Arctic Monkeys

strawberryb0y

Can anyone tell me why there is so much negativity towards this band on this and other forums? I honestly think they are one of the most talented bands around at the moment and have released two brilliant albums in two years.
To sum it up just state why you do or dont like them.

Takestockholden

I love them. Fantastic debut from a bunch of 18 year olds. The second album was even better and more experimental. He's not afraid to try something different and is a genius songwriter.

I expect the media gushing over them makes it hard for people to warm to them. Especially the NME, who have turned me off a lot of bands with their ridiculous praise.

Placid_Casual

I think some people just like to slate popular bands, particularly if they've come from an alt/indie background. Just take a look at the Kings of Leon thread. You never see people posting on threads about obscure bands to say that they're crap.

Anyway, I like Arctic Monkeys. The music's a bit "meh" at times but there's great songwriting talent at work. The first album could come to be seen as being very much of its time and might not age well. But they're still quite young so I think there's potential for really great things with them. Listening to The Last Shadow Puppets only reinforces that opinion for me.

lordgoat

You shouldn't take it to heart so much. It happens the general public are generally wrong about alot of things. Form your own opinions stick to them and be happy with them.

If you spend your time trying to figure out why people don't think the same way as you... you will need alot of time. Time that could be spent listening to the bands you like.

Takestockholden

Placid_Casual wrote: »

I think some people just like to slate popular bands, particularly if they've come from an alt/indie background. Just take a look at the Kings of Leon thread. You never see people posting on threads about obscure bands to say that they're crap.

Yeah but thats because people dont hear obscure bands. People are gonna hear the songs of popular bands and therefore form opinions on them so I dont really agree with that. Im sure if you got loads of people to listen to an obscure band. Some would like it, some wouldnt.

The Hustler

I'm not a huge fan but I think his lyrics are absolutely brilliant, he's a poet

Ardscoil Ris

My take on the Spastic Monkeys:

1. They are arrogant twats (One of their own band members left stating that)

2. Debut album is poor. It got mixed reviews and rightly so.

3. If I talked about my night out into a microphone I would have a Spastic Monkeys song. (For good lyrics see Agalloch/Brand New)

4. Make the lead singer shut up and your listening to The Strokes.

5. Couldn't break America because their chavtastic crap didn't work.

6. They are over hyped by the British media.

7. The only people who think they are any good are the British mainstream magazines like NME and Q whose respect was lost years ago as everything that's mainstream seems to get a great review.

8. Lead singer, Captain Silly bollocks or whatever his name is solo album was cringe worthy. He has disappeared up his only arse now.

I would rather have my balls pulled out through my japs eye then listen to those feckers.

insinkerator

To be honest, most of the stuff i see about the Arctic Monkeys is that they are overrated, not so much that they are a bad band. And thats my opinion of them, they arent a bad band, but i can think of many bands that are better than them, so i dont understand why they get all the hype that they do....

Placid_Casual

Ardscoil Ris wrote: »

My take on the Spastic Monkeys:

1. They are arrogant twats (One of their own band members left stating that)

2. Debut album is poor. It got mixed reviews and rightly so.

3. If I talked about my night out into a microphone I would have a Spastic Monkeys song. (For good lyrics see Agalloch/Brand New)

4. Make the lead singer shut up and your listening to The Strokes.

5. Couldn't break America because their chavtastic crap didn't work.

6. They are over hyped by the British media.

7. The only people who think they are any good are the British mainstream magazines like NME and Q whose respect was lost years ago as everything that's mainstream seems to get a great review.

8. Lead singer, Captain Silly bollocks or whatever his name is solo album was cringe worthy. He has disappeared up his only arse now.

I would rather have my balls pulled out through my japs eye then listen to those feckers.

So, not holding your breath in anticipation of the third album, I see.

Ardscoil Ris

Placid_Casual wrote: »

So, not holding your breath in anticipation of the third album, I see.

No.

I have nothing against mainstream bands I just don't rate these guys at all. They offer nothing new.

