Mike Patton hates Wolfmother

Mr Rivers

http://www.g4tv.com/pile_player.aspx?video_key=12786

hahaha, the face on him when he firsts hears who it is

ThenComesDudley

i have to agree with him!

Crucifix

Ha ha! I do like Wolfmother, but that was still hilarious.

Barry.S

Hahaha, that was great! Is it just me or does he look fairly high too?

John

Amen brother!

I don't think he's high, I think that's just him.

projectmayhem

Barry.S wrote:

Hahaha, that was great! Is it just me or does he look fairly high too?

mike patton doesn't even need drugs to be high... mannnn

i saw this last week or whatever on CV.org, very funny stuff alright

Léan

Hahaha. Class.
Don't blame him, Wolfmother wreck my head too.
"Woommmmannnnn"
Grrr.

AlanOB

Whatever about Wolfmother (I'm not familiar with them) but Mike Patton is an overrated hack.

People seem to misinterpret his incoherent musical ramblings as "genius".

Usually the grunge generation strangely enough or those who think actual works of genius are pretentious. Yet Patton's dirge is wonderfully valid somehow.

No-one should listen to this man's opinion.

John

Mike Patton is great most of the time. Some of his stuff is **** (Peeping Tom, Faith no More) granted but Fantomas and Tomohawk rock the balls off me.

Beekay

John wrote:

Some of his stuff is **** (Peeping Tom, Faith no More)

:eek: :eek: :eek: I know everyone to there own but to call FNM ****...its a bit harsh:D

Ho-Hum

FNM & Mr. Bungle are Pattons best work, the rest is extremly hit and miss.

Ph3n0m

Ho-Hum wrote:

FNM & Mr. Bungle are Pattons best work, the rest is extremly hit and miss.

ah I would have to agree FNM and Mr Bungle tied for number one, then his work with Tomohawk and Fantomas - that is how I would order his work. BUt then what do I know, I'm just an old fart


and that video was priceless - c'mon you have all been standing around like that, talking and then only realise that something in the background is just generally annoying the **** out of you - I know I have

Arucard

AlanOB wrote:

Whatever about Wolfmother (I'm not familiar with them) but Mike Patton is an overrated hack.

People seem to misinterpret his incoherent musical ramblings as "genius".

Usually the grunge generation strangely enough or those who think actual works of genius are pretentious. Yet Patton's dirge is wonderfully valid somehow.

No-one should listen to this man's opinion.

i kick you in the nuts sir!

a lot of Mikes lyrics are nonsensical, but the music is fantastic. even with Peeping Tom; i was afraid when i heard what it was going to be, who he was working with, etc., but i thought it was a really good album. doesnt seem to be able to put a foot wrong.

dimerocks

that was one funny video, and peeping tom are highly great!

j0e

to the ppl calling FNM crap i direct you to the alternative & indie forum there must have been an error when u clicked the link

pbsuxok1znja4r

AlanOB wrote:

No-one should listen to this man's opinion.

bombidol

As someone on metalireland said and i tend to agree with them

"Im doing an album of 60's Italian music with an orchestra" - Mike Patton
"Jesus, What year is this?!?!" - Mike Patton to Wolfmother.

John

j0e wrote:

to the ppl calling FNM crap i direct you to the alternative & indie forum there must have been an error when u clicked the link

Because you couldn't possibly not like FNM and appreciate rock and metal music at the same time :rolleyes:

I think FNM are boring, I make no apologies for it. I will admit they have their moments, the King for a Day... album has some good songs but not enough to make it a good album. They're a stadium rock band with a bit of an edge, not exactly something that makes me wet with excitement even if Patton is fronting them.

Diarmuid

AlanOB wrote:

Whatever about Wolfmother (I'm not familiar with them) but Mike Patton is an overrated hack.

wrong.

peepingtom

Diarmuid wrote:

wrong.

approved!

patton is a feckin legend! ... im not a big fan of his work with Fantomas to be honest, but Mr Bungle and FNM are the muts nuts! .... oh and Peeping Tom of course

Acid_Violet

I don't care what you say! Wolfmother rock conclusively!

