Do you find that "hipsters" often hate Muse? And is it mainly because of Pitchfork?

[Slick]

Okay, for starters, I am in no way trying to generalize anyone, nor am I claiming that negative opinions of Muse are invalid.

 

But a lot of my friends around here (Seattle) seem to have an irrational hatred for the band. They're generally into indie rock, usually lo-fi stuff that tends to bore me. I only use the term "hipster," by the way, because that's what they're generally called, but I usually refer to them as "indie kids" if I have to label people. I mention Muse a lot in conversations about music, and I'm surprised at how many people consistently rank Muse among their worst or most hated bands.

 

I feel like this hatred toward Muse is fueled mostly by the fact that they don't have a minimalist, lo-fi sound. From what I've noticed, websites like Pitchfork (worshiped to an unhealthy degree by Seattle indie kids) like to imply that liking grandiose, "over-the-top" music is the same thing as having bad taste. Now, I can see how Muse's style and lack of subtlety might not be everyone's cup of tea, but I don't get why that makes them so deserving of animosity. I also don't believe for a second that there even is such a thing as "bad taste" in music.

 

I think a lot of this is just my annoyance at Pitchfork for targeting Muse so heavily. And I guess I can see why; Muse is the opposite of everything these people look for. But why is it that Pitchfork and the indie/"hipster" community get to decide that minimalism and avant-garde lo-fi is now synonymous with "good taste"?

[Obi]

I agree to an extent. I mean, I love a lot of minimalist music (piano-wise in particular) and lots of ambient stuff. However a good dose of OTT is great every now and then.

 

Pitchfork are generally elitist buggers though. Once they get an idea in their head, it's hard to change their mind.

[Sventington]

I don't know, I've never knowingly met a hipster.

[Obi]

I don't know, I've never knowingly met a hipster.

 

That's because they don't leave their houses.

[Juicy Boy]

I was under the general impression that hipsters were the kind of people who listen to slightly left-of-center stuff, like The Killers, Manchester Orchestra, MGMT, etc. I usually refer to the indie people as just "indie kids."

 

I actually used to consider myself a hipster, until I realized that I'm not really in-line with them (and that the term "hipster" tends to be derogatory). Now I just refuse to define myself.

 

On the topic of Pitchfork: yes, they tend to be elitist, and rather vitriolic about it as well. I believe someone on these forums put it best when they said Pitchfork's opinion usually boils down to "This fails to be indie rock in every sense of the word. It also sounds exactly like Radiohead. The end."

[Sventington]

That's because they don't leave their houses.

 

I kind of doubt they exist.

[Furygirl]

I use the term hipster alot, but it's mostly my silly, slightly negative, middle-aged way to refer to the "cool kids." I don't think Muse is dark enough for the indie crowd. And the way Matt has been dressing lately is probably seen as too "off the wall" for the indie hipsters.

[Obi]

I kind of doubt they exist.

 

That's because no hipster openly admits it. It's an unwritten rule of being a hipster, to say you are a hipster would mean you're not a hipster.

 

You know deep down who is one though.

 

Yeah, I'm talking bollocks now but even check Urban Dictionary - it's all there

[Obi]

I was under the general impression that hipsters were the kind of people who listen to slightly left-of-center stuff, like The Killers, Manchester Orchestra, MGMT, etc. I usually refer to the indie people as just "indie kids."

 

Not sure about that. Killers are as mainstream/centre/middle-of-the-road you can get.

 

When I think of Hipsters I tend to think of "Lo-Fi" groups and "Folktronica" or whatever they call it.

[-megan-]

I think of myself as an indie/hipster kid.

Not afraid to admit it.

and I ADORE Muse.

 

I do know a lot of other indie kids who dislike them though, it amazes me. And they're are usually supposed to be the ones with the cool taste in music.

[futurellama]

Three reasons: Pitchfork, Twilight, pisspoor singles

[choco_chia83]

That's because they don't leave their houses.

 

and they spend their time on /mu/, bashing metalheads and kissing Thom Yorke's ass.

[supermassive_cave]

i really dont have an opinion on this cuz i dont know any hipsters and dont even bother to visit pitchfork, so yeah.

btw-megan-your av is

[syzygy]

I like Indie...like Kasabian and stuff like that who are called 'Indie' but I'm not a big fan of all the independent labels. I'm not sure what they're supposed to be called

 

If I'm not mistaken all of the really annoying bands like All Time Low are supposed to be 'indie' right? They're pretty mainstream. I bet these Pitchfork people don't like Muse because everyone in Europe is talking about them and not the beloved crap bands like All Time Low.

 

Imo.

[-megan-]

btw-megan-your av is

 

Thanks !

[Davinq]

Good post Slick!

 

I'm a Seattleite at the moment and have noticed the exact same thing. I think one of the contributing factors is that a large number of touring bands tend to neglect Seattle, meaning that our homegrown music scene is all the kiddos have to live on. Granted, it's good stuff, but so is Muse.

 

Of my hipster friends though, I would have to disagree and say that they can see Pitchfork for what it is. Most of them are culturally observant to a fault, and Pitchfork is 'pretentious as fuck,' apparently.

 

If I'm not mistaken all of the really annoying bands like All Time Low are supposed to be 'indie' right? They're pretty mainstream. I bet these Pitchfork people don't like Muse because everyone in Europe is talking about them and not the beloved crap bands like All Time Low.

 

Is that supposed to be sarcasm? All Time Low are poop punk. They're signed to an indie label, but that's an indie label, not indie the genre, or indie the hipster. Confused?

