I think No Substance is one of their best albums, I don't understand why they don't like it. Sure, a few songs are quite cheesy, but it's genuine and interesting.

yes the new america i do like tons, and no substance is great...really, BR can't do a bad album...the gray race is the #1 most underrated BR album. come join us has the neatest lyrics. if they write it, i will come. (buy, not climax), but i do get awfully excited with each new release.

i'm sure even BR was VERY proud of No Substance and New America at one point
(though i love both albums, i know they sure don't)

Let the magazines talk whatever they want...They are full of shit. Even bands are full of shit, with every new album they go like: The last one was not so good, this new one is more darker, more personal etc. inspiration blablabla

So what, all the reviewers at the same magazine doesn't have the same opinions.

so what, its the same magazine. but perhaps its just a good example of how useless reviews and such magazines are...

So what, it could have just been a different reviewer.

you got me wrong, they didnt compare it with the new america and said its not as good as the new america, the magazine stated that no substance was a poor album two years after it elected it to be album of the month! its like giving an oscar to tom hanks for forrest gump and saying two years later it was one of the worst movies tom hanks ever did.

Are you talking about No substance? Coz If you do, there is nothing wrong with saying that a new album is way better than the old one..

thats a smart way of making sure your album does get a good review. reminds me of the german magazin "visions", which had also a guy invited to gregs house, and that album got album of the month with the a picture of it on the cover in 1998. then two years later the magazine called it a weak album while reviewing the new america... thats when the magazine lost all credibility to me.

hell yeah