Bubs101

Ardscoil Ris wrote: »

2. Debut album is poor. It got mixed reviews and rightly so.

82/100 Metacritic says sup

I like the way they have occasional flashes of brilliance, fake tales of san Francisco being the main one but I despise the way Turner tries to fill absolutely every song with them. Also, they are extremely overrated by the british media

CSC

I didn't realise the lead singer had released a solo album. When? I am a big fan of the two Artic Monkey's albums and surprised I missed it.

keane2097

Ardscoil Ris wrote: »

My take on the Spastic Monkeys:

1. They are arrogant twats (One of their own band members left stating that)

2. Debut album is poor. It got mixed reviews and rightly so.

3. If I talked about my night out into a microphone I would have a Spastic Monkeys song. (For good lyrics see Agalloch/Brand New)

4. Make the lead singer shut up and your listening to The Strokes.

5. Couldn't break America because their chavtastic crap didn't work.

6. They are over hyped by the British media.

7. The only people who think they are any good are the British mainstream magazines like NME and Q whose respect was lost years ago as everything that's mainstream seems to get a great review.

8. Lead singer, Captain Silly bollocks or whatever his name is solo album was cringe worthy. He has disappeared up his only arse now.

I would rather have my balls pulled out through my japs eye then listen to those feckers.

I don't care for Arctic Monkeys much, but to be honest some of your arguments are fairly retarded.

For instance, you've used the fact that they are overhyped and the fact that they've gotten mixed reviews as separate points against them which seems fairly conflicted to me. You've then used two British music magazines liking them as another point against them (cleverly slipping in media hype as two distinct arguments when in fact they are only one, and a fairly sketchy one at that).

Also, you mention an ex-band member saying they are arrogant twats... I'm not sure, but I have an inkling you're making that up. You're probably talking about Andy Nicholson who used to play bass, but I've ever seen him say anything to that effect and he supposedly jammed with them and their new bass player at the Leedsfestival as well so I'd say it's more than likely just lies...

You use an album that's not even by the Arctic Monkeys as a way of saying they're shít. That's like saying Red Hot Chili Peppers are shít because of John Frusciante's gammy albums or Smashing Pumpkins were shít because the Jimmy Chaimberlain experience were poor - essentially, it's a load of bollocks.

You're point about them sounding like the Strokes if you remove the vocals makes me honestly wonder if you've ever listened to either band, and anyway their songs all have vocals anyway so again it's a fairly retarded argument.

Lastly, your point about them not breaking America... I have to ask, who cares? Your two bands haven't exactly set Europe on fire either (Brand New and Agalloch), it doesn't make them **** and it doesn't make them great, same thing here...

Nice effort, but your post is bolocks imo.

Ardscoil Ris

Bubs101 wrote: »

82/100 Metacritic says sup

I like the way they have occasional flashes of brilliance, fake tales of san Francisco being the main one but I despise the way Turner tries to fill absolutely every song with them. Also, they are extremely overrated by the british media

The fact that metacritic isn't the law of the land say sup. I love the way metacritic neglected to post the scores of a good number of reviews for the album. Of the percentage of reviews posted for it how many are based in the UK & Ireland? The answer is most of them. I'm so shocked that that there are only 33 music reviewers in the world.

Placid_Casual

CSC wrote: »

I didn't realise the lead singer had released a solo album. When? I am a big fan of the two Artic Monkey's albums and surprised I missed it.

I guess they're talking about the Last Shadow Puppets album, which is a collaboration between Alex Turner and the singer from The Rascals. Pretty good album, very different to Arctic Monkeys. Kind of a 60s pop vibe.

Also, in no way "cringeworthy".

Bubs101

Ardscoil Ris wrote: »

The fact that metacritic isn't the law of the land say sup. I love the way metacritic neglected to post the scores of a good number of reviews for the album. Of the percentage of reviews posted for it how many are based in the UK & Ireland? The answer is most of them. I'm so shocked that that there are only 33 music reviewers in the world.

Feel free to post a balanced amount of them. Metacritic isn't exactly biased towards the Artic Monkeys btw.

Ardscoil Ris

keane2097 wrote: »

I don't care for Arctic Monkeys much, but to be honest some of your arguments are fairly retarded.

