It just means you're going to get smacked in the head at some point by someone's portable battery charger.

I contacted the help contacts months ago and no one got back to me, either. I don't know if admins check here often.

Sorry, I got the assumption this wasn't a serious conversation right around the time the gig was raining bloody spiders.

I mean, technically, no, he didn't.

Muse isn't adjusting the set because Incubus is there, that's just a band I used as an example of the lighter style. Muse is writing a set based on the trends of their music and their previous sets from most of the past decade... And you're really exaggerating the idea of redneck rock fans here. It's a drunk festival, not a Norwegian death metal concert from the '90s. These are fans of Three Days Grace and nu metal...

Even markets that have old school rock stations still play stuff like Incubus, which has never really been heavy. Muse doesn't have to break out Assassin to be relevant for the crowd there, tbh. And Mercy's pretty great when you're drunk at a gig, especially if they do confetti.

Didn't several US gigs get awesome shit like Glorious and Fury soundchecked for different upcoming gigs?

I guess I just have the opposite view, based on what I've read in recent interviews, that the band feels these little gigs are an even better reason to not do these songs elsewhere. We never really even asked for crazy shit in the US... just like Bliss or CE. This is the shit that soured me on the band, not a couple of questionable singles. Last time I was in Chicago they screwed me on my connecting flight, bodily removed me out of the airport when it closed with no compensation or hotel, and allowed a guy impersonating an airport employee steal my luggage using an official airport flat. If a complete stranger hadn't have helped me out, I'm convinced I'd have died out there.

I wonder why they picked that particular festival when the south and Midwest are just lousy with those kind of rednecky rock festivals all summer and many of the bands in the lineup do multiple ones. Or why they picked that type of festival at all. Poor research?

Chicago's been the one place that I've had multiple scary situations in, so combined with it's warzone reputation, I've gotten really afraid to go back. And that's in comparison to the time I was in Dallas setting up some promo stuff at night and had to whack a feral pitbull with a broom handle. Every city's got bad areas, it's typically just down to if the venues are in those bad areas, or if you have to drive through them coming from the airport, etc., especially at night. I think my experiences going to small gigs across the country really opened my eyes to how grim a lot of the place is. I know when (if) this gig gets announced I'm going to be down about it, but right now I'm just more angry that they're doing this to their fans instead of just playing a couple of old, non-hits songs at every gig. And that they're allowing the size of their stage shows to hobble their ability to do a decent tour length as it's outstripping their popularity by a large degree.

With one gig, the vast majority of fans would have to travel to see it, so I was just thinking "middle of country." But yes, one gig for the US and trying to pretend that you did something amazing for all your hardcore fans is completely absurd, especially with the cost of travel. Also, the chances of getting tickets isn't even worth the stress. I wish they'd do somewhere random, or at least somewhere more interesting/appealing to vacation in so it's not just spend a ton of money to see a gig and just go home. (Admittedly Chicago has some fun stuff to do, but the homicide rate out there is a bit chilling, and every time I've gone there it's been a shit show.) I'm kind of tired of traveling to see gigs and basically touring America's shittiest cities. (Looking at you, St Louis, Philly and DC.) At this point I'd rather go see some band I've never heard of at Red Rocks.

I live in the Midwest, and I'd still rather pay to travel to NYC or something than Chicago or Detroit. Hell, the Twin Cities always gets shafted, why not here? We've got some nice venues, a great airport, and loads of stuff to do (if you don't mind crazy weather.)

I hear it a couple times a day on the radio at work, but I don't know how widespread even that is. The station's pretty much wall to wall Imagine Dragons with some other similar stuff thrown in. I don't think it's really caught on huge, but it's out there more than a lot of their stuff was other than Madness. It doesn't really seem to compete well with the other songs in the same genre.

Mass appeal isn't a bad thing on its own, though. I just don't see the point getting excited about Muse gaining more mainstream popularity if that means they keep making songs I don't like. If they're enjoying themselves, more power to them, but what kind of "gateway" is it, really? It's not like the mainstream is going to get into TC and then suddenly everyone's into CE, or Fury or something. I don't think it's going to lead to the band's other material clicking with people. Heck, we saw that with Madness; they struck gold with that song and then there wasn't anything else on T2L that appealed to those same fans, and the attention died off. And it sounds like they're doing something similar this time around.

