Jump to content

Recommended Posts

 

2:45

 

His smirk about OoS... Fuck you melon.

 

I mean, he gave Drones a 6 if I recall, which means he doesn't love it but he doesn't really hate it to any significant degree. Surely OoS must be closer to a 7 or an 8 on his scale, so why did he act like it was garbage.

 

Ahh...melon does not cease to surprise me this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not that it’s a big deal but it seems like he was laughing at it being called one of the best rock albums of the ‘00s. Muse have always been a pretty polarising band, even if you recognise their first 3/4 albums as being obviously their best period, I don’t think many people outside of active Muse fans would make that claim.

 

Either way, I’m not really too bothered about Muse reviews that aren’t from fans tbh. Not that I think they’re invalid or owt - it’s just that I feel like just about every record of theirs can be argued to be anything from a 2 to a 9 out of 10 so it all sort of loses meaning to me. You don’t really get interesting takes, people just either like it or don’t.

Edited by Jobby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you care?

 

Well, because I love the album, it's one of my favorites ever, and I also love the melon and appreciate him as a reviewer, so I'd like to know his elaborated opinion about the early Muse albums. He usually rants for minutes about things in that section, and for muse I got just a smirk.

 

It's weird to me that he gave a neutral rating to Drones (a 5), he didn't love it, but he didn't hate it. He has said that The Resistance appealed to him... and now he says that Muse are terrible even in the early 2000s...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, because I love the album, it's one of my favorites ever, and I also love the melon and appreciate him as a reviewer, so I'd like to know his elaborated opinion about the early Muse albums. He usually rants for minutes about things in that section, and for muse I got just a smirk.

 

It's weird to me that he gave a neutral rating to Drones (a 5), he didn't love it, but he didn't hate it. He has said that The Resistance appealed to him... and now he says that Muse are terrible even in the early 2000s...

This might be a good time to learn that other people's likes and dislikes, review format or not, don't really matter. You already know that you like Muse, so the fact that a reviewer that you appreciate don't like them...is quite irrelevant.

 

And he didn't say anything about Muse being terrible. He showed a quote by another person, which can be interpreted in quite a few ways. He mostly made a big deal out of the strange wording of "incredibly listenable". In fact what he said was that Muse were indeed listenable, which goes pretty well with his reviews of Drones and The Resistance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This might be a good time to learn that other people's likes and dislikes, review format or not, don't really matter. You already know that you like Muse, so the fact that a reviewer that you appreciate don't like them...is quite irrelevant.

 

And he didn't say anything about Muse being terrible. He showed a quote by another person, which can be interpreted in quite a few ways. He mostly made a big deal out of the strange wording of "incredibly listenable". In fact what he said was that Muse were indeed listenable, which goes pretty well with his reviews of Drones and The Resistance.

 

Again, it doesn't bother me that he dislikes, I just like to know why, I like an elaboration. I don't care why a random person dislikes Muse. But for a reviewer I am a fan of, I am curious why he dislikes them.

 

Yes, he showed a quote of another person and said "I would argue with this", using the quote as a subtle glimpse at his opinion.

 

"Listenable", like he said, is not much of a compliment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has this thread really now gone into discussion about some irrelevant reviewers irrelevant opinion on an era irrelevant to this thread? Riveting.

 

Surely there’s going to be at least one or two sort of rock/prog/guitar driven tracks on the new album. Matt loves rocking out on the guitar too much to just make an all out pop record.

 

The thought of an album tour full of songs where Morgan takes Matt’s guitar part and he takes mic for a lot of mediocre new songs sounds like a nightmare!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely there’s going to be at least one or two sort of rock/prog/guitar driven tracks on the new album. Matt loves rocking out on the guitar too much to just make an all out pop record.

 

The thought of an album tour full of songs where Morgan takes Matt’s guitar part and he takes mic for a lot of mediocre new songs sounds like a nightmare!

 

He did say there’d be ‘less’ progressive stuff and not ‘none’ so I guess there’s a chance for that, I wouldn’t expect any though if you get me. As for just guitar-based rock stuff, he’s already confirmed that there’ll be at least one other song like that. Either way though, just ‘cos it’s not heavy on that stuff =/= Matt going guitarless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He did say there’d be ‘less’ progressive stuff and not ‘none’ so I guess there’s a chance for that, I wouldn’t expect any though if you get me. As for just guitar-based rock stuff, he’s already confirmed that there’ll be at least one other song like that. Either way though, just ‘cos it’s not heavy on that stuff =/= Matt going guitarless.

