I didn't bother reading that but from a musical standpoint if Muse released what they do now compared to Origin of Symmetry and Absolution (and a few tracks from Show Biz to boot, like Suburn) they would not be as big as they are now. Muse captured (IMO) the essence of rock meets classical music by fusing together big rock riffs with classical (baroque) chord structures and harmonies, and threw in a few modern electronic twists with some great bass grooves. Use of bass effects has always been a high point.
Muse were absolutely fantastic but their second last album almost ruined the band for me. I haven't bothered checking out their latest album; when I heard Survival for the first time on the radio I actually thought it was a joke band doing a bad parody of Queen.
I'm not going to read all of that Zeek. No wonder no-one likes talking with you about anything, you're teetering on a knife-edge constantly wanting to prove your superiority as this self-styled antagonist by crapping all over someone else. You write an idiotically overwritten insult and then go on to prove that your opinion is just an opinion in a long-winded and equally overwritten mess of verbiage. It convinces no-one, and that's even if they're not rightfully pissed off with your assault on the practise of clear communication.
I have no opinion about Muse's new album. Haven't even heard it. I don't think enough about Muse to formulate a detailed opinion and I wouldn't want to waste my time doing so simply for the sake of being able to comment on music that personally I could take or leave. Easy to be a critic though isn't it? Easier is just admitting that people are prone to have their own opinion on what they enjoy in terms of music regardless of anything you consider to be objective.
You are not even close to being as smart as you think you are, you're just a smug, whiny, neurotic, self-important bore. But that's probably just my own subjective opinion.
Honestly, I don't mind reading Uzi's longer posts. They're often nuanced answers with multiple supporting arguments. Not always, though. Sometimes he says the same shit 10 times in a different way with insults thrown in. I guess I just have the time and patience to read for a minute.
The shape of an eye in front of the ocean, digging for stones and throwing them against its window pane. Take it down dreamer, take it down deep. - Other Families
It's the internet, these things are to be expected. If he was calling everyone a faggot every third line I'd be with you, but he at least cares enough to call people stupid in a reworked way each time.
The shape of an eye in front of the ocean, digging for stones and throwing them against its window pane. Take it down dreamer, take it down deep. - Other Families
if i played smoke on the water on a poorly tuned guitar just after breaking every single one of my digits, and played it through an amplifier that was blown out and overdriven to 11... it would be objectively bad
i lost it at this point, lol
well said XD
"people in ny have a general idea of how to drive. one of the pedals goes forward the other one prevents you from dying"
I'm not going to read all of that Zeek. No wonder no-one likes talking with you about anything, you're teetering on a knife-edge constantly wanting to prove your superiority as this self-styled antagonist by crapping all over someone else. You write an idiotically overwritten insult and then go on to prove that your opinion is just an opinion in a long-winded and equally overwritten mess of verbiage. It convinces no-one, and that's even if they're not rightfully pissed off with your assault on the practise of clear communication.
I have no opinion about Muse's new album. Haven't even heard it. I don't think enough about Muse to formulate a detailed opinion and I wouldn't want to waste my time doing so simply for the sake of being able to comment on music that personally I could take or leave. Easy to be a critic though isn't it? Easier is just admitting that people are prone to have their own opinion on what they enjoy in terms of music regardless of anything you consider to be objective.
You are not even close to being as smart as you think you are, you're just a smug, whiny, neurotic, self-important bore. But that's probably just my own subjective opinion.
what? that post took me about 2 minutes. if it takes you more than 30-45 seconds to read it, you must be borderline retarded.
"prove my superiority by wanting to crap over someone else"? i said muse used to be good at what they do. it just wasn't for me. i don't feel superior to anyone when i call a bad album bad. it is bad quite apart from me, you, or anyone else; it is bad as an object, out there in the world, like a little monad of awful. as for being "idiotically overwritten"... i think this says more about your writing levels than anything i have "overwritten". it's hardly a critique penned in dactylic hexameter and set to a lyre, is it? it's 3 paragraphs of criticism that provides 3 paragraphs full of reasons. lack of "clear communication"? would you like bullet points next time, honey? i'll put a simple 400 word criticism in a powerpoint next time, with page-turning effects, to keep you mouth breathers interested throughout the course of the show. bonggggg.
yes it's easy to be a critic. it's also easy to be immensely passionate about music. i used to love rock/metal music - it's not my first love, admittedly, nor my last - but i think i've listened to quite a lot of the stuff throughout my teen years. i didn't have to sit and listen to the muse album 25 times with a notebook out in a windowseat on a lachrymose rainy day to 'get' the muse album. you're acting like i put more than 5 minutes of my thought and effort into it. not so. it's just a bad album. it is nothing compared to their early stuff.
and ya ya neurotic, whiny, smug... i'm not being smug or whiny in that post. just stating why on a song-for-song basis the new muse album is a confused and muddled mess. where am i being smug? i'm conceded they used to be capital-g Good. where am i whining? whining implies i'm hurt or affronted in some way. i have no stakes in their new album needing to be good. neurotic? are you oedipalizing my posts now, as well? is there an implicit and unconscious castration complex evident in my posting? please outline the metaphysical phallus in paragraph #3. please triangulate the hanging signifier of the father in my refrain. you fucking menk.
the new four tet is just a collection of his latest dance 12"'s self-released on his text records imprint. they're all london dance scene songs, basically. do not expect a normal four tet release: they're less experimental and melodic, more functional and built for the fabric/plastic people environments that he regularly dj's at. fucking great if you're into that sort of thing.
if i played smoke on the water on a poorly tuned guitar just after breaking every single one of my digits, and played it through an amplifier that was blown out and overdriven to 11... it would be objectively bad.
