Rug Burn Junky on 20/7/2009 at 19:22
Quote Posted by Stitch
Regarding Vivian's whole "U2 have never been good" bit. U2 may have turned into bloated self-parody but at one point they were pretty vital, regardless of whether or not Vivian has the perspective to recognize it.
Just as a hypothetical, would there be this much push back if he were shitting all over R.E.M.?
Paulie007 on 20/7/2009 at 20:09
Quote Posted by Vivian
You mean you don't consider Coldplay radical or edgy? Fine; I can't really come up with a totally comparable stylistic pick, because to be honest that whole genre of self-sorry ikea bullshit dad-rock can take a fucking rocketship up john lennon's dead arse for all I care, but if you want someone who also plays a piano, has been known to sing ballads, and has more soul than chris-and-gwen's entire fair-trade coffee collection, how about (
http://www.myspace.com/whokilledamandapalmer) Amanda Palmer? That girl knows how to rock.
PS I like Morrissey. A lot. Funny how these things work, isn't it? And I would be one of the first to admit he's close to being a total bellend, but until U2 have written something even half as good as ' the last of the famous international playboys' they don't deserve to be in the same paragraph.
PPS Totally agree about Zane Lowe. Fuck that guy.
Amanda fucking Palmer, that's the best you could come back with?!
Stop trying so hard to be alternative or you may vanish up your own
arse. Much like Mozz did many years ago, well not up your arse...
Aja on 20/7/2009 at 20:19
Quote Posted by DaBeast
Obvious troll is obvious...
but I'll take the bait since I love nothing more than shitting all of Chris Martin. The great pompous dick that he is.
Based on what I've seen of him in interviews as well as in concert footage, he seems like a humble and personable guy.
Stitch on 20/7/2009 at 20:30
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
Just as a hypothetical, would there be this much push back if he were shitting all over R.E.M.?
I've always lumped U2 and REM in together as modern dinosaur acts that were once pretty crucial, so yeah (although REM's increasingly relaxed demeanor and lower profile make them more difficult to hate).
As for Coldplay, why are we even talking about them? I don't think anyone beyond those looking for something to bump while driving the kids to soccer practice would view them as anything other than well-meaning hucksters of mid-level arena bait.
Vivian on 20/7/2009 at 20:34
Your concern for my arse is noted, Paulie. It's all getting a bit personal now isn't it?
Also:
Quote Posted by Paulie007
Stop trying so hard to be alternative or you may vanish up your own
arse.
Congratulations! You're one of those massive douchebags who re-interprets any standards you don't agree with into some species of retarded straw-dork. I don't like music according to some kind of mythical alterna-list, you tool.
REM have always been a bit more interesting than U2, automatic for the people aside. Although RBJ's point below is a good one, it could be merely an exposure thing, they've always been a band I've never bothered to buy records by, but would usually enjoy it when they come on the radio. Like musical apple crumble.
Rug Burn Junky on 20/7/2009 at 22:11
Quote Posted by Stitch
I've always lumped U2 and REM in together as modern dinosaur acts that were once pretty crucial, so yeah (although REM's increasingly relaxed demeanor and lower profile make them more difficult to hate).
I tend to agree that their "lower profile" makes them more difficult to hate, but I would also tend to think that that lack of commercial success over the past 15 years or so makes it more difficult to get one's dander up when people dismiss them.
They had practically identical careers up until the mid 90's. Early college rock cred (Murmur, Boy), building to growing success with the same early sound (Document, Unforgettable Fire), Big time crossover success (Green, Joshua Tree), Mainstream monster album (Out of Time, Achtung Baby), ill advised sell-out follow up (Automatic..., Zooropa), embarrassing post follow up (Monster, Pop).
Pretty much anything that either band had to accomplish to make them a "seminal" band was completed by 1991, tailing off for a few years after that. After that they diverge only because U2 became a bland pop sensation, and R.E.M. became a bland group of has-beens.
I'll believe you when you say you would have reacted just as forcefully, but I don't think that many people would, and it's an interesting hypo. R.E.M.'s lack of success for the past ten years makes it easier to say that they were never a good band all along without arousing the visceral reaction "holy fuck, how dare you slag off such a seminal band."
So the patina of commercial success that U2 has had for the last 10 years somehow validates them on some level, even though that was gained through the pop exploitation of, let's face it, some pretty fucking mediocre songs. Just throwing that out there.
And, for the record, there isn't a single album by any band mentioned in this thread that approaches the brilliance of "Exile on Main St."
Muzman on 20/7/2009 at 22:57
Maybe this is implicit, but REM wandered around a lot more, musically, through their big three albums and after. Like them or not you could expect something a bit different from them in each album (and I'm always amazed how many they've actually had since Monster, every time I look it up).
U2 sort of became this musical furniture that was always there and always the same after a certain point. REM get a lot of cred points for that.
Maybe that's just being all indie and saying REM's lack of success validates them instead, I dunno.
Zygoptera on 21/7/2009 at 00:06
Muz, I like REM, but as someone who owns all REM's albums except their last, after New Adventures I'd find it very difficult to tell their later albums apart. There's some internal variation within the album itself (ie the songs don't all sound the same) but somehow the albums all end up sounding the same. I'm not sure that really works against the comparison.
Quote Posted by RBJ
embarrassing post follow up (Monster, Pop).
I'm half convinced that I'm the only person in the world who actually
liked Monster.
But then for years I was also convinced I was the only person who
didn't like Automatic.. .
Muzman on 21/7/2009 at 04:33
Fair enough. I haven't paid much attention since 'Up' really either. (I'm crap at judging "albums" too. By anyone. It only really takes two songs and an interlude I like or something and it's remembered pretty positively. Then years later you look again and say to yourself "Hey, I liked that CD. Wait, no I didn't")
Paulie007 on 21/7/2009 at 13:49
Quote Posted by Vivian
Your concern for my arse is noted, Paulie. It's all getting a bit personal now isn't it?
Also:
Congratulations! You're one of those massive douchebags who re-interprets any standards you don't agree with into some species of retarded straw-dork. I don't like music according to some kind of mythical alterna-list, you tool.
The only concern I have with your arse is that it seems to be where your opinions come from.
