jonisdead Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 It is, and Chris' vocals sound badass. Matt's*. People are claming it's Chris' saying "drones" but the voice is way too pitched up to be his. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hopix Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 Matt's*. People are claming it's Chris' saying "drones" but the voice is way too pitched up to be his. Would they show Chris singing it though, if it were Matt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jobby Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 Only thing I wish it had is one last Climbing Up The Walls-esque distorted scream at around 5:14. That'd just be the cherry on the cake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonisdead Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 Would they show Chris singing it though, if it were Matt? Chris sings it live, it would be weird having Matt do it in the video if he won't do it live... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hopix Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 Chris sings it live, it would be weird having Matt do it in the video if he won't do it live... Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
problemattic6492 Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 For some reason they remind me of electrical noise with the distortion on them. I can clearly hear voices, but I can't tell what they're saying at all. Mostly I find them irritating, distracting and camp. Oh I can't really hear what they're saying either, but I can clearly make out their texture, which I wouldn't ever call anything approaching static, which is just white noise. They're very textured and nuanced, and carry clear pitches. It's a typical vocoder sound, really. Not really meant for lyrical clarity, but for texture and harmonization. It is a bit camp though, I'll agree to that. And whether or not you mind that is a bit subjective I guess. I feel like it really works in this song, with the sort of manic, amped up, ride of the valkyries-esque killing frenzy the chorus is depicting. I'll also add: When all we had were the live recordings, I wasn't really sure what to make of the outro. It felt disconnected from the rest of the song. But now that I can clearly hear the "HERE COME THE DRONES," I get it. The ridiculously poppy and upbeat chorus shows off how easy and light-hearted killing has become from behind the screen of a drone, whereas the outro is the reality of drone attacks from the perspective of someone on the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonisdead Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 Exactly. My point is Matt can't sing every single part of the song live lol the voice is very clearly Matt in studio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denise3112 Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 :LOL:what kind of poll is this! Electronically arousing and yess!! are not mutually exclusive categories, if any thing they predominantly overlap. Therefore they split the yes vote. And anyway the last category wasn't there when I voted huh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gareeh Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 My point is Matt can't sing every single part of the song live lol the voice is very clearly Matt in studio. Back to talking shit then? Doesn't take long for you to get bored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonisdead Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 Back to talking shit then? Doesn't take long for you to get bored. I'm not talking shit lol, I meant that literally. Chris sings that part live probably because of the awkward guitar timing with how "drones" comes in. I'm convinced it's Matt singing that part in the studio however until proven wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jobby Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 The ridiculously poppy and upbeat chorus shows off how easy and light-hearted killing has become from behind the screen of a drone, whereas the outro is the reality of drone attacks from the perspective of someone on the ground. I think some people are reading too much into this whole concept thing. I really doubt the band think about it that deeply. Most likely they just thought "Let's add this big fuck-off riff onto the end of it, that'll sound cool". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gareeh Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 I'm not talking shit lol, I meant that literally. Chris sings that part live probably because of the awkward guitar timing with how "drones" comes in. I'm convinced it's Matt singing that part in the studio however until proven wrong Other way around. It's Chris until you prove it's Matt. Plus I think Matt has made it clear he still wants Chris to be involved vocally as much as possible in the studio even though Chris' doesn't want to sing his own songs. It's Chris. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonisdead Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 I think some people are reading too much into this whole concept thing. I really doubt the band think about it that deeply. Most likely they just thought "Let's add this big fuck-off riff onto the end of it, that'll sound cool". Album concepts are meant to be read into when they're publicized as "concept albums". Otherwise, it's all rationalization. A lot of things in concept albums can be intended to be openly interpreted, it's possible the band had general ideas of what to achieve in each track, but left cues to pick up as to musical tension, i.e. Mercy's bright melodies + dark lyrics. The bright music/dark themes thing seems to be a recurring motif so far Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
