Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Plus, if we ignore what he's said about the song and just pay attention to the lyrics, we're back to that "final solution" line. :chuckle:

 

Haha quite! I almost ended my post with that exact disclaimer :LOL:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always kinda see Matt --because he went straight from high school to being a rockstar-- as someone who hasn’t developed beyond the intellectual mindset of a high school student. His lyrics have always reminded me of a teenager’s scribbles in the sidelines of a notebook. I think this innocence and almost romantic intuitive adolescent rebellion against the Man were a major part of Muse’s charm in the beginning. They were an abstract relatable sentiment expressed in an abstract manner, that was therefore accessible even to those who didn't share whatever literal thoughts Matt was thinking at the time.

 

That charm has faded now and I think it's largely because it seems like Matt still tries to deliver a social commentary, but now from an intellectual viewpoint rather than a gut feeling. And intellectually it just falls short. I'm not saying Matt's not smart, I'm just saying his views are just not that developed or original or interesting or thought-provoking. Add to that that the quality of the lyrics hasn't developed beyond the teenager's scribbles, accept that they're now much more literal, so it's hard to just enjoy them based on a feeling alone, you're kind of forced now to consider what he's trying to say. Especially when he delivers it in such a deliberate, almost spoken-word like manner like he does in Thought Contagion.

 

Musically, I think something similar is happening. When they were younger, they were working with a skill set that was much more limited than what they're capable of now. So they had to squeeze and exploit that skill set and make it louder, more expressive and focus on the bits that set them apart from the rest (the riffs, the classically inspired piano, the screaming falsetto, the guitar wankery). Even if the intention wasn't genuine and it was a ploy to get popular back then as well, they only had their own originality and expression available to them to make that work. But now that they have developed the ability and means to emulate pretty much any genre they either admire themselves or they wish to copy for popularity's sake, they've just lost the need to express or amplify their own genuine and original qualities.

 

PS. Before you go there, don't tell me I'm one of those people who just wants them to make OoS or Absolution over and over again. That's nonsense. They can do whatever they want. I'm just expressing what's missing for me to relate to and therefore (fully) enjoy their music.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, he was 20 when they first started getting record deals - 21 by the time Showbiz came out. Not that you don’t get people that age who haven’t matured past teenagers yet (believe me, I know) but he wasn’t a kid. Even then he didn’t really start expressing political views through lyrics until, what, ‘03/4? So, 24/25?

 

Either way, I don’t think age really has owt to do with it tbh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I mean, he was 20 when they first started getting record deals - 21 by the time Showbiz came out. Not that you don’t get people that age who haven’t matured past teenagers yet (believe me, I know) but he wasn’t a kid. Even then he didn’t really start expressing political views through lyrics until, what, ‘03/4? So, 24/25?

 

Either way, I don’t think age really has owt to do with it tbh.

 

They didn't go on to be rockstars instantly, but that was their main focus, also in the period between forming and getting signed. They continued on a path and mindset that started in school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depending on what you consider "political," Matt's been dealing with it pretty much since the beginning, but the wild stuff usually came up in interviews and the lyrics were a lot more abstract.

Hell, he's been dealing with concerns about the Internet and technology since New Born.

 

The older songs just felt more personal, about someone's feelings dealing with the subjects.

 

Now they feel either like a lecture, or like someone's writing a song about current events to get attention, but doesn't really give a shit.

 

And his lyrics come across like someone who has only a vague interest in the topics he claims to be writing about, or they're based on a book he didn't fully understand.

It hasn't felt like he's had much connection to what he's writing about since TR, and his attitude in the TC interviews seem to confirm that. Probably a good explanation of what's been missing since that album; there's just no heart.

 

Still a bit wild that someone who's built a career on being seen as some crazy conspiracy theory nut, when something finally IS happening in both countries he lives in, comes out and says it's nothing to worry about. Like pulling the curtain back and the wizard is just some middle aged dude in a sequined jacket reading the backflaps on non-fiction books.

 

He needs to stick to generic relationship songs. They're what tend to work out for them on the charts, anyways.

Edited by SerpentSatellite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His conspiracy ramblings were over a decade ago and even during The Resistance era he was moving away from it. Probably when he realized how it was making him look.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, I'm pissed about Matt's explanation, even if I didn't get that that's what he was talking about in the lyrics. Either way, the lyrics still piss me off because of that casually thrown in Final Solution line.

