Share your controversial Muse opinions II - More Radiohead talk

[Hat]

Well, notice that OOS was a big change from Showbiz, and in Absolution they changed even more.

They've never stayed the same. Who's to say that OOS is the sound that Muse is? What if The Resistance is? What if BHAR is? Every album is different.

I think you missed the point.

[escapist]

I think you missed the point.

 

Well, it wouldn't be the first time.

 

*re-reads*

 

I got the feeling that I did after I posted.

[haze015]

I was making two separate points and wasn't suggesting OOS is the "definitive" Muse sound, because that's just daft.

 

First point was that bands don't need to sound different every album to be good, some bands never change and put out great album after great album.

 

Second point was sort of leading on from to say that where Muse are supposedly changing, it's taken them from being hugely influential and heading towards this decade's equivalent of bland, overblown stadium rock bands that Muse were a huge fuck you towards 10 years ago.

And it's not this change has been like they've gone from rock to an IDM/Breakcore/Jazz fusion or decided to produce electro house or something.

[Pop Tarts]

I ALWAYS skip the studio version of Map of the Problematique, even though I love the song, because I can't get over how awfully produced that intro sounds (and the rest of the song).

[canadianmuser]

I ALWAYS skip the studio version of Map of the Problematique, even though I love the song, because I can't get over how awfully produced that intro sounds (and the rest of the song).

 

MoTP is one of my top 5.

 

I find a lot of Showbiz to be unlistenable.

[choco_chia83]

It seems like the people who do like classical music hate it the most.

 

Dunno though, this is just my experience.

 

I like classical music and I love Exogenesis.

 

idunnolol.

[MattXXI]

Overture is the best Exogenesis.

[Couture]

Point one: Changing your sound doesn't make you a sellout. Having a song on a movie soundtrack doesn't make you a sellout. Having a song in a music video game doesn't make you a sellout. Muse haven't sold out quite yet. There's a fine line between selling out and changing/growing up.

 

Agreed on the first two points, and I'm afraid the video game point would be better suited for another debate. Here's where I'm in disaccord though; Muse not only sold the rights of one song to a franchise, they also sold the rights of an exclusive one-off version of another track, and worst of all, recorded a proprietary song for the series. I'm not saying their motives were fiscal, but it comes down to one word... FAME.

 

There's nothing wrong with them wanting it. Hell, they've worked their asses off for over ten years doing what they love and do best. They've reached a point where until now all of their good publicity were based on word of mouth, insanely good live performances, and pure talent. You could argue though that Matt is starting to develop a 'bigger than Jesus' complex. He said in the September 2009 Spin magazine article, and I quote, "We'd like to be remembered as one of the biggest bands in history." Again, nothing too wrong with that. It's the cheap parlor tricks that they're using to obtain it.

 

Now, I'll digress for a moment and admit that I still love the band and almost everything about them. I still see them multiple times every tour (and jump and sing along to all of the songs), will recommend them to anyone showing even mild interest, and own more shirts of theirs than any sane human being should. What they're doing to themselves though is cheapening their image to obtain fame and popularity faster, and because of this discrediting themselves artistically. Before, I would NEVER hear anyone say anything negative about the band. The truth is, they're quickly becoming more and more kitschy to those in the music and art worlds, and are becoming more appealing to 14 year old girls than to others. Like you said, Muse is growing up... As much as I'd love for the wild guitar smashing Muse to return, I know that's not going to happen. I would just like to see a Muse again who doesn't give as much of a fuck. Back in the OOS days, Nestle tried to obtain the rights of Feeling Good for a commercial. The band refused, but they used it anyway. You know what Muse did? They sued Nestle, and walked away with a settlement which was donated to Oxfarm. Nowadays they would probably approach Nestle to use the song.

 

Long rant short, I don't EVER want to see a Muse poster in Wal Mart like you can with Greenday

 

And as a random aside, I noticed that we were at the same show in Boston this year. Crowd surf laugh FTW!

[xbroken_ideals]

HAARP is full of shit- Boring setlist, and Matt sounds like he had a terrible cold on the day.

 

There should've been a CD to go with the Absolution Tour.

[Riveon]

And why is it people complain when bands don't change their sound? No band has to, if a band is still making great music in that sound, there's no reason whatsoever to change apart from to impress somebody unintelligent enough to believe that "credible" music has to be completely different every time

This sums up my feelings perfectly.

Overture is the best Exogenesis.

[FearAndPanic]

Overture is the best Exogenesis.

 

Overture is the worst exogenesis

[xbroken_ideals]

Overture is the worst exogenesis

 

 

Cross Polination is the best Exogenesis.

 

*Holds up flame shield*

[rainingradioheads]

Redemption is the best Exogenesis.

 

Hahahahaaaa all in a row.

 

[/lame]

[Hat]

 

Cross Polination is the best Exogenesis.