John

Acid_Violet wrote:

I don't care what you say! Wolfmother rock conclusively!

lol

AlanOB

John wrote:

Because you couldn't possibly not like FNM and appreciate rock and metal music at the same time :rolleyes:

I think FNM are boring, I make no apologies for it.

Couldn't agree more. Faith No More are only innovative if you've never heard anything innovative. As you say they have some decent, listenable work. Angel Dust has some good tracks for example. But by and large, they pale greatly in comparison creatively and technically to the VAST majority of hard rock bands.

That whole "alternative" scene never did it for me anyway. Lots of post-punk, musically limited posers fiddling about thinking that they were doing something monumental and important, when in reality the artists of the decades that preceded them were effortlessly superior in every way.

Unfortunately most of the fanbase of FNM and subsequently Patton himself, have very limited knowledge of "the past". At least the large number of such fans that know from Limerick fit this bill anyway. They would have grown up listening to The Cure and Dinosaur Jr. and Nirvana and various other things of that nature and wouldn't even dream of wading back into the works of more "dinosauric" bands (pun fully intended) who originated from an era when true musicianship was held at a paramount.

They'll talk about the genius of Mr. Bungle, not realising that they are in fact listening to a pale imitation of truly great leftfield, progressive music like King Crimson, Floyd, Rush, Yes, Jethro Tull, Genesis and Can.

But hey whatever, it's not the listening to Patton's stuff I have a problem with, it's the genius worship. Totally and utterly misjudged.

pbsuxok1znja4r

TBH it sounds like you just don't have an appreciation for new music (not that FNM are new, but Patton mostly is).
Do you listen to much rock/metal bands that have only emerged in the last 5 years?
And do you think they're boring simply because they draw influence from bands that went before?

I dunno about you, but I much prefer post-punk to punk. And if you don't I daresay you're a dying breed. Good luck with that.

Patton has made some pretty great music, that's all I know.

AlanOB

I don't prefer ANY punk. I think my putting forward of the virtues of musicianship demonstrates that pretty clearly.

As for not appreciating any new music, can you blame me? Most if not all of the subgenres of rock that have sprung up since the beginning of the 90's have been talent-barren, virtuosity wastelands with very little to catch the interest. Having said that a lot of recent bands from existing subgenres are quite impressive and measure up quite well to the greats of the past, but by and large the last one and a half decades have been hugely eclipsed by the preceding two or three. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge across the spectrum of hard rock will acknowledge this.

It's not therefore new music that I have a problem with. It's inferior music. And if a lot of bands that have sprung up in the last 5-15 years fit this bill then so be it.

I know what I'd rather listen to between a musically and creatively inferior post-punk/punk/alternative outfit and one of the true greats that I mentioned earlier.

Acid_Violet

I can't access the clip via that link. Can some-one help me please?

pbsuxok1znja4r

AlanOB wrote:

I don't prefer ANY punk. I think my putting forward of the virtues of musicianship demonstrates that pretty clearly.

Musicianship? Now there's a can of worms. If you mean songwriting ability, then fine. If you mean only being able to do 'difficult' things on an instrument, then I beg to differ as to the virtues of 'musicianship'.
Do you mean to say you just don't like any punk music full-stop? Are you saying punk music is devoid of this 'musicianship'?

wrote:

As for not appreciating any new music, can you blame me?

Yes.

wrote:

Most if not all of the subgenres of rock that have sprung up since the beginning of the 90's have been talent-barren, virtuosity wastelands with very little to catch the interest.

Okay, first of all, subgenres? What about the existing ones? Do they just somehow not count because they've 'been done'? Second of all, "rock"? If "rock" and its subgenres are the limits of your 90s-onward musical exposure then it's no wonder you havent found anything much to be enamoured of lately.
(Although maybe we just think the word "rock" means different things)

wrote:

Having said that a lot of recent bands from existing subgenres are quite impressive and measure up quite well to the greats of the past, but by and large the last one and a half decades have been hugely eclipsed by the preceding two or three. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge across the spectrum of hard rock will acknowledge this.

