Make Umbrellas Solidly Everyday.

Massive Uncle Saves Everybody.

Champion Rabbit wrote:

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

What do they stand for?

Monkeys Use Shit, Everybody!

I can feel a Rysie thread coming on

Champion Rabbit wrote:

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.

Yes, you could, and I'm sure if I had, say, Capnreverb's encyclopedic appreciation for classical music I'd be able to discern between their equivalent of a Muse and a Lightning Bolt and arrive at the same conclusion. I don't think your example's a fair comparison.
Muse's competency means nothing to me when I think of the shit they write. I don't care to be diplomatic about this and give them any concessions - their pomposity and grandiloquence actually infuriates me.

Champion Rabbit wrote: 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?

This requires a Venn diagram.

I agree, there is absolutely no shame in wanting to master your craft, but being a good craftsman isn't enough to cut it with me. The wankiness seems to supersede any real creativity in what they do.

Champion Rabbit wrote: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?

Personally, I'd be more inclined to agree if their lofty ambitions didn't involve them trying to flash-weld Queen, Radiohead and Russian classical together.
I simply can't get away from the pomposity of what they're aiming for. I don't really care for it.

Maybe we're all just being a little too territorial. We're aggrieved that a band that we like should be covered by a band that we don't. I suppose if I was a little more mature I'd go 'meh, who cares?'. Maybe I just really like shitting on those bastards.

Champion Rabbit wrote:

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?

I don't understand your orchestra thing, but I can safely say that I don't think Muse are "objectively very good musicians", because they make objectively very very shit music. Bad musicians make bad music. Whether someone can play a scale quickly and without mistakes is irrelevant to me; in this regard I think Rimbaud's description of them is apt.

As for the idea of respecting Muse? Non. Jamais.

For me, it's just bewidering. Like "are you kidding me? you really tried to do that?"

I don't think there's some higher standard that says Muse can't cover a Lightning Bolt song. They can if they want to, who cares. But seriously, why would you (muse) try?

It's amazing to me.

run joe, run wrote:
I don't understand your orchestra thing, but I can safely say that I don't think Muse are "objectively very good musicians", because they make objectively very very shit music. Bad musicians make bad music. Whether someone can play a scale quickly and without mistakes is irrelevant to me; in this regard I think Rimbaud's description of them is apt.

As for the idea of respecting Muse? Non. Jamais.

The orchestra thing was an example of craft vs art.

I suppose that it depends on one's definition of 'musician'. I consider 'musician' to be a term that relates to one's objective competency and artistry at the extremes of competency, whereas the subjective 'value' part would be covered by the word 'artist' I guess.

William Reid (JAMC) is somebody I consider a great artist, but a wouldn't describe him as a great musician.

Muse (in my opinion) play what they play with a fair degree of panache, and what they play is fairly technical at times. I'd say they're good musicians. As artists I'd say they're cock.

I think this is an interesting discussion to run in parallel to the one about 'what makes records bad', since in that thread the idea seems to be that the recording process can be judged entirely independently of any artistic merit. Here though, we cannot (apparently) appreciate musicianship independently of any artistic merit.

Interesting, non?

The point of being a musician is to make music. If a musician makes bad music, how can he be then considered a good musician?

I will concede that Muse are musicians. That's as far as I'm willing to go for them.

Do you think there are avid Muse fans who are saying" Why the hell are they covering that shit".

I also doubt whether these fans would say that muse were bad musicians.