 

*Holds up flame shield*

Maybe you should save your flame shield for your controversial opinions

[xbroken_ideals]

Maybe you should save your flame shield for your controversial opinions

 

ORLY?

[rainingradioheads]

No one really cares about what Exogenesis part is best, it's the whether it's bad or not thing that's controversial.

 

^opinion

[spark_]

 

Cross Polination is the best Exogenesis.

 

*Holds up flame shield*

 

It's not that controversial. It has a great intro(outro) and a great climax. Some people don't like how it doesn't seem to "gel" together as well, though.

[rainingradioheads]

Some people don't like how it doesn't seem to "gel" together as well, though.

 

Yeah, that's why I don't like it.

 

Plus it's really hard to play for me.

[Riveon]

It's not that controversial. It has a great intro(outro) and a great climax. Some people don't like how it doesn't seem to "gel" together as well, though.

I just think they could have done more with it. It's the middle section of the symphony, but it builds up to the guitar section, and then it just dies out almost instantly, and that's it for the rest of the symphony. They could have had more musical ideas in there. (I'm not saying that I wanted it to remain guitar-orientated for ages, just that they could have explored it more)

[xbroken_ideals]

That's why I have come to the conclusion that Exogenesis is NOT THAT GOOD.

[rainingradioheads]

That's why I have come to the conclusion that Exogenesis is NOT THAT GOOD.

 

So basically, you're in agreement with about 3/4 of the board.

[spark_]

I just think they could have done more with it. It's the middle section of the symphony, but it builds up to the guitar section, and then it just dies out almost instantly, and that's it for the rest of the symphony. They could have had more musical ideas in there. (I'm not saying that I wanted it to remain guitar-orientated for ages, just that they could have explored it more)

 

I agree with you there, and of course the work is by no means perfect, not even close. But I can't get past the chromatic buildup of the intro, it's a technique Matt hasn't really used until this album.

 

I still think Redemption takes way too long to get going though. Don't get me wrong, I have no clue how he could have made it shorter given the melody (Liszt) and structure he was working with, but I don't know. It's a nice piece and the vocal part is beautiful and the ending is certainly the right length, but... I see why it's so popular (most popular part if I'm not mistaken based on polls I've seen) because it is such a good melody/structure. It's not all his, though

[Obi]

Sorry, but how can you compare Kasabian to Oasis?

 

Oasis is straight up raw guitar based rock, Kasabian owe more to Primal Scream, Death In Vegas etc for their sound.

 

And why is it people complain when bands don't change their sound? No band has to, if a band is still making great music in that sound, there's no reason whatsoever to change apart from to impress somebody unintelligent enough to believe that "credible" music has to be completely different every time

 

I'm not the biggest fan of Kasabian, but comparing them to Oasis is just as retarded as comparing Oasis to The Beatles, The Beatles completely changed, Oasis never did.

 

Listening to a song like Underdog, how can you not hear Oasis when you hear it? I thought it WAS Oasis for a brief time. And Kasabian haven't changed much at all either.

 

"Oasis is straight up raw guitar based rock".

 

So are Kasabian. Adding a synth here and a string part there only makes them mildly more experimental to my ears. They still use similar structures, similar vocals, similar reliance on choruses etc.

 

I'm not saying they're bad, but I do think they're just what Oasis were to a previous generation.

[haze015]

Listening to a song like Underdog, how can you not hear Oasis when you hear it? I thought it WAS Oasis for a brief time. And Kasabian haven't changed much at all either.

 

"Oasis is straight up raw guitar based rock".

 

So are Kasabian. Adding a synth here and a string part there only makes them mildly more experimental to my ears. They still use similar structures, similar vocals, similar reliance on choruses etc.

 

I'm not saying they're bad, but I do think they're just what Oasis were to a previous generation.

 

 

I bet you've slagged off comparisons between Muse & Radiohead, comparing Kasabian & Oasis is just as retarded.

Most bands use the same structures and rely on chorus', might as well start comparing Muse to Oasis on that basis.

Using synths =/= experimental, anyone using that term often sounds like they don't know what they are talking about and since you clearly don't know Kasabian's influences:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHqepbB4sDg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjSybE8LdZU

[escapist]

I was making two separate points and wasn't suggesting OOS is the "definitive" Muse sound, because that's just daft.

 

First point was that bands don't need to sound different every album to be good, some bands never change and put out great album after great album.

 

Second point was sort of leading on from to say that where Muse are supposedly changing, it's taken them from being hugely influential and heading towards this decade's equivalent of bland, overblown stadium rock bands that Muse were a huge fuck you towards 10 years ago.

And it's not this change has been like they've gone from rock to an IDM/Breakcore/Jazz fusion or decided to produce electro house or something.

 

I see. And with that, I'd have to pretty much agree with you.

I'd just gotten home from school (exams ) and I'd only skimmed the post and got the main (wrong) idea. My apologies.