For instance, you've used the fact that they are overhyped and the fact that they've gotten mixed reviews as separate points against them which seems fairly conflicted to me. You've then used two British music magazines liking them as another point against them (cleverly slipping in media hype as two distinct arguments when in fact they are only one, and a fairly sketchy one at that).

Also, you mention an ex-band member saying they are arrogant twats... I'm not sure, but I have an inkling you're making that up. You're probably talking about Andy Nicholson who used to play bass, but I've ever seen him say anything to that effect and he supposedly jammed with them and their new bass player at the Leedsfestival as well so I'd say it's more than likely just lies...

You use an album that's not even by the Arctic Monkeys as a way of saying they're shít. That's like saying Red Hot Chili Peppers are shít because of John Frusciante's gammy albums or Smashing Pumpkins were shít because the Jimmy Chaimberlain experience were poor - essentially, it's a load of bollocks.

You're point about them sounding like the Strokes if you remove the vocals makes me honestly wonder if you've ever listened to either band, and anyway their songs all have vocals anyway so again it's a fairly retarded argument.

Lastly, your point about them not breaking America... I have to ask, who cares? Your two bands haven't exactly set Europe on fire either (Brand New and Agalloch), it doesn't make them **** and it doesn't make them great, same thing here...

Nice effort, but your post is bolocks imo.

1. Linking my points together is trivial

2. How is reviews and hype conflicting? They are separate in every way. A review is an evaluation of a publication. Hype is to create interest in by flamboyant or dramatic methods; promote or publicize showily

3. I used it to show possible sound for the upcoming third album.

4. Yes I have. I didn't imply it was a literal rip off. I meant a very similar sound and style. Many people consider them an original band.

5. The best bands break America. Ok it doesn't make them bad but I doesn't make them the best thing ever as well.

6. Yes I realise that their songs have lyrics. If Take That sang lyrics over a RHCP song without asking permission wouldn't that be plagiarism?

Ardscoil Ris

Bubs101 wrote: »

Feel free to post a balanced amount of them. Metacritic isn't exactly biased towards the Artic Monkeys btw.

I know they are not biased towards them but they haven't included many reviews. Also the mayority of those reviews were between 40-70.

Bubs101

Ardscoil Ris wrote: »

5. The best bands break America. Ok it doesn't make them bad but I doesn't make them the best thing ever as well.

Like Bush?

Name one good British band to break America in 2 years (PS, Radiohead didn't)

Edit: Their last album got to number 7 in the US charts btw and considering how hip hop dominates that's no mean feat

Ardscoil Ris

Bubs101 wrote: »

Like Bush?

Name one good British band to break America in 2 years (PS, Radiohead didn't)

The Police. Did it with their 3rd album which was released 2 years after their 1st. It went to number 5 in the charts.

Dire Straits debut went to number 2 in America.

Rolling stones and the Beatles.

Oasis had the first album chart 58 with their second one charting 5.

Bubs101

So 5 is breaking but 7 isn't? I'm confused

Ardscoil Ris

Bubs101 wrote: »

So 5 is breaking but 7 isn't? I'm confused

Yes you are.

When Oasis went to number 5 they sold 4 million plus and went platinum 4 times. When the Arctic Monkeys went 7 the sold only 244,000 albums not going platinum therefore they have not broke America.

Xavi6

Good lyrics, good musicians, solid albums. Yeah quite like them and looking forward to seeing them in February.

First album is fan-feckin-tastic imo. It was something fresh back in 2005. Bit of attitude from a few young fellas singing about things people their own age could relate to. It was a must have album for me through college.

keane2097

Ardscoil Ris wrote: »

1. Linking my points together is trivial

2. How is reviews and hype conflicting? They are separate in every way. A review is an evaluation of a publication. Hype is to create interest in by flamboyant or dramatic methods; promote or publicize showily

3. I used it to show possible sound for the upcoming third album.

4. Yes I have. I didn't imply it was a literal rip off. I meant a very similar sound and style. Many people consider them an original band.

5. The best bands break America. Ok it doesn't make them bad but I doesn't make them the best thing ever as well.

6. Yes I realise that their songs have lyrics. If Take That sang lyrics over a RHCP song without asking permission wouldn't that be plagiarism?

