Chickenfoot vs. Chickenfoot III

Chickenfoot vs. Chickenfoot III

I'm sort of digging Chickenfoot III, whereas Chickenfoot's debut was good, but not really all that memorable. What say ye? Which is better?

Don't care for either actually. I classify them as a band that has talented players but are out of their element in the songwriting dept. The concert I saw them at in Concord, Calif. (between lps) was alot of fun. They are basically a glorifed bar band (IMHO) and the current theater and casino concert dates testify to that.

I'm not ready to vote just yet, as I've only had CF III for about 2 weeks now, but I'm thinking I like the debut better.

Aside from the lead-off single 'Bigfoot', I'm not finding it that memorable. Could just be that I need to spend a little more time with it though.

I'm also comparing CF III to the new Van Halen, which I really shouldn't.

III flat out rocks...

I prefer III

MetalGuy71 wrote:

I'm not ready to vote just yet, as I've only had CF III for about 2 weeks now, but I'm thinking I like the debut better.

Aside from the lead-off single 'Bigfoot', I'm not finding it that memorable. Could just be that I need to spend a little more time with it though.

I'm also comparing CF III to the new Van Halen, which I really shouldn't.

Give "Something Gone Wrong" a spin or two and see if it doesn't trip your trigger. Also, I found "Three And A Half Letters" to be heavy (lyrics) and well written (music).

I take it this means Chickenfoot will be added to NLTM in the next update?

Liking III better and one C-foot has VH doesn't is those BGV's.

I think III is great! Something's going wrong gives me a serious led zep vibe. I love the equal parts hard rocking/laid back jamming of CF's sound... at least on III.

TheGreatDuck wrote:

I take it this means Chickenfoot will be added to NLTM in the next update?

Yes sir.

III is way better. The debut isn't very memorable, III doesn't really have any filler and a number of songs sound like Van Hagar.

I think the debut is good, but III is great. And they're far more than a glorified bar band. That's just absurd.

I like both. Can't decide on one. Just include an option 'They are both great'. I'll go for this one

Eyesore wrote:

I think the debut is good, but III is great. And they're far more than a glorified bar band. That's just absurd.

And you saying they are good and great repectively is just as absurd to me. So there we go.

James B. wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

I think the debut is good, but III is great. And they're far more than a glorified bar band. That's just absurd.

And you saying they are good and great repectively is just as absurd to me. So there we go.

Settle down.

Eyesore wrote:

James B. wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

I think the debut is good, but III is great. And they're far more than a glorified bar band. That's just absurd.

And you saying they are good and great repectively is just as absurd to me. So there we go.

Settle down.

What? That was a completely calm response from James, take your own advice.

S.D. wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

James B. wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

I think the debut is good, but III is great. And they're far more than a glorified bar band. That's just absurd.

And you saying they are good and great repectively is just as absurd to me. So there we go.

Settle down.

What? That was a completely calm response from James, take your own advice.

Good lord, dude. Does everything need a frickin' smiley around here?

Perhaps one of these

I have alot of friends who are great musicians and lack decent songwriting skills. The only difference between them and Chickenfoot (IMHO) is that the musicians in Chickenfoot are world famous and my friends are not. Nothing absurd about that. Just my perspective.

James B. wrote:

I have alot of friends who are great musicians and lack decent songwriting skills. The only difference between them and Chickenfoot (IMHO) is that the musicians in Chickenfoot are world famous and my friends are not. Nothing absurd about that. Just my perspective.

Know what you mean. From what I've heard III is a good album and I have yet to really give it a good listen. I'd like to hear Joe spread out a little more and kick some tail. This is some great stuff from Sam. I'm ready to get knocked over and yet I'm still standing.

Added: Haven't voted yet.

Satriani is a talented guitarist to be sure and he's got a knack for writing catchy, melodic instrumental rock songs. He also recorded some "okay" if very rudimentary vocal songs, but that's not his forte...so I'm not that surprised by how pedestrian Chickenfoot sounds.

I hate the term "pedestrian." 99.9% of the stuff out there is "pedestrian," doing nothing to set itself apart from the masses.

Eyesore wrote:

I hate the term "pedestrian." 99.9% of the stuff out there is "pedestrian," doing nothing to set itself apart from the masses.

I'll be sure to contact you for copy approval prior to posting next time.

Recently bought both CF I & III. I'm a big Joe Satriani and needed to complete my collection. I always wondered what Joe would sound like if he played in a band and not just a bunch of hired musicians. Well, now I know. I was shocked and disappointed and not because the music is bad, I think it's quite good. I guess I was thinking that it would sound different. How different, not sure, but these two albums certainly wasn't what I was expecting. Both albums are good and take a couple listens to get what's going on. I might actually favor CF I a bit, but not by much. Guess I need to get over my initial expectations going in to really form an opinion. These are good long term listens that are full of lots of stuff going on to keep me interested.

I voted for III, but it really could've gone either way. I find both albums to be quite enjoyable. I like Satch playing a little more restrained in a band setting. If I want crazy shredding, I'll listen to his solo work.