 

Since 2nd Law though Matt just seems to have this newfound habit of putting the guitar to the side and trying to be a popstar with just the microphone and it’s cheesy/cringe at best...and this new albums direction points to potentially more of that nonsense! Haha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not that it’s a big deal but it seems like he was laughing at it being called one of the best rock albums of the ‘00s. Muse have always been a pretty polarising band, even if you recognise their first 3/4 albums as being obviously their best period, I don’t think many people outside of active Muse fans would make that claim.

 

Either way, I’m not really too bothered about Muse reviews that aren’t from fans tbh. Not that I think they’re invalid or owt - it’s just that I feel like just about every record of theirs can be argued to be anything from a 2 to a 9 out of 10 so it all sort of loses meaning to me. You don’t really get interesting takes, people just either like it or don’t.

 

 

yeah, I agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has this thread really now gone into discussion about some irrelevant reviewers irrelevant opinion on an era irrelevant to this thread? Riveting.

 

Surely there’s going to be at least one or two sort of rock/prog/guitar driven tracks on the new album. Matt loves rocking out on the guitar too much to just make an all out pop record.

 

The thought of an album tour full of songs where Morgan takes Matt’s guitar part and he takes mic for a lot of mediocre new songs sounds like a nightmare!

 

Anthony Fantano is arguably more relevant than Rolling Stone, Pitchfork, and the like these days. At least to younger audiences who find those publications to be hopelessly biased and disingenuous, melon has a certain authenticity and honesty to his review style, and doesn't tend to make the mistake of belittling people who's taste in music he doesn't care for.

 

But yeah, that's not really relevant to the new album, I'll stop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He did say there’d be ‘less’ progressive stuff and not ‘none’ so I guess there’s a chance for that, I wouldn’t expect any though if you get me. As for just guitar-based rock stuff, he’s already confirmed that there’ll be at least one other song like that. Either way though, just ‘cos it’s not heavy on that stuff =/= Matt going guitarless.

 

Agree. Also: not heavy and guitarless =/= necessarily garbage or mediocre. Assuming that long before we even still have to listen to 8/10 more tracks it's quite ridiculous.

Edited by MartianSpaghettiRider
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the barrier walks quite a bit tbh. In fact, I’ve got no problem in general w/ the idea of Matt not having a guitar on him for some songs, as long as it’s not removing/delegating to someone else a part that was always supposed to be his ‘cos that’s always gonna ‘feel’ wrong and it often outright doesn’t sound as good (*cough*Blackout*cough*). Despite the song itself, I don’t think I had a problem when he did it for Follow Me. So if there’s any new songs that don’t require it, go for it imo. If anything, it expands the possibilities of what they can make by not forcing a guitar or piano part into every song.

 

The only issue is that Matt feels like he has to be constantly doing something to be entertaining, which I get but he’s obvs not naturally comfortable with when it’s just a mic. That’s what results in your nip/chest rubs, aimless wanders, lying down, awkward drama moves and dad dancing. If he just stood there and did what came naturally to him instead of forcing things, I think it’d feel less weird.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barrier walks are great... for the handful of people on the barrier. For the rest of us, it's long minutes where the person singing the song isn't visible.

It's not very engaging, as a whole.

 

@Jobby, I didn't see the need to constantly be doing something on stage, btw:

(Go in like 40-50 seconds or so.)

Watching Matt literally stare at his shoes for minutes on end is PAINFUL live. Awkward as fuck, no energy or charisma whatsoever.

Then he slaps a guitar on, and although he's basically acting the same, it feels normal.

This is why he shouldn't be so eager to drop that guitar... not some notion that they need to be a "rock" band or anything. He needs to figure out how to be entertaining/engaging to pull this off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always enjoyed watching it on pro-shots or on the screens at shows even before I was eventually involved in one. Just find it a refreshing moment of breaking through the crowd/band disconnect created by some of these mad productions.

 

With your example, I see what you mean but, to me, that is still Matt trying to do something - looking moody and dramatic by hunching toward the floor then occasionally popping up for the sharp bends. He’s trying to do something that he thinks fits the song and might be crowd-engaging but, like you say, he’s just not v good at it ‘cos that charisma and body movement doesn’t come naturally to him. I think him not playing instruments in any future songs can still work though, if he just stays by the mic stand and sings. It’s when he disconnects and totally frees up his movement that he looks like he doesn’t know what to do with himself imo, leading to all these awkward moments.

 

If you take the first half of something like TAB or Blackout back in the day (again, before he started taking the mic away from the stand) and just imagine there’s no guitar hanging around his waist, it’s still just as engaging of a performance for me. It can work, he just needs to keep it simple.

Link to comment
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...