1. It's not - since you decided to make your argument into a big long list to show how right you are and essentially made two or three points out of one. Someone pointing out that you've artificially fleshed out your argument shouldn't be trivial to you.

2. Online dictionarys can't prove your point for you. What "hype" are you talking about besides people saying Arctic Monkeys are class - essentially giving positive "evaluations of their publications". They've either gotten mixed reviews in which case your talk of over-hype is bollocks, or they've gotten rave reviews in which case they might be over-hyped, but they also might just be class. It can't be both, so again you're making conflicting arguments (and fleshing out you argument with an extra number to the list again!)


3. Well that argument is obviously bollocks because if he intended on making that kind of music with the Arctic Monkeys he clearly wouldn't have gone off and formed a side-project would he? In general (and when I say "in general" I mean 100% of the time) an artist forming a side-project means he wants to explore ideas he wouldn't with his main band. So yah-boo to that as well.

4. You're just wrong. They don't sound alike. They just don't. I can't argue this point in any more depth than that because obviously I can't prove it either way, but you're crazy!

5. Do you rate everyone bar the Police, Dire Straits, Rolling Stones, Oasis, and the Beatles to have come from Britain to be not that great so? Have all your favorite bands "broken" America in their first couple of years? Fair play if they have, but lots of fantastic bands haven't.

6. I don't even know what point you're trying to make here? If Take That sang over RHCP it would be called sampling... Are you saying Arctic Monkeys plagiarised The Strokes? Or Take That or something? What are you on!?

Ardscoil Ris

keane2097 wrote: »

1. It's not - since you decided to make your argument into a big long list to show how right you are and essentially made two or three points out of one. Someone pointing out that you've artificially fleshed out your argument shouldn't be trivial to you.

2. Online dictionarys can't prove your point for you. What "hype" are you talking about besides people saying Arctic Monkeys are class - essentially giving positive "evaluations of their publications". They've either gotten mixed reviews in which case your talk of over-hype is bollocks, or they've gotten rave reviews in which case they might be over-hyped, but they also might just be class. It can't be both, so again you're making conflicting arguments (and fleshing out you argument with an extra number to the list again!)


3. Well that argument is obviously bollocks because if he intended on making that kind of music with the Arctic Monkeys he clearly wouldn't have gone off and formed a side-project would he? In general (and when I say "in general" I mean 100% of the time) an artist forming a side-project means he wants to explore ideas he wouldn't with his main band. So yah-boo to that as well.

4. You're just wrong. They don't sound alike. They just don't. I can't argue this point in any more depth than that because obviously I can't prove it either way, but you're crazy!

5. Do you rate everyone bar the Police, Dire Straits, Rolling Stones, Oasis, and the Beatles to have come from Britain to be not that great so? Have all your favorite bands "broken" America in their first couple of years? Fair play if they have, but lots of fantastic bands haven't.

6. I don't even know what point you're trying to make here? If Take That sang over RHCP it would be called sampling... Are you saying Arctic Monkeys plagiarised The Strokes? Or Take That or something? What are you on!?

It's not trivial to me I don't read that much into comments. Pick apart my opinion not my structure.

You still don't know the difference between hype and reviews. Please come back to me when you do. I will try to explain it again. If some (not all) publications say the band is the greatest thing in history, but the majority of reviewers who didn't get involved in the hype give it average reviews then they are over hyped. The publications that hyped them up had influence in the media but did not represent the majority opinion.

I can assure you people in bands have formed side projects to do just that. Take Mike Patton for example. In Faith No More he wanted to go more experimental but the other band members/record label were having none of it so he did solo albums and side projects instead. I'm not saying that's what's happening here, but it could be an insight.

They do sound similar. You don't hear it but it has been pointed out before in mainstream press. I hear it.

They are not my favourite bands. I was asked to provide examples of bands that have broken America in two years. I do agree lots of great bands have not broke America (Not UK). Name the bands you consider "great" from the UK who have not broke into America, because to be honest I'm finding it hard.

A spasticated point for a spasticated point.

