|
marshmallard posted:WHAT. I love that one. It's brilliant except for the French bit. I think the french bit adds a touch of class. It's this ability for Bellamy to write at LEAST adequately pretty much any type of song he wants that makes me so pleased muse experiment and evolve.
|
| # ? Jul 6, 2012 08:34 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2013 15:55 |
|
|
Fruit Smoothies posted:I think the french bit adds a touch of class. It's this ability for Bellamy to write at LEAST adequately pretty much any type of song he wants that makes me so pleased muse experiment and evolve. Maybe if his pronunciation were better. Edit: speaking of which, 'nootron' annoys me every time. marshmallard fucked around with this message at Jul 6, 2012 around 09:49 |
| # ? Jul 6, 2012 08:41 |
|
|
There's only one bit of the French opera he pronounces wrong. Well, for an English person with an English accent and all. Prizes for which bit! (no prizes)Popcorn posted:vvvvv See, Exogenesis 3 is like the blandest loving thing in the world to me. It sounds like some mediocre film soundtrack. But whatever. I guess if you like Neutron Star Collision we're not on the same planet anyway. I don't like E1, it's too vague and wishywashy with no melody to hang on to. E2 and E3 on the other hand, while I get what you mean about mediocre film soundtrack, are both far more interesting and enjoyable for me. And I learnt how to play the intro to E3 on the piano so I'm biased about that (it is simple, but so what?) I don't like NSC and I wouldn't describe I Belong To You as fantastic. But it is nice that other fans like the newer material. It's just not for me. 
|
| # ? Jul 6, 2012 12:34 |
|
|
quote:We're pleased to unveil the tracklisting for THE 2ND LAW, Muse's 6th studio album... Look at some of those loving track names
|
| # ? Jul 13, 2012 12:41 |
|
|
Sulk posted:Look at some of those loving track names fuuuuck yesssssss I was going to say the final 2 might be another symphony, but I think "Unsustainable" is the dubstep thing from the trailer D: edit: I am just really goddamn happy to see a 13-track album finally, after the last two. Hedrigall fucked around with this message at Jul 13, 2012 around 13:13 |
| # ? Jul 13, 2012 13:10 |
|
|
Hedrigall posted:fuuuuck yesssssss You can be sure that 'Prelude' is going to be just that. Probably a filler track with atmospheric sounds, or perhaps the sound of a robot farting.
|
| # ? Jul 13, 2012 13:45 |
|
|
That's the funniest track listing I've ever seen.
|
| # ? Jul 13, 2012 16:44 |
|
|
henpod posted:You can be sure that 'Prelude' is going to be just that. Probably a filler track with atmospheric sounds, or perhaps the sound of a robot farting. Man it'd be cool if Animals was them doing a Pink Floyd cover.
|
| # ? Jul 13, 2012 17:03 |
|
|
Paperback Writer posted:It's the string bit before Survival we've already heard. that would be weird to cover an entire album within your own album. I would hate to hear any Animals song get Muse-ified
|
| # ? Jul 13, 2012 17:47 |
|
|
the Bunt posted:that would be weird to cover an entire album within your own album. On the other hand, parts of 'Pigs (Three Different Ones)' would be a hoot when Bellamyized.
|
| # ? Jul 13, 2012 21:02 |
|
|
Rev. Bleech_ posted:On the other hand, parts of 'Pigs (Three Different Ones)' would be a hoot when Bellamyized. WHITEH*GAAAAAAASSP*OUUUSEEE
|
| # ? Jul 13, 2012 21:49 |
|
|
Popcorn posted:That's the funniest track listing I've ever seen. I still think the funniest was Metallica's Death Magnetic. All NIGHTMARE Long! That WAS Just Your Life! The Unforgiven THREE! (Although I actually really liked the album.)
|
| # ? Jul 13, 2012 22:25 |
|
|
Misogynist posted:HEY YOU you're trying to keep our feelings / off the STREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEUUUUUUUUUWAAAAAAAAAAAAH (really Freddy-Mercury that bit up)
|
| # ? Jul 13, 2012 22:37 |
|
|
"Prelude" on the tracklisting is just the orchestral bit before the beginning of Survival. We've already heard it.