I'd definitely watch a blooper reel of all their failed prop moments from the tour. Probably need a bonus disc.

I have absolutely no doubt that's true. And not, as the person below you believes, because it says "Muse" but because they have a ton in common. Except the "interesting songwriting or artistic style" bit is again completely biased and subjective. Yes, you previously stated that everything you're saying is your opinion (obvious) but the language you use tends towards absolutes, hyperbole, and an attempt to state why something is objectively worse than something else. There's absolutely nothing saying that these other bands aren't doing the exact same thing you think Muse is doing (being artistic and interesting) and it's very easy to suggest (as I wholeheartedly believe) that TC and DD aren't interesting or "artistic" and that they're a "sacrifice" made to attempt to be mainstreamly popular. The "upbeat and catchy" part of that isn't what makes songs derivative or not, and being a happy song doesn't make it somehow less worthwhile. It just makes it easier to break into the mainstream. So sure bands use it to cash in, but bands also use it because they really enjoy that style of song. You also reminded me of another song I enjoy more than TC/DD; that Chainsmokers/Coldplay thing. Although I can't really deal with their other stuff. I'm suddenly being forced to listen to mainstream music at work, and find myself reluctantly enjoying this style of music (never thought I'd see the day I enjoyed Panic at the Disco, but here it is) and I STILL can't get into Thought Contagion, which they also play, and is the same basic style. Instead, lumping all this stuff together has really highlighted for me where I think the song goes wrong (awkward vocals, lyrics, lacks fun factor.)

I really hope it's just a concert with some bonus footage. A documentary with gig clips, or a gig interrupted by behind the scenes stuff doesn't sound particularly exciting.

Haven't listened to the album, since I didn't like the last two barring like one song, so why bother I guess? However, I like Walk on Water quite a bit more than Dig Down, and find it more listenable than TC a lot of days. It's a good example of what I was talking about before; fun, upbeat and catchy, which seem to be staples of the mainstream appeal of that sort of music that's popular right now.

It's not terribly uncommon for bands to try and cover up that they're using playback; I've seen tons of times where male band members fake sing backing vocals that are clearly from females, or impossible to recreate. I'd be more happy if they didn't do it, but it doesn't really bother me that much, and people fall for it, especially in the moment. Look how many people thought Dom was singing in The Globalist live even though it was quite clearly Matt's album vocals.

That's all completely subjective and hyperbolic, and you know it. Most of the songs in the "genre" that Muse is using for TC that I've heard (admittedly mostly on the video in the work lobby, and of the Imagine Dragons, FOB, Killers, P!ATD sort) have been more appealing to me than TC. Stronger vocals, a more cohesive sound, and more importantly... they're fun and often meant to be inspiring and uplifting. While the first two points are of course my opinion, the latter seems to be (at least in the mainstream radio offerings) an important part of the genre Muse is currently aping, and another way that I feel they're copying something without understanding what people enjoy about it.

As much as he may struggle live, that's not what's wrong with TC. It's just some very odd style choice that I don't understand, and it holds the song back from being fun, or even listenable to me. It had the chance to be an entertaining Fall Out Boy sort of track, if with shockingly bad lyrics, but instead it comes off as kind of bad karaoke.

Better question is why they had me watch a video of Matt announcing three festivals that have been on the calendar for months.

This entire idea (that, yes, is rampant on Facebook) that because you're a "fan" of something you have to love everything about it or you're not a "fan" anymore is ludicrous. I'm not going to give an artist a pass for putting out derivative, sub-par material because I loved their other stuff. And this "you just can't handle change" "artists grow and evolve" thing really needs to be put to rest. Not just because it's a clichéd excuse, but because the band just put out an entire album that was supposed to be like their old stuff, and people still hated it. It's not the style of the music people aren't connecting with anymore, it's the substance.

For starters, your scores for the albums are entirely subjective, and touring "regularly" isn't really a measure of quality?

Moving to Canada? Did I miss something? Matt's vocals on Drones were mostly superb, with a couple of really bad choices like the beginning and end of Aftermath, for example. TC's vocals are all like those awkward bits that sounded like bad takes. I really, really don't get it, because Matt's done those kinds of "talky" vocals before just fine. And yeah, unfortunately Chris' vocals just aren't anything special.