Xavi6

Ardscoil Ris wrote: »

They are not my favourite bands. I was asked to provide examples of bands that have broken America in two years. I do agree lots of great bands have not broke America (Not UK). Name the bands you consider "great" from the UK who have not broke into America, because to be honest I'm finding it hard.

Not really a relevant point in relation to the Arctic Monkeys though.

Radiohead took more than two albums. Who's to say the Monkeys won't do it eventually? Evaluate something like that at the end of their career, not two albums in.

Ardscoil Ris

I GuanYin wrote: »

Not really a relevant point in relation to the Arctic Monkeys though.

Radiohead took more than two albums. Who's to say the Monkeys won't do it eventually? Evaluate something like that at the end of their career, not two albums in.

Ordinarily I would agree but I was asked to point out bands who had made it within 2 years of their first album. I find your point about Radiohead irrelevant since it has nothing to do with them.

You actually can evaluate that. It's called sales figures.

lordgoat

Ardscoil Ris wrote: »

Ordinarily I would agree but I was asked to point out bands who had made it within 2 years of their first album. I find your point about Radiohead irrelevant since it has nothing to do with them.

You actually can evaluate that. It's called sales figures.

Well if we're just talking sales we can all name numerous great acts that have made it in America.

You're posts are so annoying, firstly the OP asked why there was so much hate towards the artic monkeys and you repy with a 8point post of why i don't like them and it's my ball and i'm going home.

I wish i could get this angry to give you a decent reply.

They're a young band, the are writing about experiences, they might not have alot yet but so far so good in my opinion. Name any uk band from the last 5 years to release a better debut and i think you'll find it hard. Of course they over hyped by the British media, they have **** all else to hype that has a little substance.

In no way are AM my favourite band but i can see something in them to raise them a bit abve the rest.

And as for all the other posters that have pointed out the foibles in your posts i ran out of thanks about halfway through.

Ardscoil Ris

lordgoat wrote: »

Well if we're just talking sales we can all name numerous great acts that have made it in America.

You're posts are so annoying, firstly the OP asked why there was so much hate towards the artic monkeys and you repy with a 8point post of why i don't like them and it's my ball and i'm going home.

I wish i could get this angry to give you a decent reply.

They're a young band, the are writing about experiences, they might not have alot yet but so far so good in my opinion. Name any uk band from the last 5 years to release a better debut and i think you'll find it hard. Of course they over hyped by the British media, they have **** all else to hype that has a little substance.

In no way are AM my favourite band but i can see something in them to raise them a bit abve the rest.

And as for all the other posters that have pointed out the foibles in your posts i ran out of thanks about halfway through.

It's people like you that make me glad I post such crap. I love how your all worked up. Yeah the OP's post was why all the hate but, I'm such a prick I couldn't resist going fishing and judging by your above post I look like I caught me a juicy one.

lordgoat

Ardscoil Ris wrote: »

It's people like you that make me glad I post such crap. I love how your all worked up. Yeah the OP's post was why all the hate but I'm a such a prick I couldn't resist going fishing and judging by your above post I look like I caught me a juicy one.

This is possibly your most intelligent post in this thread if not ever. Well done. Except for the poor grammar. Silly boy.

insinkerator

Ardscoil Ris wrote: »

It's people like you that make me glad I post such crap. I love how your all worked up. Yeah the OP's post was why all the hate but, I'm such a prick I couldn't resist going fishing and judging by your above post I look like I caught me a juicy one.

So you are admitting to trolling?

I'd be careful.

Back on topic: Tales of San Fran is a great track, but im not really digging the rest of the album. Its good, i cant understand where it is getting all the attention from though, either positive or negative.

BoysNoize

I GuanYin wrote: »

Good lyrics, good musicians, solid albums. Yeah quite like them and looking forward to seeing them in February.

Where are they playing in February ?

Xavi6

Australia on the Big Day Out tour.

BoysNoize

I GuanYin wrote: »

Australia on the Big Day Out tour.

Ahhh, Well for some, should be a good one.

Xavi6

Yeah I haven't seen them live before but I can imagine them being a good festival band.

BoysNoize

I GuanYin wrote: »

Yeah I haven't seen them live before but I can imagine them being a good festival band.

