Obi Posted August 2, 2010 Share Posted August 2, 2010 The version that isn't sung by that thing. No, I don't mean Matt. :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clunge Posted August 2, 2010 Share Posted August 2, 2010 Neither. It's just plain awful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QubiQ Posted August 2, 2010 Share Posted August 2, 2010 Neither. It's just plain awful. Would you say if they'd took more time on working on the song and recorded it properly, the song would've gotten better? I mean the Muse version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clunge Posted August 2, 2010 Share Posted August 2, 2010 Would you say if they'd took more time on working on the song and recorded it properly, the song would've gotten better? I mean the Muse version. Nope, I really think it's a terrible song for a host of reasons; it sounds choppy/thrown together, even for a demo, the lyrics are painfully corny and it just sounds like a continuation of the path Muse have been veering towards in recent years (which is, frankly, not my cuppa). They should just bin it, leave it on the shelf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niall Posted August 2, 2010 Share Posted August 2, 2010 Better heard than not heard imo, at least it can be given a chance even if people don't like it. Muse make some very good music, so throwing out the occasional bad song isn't exactly the end of their career. But being perfectionists that they seem to be it's understandable how things like Soaked get left behind in the studio. Matt and Dom commented on how USoE sounds like Soaked, so if Soaked was in any way a precursor to it then all the better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beibi Posted August 2, 2010 Share Posted August 2, 2010 Neither. It's just plain awful. Nothing more to say Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QubiQ Posted August 2, 2010 Share Posted August 2, 2010 Nope, I really think it's a terrible song for a host of reasons; it sounds choppy/thrown together, even for a demo, the lyrics are painfully corny and it just sounds like a continuation of the path Muse have been veering towards in recent years (which is, frankly, not my cuppa). They should just bin it, leave it on the shelf. +1, thanks, couldn't have said it better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MuseTheMuscleMuseum Posted August 2, 2010 Share Posted August 2, 2010 Muse's version, shouldn't really even have to justify that but it's because it doesn't suck if you voted for that other queer than you should be ashamed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MuseTheMuscleMuseum Posted August 3, 2010 Share Posted August 3, 2010 Prefer Muse's deffo. Lambert is...dunno. Don't like how he sings that as much. Too polished? or too gay...that might be it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Posted August 3, 2010 Share Posted August 3, 2010 Two homophobes in two days? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lauren. Posted August 3, 2010 Share Posted August 3, 2010 or too gay...that might be it That is quite offensive, not to mention juvenile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riveon Posted August 3, 2010 Share Posted August 3, 2010 Nope, I really think it's a terrible song for a host of reasons; it sounds choppy/thrown together, even for a demo, the lyrics are painfully corny and it just sounds like a continuation of the path Muse have been veering towards in recent years (which is, frankly, not my cuppa). They should just bin it, leave it on the shelf. They did. We only got this from, well, taking it off the Warner site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disassociative Posted August 3, 2010 Share Posted August 3, 2010 or too gay...that might be it Or maybe YOU'RE just too gay. Think about it. Homophobic people who use the term like that just piss me off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niall Posted August 3, 2010 Share Posted August 3, 2010 Mm we've banned three people for homophobia over the past three days. They are certainly not welcome here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarrieB Posted August 3, 2010 Share Posted August 3, 2010 (edited) or too gay...that might be it Pathetic! I'm not too keen on the music from Adam Lambert from what I've seen of it, I haven't really looked into it too much I must admit. I didn't like his performance of Starlight and though his voice is nice in Soaked his performance to me appears a bit fake, it doesn't match the intimacy of Matt's performance. I get the impression that Adam uses his sexuality in the physical presentation of his performances but there's nothing wrong with that and it may just be who he is. So did Freddie Mercury incidentally. So do the Scissor Sisters. So do loads of straight performers. It may not be everyone's cup of tea though. Personally I like a lot of performers who happen to be gay, but I haven't warmed to Adam Lambert. Some of that maybe the overuse of his sexuality in performances when I don't find him attractive to look at, but I would say the same for a straight performer. Subtlety is so much better imo and sexier! What is pathetic though is to make negative judgements of someone just because of their sexuality which seems to be the case here. It's rife unfortunately. Edited August 3, 2010 by CarrieB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lauren. Posted August 3, 2010 Share Posted August 3, 2010 Mm we've banned three people for homophobia over the past three days. They are certainly not welcome here. Or indeed anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sarah-x Posted August 3, 2010 Share Posted August 3, 2010 im not sure which version i prefer, probably adams cos it suits him more. hes actually got a good voice:) and why does sexuality matter? you are talking about a band who can act pretty camp themselves (dom faff bag!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niall Posted August 3, 2010 Share Posted August 3, 2010 Or indeed anywhere. True! im not sure which version i prefer, probably adams cos it suits him more. hes actually got a good voice:) and why does sexuality matter? you are talking about a band who can act pretty camp themselves (dom faff bag!) I hope Dom's faff bag isn't a sexual object anyway... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dontask Posted August 3, 2010 Share Posted August 3, 2010 pretty sure there wasnt any real homophobic intent there...tongue in cheek. anyway much prefer Muse's but I dont really like Adam Lambert whereas I rate Soaked quite highly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Posted August 3, 2010 Share Posted August 3, 2010 pretty sure there wasnt any real homophobic intent there...tongue in cheek. anyway much prefer Muse's but I dont really like Adam Lambert whereas I rate Soaked quite highly. Well then he was banned for awful sense of humor and for being an idiot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niall Posted August 3, 2010 Share Posted August 3, 2010 He was being homophobic regardless of the intent. He used the word queer and called something gay. That is always homophobic. That fact he showed such disregard when using such words is homophobic enough. Apply the analogous racial or antisemitic words and he would be banned us as quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Posted August 3, 2010 Share Posted August 3, 2010 He was being homophobic regardless of the intent. He used the word queer and called something gay. That is always homophobic. That fact he showed such disregard when using such words is homophobic enough. Apply the analogous racial or antisemitic words and he would be banned us as quickly. What if he was gay, isn't that like black people being allowed to call eachother "nigger"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dontask Posted August 3, 2010 Share Posted August 3, 2010 Well then he was banned for awful sense of humor and for being an idiot shouldve said "camp" rather than how he worded it I guess? that would be abit more acceptable and no doubt what they meant anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowewolfe Posted August 3, 2010 Share Posted August 3, 2010 Seriously, is there really a NEED to even ask??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dontask Posted August 3, 2010 Share Posted August 3, 2010 He was being homophobic regardless of the intent. He used the word queer and called something gay. That is always homophobic. That fact he showed such disregard when using such words is homophobic enough. Apply the analogous racial or antisemitic words and he would be banned us as quickly. I wasnt trying to disagree with the ban at all Niall, just trying to stem the rage. 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