No, they wouldn't, I'm afraid. Right now I am wondering as to how broad a 'sprectrum' your knowledge of "hard rock" really covers. I think this is KH's cue to enter and enlighten us as to all that recent metal has to offer.

wrote:

It's not therefore new music that I have a problem with. It's inferior music. And if a lot of bands that have sprung up in the last 5-15 years fit this bill then so be it.

And you think music in the last decade or so has by and large been more oft inferior. Which is the same thing.
Here's the thing. Every decade has its ****e bands. But hindsight is rose-tinted and the mediocre bands just dont live as long in the memory.

wrote:

I know what I'd rather listen to between a musically and creatively inferior post-punk/punk/alternative outfit and one of the true greats that I mentioned earlier.

Oh, well, obviously, if it's a "true great". And you were the one repulsed by the so-called Patton genius-worship? :rolleyes:

Welcome to the 21st century. We have good music, for those who know where to look for it.

John

scouser.tommy wrote:

Welcome to the 21st century. We have good music, for those who know where to look for it.

Here! Here! Well said.

New and newish music to be excited about:
Boris Pink or Dronevil
Einstuerzende Neubauten Perpetuum Mobile
Bardo Pond Ticket Crystals
OM Variations on a Theme
Tool 10,000 Days
Sunn O))) Black One
Lurker of Chalice Lurker of Chalice
Fantomas Suspended Animation
Khanate Things Viral
Pelican The Fire in our Throats Will Beckon the Thaw
Mikaela's Fiend We Can Driving Machine
Slomo The Creep
Mastodon Leviathan

If you can't find somethine worth listening to from that list give up listening to music now.

BleakestH

AlanOB wrote:

As for not appreciating any new music, can you blame me? Most if not all of the subgenres of rock that have sprung up since the beginning of the 90's have been talent-barren, virtuosity wastelands with very little to catch the interest. Having said that a lot of recent bands from existing subgenres are quite impressive and measure up quite well to the greats of the past, but by and large the last one and a half decades have been hugely eclipsed by the preceding two or three. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge across the spectrum of hard rock will acknowledge this.

Lol what a ridiculous statement. You realise, don't you, that music is art and as art it is completely subjective, right? Saying that 'most if not all....rock that has sprung up sinc ethe beginning of the 90s have been barren, virtuosity wastelands' is such a sweeping, nonsensical statement that it beggars belief. Virtuosity wastelands? Do even know what that means? Christ...

Karl Hungus

scouser.tommy wrote:

I think this is KH's cue to enter and enlighten us as to all that recent metal has to offer.

Well I wasn't going to say anything, but indeed, there's plenty of bands that have really established themselves over the last 10 years (Give or take), just look at the likes of Evergrey, Arch Enemy, Mithras, Green Carnation, Lamb Of God, Unearth, Alarum, Gnostic, Decapitated, and that doesn't include the amount of great music that's still being made by older bands.

LightofDarkness

Evergrey? Unearth? Pah.

Here's some funkeh modern metal and then some:

Lykathea Aflame
Maudlin of the Well
Neurosis
Pavor
That 1 Guy
Blut Aus Nord
Necrophagist (now for your musicianship and virtuosity)
Deathspell Omega
Dysrhythmia
Enslaved
Gorod
Into Eternity
Ingurgitating Oblivion
Kekal
Les Claypool in general
Sleepytime Gorilla Museum
Spastic Ink
Gordian Knot
Sikth
Sleep Terror
Spiral Architect
Symbyosis

I'll stop there but you get the point. There's loads of it.

Karl Hungus

Oi, don't knock Evergrey!

