Hm, I gotta side with Foro on this one. There are songs that are catchy but bland, i.e. they do "catch" you, but you forget about them soon after. And there are songs that are catchy and stay with you for a long time. The latter must have some sort of quality to them if they work that way.
Well, perhaps it didn't represent the sound that much. But that's not that easy. They did various stuff. Much rougher stuff (definitely rock) such as this:Blend of both. Pop-rock. It's the first time I've heard the band, I've checked their genre and it says alternative rock. Most of the time that's the case, blend of pop and rock elements are considered alternative rock (Coldplay comes to mind), don't know why. Don't know if the song represents the band's sound, though.
Hell no!Oh, come on! Britney Spears' songs stay with you whether you want this or not. Yes, they are catchy. Are they good musically?
But you agree, that as I put it every song tries to be catchy to some, right??
I prefer I. I'd say II has several less strong songs (penned by Kiske or Weikath)
Oh, come on! Britney Spears' songs stay with you whether you want this or not. Yes, they are catchy. Are they good musically?
Be very careful or Per may give his Helloween rant
@Perun: This comes closer to brainwashing, I'd say.
Helloween suck. There, rant.
Absolutely. But does not exactly qualify as "high quality", does it?Well, that's still a big thing, don't you think?