problemattic6492 Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 I think some people are reading too much into this whole concept thing. I really doubt the band think about it that deeply. Most likely they just thought "Let's add this big fuck-off riff onto the end of it, that'll sound cool". I agree with your sentiment about not reading too deeply into things, especially as this is Muse... But what I said really wasn't deep or complex at all. Even the video shows the killing in the end. And remember Muse aren't producing themselves anymore. There's a reason that big riff was added there, and there's a reason it has a completely different tone than the rest of the song. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonisdead Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 Other way around. It's Chris until you prove it's Matt. Plus I think Matt has made it clear he still wants Chris to be involved vocally as much as possible in the studio even though Chris' doesn't want to sing his own songs. It's Chris. I've said various times his voice is too high up and spot on for it to be Chris, plus the exhale sounds way too characteristic of Matt to be Chris. Just because Chris does the part live doesn't establish as Gareeh asserted "truth" that it's Chris. I said I personally will not be convinced it's Chris unless it's proven, you can think the same. A general assertion is inaccurate because live performances does not necessarily equal who recorded the vocal tracks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hopix Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 Album concepts are meant to be read into when they're publicized as "concept albums". Otherwise, it's all rationalization. A lot of things in concept albums can be intended to be openly interpreted, it's possible the band had general ideas of what to achieve in each track, but left cues to pick up as to musical tension, i.e. Mercy's bright melodies + dark lyrics. The bright music/dark themes thing seems to be a recurring motif so far Art is supposed to be read into period. Half the fun is finding alternative, deeper and differing interpretation and meaning. I love the idea of the Reapers chorus sounding happy and upbeat as a reflection of how casual killing has become, and how it can be glamorised as a desirable way of living. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jobby Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 Album concepts are meant to be read into when they're publicized as "concept albums". Otherwise, it's all rationalization. A lot of things in concept albums can be intended to be openly interpreted, it's possible the band had general ideas of what to achieve in each track, but left cues to pick up as to musical tension, i.e. Mercy's bright melodies + dark lyrics. The bright music/dark themes thing seems to be a recurring motif so far Honestly, I just think Matt's been leaning more towards writing bright, poppy music in general since BH&R imo. I don't think it's got much to do with the narrative. I'm fine with reading into and interpreting the narrative and lyrics or whatever (i.e. the whole 'babe' thing) but it's stuff like "Dead Inside is pop because that's when the protagonist was still happy" that I find a bit silly. I just think it would've sounded pretty much the same anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonisdead Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 Honestly, I just think Matt's been leaning more towards writing bright, poppy music in general since BH&R imo. I don't think it's got much to do with the narrative. I'm fine with reading into and interpreting the narrative and lyrics or whatever (i.e. the whole 'babe' thing) but it's stuff like "Dead Inside is pop because that's when the protagonist was still happy" that I find a bit silly. I just think it would've sounded pretty much the same anyway. I wouldn't go that far. I mean I'd like to interpret things in terms of the narrative but going that far is too much. It has to actually make sense or support some idea rather than projecting things imo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattestro Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 I've said various times his voice is too high up and spot on for it to be Chris, plus the exhale sounds way too characteristic of Matt to be Chris. Just because Chris does the part live doesn't establish as Gareeh asserted "truth" that it's Chris. I said I personally will not be convinced it's Chris unless it's proven, you can think the same. A general assertion is inaccurate because live performances does not necessarily equal who recorded the vocal tracks. Does it really matter guys? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hopix Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 Does it really matter guys? Does going on the Muse forum at all really matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
serpentsatellite Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 Does going on the Muse forum at all really matter? I like to pretend it matters more than the menial labor I do for a living. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HomesickSubterranean Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 does anything matter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
serpentsatellite Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 Well, I can't procreate, so technically my life is biologically useless. So, wasting my time on a Muse forum, it is! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatchHellBlues Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 does anything matter Calm down Hetfield Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonisdead Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 does anything matter :'( I realize the best thing about this track is Matt's backing vocal line harmonizing with the main one during the chorus, it makes it seem very robotic and god damn does it sound amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now