There's a difference in poorly played music and decently played music you don't like. If they hit the chords in the wrong order and weren't on the same beat then yes you'd have a point. If they just played music you (or anybody) doesn't find appealing for whatever reason then it's subjective.
if i played smoke on the water on a poorly tuned guitar just after breaking every single one of my digits, and played it through an amplifier that was blown out and overdriven to 11... it would be objectively bad.
There's a difference in poorly played music and decently played music you don't like. If they hit the chords in the wrong order and weren't on the same beat then yes you'd have a point. If they just played music you (or anybody) doesn't find appealing for whatever reason then it's subjective.
well no, it's not strictly technical at all. that was just one example of an 'objective' standard in music. being technically good at playing songs and instruments doesn't make good music. there are 100 dragonforce cover bands out there that make terrible music, though it is virtuosic and masturbatory and displays textbook phrygian scales all up the hairy arsehole of the lead guitarist. that doesn't make good music. it makes good music theory. it's exhausting and/or boring to listen to. music needs to carry something more than the mechanics of playing an instrument.
ditto with genre and style. to use a style is a conscious choice that an artist plays to in order to evoke an effect in the listener. muse take on about 12 different styles in the album (sometimes multiple styles per song, rudely juxtaposed), and all of them feel like pastiche. pastiche is probably the best word i can think of for the album. it's a tribute album. it's a tribute to every band and every style that have ever informed muse. good for them, they are financially secure enough to make this sort of album. but i see no reason why you'd listen to this album over queen, or some skrillex, or lady gaga, or the bee gees, or whoever the fuck else they rudely and poorly imitate. muse have left their well-earned niche of classical stadium rock and have crossed over into this weird territory where they impersonate everyone else, but never convincingly. if i wanted to hear freddie mercury... i'd go dust off one of my pop's old queen LP's. i don't need matt's shitty voice killing my cool bohemian rhapsody.
there are 100 dragonforce cover bands out there that make terrible music, though it is virtuosic and masturbatory and displays textbook phrygian scales all up the hairy arsehole of the lead guitarist. that doesn't make good music.
They do sell albums though right? I mean they have to stay (sorta) afloat somehow so someone out there must buy them and therefor like them. Using this (though I'll admit, poor) argument to say this: they are good bands to at least a small percentage of people out there. Does this mean there's a set limit on what percentage of people like them before they're considered objectively good? The Black Eyed Peas (for example) sell umpteen jillion albums and a damn high percentage of people like them. Are they objectively good? If more than 50% (or 75 or 99) of the people like them and they aren't objectively good then who decides they are bad, and why?
ditto with genre and style. to use a style is a conscious choice that an artist plays to in order to evoke an effect in the listener. muse take on about 12 different styles in the album (sometimes multiple styles per song, rudely juxtaposed), and all of them feel like pastiche. pastiche is probably the best word i can think of for the album. it's a tribute album. it's a tribute to every band and every style that have ever informed muse. good for them, they are financially secure enough to make this sort of album. but i see no reason why you'd listen to this album over queen, or some skrillex, or lady gaga, or the bee gees, or whoever the fuck else they rudely and poorly imitate. muse have left their well-earned niche of classical stadium rock and have crossed over into this weird territory where they impersonate everyone else, but never convincingly. if i wanted to hear freddie mercury... i'd go dust off one of my pop's old queen LP's. i don't need matt's shitty voice killing my cool bohemian rhapsody.
I don't listen to Muse and couldn't name you more than one song they've ever done so I'll just say I'm in no position to argue for or against them specifically.
there are 100 dragonforce cover bands out there that make terrible music, though it is virtuosic and masturbatory and displays textbook phrygian scales all up the hairy arsehole of the lead guitarist. that doesn't make good music.
They do sell albums though right? I mean they have to stay (sorta) afloat somehow so someone out there must buy them and therefor like them. Using this (though I'll admit, poor) argument to say this: they are good bands to at least a small percentage of people out there. Does this mean there's a set limit on what percentage of people like them before they're considered objectively good? The Black Eyed Peas (for example) sell umpteen jillion albums and a damn high percentage of people like them. Are they objectively good? If more than 50% (or 75 or 99) of the people like them and they aren't objectively good then who decides they are bad, and why?
Majority doesn't dictate what's good, especially in art.
there are 100 dragonforce cover bands out there that make terrible music, though it is virtuosic and masturbatory and displays textbook phrygian scales all up the hairy arsehole of the lead guitarist. that doesn't make good music.
They do sell albums though right? I mean they have to stay (sorta) afloat somehow so someone out there must buy them and therefor like them. Using this (though I'll admit, poor) argument to say this: they are good bands to at least a small percentage of people out there. Does this mean there's a set limit on what percentage of people like them before they're considered objectively good? The Black Eyed Peas (for example) sell umpteen jillion albums and a damn high percentage of people like them. Are they objectively good? If more than 50% (or 75 or 99) of the people like them and they aren't objectively good then who decides they are bad, and why?
Majority doesn't dictate what's good, especially in art.
What is considered "good" and why do those people specifically get to decide that?
I just started listening to Nectar. Not all his songs have that sound, including the one i just linked. Obviously the ones that have that crappy drop i skip but overall he has a bunch of good singles that I think were ipod worthy including that one.
