johnnyshape wrote:
Sorry to get all Steven Wells here

No, please do...

I'd like to use this topic to address the misconception that Muse are good musicians.

They aren't good musicians.

I would also like to say that the idea of them covering Lightning Bolt makes me feel physically icky and I can't bring myself to click on the link.

Muse need to go home.

run joe, run wrote:
They aren't good musicians.

I think they probably are.

Creative? Maybe.

Inspired? No.

Funny? Definitely.

So a "major-label, middle-class, rockist, pompous, angsty, technical, mainstream, bombastic, trio of utter, utter, self-important wankers" cover a song they like by a respected "underground", lets take "underground" as unmainstream before we argue over what's underground or not, act and it's heresy; nay, it's QWRONGGGGGSDHSDIHIDHJIDHJDIJIDJ. Yet, when the roles are reversed and a respected "underground" act covers a song they like by a major-label, mainstream act it's all fine and dandy. Hell, it might even be considered inspired or fantastic. How many of you like Shellac's cover of AC/DC's 'Jailbreak' for instance?

If Lightning Bolt covered a Muse song and it was actually good you'd all cream over it. There would be none of this "OMG THEYZ CANT COVER MUSE, IT AINT RIGHT NON NO NO NO NO" shite.

Admittedly, the song sinks my battleship but then I don't care for Muse or Lightning Bolt so that's no surprise. If you don't like it; fair enough. But all the drama over a mainstream act covering a nonmainstream act seems more than a touch sad.

richie tenenbaum wrote: But all the drama over a mainstream act covering a nonmainstream act seems more than a touch sad.

so if a a shitlocker like The Killers covered your band? you wouldn't care a bit? what if they completely botched it or totally gayed it up? no?

ogami itto wrote:

richie tenenbaum wrote: But all the drama over a mainstream act covering a nonmainstream act seems more than a touch sad.

so if a a shitlocker like The Killers covered your band? you wouldn't care a bit? what if they completely botched it or totally gayed it up? no?

If said "shitlocker" recorded it as a single and it sold millions of copies, then no, I would be quite happy because of the royalties I would get.

hip priest wrote:

run joe, run wrote:
They aren't good musicians.

I think they probably are.

Creative? Maybe.

They're not good so much as they are technically proficient. Like Yngwie Marmalade and Joe Stachmiani.

richie tenenbaum wrote:So a "major-label, middle-class, rockist, pompous, angsty, technical, mainstream, bombastic, trio of utter, utter, self-important wankers" cover a song they like by a respected "underground", lets take "underground" as unmainstream before we argue over what's underground or not, act and it's heresy; nay, it's QWRONGGGGGSDHSDIHIDHJIDHJDIJIDJ. Yet, when the roles are reversed and a respected "underground" act covers a song they like by a major-label, mainstream act it's all fine and dandy.

No. When someone I respect does something respectworthy, that's fine and dandy. When someone I don't know anything about does something respectworthy, I take interest and find out who they are. When someone I find odious does something so ham-fisted in it's appropriation and execution and aesthetic, I cry.

richie tenenbaum wrote:

If Lightning Bolt covered a Muse song and it was actually good you'd all cream over it. There would be none of this "OMG THEYZ CANT COVER MUSE, IT AINT RIGHT NON NO NO NO NO" shite.

This 'reversal' thing is meaningless. Why? Because one of the main reasons I like Lightning Bolt is that they would never cover a song by Muse.

richie tenenbaum wrote:Admittedly, the song sinks my battleship but then I don't care for Muse or Lightning Bolt so that's no surprise. If you don't like it; fair enough. But all the drama over a mainstream act covering a nonmainstream act seems more than a touch sad.

This is The Kids versus The Man here. You choose your path, and I'll choose mine. You are free to attempt to debate cultural appropriation. But on this issue I prefer to simply declaim like Bill Hicks, because I am right.

FUCK MUSE.
FUCK EVERYTHING THEY DO AND STAND FOR.

Rimbaud III wrote:
They're not good so much as they are technically proficient. Like Yngwie Marmalade and Joe Stachmiani.

You could say the same of any member of an orchestra.

They are objectively very good musicians relative to what is considered 'competent' in the sphere of rock/pop. I don't think that there is any shame in wanting to master your craft; I think art and craft can be viewed as disparate entities whilst one is simultaneously involved in both, surely?

I am also of the opinion that a band like Muse (whether or not you like them) are to be respected for aiming high and failing (if this is your belief) rather than merely aiming for the average. Non?

johnnyshape wrote:FUCK MUSE.
FUCK EVERYTHING THEY DO AND STAND FOR.

What do they stand for?