|
| # ? Jul 14, 2012 18:25 |
|
|
Muse are pretty much the greatest for me. It doesn't mean I enjoy all there albums the most or anything like that, but they are the best at pushing music to new levels, closely followed by Radiodhead, Pink Floyd and the Prodigy are there as well. This new album snippet is ineteresting. I mean yes it's basic Dubstep we have at the end but they've chosen to take that and effectively make it more mainstream, this in itself is borderline genius, but I expect a lot will be going on with this album as with all there previous stuff.
|
| # ? Jul 14, 2012 20:20 |
|
|
Dubstep and "borderline genius" do not sit well with me together But I am keen to hear the rest of the album
|
| # ? Jul 15, 2012 02:46 |
|
|
I didn't think dubstep could get any more mainstream??
|
| # ? Jul 15, 2012 03:33 |
|
|
MOAR posted:Muse are pretty much the greatest for me. This is all utter nonsense.
|
| # ? Jul 15, 2012 04:16 |
|
|
the Bunt posted:This is all utter nonsense. Has it been quoted in EW somewhere yet?
|
| # ? Jul 15, 2012 04:52 |
|
|
the Bunt posted:This is all utter nonsense. Not really. Posting a reply saying it's utter nonsense is utter nonsense. You've posted in this thread saying your not into their newer stuff. I actually think each album gets better (more or less) so we are coming at this in two very different directions. Either way, no one can really comment properly until the whole album is heard.
|
| # ? Jul 15, 2012 13:15 |
|
|
Why do you think Muse are 'the best at pushing music to new levels'? What do you mean by 'pushing music to new levels' exactly?
|
| # ? Jul 15, 2012 13:19 |
|
|
Popcorn posted:Why do you think Muse are 'the best at pushing music to new levels'? What do you mean by 'pushing music to new levels' exactly? Highly original, musically different sounding, and with their own distinctive sound. The ability to convey emotion through music and lyrics in a powerful manner. That's my definition of anything quality music wise and they are the best at it. Overall very few artists can manage this, especially in modern times.
|
| # ? Jul 15, 2012 13:38 |
|
|
MOAR posted:Highly original, musically different sounding, and with their own distinctive sound. The ability to convey emotion through music and lyrics in a powerful manner. That's an incredibly myopic view that conveys either a lack of taste or perspective or both. screaden posted:Has it been quoted in EW somewhere yet? I'm on it.
|
| # ? Jul 15, 2012 14:35 |
|
|
MOAR posted:Radiodhead, Pink Floyd and the Prodigy Honest question: have you listened to the radio in the last 10 years? (or I guess any other source of mainstream popular music really)
|
| # ? Jul 15, 2012 14:47 |
|
|
MOAR posted:Highly original, musically different sounding, and with their own distinctive sound. The ability to convey emotion through music and lyrics in a powerful manner. When Duke Ellington said "if it sounds good, it is good", he didn't mean it as a distillation of and a model for all music criticism from then on. I mean, let's take this step by step: Highly original - requires a framework musically different sounding - same, and where the the gently caress did you get the idea that "different" can be used without a point of comparison? their own distinctive sound - a non-statement, unless elaborated The ability to convey emotion through music - this is Literally All Music and lyrics - this is Literally All Poetry And Lyrics in a powerful manner - this contains the only actual statement you made about Muse's music, that it's "powerful", and even that is broad and banal enough to be meaningless I'm sorry, but you have the vocabulary of a particularly myopic and musically ill-informed five year old.
|
| # ? Jul 15, 2012 15:06 |
|
|
Ras Het posted:Highly original - requires a framework The chanted singing when Bellamy keeps alternating with the augmented chord is very interesting and new. It sounds very Queen-esque but without actually copying anything Queen wrote. I also think the prelude is a strong enough introduction to say it goes beyond simple "film score" style music.
|
| # ? Jul 15, 2012 16:23 |
|
|
MOAR posted:Highly original, musically different sounding, and with their own distinctive sound. The ability to convey emotion through music and lyrics in a powerful manner. Just came in to laugh at this. I mean, just wow.