 

In the Guardian webchat Matt puts his take on the news coverage slightly differently and, -perhaps more worryingly- it sounds like he's with Trump in essentially calling CNN and MSNBC "Fake News" by asserting that they don't provide evidence to back up their reporting and are influencing a group of people who 'don't want empirical evidence applied to their belief systems'. I'm sure he's not 100% wrong about that, but he would be 100% right if he had singled out Fox News, rather than journalistic outlets that are already under siege from the liars in charge of the country and are (empirically proven to be) more accurate in their reporting.

 

I mean, how can Matt, who runs with the nonsense conspiracy theorists toss at him all the time, now have a point to make about people not requiring empirical evidence in forming their opinions?

 

The one thing I'll agree with him on is that there's no need for 24/7 Trump coverage. To me more legitimate critique of CNN and MSNBC would be that they're commercial operations going for the ratings and therefore keep reporting on Trump as often as they can, because love him or hate him, he's ratings gold.

 

Anyway, below is Matt's quote from the webchat I'm referring to.

 

I'm behind on this thread so apologies if it's already been addressed, but I disagree with this. CNN may not be Fox News, but ever since the election they've been giving these Trump people a platform, and have always tried to make out that both sides are equal. I think Matt was referring to the pundits you see on CNN who are trying to push either the Trump or overall Republican agenda. Even the Democrats on CNN were trying to give Trump the benefit of the doubt for a while. Still don't forgive Van Jones for that ridiculous "Today he was Presidential" comment. MSNBC may be liberal, but they also had a strong Clinton agenda and showed bias against Bernie Sanders. In that sense I think it's fair to call out all of them, but obviously the degree to which they're dangerous varies.

 

My problem with mainstream news is that it winds people up about the wrong things. Like the way Jeremy Corbyn has been treated, and they rarely give a platform to those who need it most. They probably would've moved on from the Parkland shooting by now or focused on the shooter if it wasn't for the students.

Edited by funkadelic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My problem with mainstream news is that it winds people up about the wrong things. Like the way Jeremy Corbyn has been treated, and they rarely give a platform to those who need it most. They probably would've moved on from the Parkland shooting by now or focused on the shooter if it wasn't for the students.

 

This was my point earlier but worded much better so thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just read your post, and was thinking you worded it much better, haha. I agree with what you said at the end too. Matt's skepticism makes sense, but the solution isn't to completely shut yourself off from what's happening.

 

I also agree with That Little Animal about him still thinking like a teenager and only having a basic understanding of issues. I guess it doesn't bother me too much because I've come to realise most musicians and famous people are like that. I just don't take any of what they say too seriously unless it's clear they've done their research.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
His conspiracy ramblings were over a decade ago and even during The Resistance era he was moving away from it. Probably when he realized how it was making him look.

 

Just going for the obvious, but you don't think The Handler was conspiracy ramblings?

Look at all the disturbed people it pulled out of the woodwork to talk about how the government implanted things in their teeth.

Mercy with all that "men in cloaks" stuff?

T2L maybe had less of it, but TR was full of it, and Drones was pretty much based on a very immaturely thought out government brainwashing conspiracy.

 

CNN may not be Fox News, but ever since the election they've been giving these Trump people a platform, and have always tried to make out that both sides are equal. I think Matt was referring to the pundits you see on CNN who are trying to push either the Trump or overall Republican agenda. Even the Democrats on CNN were trying to give Trump the benefit of the doubt for a while. Still don't forgive Van Jones for that ridiculous "Today he was Presidential" comment.

 

This is what news SHOULD do, though. They should give both sides a voice, while avoiding the lunatic fringe. They should question both, and made them show they can defend their views and keep them honest.

CNN fucked up when they gave Trump an overwhelming amount of airtime during the election early on when they treated him as a sideshow. The lack of balance and perspective was the problem, not giving both sides equal treatment.

 

If Trump does something good (which unfortunately so far has just been an inconsequential speech or two) and they don't give him credit for it, it's just going to win him more support and turn people off on the "biased fake news."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There’s a difference between being objective and showing both sides as equal. If one side does something that is much worse, then it’s not the job of the media to make it “neutral” so both sides are presented as equally good or bad. It’s their job to try and show the truth, even if that makes one side out to be worse. I think that’s what funkadelic is getting at (correct me if I’m wrong though). I just woke up from a nap so I might be getting this all wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe, but I don't think CNN has been giving Trump a platform, per se, any longer.

They allow conservative pundits to come on and try and defend their views, and I think that's the way it needs to be for many topics, even if I don't like what they have to say.