But yeah, there's absolutely loads of good stuff out there, I just named off a few things that came to my mind first.

buck65

Lads arguing about music is mostly futile, like politics and religion. However I must argue the case here-Mike Patton does bring alot to music, if there wasn't lunatics like him pushing the envelope it would be a boring world indeed. Saw Faith No More 4 times and each one was special. Met the band and they were quite sound.
Of course the band were hit and miss but some classics also:
Caffeine, RV, Crack Hitler, King for a Day, Digging the Grave, Zombie Eaters, As the worm turns, The Crab Song among my faves.
Some of the Mr Bungle stuff is also brilliant - not metal but still. The whole "California" album to me their most acomplished and features Patton at his vocal prime.
Fantomas are interesting. I love their latest "Suspended Animation" it is bonecrushingly heavy mixed with sesame street interludes! "The Directors Cut" and the first album are also good- however "Delirium Cordial" is beyond me.
Tomahawk are just a decent rock band - some good stuff.
I love Pattons work with Bjork on "Medulla" a vocal album with no music, very different. Check out the Melvins also.
Pattons 2 solo albums are interesting and probably worth the money. Some of the tracks that feature John Zorn on trumpet are fantastic. Of course there is a lot of junk but when you hit a gem its special.
I think its great to see a mainstream vocalist turning the other way and choosing independent and underground music as his livelihood- he set up a record label that has some very decent bands Ipecac.
Melt Banana from Japan are excellent as is The Locust.
Without Patton alot of these artists would have disappeared.
He is the opposite of a sellout.
Well thats music next religion...

Karl Hungus

buck65 wrote:

Lads arguing about music is mostly futile, like politics and religion.

That's what's so great about it. If there was a definitive answer one way or the other, discussions would be incredibly boring.

projectmayhem

buck65 wrote:

Saw Faith No More 4 times

i hate you so very much right now

AlanOB

Karl and LID have basically just supported my point, in that yes, there are numerous good bands that have sprung up in the last decade, but if you compare their lists that have been posted to a list of trailblazing bands from the previous three decades the difference in quality shows.

I myself am a big fan of a number of the bands listed but that doesn't change the fact that there was much more to shout about back in the day. Surprised that no-one will acknowledge that.

John

I still don't get what you mean about there being more to shout about back in the day. It's not like all of a sudden great bands stopped appearing and only good ones exist now. It's easy to say with the benefit of hindsight that Pink Floyd, Can, King Crimson, etc. were legends but I'm sure at the time there was a hippy version of AlanOB saying: "Man, these modern bands are good and all but they sure ain't no Elvis." The thing about living through a cultural explosion is that you don't know it's a revolution until it's over and you look back. We could be all saying in 20 years: "Yeah, I was there when Radiohead freaked out and bought synthesisers."

AlanOB

Hindsight is overrated.

The passage of time isn't going to make Radiohead's music anymore interesting than it already isn't.

Nor has the passage of time made Rush's music greater than it already was.

And I seriously doubt my 70's version would be pining for Elvis. I'd be revelling in the explosion of cerebral, complex rock music.

Then again, being that you are the mod of the Alternative forum we're probably never going to come to a consensus anyway!

JC 2K3

AlanOB, you come across as extremely closed minded.

Rush, Yes, Tull, Floyd etc. are great in one way, Radiohead, Dinosaur Jr. , Sonic Youth, Husker Du, Aphex Twin, Lightning Bolt and many more bands from the last 15 years or so are great in other ways. Music changes, embrace it. Nowadays you generally have to venture futher than the charts to find decent stuff. But I don't see where you're coming from when you say the 70s was better for music. Better for classic/claassic prog rock music maybe, but not for music in general.

LightofDarkness

As for modern bands being derivative of other stuff that came before it, all music is derivative if something. Prog bands derived their "sophistication" by using techniques applied in jazz or classical music to rock (and folk too). Modern bands do the same, deriving their sound by using the derivations of King Crimson or Pink Floyd or Yes to create an even more layered or sophisticated soundscape. We are beings of reference, we can never create something totally new.

Frank Bullitt

haha,thats deadly,saw peeping tom last week in new york,quirte impressed i must say