|
| # ? Jul 15, 2012 16:34 |
|
|
Ras Het posted:When Duke Ellington said "if it sounds good, it is good", he didn't mean it as a distillation of and a model for all music criticism from then on. I may not be the greatest at articulating my ideas of musical appreciation, sure I can take that, but saying I'm short sighted that is below the belt.
|
| # ? Jul 15, 2012 16:37 |
|
|
Fruit Smoothies posted:The chanted singing when Bellamy keeps alternating with the augmented chord is very interesting and new. It sounds very Queen-esque but without actually copying anything Queen wrote. So, it's "new" because it's not literally a carbon copy (i.e. a cover) of something else? So basically the same thing as any other new song composed by anyone? I don't think the fact that they aren't a cover band is cause to deem them singularly innovative. MOAR posted:I may not be the greatest at articulating my ideas of musical appreciation, sure I can take that, but saying I'm short sighted that is below the belt. Why? It's not inaccurate, and he proved that pretty objectively. e: Or perhaps I should say that your statement that few artists are capable of fulfilling the arbitrary criteria by which you judge Muse to be a good band is pretty much admitting your short-sightedness. a false fucked around with this message at Jul 15, 2012 around 16:42 |
| # ? Jul 15, 2012 16:38 |
|
|
MOAR posted:I may not be the greatest at articulating my ideas of musical appreciation, sure I can take that, but saying I'm short sighted that is below the belt. Well you might be Nile Rodgers for all I know, it's just that what you said previously in this thread was complete nonsense.
|
| # ? Jul 15, 2012 17:03 |
|
|
a false posted:So, it's "new" because it's not literally a carbon copy (i.e. a cover) of something else? So basically the same thing as any other new song composed by anyone? "New" is something that hasn't been done before. I'd say that vocal was pretty unique. I could, of course, be wrong since I haven't heard every song ever made.
|
| # ? Jul 15, 2012 17:19 |
|
|
Fruit Smoothies posted:"New" is something that hasn't been done before. I'd say that vocal was pretty unique. I could, of course, be wrong since I haven't heard every song ever made. You still haven't explained why it's interesting on any level, aside from the fact that I should apparently be impressed by novel noises.
|
| # ? Jul 15, 2012 17:24 |
|
|
Well I just actually listened to that song, Survival (I'm assuming that's the one you're talking about). It is a somewhat theatrical rock song. I am really sorry if you feel like this is something that hasn't been done before.
|
| # ? Jul 15, 2012 17:38 |
|
|
MOAR posted:I may not be the greatest at articulating my ideas of musical appreciation, sure I can take that, but saying I'm short sighted that is below the belt. You literally said they are few modern artists that are able to powerfully convey emotion in music while maintaining a distincitve and original sound. This is something you protray yourself to actually believe.
|
| # ? Jul 15, 2012 18:27 |
|
|
etcetera08 posted:You still haven't explained why it's interesting on any level, aside from the fact that I should apparently be impressed by novel noises. Interesting is, of course, subjective. I don't know any bands here in the UK - or the stuff we get from the US - that are as experimental, polished and adventurous as Muse. Obviously the song uses some well known techniques that aren't "new"; there's the choir, opening strings etc, but at the heart of survival's style is a sound that is obviously drawn from Queen, ELO and others. What makes survival interesting to me, is that he has achieved a sound that is still very popular today (See ticket sales for We Will Rock You) but without copying or imitating. Queen have nothing like that choral work in their repertoire but it is very much in their style. What is EVEN more interesting, is the song still sounds "musey" too. Once it's just bellamy singing, the song switches to a recognizable muse sound, as we hear the guitar and piano playing doing some funky chromatics and subtle key changes. The falsetto at the end is almost signature. I don't think this experimentation is new, because when Starlight and Butterflies came out (which are two of my favourite songs) I could definitely tell they weren't something he'd done before. They both have a dancey side to them, and the clapping patterns in Starlight is fantastic but doesn't really feature elsewhere in their cannon. Absolution too was pleasantly unexpected. If your opinion of muse is "Novel noises" then I don't know what I can say to you. I listen to Radio 1 a lot, which could be clouding my judgement. I hear bands like The Vaccines on there, and I really don't think bring anything special to the table. The same is true of lots of bands at the moment too; perhaps with the additional exception of Kasabian.