[lyricalwax]

I like Indie...like Kasabian and stuff like that who are called 'Indie' but I'm not a big fan of all the independent labels. I'm not sure what they're supposed to be called

 

If I'm not mistaken all of the really annoying bands like All Time Low are supposed to be 'indie' right? They're pretty mainstream. I bet these Pitchfork people don't like Muse because everyone in Europe is talking about them and not the beloved crap bands like All Time Low.

 

Imo.

 

lol, All Time Low aren't a hipster band, they're pop punk at best and are probably more hated by Pitchfork/hipsters than Muse. Same with Killers or MGMT that was mentioned earlier. They tend to like lo-fi bands like Beirut, Bon Iver, Portishead, or experimental noise rock bands like Sonic Youth or Animal Collective, which are fairly unknown compared to mainstream stuff. Of course the holy grail for them is Radiohead

 

With regards to the OP, I'm guessing it's because they're fairly over the top and over-produced, and have a few cheesy singles here and there (which I love by the way). Certainly they were praised more in the Showbiz/Origin days.

Although I wouldn't class myself as 'a hipster' (I hate that term anyway), I have to admit I don't exactly shout about my love for Muse amongst some of my friends, but whatever, their loss really.

[Books]

All I know is that hipster kids intimidate the crap out of my American Eagle wearing ass. Although I do like Radiohead, The Killers, MGMT and Kasabian.

 

I have honestly come across people who will wear anything and everything that American Apparel churns out. Even sparkly gold leggings. To class.

[syzygy]

Good post Slick!

 

I'm a Seattleite at the moment and have noticed the exact same thing. I think one of the contributing factors is that a large number of touring bands tend to neglect Seattle, meaning that our homegrown music scene is all the kiddos have to live on. Granted, it's good stuff, but so is Muse.

 

Of my hipster friends though, I would have to disagree and say that they can see Pitchfork for what it is. Most of them are culturally observant to a fault, and Pitchfork is 'pretentious as fuck,' apparently.

 

 

 

Is that supposed to be sarcasm? All Time Low are poop punk. They're signed to an indie label, but that's an indie label, not indie the genre, or indie the hipster. Confused?

 

Ahh okay. I was just making sure

That's what I thought but stupid people keep telling me differently. Thanks

 

But yes, I like Indie.

[Namey]

Liking a band/piece of music simply because it fits into a certain genre or is in keeping with a self-image you've constructed is completely daft.

 

If I like the way I feel when I hear a song, I like the song, end of.

[Namey]

also, there is nothing attractive about a boy in leggings, a wannabe-jew-fro and a v-neck tshirt. Shave and do something proactive, you bum:LOL:

[Slick]

With regards to the OP, I'm guessing it's because they're fairly over the top and over-produced, and have a few cheesy singles here and there (which I love by the way). Certainly they were praised more in the Showbiz/Origin days.

 

I don't really understand the problem with something being "overproduced." That term is used so ubiquitously nowadays; elitist hipster/indie types seem to apply it to anything with good production values. Since when are high production values bad?

 

The only songs that are "overproduced," to me (although I wouldn't use that term) are songs like "No Air" by Chris Brown and Jordin Sparks where the synth is extremely heavy and there's too much going on. I've never found any of Muse's songs to be like this (except maybe the very end of Take a Bow).

 

I think a lot of indie kids use it as an insult so that they can take pride in their lo-fi stuff. It's fine if you like lo-fi, but there's nothing objectively worse about a well-produced song.

 

Liking a band/piece of music simply because it fits into a certain genre or is in keeping with a self-image you've constructed is completely daft.

 

If I like the way I feel when I hear a song, I like the song, end of.

 

I completely agree. As I said, taste is 100% subjective. I probably have the same philosophy toward music as you in that it's a song-by-song thing. I usually only have one or two songs by any given artist on my iPod/playlist.

[Orpheus3]

My friends and I all love the same music.If you met us, you'd call us hipsters because we *do* adore all that lo-fi minimalist stuff. I'm a huge fan of the more electronic side like Bonobo, Caribou, Yeasayer, and whatnot.

 

But I adore Muse, and my friends don't. My best friend says "sometimes Muse is just way too epic." My other friend just outright hates them. Then again, Sun Kil Moon and Fleet Foxes are his favorite bands. To me there is simply no such thing as too epic. In fact the more epic, the better (exception: The Resistance did not have enough psychotic falsetto moments)'

 

The hipster crowd doesn't like Muse because of two things:

 

1) Matthew Bellamy and Thom Yorke both sound like Jeff Buckley, and Radiohead is Jesus. So Muse is the Anti-Christ.

 

2) Muse aren't ironic about their penchant for the hysterics and scale, i.e., the glitter is used whole heartedly, the Spinal Tap moments aren't jokes, and the multitracked Mercury vocals are zealously employed.

 

Plus Pitchfork is so into their view of indie authenticity that anything a brash and massive as Muse is automatically meh'd. They get on Kings of Leon's newer material for sounding more like a southern U2 (fuck, I do too. That band used to be golden) and hate Coldplay for ever making music.

[Meep]

Nah, more likely that starlight was shite?

[Morinphen]

Muse aren't ironic about their penchant for the hysterics and scale, i.e., the glitter is used whole heartedly, the Spinal Tap moments aren't jokes, and the multitracked Mercury vocals are zealously employed.

"Knights of Cydonia is obviously a joke. Esseentially, we approach music the same way Monty Python did comedy" (Matt Bellamy, Q Magazine, September 2007).

 

P.S. Way to resurrect a thread from the dead.