run joe, run wrote: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?

Because artistry and craftsmanship are disparate concepts?

Is a builder a bad builder if he erects a monstrous carbuncle?

You said that Muse were objectively very good musicians.

I would grant you that they are, as Rimbaud put it, technically proficient. You can call that objective if you like. That should satisfy your criteria for acknowledging craft, for whatever craft is worth when you divorce it from the essence of the form it is supporting (in this case, music).

A good musician makes good music. How he does that is up to him. Being technically proficient on your chosen instrument is not necessarily related to how good you are; Muse are a great example of this. People used to tell me the same thing about Jamiroquai, a band/artist I abhor. But they're good musicians, they'd say to me. I disagreed then and I disagree now. They could play their instruments, as can Muse. But neither band will ever be anything approaching good.

Which means they're bad.

If you're simply equating technical proficiency with being good, then we both have a slightly different understanding of what good is, at least in relation to music.

Muse covering Lightning Bolt should be viewed with the same embarassed disgust and disbelief as one might feel when looking back at the Minstrel Show or something.

Swee jesus! This is Muse we're talking about... by that I mean we shouldn't...

THIS ENDS HERE DAMMIT.

Yes. Sorry about that; too much coffee, too little sleep.

Champion Rabbit wrote:Yes. Sorry about that; too much coffee, too little sleep.

You especially! You have children to consider for gods sake!

Go outside and run around the tree until you fall over.

Gramsci wrote:You especially! You have children to consider for gods sake!

Who do you think is responsible for my almost complete lack of sleep!!

Champion Rabbit wrote:

Gramsci wrote:You especially! You have children to consider for gods sake!

Who do you think is responsible for my almost complete lack of sleep!!

touché

johnnyshape wrote:Sorry to get all Steven Wells here, but do you actually know who Muse are? A major-label, middle-class, rockist, pompous, angsty, technical, mainstream, bombastic, trio of utter, utter, self-important wankers. I've met them. I know.

Lightning Bolt are EVERYTHING Muse are not. The 'kudos' and the 'big set of balls' are not with Muse. NO. NOT 'fuck it'. One thing is ours/mine and one thing is The Man's.

These people are the filthy gleam of the scum on The Man's bathwater, and as documented above, they are wrong. Wrong about the origins, wrong about the style, wrong about the purpose and wrong wrong urrrrrrrghh wrong. To me it's like Blood and Honour covering a Fugazi record because it's 'punk'.

I guess, since everyone's getting all bent out of shape over this, it's important to ask the question, "Does it bother you that you like Lightning Bolt, and Muse does as well?"

I do find it laughable that they had all their facts wrong. I'm sure Lightning Bolt appreciates the extra exposure, though, whether or not it was fronted by a bad cover made by "The Man".

It just doesn't seem worthwhile to get panties in a bunch because a band you don't like covered a band you do.

I don't think it sounds that good, but I have to say that I think Muse is a really good band. I think Absolution is awesome.

Germ War wrote:

johnnyshape wrote:Sorry to get all Steven Wells here, but do you actually know who Muse are? A major-label, middle-class, rockist, pompous, angsty, technical, mainstream, bombastic, trio of utter, utter, self-important wankers. I've met them. I know.

Lightning Bolt are EVERYTHING Muse are not. The 'kudos' and the 'big set of balls' are not with Muse. NO. NOT 'fuck it'. One thing is ours/mine and one thing is The Man's.

These people are the filthy gleam of the scum on The Man's bathwater, and as documented above, they are wrong. Wrong about the origins, wrong about the style, wrong about the purpose and wrong wrong urrrrrrrghh wrong. To me it's like Blood and Honour covering a Fugazi record because it's 'punk'.

I guess, since everyone's getting all bent out of shape over this, it's important to ask the question, "Does it bother you that you like Lightning Bolt, and Muse does as well?"

I do find it laughable that they had all their facts wrong. I'm sure Lightning Bolt appreciates the extra exposure, though, whether or not it was fronted by a bad cover made by "The Man".

It just doesn't seem worthwhile to get panties in a bunch because a band you don't like covered a band you do.

Misfire. It's not that simple and you know it. Proof of this being in the description and reasoning by Muse of their cover version. They're trying to score some 'cool' points, and the way they describe LB is laughable, embarrassing, and mostly just infuriating.
I couldn't care less if Muse are fans of Lightning Bolt, but to cover them (in such a straight fashion, and badly) is indirectly asking to put themselves up for comparison, both musically and otherwise. So i say it is justified, probably not worthwhile, but justified to get our 'panties in a bunch' as you so eloquently put it.

Anger factor 9.