The Frames at the Point

Miguel_Sanchez

Closing Doors wrote:

I think what annoys a lot of people about him is that he's able to saunter on stage (regardless of the size of the crowd) and have the confidence to engage the crowd and put on a show.

I find that Hansard's stage presence is quite contrived and rehearsed and that's one of the things that annoys me about him. He repeats the same stories word for word at gigs, to the point that fans can recite the stories with him. I don't see the point in this verbatim repetition of the same thing on stage.

I also think that all those little bits of other songs that Glen throws in, under the guise of spontanaiety are ****e too - he does the same bits at the same places over and over again. Like the bit from Willy Wonka in the middle of Star, Star. It really gets my back up.

That's my reasons for disliking him.

Ro: maaan!

They're not supposed to be spontanious! It's obvoiously planned. The Willy Wonka thing is getting a bit annoying now. Well actually a couple of gigs ago. I always liked the odd line or two from another song thrown in though.

Miguel_Sanchez

Ro: maaan! wrote:

They're not supposed to be spontanious! It's obvoiously planned. The Willy Wonka thing is getting a bit annoying now. Well actually a couple of gigs ago. I always liked the odd line or two from another song thrown in though.

I know they're planned but what I meant (I admit I didn't put it across well) is that these sort of bits are only entertaining (to me anyway) when they happen on the spur of the moment. When they're rehearsed and repeated ad nauseum then it's tedious and frankly annoying as ****.

But hey, that's me.

I am now leaving the discussion before I descend into Hansard abuse.

Ro: maaan!

Jeff_Lebowski wrote:

I know they're planned but what I meant (I admit I didn't put it across well) is that these sort of bits are only entertaining (to me anyway) when they happen on the spur of the moment. When they're rehearsed and repeated ad nauseum then it's tedious and frankly annoying as ****.

But hey, that's me.

I am now leaving the discussion before I descend into Hansard abuse.

Mmm... well... I agree they were all much better the first time around. Would be nice if they threw in bits from different other songs sometimes.

Ag marbh

Ro: maaan! wrote:

Eh? It was hardly planned. As I recall, Glen just started singing it as a joke because loads of the people in the pit were only there waiting for the Foo Fighters. Then the rest of the band just started playing it too. Of course without the drumroll the song is ****e anyway, so yeah, Nirvana are a crap band that rely on intros to make songs good. :rolleyes:

Ehh how do you know it wasn't planned? I reckon it was. You know nothing and are a fool anyway. "Nirvana rely on intros because they are crap". You don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Jim

Ag marbh wrote:

Ehh how do you know it wasn't planned? I reckon it was. You know nothing and are a fool anyway. "Nirvana rely on intros because they are crap". You don't have a clue what you're talking about.

He was being sarcastic.

May The Frames threads go on for ever and ever and ever and ever...

Ag marbh

Jimeatsmenu wrote:

He was being sarcastic.

May The Frames threads go on for ever and ever and ever and ever...

You must have a good sarcasm detector because I didn't sense it.

Steve_o

radioman wrote:

No, I judge the band on their music, I gave my judgement at the start of the post.

I think thats the only way any band should be judged!!

Jim

This is true, but never happens. Bands get judged on almost everything except their music.

Heh, I always find it funny that rock/metal/punk/indie etc... bands get judged on how much money they make. ie, if they make loads of money they must have sold out which is a bad thing. But for any rap/r'n'b/hiphop etc.. bands its all about showing off how much money you have and how much you've sold out.

Closing Doors

Jeff_Lebowski wrote:

He repeats the same stories word for word at gigs, to the point that fans can recite the stories with him. I don't see the point in this verbatim repetition of the same thing on stage.

That's almost the complete opposite of the truth! I find, with the Frames, that they seems to go through "cycles" of storys i.e. Glen will tell a story, it goes down well, so he tells it over the next few dates. Eventually another story will come along and gradually replace it and so on...

With a lot of "bigger" bands (Killers, Franz Ferdinand, whoever...) , you get exactly what your complaining about: the same story (usually singular, cause they can't be arsed talking to the crowd) every night...in some cases it's even written on the setlists! To paraphrase Ed Byrne: they'd rather change the crowd than the material.

Jeff_Lebowski wrote:

I also think that all those little bits of other songs that Glen throws in, under the guise of spontanaiety are ****e too - he does the same bits at the same places over and over again. Like the bit from Willy Wonka in the middle of Star, Star. It really gets my back up.

That's my reasons for disliking him.

Why go and see them more than once then, if it bothers you so much? BTW just an example from the other night, Glen threw in an Arcade Fire song and actually had to tell the bassists which chords he was playing cause it was unplanned and he didn't know it!

Ro: maaan!

Ag marbh wrote:

Ehh how do you know it wasn't planned? I reckon it was. You know nothing and are a fool anyway. "Nirvana rely on intros because they are crap". You don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Right. The Nirvana thing was indeed sarcasm. You said they ****ed it up and as an example said that they left out the drumroll at the start. Just meant that it's quite a good song even without the drumroll. Really, complaining about the lack of something so insignificant in a live cover is desperate.

