lo-fi, indie artists...). But when some of those "technically limited" punk artists write a riff, choose chords for a sequence, or create a vocal melody over said chords, it happens that a few of them are actually more astute, more inspired, and more original that some other folks who have studied music theory at the conservatory. And then, of course, you have the authenticity and intensity of the performance, which is the cream on the cake. There are key Nirvana albums in your gallery, dear user, so maybe you can get what I'm saying here... For me, the same phenomenon can be found in early or near-early punk records released by the Damned, The Clash, The Buzzcocks, Wipers, Dead Boys, and so on, where melodic astuteness AND uncompromising authenticity are both exemplified. The thing is, I don't consider Blink-182 as being "more melodic". They perform *a lot of* melodies, sure -- more than most of the names I've just quoted up there... But the real question does not deal with the notion of quantity. It's all about the notion of *quality*. Which, ultimately, is always a subjective notion. A simple query for you, dear user: what differentiates the melody used for a full-blown Blink song to the one written for an ad jingle or a TV commercial, according to you? Because, to be perfectly honest, I can't really tell the difference. Another quick aside here: given that Blink182 supposedly play "punk music", that airy, ad-jingle feel *does* appear like a betrayal of punk values for me. Same with the Californian band's supposed "irreverence" -- objectifying women in one song's lyrics hasn't aged very well, for instance, I hope you agree on that. Of course, some "classic punks" were not immune to that sort of misogyny either. Let's just say that when they come from the gutters, such sad pitfalls feel at least a little more "artistic" and emotionally potent than when they come from rich kids recording albums in Californian mansions. Maybe that's prejudice on my part, ironically. But that's yet another side-debate I unfortunately don't have the time to address here... So let's return to that question of melodicism instead: as you're already aware of, dear user, a lot of popular acts have been creating popular earworms for eons -- helped by radio rotation or streaming shenanigans that are often favoring such endeavors. Interestingly, this ability to create earworms can apply to both Nirvana and Blink-182. Or Madonna. Or Oasis. Or New Kids On The Block. Or The Beatles. Or Mariah Carey. Take your pick, from cheesy pop to prestige rock... The thing is, there are clear ways for a lot of listeners to separate the wheat from the chaff in that all-encompassing group of popular musicians, and this no matter what the music style is. Are the melodies -- either for the vocals, or the guitar licks, or the synth layers -- creating some welcome surprises along the way? Do they take "risks" on a harmonic level, avoiding the pitfalls of exactly following the harmonic grid of the chords over which they surge? Are the chord sequences themselves following a readymade grid to the letter, or do they thwart expectations as well, at least once in a while? Those are also the questions you need to ask yourself to understand why some people dislike Blink182. Maybe what I've just written sounds awfully "technical" to you. And yeah, there are probably music theorists out there who could explain all this using words such as "Ionian scales", "minor-major modulations", "cadences", or I don't know what else. But I swear to you that, for a lot of people -- both musicians and mere listeners -- that whole thing is 100% instinctual. Such instincts partly change over time, as you grow older, listen to a whole bunch of different stuff, and hone your tastes. But it's *never* "intellectual". It's simply sincere -- as sincere as your own love for pop punk. I'm not part of that group of music theorists I've just mentioned, you see, I've only read some stuff about all that online, and I would be a total fraud if I said I understand most of it. But I know that my personal appreciation of music is intricately tied to the way my brain is wired to look for beauty AND originality at the same time. When the melodies and harmonies are *both* catchy and surprising, that's where the strongest emotions surge for me. And honestly, I can't feel a damn thing when I listen to those of Blink182. As suggested in my side notes up there, music appreciation obviously goes beyond that question of melodicism. We could also discuss how the intent to create musical pastiches may or may not induce pleasure in some listeners, for instance, and how said intent reinjects a more "intellectual" sort of appreciation to those very instinctual sensations I've just discussed. You could also take as examples music styles where melodicism is very secondary (hardcore punk, some strands of metal, ambient and quite a few other experimental genres...) and yet can still elicit positive responses in subsets of listeners... But enough ranting for today. Rest assured that I don't merely want to "yuk on your yum* here, whether for Blink-182 or Matthew Good Band. The question you asked in your review of *Enema Of The State* was a very interesting and legitimate one, and I simply wanted to answer it the best I could. If ever you want to reply to my remarks, check out the album I've selected for the users list, and if you haven't reviewed it yet, leave your reply under your review. I'd be happy to read it, whatever said reply is. On this, have a great day, I mean that. 🙂 1.5/5 for the purposes of this list of essential albums, rounded up to 2. 6.5/10 for more general purposes (5 + 1.5) ---- Number of albums from the original list I find relevant enough to be mandatory listens: 465 Albums from the original list I *might* include in mine later on: 288 Albums from the original list I won't include in mine: 336 ---- Number of albums from the users list I find relevant enough to be mandatory listens: 61 Albums from the users list I *might* select for mine later on: 81 Albums from the users list I won't select for mine: 147 (including this one) ---- Emile... Ma propre balise temporelle... Tu trouveras mes trois dernières réponses sous les albums d'Eric B. & Rakim, Shpongle et Ookla The Mok

Pretty straightforward alt rock, which is too say it's nothing special.

Brutally dull slow rock. I also give it 80% odds that M.G. wrote this one's wiki entry himself

I knew the second I saw the shitty Photoshop cover art that this was going to be an offensively bland soft rock LP. Seems like Good is trying to ape some of the nu-metal/rock sounds of the time with some clear Incubus/Bush influences, but never manages to define himself sonically save for the most uninspired vocal delivery I've heard. Boring listen, never challenges the listener or offers anything new musically, so not really worthy of listening to before you die imo.

Someone listened to a lot of Pearl Jam and U2 and decided that they could do worse