Yeah I've only seen them the once live at a festival before but they were excellent, although I love nearly all of their tunes so I'd be pretty biased.

TestTransmission

BoysNoize wrote: »

Yeah I've only seen them the once live at a festival before but they were excellent, although I love nearly all of their tunes so I'd be pretty biased.

+1

saw them a few years back,,were very good

Dudess

Ardscoil Ris wrote: »

It's people like you that make me glad I post such crap. I love how your all worked up. Yeah the OP's post was why all the hate but, I'm such a prick I couldn't resist going fishing and judging by your above post I look like I caught me a juicy one.

Ardscoil Ris banned for a week for trolling. Other "brilliant" post deleted.

When you come back, try being more constructive.

keane2097

Can someone explain to me why we (read: Ardscoil Ris) need Americans to tell us if our bands are good or not?

I mean, I don't find them to be a particularly intelligent people and wouldn't pick them as the authority on most things - why music? Fúck off I say...

Bubs101

Big day out is meant to be awesome. Who else is playing?

Xavi6

It's usually great but this year is pretty average. Neil Young is headlining which holds no interest for me. Prodigy, TV On The Radio (meh) and Serj Tankian will be there too.

Last years was RATM, Arcade Fire, Bjork, Silverchair and Dizzee Rascal amongst others so its not near as good this time round.

JC 2K3

I personally never understood why they got so much hype when they were doing absolutely nothing new or original. They're no more interesting than any other bland indie band.

monkey9

I wouldn't say i hate Arctic Monkeys or anything. They're just extremely bland, boring and repetitive. I loved "I bet you looked good on the dancefloor' when it first came out, but that's about it.

overexcitedaj

Alex Turner is a lyrical genius imo

Ruskie4Rent

monkey9 wrote: »

I wouldn't say i hate Arctic Monkeys or anything. They're just extremely bland, boring and repetitive. I loved "I bet you looked good on the dancefloor' when it first came out, but that's about it.

So you happen to not like them for being bland and repeptative and chose their most bland song as your favourite?
Alot of people throw them in with some of the middle of the road indie bands coming out of britain at the moment, which is unfair IMO.
The wit in the songwriting seperates them from the rest, and their sound is progressing with every release. I for one am looking forward till the next album....they're working with Josh Homme AFIK so who knows what that'll be like.

Dudess

Agreed. I don't think they fit into the bland, generic "indie" category.

JC 2K3

I think they do.

Even if it can be argued that they sound distinct from what is considered to be "bland indie", they're certainly not any more interesting than any bands who do.

</opinion>, of course.

gustavo

JC 2K3 wrote: »

I think they do.

Even if it can be argued that they sound distinct from what is considered to be "bland indie", they're certainly not any more interesting than any bands who do.

</opinion>, of course.

2 great albums , Can't wait for their third

So all in all two thumbs up from me

nyarlothothep

Bubs101 wrote: »

Like Bush?

Name one good British band to break America in 2 years (PS, Radiohead didn't)

Edit: Their last album got to number 7 in the US charts btw and considering how hip hop dominates that's no mean feat

US Billboard chart positions

In Rainbows: 1
Kid A: 1
Amnesiac: 2
Hail to the Thief: 3

The Bends and Ok Computer: Triple Platinum

monkey9

Ruskie4Rent wrote: »

So you happen to not like them for being bland and repeptative and chose their most bland song as your favourite?
Alot of people throw them in with some of the middle of the road indie bands coming out of britain at the moment, which is unfair IMO.
The wit in the songwriting seperates them from the rest, and their sound is progressing with every release. I for one am looking forward till the next album....they're working with Josh Homme AFIK so who knows what that'll be like.

I didn't 'choose' the song, it's just the one i happen to like. People go on about the lyrics. I can see where people are coming from, but this band just doesn't do it for me at all. They bore me.
I admire them for what they've achieved, but don't care much for the music

Bubs101

nyarlothothep wrote: »

US Billboard chart positions

In Rainbows: 1
Kid A: 1
Amnesiac: 2
Hail to the Thief: 3

The Bends and Ok Computer: Triple Platinum

and which of those albums achieved that status 2 years after the release of Pablo Honey? That's what I thought you said