pretentious musos

Jackie Daniels

i hate pretentious muso's
I recently went on this forum and the topic was radioheads recent appearance on jonathan ross. The people on this forum were totally slating radiohead, using the usual 'kid A is far to experimental' crap. The point i made was that if they werent experimental people would accuse them of going stale and not moving forward. Also im not a great fan of these people that go around refusing to listen to anything that hasnt been recorded on a two track by some obscure label, by a band that three people in the country may have heard of. Whats with that?
any thoughts?
suzi

Amz

Here we go again...

Good luck!

Amz
xx

Pretentious Muso

thedrowner

by chance, i happen to listen to a lot of 'obscure' music, but not because im pretencious, because i do actually like it. i like radioheads latest stuff. but i also like really cheesy pop songs too. (i was gutted after the death of steps:D ) i don't deny that there are people out there who act really pretencious, but at the end of the day, im sure that's not the only reason they listen to that music. i know some people have a superiority complex, and it really bugs me too, but what can u do about it....

Saint-dotsie

I suppose it floats peoples boats to be different,although i think the first frank black solo albumn has a great sound for a two track,sure there are lots of indie labels and bands that like to "keep it real" as long as they are being true to their music and presenting it the way they want to and how they think is the best way i would take my hats off to them and respect them for that.For example i dont like the strokes but the album they recorded is probably very true to their sound,i dont think there is anything pretenTious about having an album that sounds like it was recorded in a toilet.
As for radiohead they sure lack balls,im the same story as a lot of people i know kid a was alright but amnesiac well you know,i did feel that amnesiac or kid a were not experimental,and i think it was a bad decision to release them albums under the radiohead name,lets face it on the two albums there are four songs that resemble previous radiohead tunes.
Ill make an analogy it would be like Brennans making biscuits and people would take it home thinking it is a new variation of bread but instead they would have biscuits which has the same components as bread but completely different texture and feel.
There is trying new things and theres doing something completely different,and i feel they deserve to be criticised for that reason..

ThatBloke

I thought both albums were great, why judge them on what has gone previously? there is brilliant music on both, the fact that it's different from what you expected doesnt mean much.

They're breaking new ground, of course its not going to sound like what went before!

and...i think Radiohead are allowed to release anything they want under their own name!! do they owe you something cos you bought a couple of their albums???

Jackie Daniels

I think it is neccessary for me to rephrase a couple of my earlier comments. Okay, i myself am a muso and happen to know a good deal about music. I listen to stuff all across the spectrum and try not to be judgemental about music even if it has a certain label attached to it. I personnaly do listen to some pretty obscure music on some pretty obscure labels-that is my perogative. However, i dont claim that anything thats not hailed in the latest issue of NME is crap, thats just not the way it is, thats some other pretentious muso's archetypically pretentious opinion. A lot of my friends are incredibly close minded when it comes to music as they claim to 'love' music. Surely though, the TRUE music lovers can appreciate it in all the forms it comes in?
What im trying to say is that its a real shame that people cant abandon the labels created by all the other pretentious twats (many of said individuals knowledge of music could not be written on the back of a postage stamp.) Its all about opinions and whose to say that one persons opnion is more valid than others? some people may have more refined taste than others due to knowledge, experiance, influences etc and i hail that, but c'mon people stop whinging because radioheads latest track hasnt spelt out the meaning of life. They are musicians, but only that. Not gods, not geniuses, just human beings. Human beings who in MY opinion produce and endless stream of brilliant music that leaves some of the crap out today in a blubbering wreck, but observedly not everyone comes round to that opinion.

Daylight

Personally speaking as someone who isn't really a Radiohead fan, I saw them on Ross's show and thought they were incredible.

Tyrrial

There a good band, i listen to them when i can and as most they have some songs i love and one's i hate. so i'm not going to complain.

on thing i'm wondering though. were did Jackie Daniels get her degree from? must have been an intensive course if it projectes your tast in music above everyone else's?

Jackie Daniels

1: I did not claim that my opinion was above everyone elses, if you read my message again correctly you will find that i state quite the opposite.

2: Are you insinuating that people need to have a decree in order to have a valid view?


3: This is a dicussion forum-a place in which views and opinions are discussed, if you arent prepared to hear other peoples opinions then it is advisable you direct your interests elsewhere.



:ninja:

Raggamuffin

I agree with jackie.

Tyrrial there is no need to feel intimidated by people who may know more about music than you do.

Like spiderman, with great power comes great responsibility.

I've encountered some pathetic Musos ove rthe last few years.
One such muso thought Embrace were one of the best bands ever.

hmmmmmm
You see that instantly disqualifies you.

Radiohead are'nt ****e. anyone who says they are is tlkaing out of their arse. And unfortunatly Tyrrial some peoples opinions are much more worthwhile than others. And listening to what people ahve to say about certain bands can help refine your taste and broaden your horizons.

The problem is making sure some **** band does'nt sneak into your current top 5.

Anyway this is a discussion forum, it's just not alot of dicussing goes on.

Anyway back to radiohead,
I did'nt think Kid A was amazing but i certainly enjoyed it. Compare Kid A for example with relatively poor efforts by bands like Oasis or Turin Brakes.

And i know somenbody will say "thats just your opinion " yadda yadda. Well why do we have critics or experts then?
Some of them don't even have degrees then just have a better taste (or sometimes worse) in music than i do. I accept this and then argue or discuss.
thats the fun about it.
is'nt it.

Why cna' tmusos pick better targets likethe hives or the datsuns.
I mean it's easier.

Raggamuffin

Originally posted by Jackie Daniels

2: Are you insinuating that people need to have a decree in order to have a valid view?

can you actually get one of these?

Raggamuffin B.M (Bachelor of Musos)

Saint-dotsie

Ok if a band put out a bad album but its sounds like the band e.g afghan whigs -1965 thats acceptable,i agree that music has too evolve and new things have to be tried music must go somewhere,if you dont like an album dont buy it,i cant stand people who have to have every album released by a band that they like,i have albums ive gone off but so does everyone.I do feel radiohead owe their fans just like any band that sells over a certain amount of albums.I think its was unfair of them to release an album under the title of radiohead for the reason that i considered radiohead as a SONG band i.e.a band that wrote songs as opposed to a band that makes songs which is precisely what kid a is with a few exceptions(motion picture soundtrack,idoteque,optimistic,morning bell),its a completly different thing for a band to make songs as opposed to write them and that really reflects in the differences between ok computer and kid a.The differences are huge and i wouldnt consider it bringing their sound forward i would consider it bringing there sound left.In all fairness to radiohead you make two of the best albums of the 90s (bends,ok computer) where do you go.Do you stay together for the sake of it or do you try something completely different,it must have been a tough decision so why didnt they try something completely different under a new name and not soil the good name of radiohead?
cos lets face it its two completely different bands.

I wouldnt consider myself an expert in muso,i know a lot about who played with who and when things where released,how many albums a particiular band have ect. general trivia,i have a good understanding of the fundaments of how it works, but i have so much to learn about appreciating music on different levels,at the moment i appreciate music for what it isand understanding why and what is music.I am a die hard fan though and i believe i always will be.