 

The issue in the US is we don't have conservative vs liberal talks on policy anymore, we just have shouting matches, because the issues the right has heavily adopted are ones that leave no room for compromise: no gun laws, no abortion, no gays, no brown people, no non-Christians. And they're blatant civil rights issues. Stuff this country should have moved past a hell of a long time ago.

 

Allowing religion to be used in government policy (the head of the EPA's argument for eliminating environmental protections is literally that God put the resources there for us to use, and we're spitting in his face if we don't take advantage of his bounty...) has stripped away any possible discourse. And is just a smoke screen for immoral individuals to make billions of dollars.

 

They always refer to the founding fathers as having been Christian, and meaning for this to be a Christian nation... and ignore speeches from people like Thomas Jefferson who said that if the government mandated religious worship, or enforced religious laws, it took the burden of faith and following religious tenants away from the individual, and destroyed the entire idea of the religion, which is personal responsibility to do the "right" thing.

 

I sympathize with media outlets having to try and get to the meat of these issues in that kind of culture, because there's just no way of getting to the truth of things without looking like you're attacking people's beliefs; because a certain political party has spent decades setting it up that way.

Edited by SerpentSatellite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There’s a difference between being objective and showing both sides as equal. If one side does something that is much worse, then it’s not the job of the media to make it “neutral” so both sides are presented as equally good or bad. It’s their job to try and show the truth, even if that makes one side out to be worse. I think that’s what funkadelic is getting at (correct me if I’m wrong though). I just woke up from a nap so I might be getting this all wrong.

 

That's exactly what I meant. Thank you.

 

SS - I get what you mean, but I don't think CNN goes about it in a responsible way. They'll bring Republicans into important discussions knowing that they're not going to add anything other than lies, and a lot of the time they don't fact-check them. This ends up completely derailing the topic to the point where someone could easily come away from it misinformed. There are some things they just shouldn't even entertain, like the suggestion that teachers start bringing guns into the classroom.

 

On the one hand it's true that the Republicans have gotten more conservative, but I think the media has helped to normalise those more extreme views.

Edited by funkadelic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just going for the obvious, but you don't think The Handler was conspiracy ramblings?

Look at all the disturbed people it pulled out of the woodwork to talk about how the government implanted things in their teeth.

Mercy with all that "men in cloaks" stuff?

T2L maybe had less of it, but TR was full of it, and Drones was pretty much based on a very immaturely thought out government brainwashing conspiracy.

 

To some extent, but overall no. Drones tells of a fictional radicalized drone operator as an allegory to relationship troubles, and Matt shared and discussed the real topic of drone warfare to complement the album.

 

That is a long distance away from advertising an Alex Jones documentary on your t-shirt and naming a song after a book about the Illuminati.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are some things they just shouldn't even entertain, like the suggestion that teachers start bringing guns into the classroom.

 

 

I don't want you to think I personally disagree with something like this, but it does illustrate my point.

There are some things, no matter how ludicrous, that do need to be discussed from both viewpoints.

We need to figure out our gun situation, but we also need to address it by way of interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, because like it or not, it exists.

To shut down the conservative viewpoint would only cause the pro-gun people to accuse us of fascism and unconstitutionality.

Continuing to shut out the NRA would be a very good start. Happy to see they're already getting hit in the pocketbook.

 

The only stances I believe aren't deserving of air time are the ones that deal with taking away people's civil liberties based on things like sex, gender, skin color, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Apparently Matt told French radio they're working on a song with Timbaland.

 

 

I think I made that suggestion like 10 years ago in some thread about who Muse should produce with next.

 

What do I win?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like that's about the last time Timbaland was relevant.

 

And I think Matt made it abundantly clear that he's ok getting away from guitars. And real drums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I feel like that's about the last time Timbaland was relevant.

 

And I think Matt made it abundantly clear that he's ok getting away from guitars. And real drums.

 

I'm not a huge fan of Timbaland, but he's been producing some of the biggest names for years. He's definitely still relevant.

 

But yeah, this interview has just about dashed my hopes for the album. Oh well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not a huge fan of Timbaland, but he's been producing some of the biggest names for years. He's definitely still relevant.

 

But yeah, this interview has just about dashed my hopes for the album. Oh well.

 

I guess I just legitimately haven't heard of him being around recently, whereas years back he was damn never everywhere.

 

I suppose he did just produce the new Timberlake album, not that that's getting glowing reviews.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...