Anyway, lay off on the "you don't have a clue what you're talking about" until you know what I'm talking about. Then you can judge me accordingly.

arac

radioman wrote:

Secondly, the lead singer is, how should I put it, not the most amiable bloke. I know some people who have dealt with him both professionally and privately and would have some names that I won't print here for him. Plus he comes across as a smug twat.
Having said that, they are a decent band, but they don't deserve the Godlike status that some people heap on them.

Years ago my boyfriend wasa drummer in a band, and they got a gig down in Conna, supporting the Frames, I think Aslan were there too, amongst others..anyways he said that Glen Hansard, actually took the time to listen to them and was a really nice guy and was interested in what they were playing etc, whereas the others acts just ignored them.. I thought it was v nice of him..especially to boost the morale of waht was essentially just a group of kids playing in a band

Ag marbh

Ro: maaan! wrote:

Right. The Nirvana thing was indeed sarcasm. You said they ****ed it up and as an example said that they left out the drumroll at the start. Just meant that it's quite a good song even without the drumroll. Really, complaining about the lack of something so insignificant in a live cover is desperate.

Anyway, lay off on the "you don't have a clue what you're talking about" until you know what I'm talking about. Then you can judge me accordingly.

Something so insignificant as playing a song correclty live? I agree 80% of the crowd might be tone deaf and could recognise the song from a college party but this just isn't the case with me.

Miguel_Sanchez

Closing Doors wrote:

That's almost the complete opposite of the truth! I find, with the Frames, that they seems to go through "cycles" of storys i.e. Glen will tell a story, it goes down well, so he tells it over the next few dates. Eventually another story will come along and gradually replace it and so on...

So he does tell the stories over and over is what you're saying. Which is exactly what I'm saying.

With a lot of "bigger" bands (Killers, Franz Ferdinand, whoever...) , you get exactly what your complaining about: the same story (usually singular, cause they can't be arsed talking to the crowd) every night

I haven't seen either of these bands live so I couldn't comment on whether they tell stories in the same way Glen Hansard does. And the Killers are complete ****e. We're not talking about these bands anyway - we're talking about the Frames. The stories he tells on that Setlist album were told on more than one tour. I've been told this by Frames fans so I presume it is true.

BTW just an example from the other night, Glen threw in an Arcade Fire song and actually had to tell the bassists which chords he was playing cause it was unplanned and he didn't know it!

I'm not complaining about their cover versions - I'm complaining about the bits of songs he throws into the middle of their own ones. Did he still play that Willy Wonka bit in Star, Star?

Anyway - I was trying to present a balanced argument about why I don't care for them instead of the usual 'Hansard is a wanker' post. So there you go.

Ro: maaan!

Jeff_Lebowski wrote:

I'm not complaining about their cover versions - I'm complaining about the bits of songs he throws into the middle of their own ones. Did he still play that Willy Wonka bit in Star, Star?

Anyway - I was trying to present a balanced argument about why I don't care for them instead of the usual 'Hansard is a wanker' post. So there you go.

I don't know any Arcade Fire songs, and didn't notice them playing it. So it must have been thrown in in the middle of another song. Can't really comment any further on it.

He does still do the Willy Wonka thing. I'm not a fan. The first few times it was good. Also I seem to remember him saying different bits from the film at different gigs, which was good. But then he just settled on the "It's all yours Charlie..." or whatever it is. Kind of annoying. More annoying are the people who cheer every time he says it. Anyway...

Kudos on leaving out the "Hansard is a wanker" btw Jeff. Nice to actually hear peoples reasons for disliking the band without all the ****e that usually comes along with it. But easy up on the Killers...

Ro: maaan!

Ag marbh wrote:

Something so insignificant as playing a song correclty live? I agree 80% of the crowd might be tone deaf and could recognise the song from a college party but this just isn't the case with me.

No. Not something as insignificant as playing the song correctly. Something as insignificant as leaving out a drumroll at the start.

Miguel_Sanchez

Ro: maaan! wrote:

Nice to actually hear peoples reasons for disliking the band without all the ****e that usually comes along with it. But easy up on the Killers...

P.S. - Hansard is a wanker.

(oh come on I couldn't resist)

lacuna

Ag marbh wrote:

Something so insignificant as playing a song correclty live? I agree 80% of the crowd might be tone deaf and could recognise the song from a college party but this just isn't the case with me.

I don't think many bands actually play cover versions exactly the way they were played by the original band. They vary it, add in bits, leave out bits, etc. I wouldn't see the point in playing the cover version perfectly. If people want to hear the original they'll go and see the original band playing it, and even then it's rarely the same as it is on their record.

Also, being tone deaf has little to do with rhythm. So even if 80% of the crowd were tone deaf, it wouldn't affect their ability to notice variations in drumming.