|
| # ? Jul 15, 2012 19:33 |
|
|
Fruit Smoothies posted:If your opinion of muse is "Novel noises" then I don't know what I can say to you. That's what you said. You said they were making sounds that hadn't been made before, in the form of that chanting in Survival. Which isn't true, but even if it was, that's why you stated they were interesting and why we should be impressed by them - because they made New (novel) Sounds (noises). I also don't understand the emphasis on "not copying or imitating" - you say yourself that Muse sound somewhat similar in certain ways to other bands. If your definition of "not copying or imitating" is sounding completely unprecedented and like absolutely nothing that exists or has ever existed, Muse don't fit that definition even by your own description. And if that's not your definition, how does this make Muse a unique band? Unless bands are literally doing covers or jacking specific elements of other songs or trying, consciously, to sound like another already established band/specific musician, they are not "copying or imitating" and as derivative as certain things on Radio 1 may sound to you I think you'll find that no one who is popular right now is really doing those things. So that's not really an important distinguishing characteristic of Muse. That's what bands do.
|
| # ? Jul 15, 2012 19:45 |
|
|
a false posted:That's what you said. You said they were making sounds that hadn't been made before, in the form of that chanting in Survival. Which isn't true, but even if it was, that's why you stated they were interesting and why we should be impressed by them - because they made New (novel) Sounds (noises). I can't make you impressed with the chanting. I obviously don't know every piece of music ever written, but I've never heard anything that uses that vocal effect in that way. Feel free, of course, to post examples. I apologise for the emphasis on copying, but I think it's no easy task to get a grasp on the style of a band as distinctive as Queen without it sounding tacky or simply a blatant copy. Obviously artists draw influences all time both consciously and subconsciously. By basic logic this means that most - if not all - bands on Radio 1 and elsewhere are going to have been influenced. However, Muse stand out to me because of where they've drawn the influences from. Their target audience is a generation who are too young for Queen, ELO etc. I don't know, it's hard to explain. One thing's for sure, I definitely like the song, and I'm optimistic for the album.
|
| # ? Jul 15, 2012 20:26 |
|
|
Vocal music has been around since long before the guitar obviously, and chanting is one of the basic tools so it shouldn't be surprising that popular artists have incorporated it previously. Amusingly to me the first thing I thought of when I heard that track was Depeche Mode. You could probably throw a stone in a random direction and hit 3 metal bands doing the 'hard rock + choral/operatic singing'.. not really my genre though. If you listen to radio 1 and think Muse is the best thing on it that's fine, in fact that's basically 'normal' as far as being a fan of music goes. The reason everyone's taking the piss out of MOAR and a false is arguing with you is because you sound like people who don't even know how little they know about music, or don't care - you just want to make a definitive statement about how good the thing you like is for some reason and you get defensive when someone suggests that maybe you should have a broader knowledge base before doing so. When you're defending not knowing about a fairly fundamental thing as being a case of 'not knowing every piece of music ever' you just come across as an rear end.
|
| # ? Jul 16, 2012 00:33 |
|
|
Fruit Smoothies posted:I can't make you impressed with the chanting. I obviously don't know every piece of music ever written, but I've never heard anything that uses that vocal effect in that way. Feel free, of course, to post examples. God drat I can't articulate it any other way or convince you about what songs you've heard before but that song is poo poo. My girlfriend and I literally burst into laughter and turned it off. Pretty much the same thing with the resistance, except shockingly much worse!!!!
|
| # ? Jul 16, 2012 08:23 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2013 15:55 |
|
|
This thread is retarded. If people like a song, then they like a song. They don't need to loving quantify, in technical terms, why they like it. Not everyone has a bachelor's in musicology, for fucks sake. Whenever a new Muse album is announced I find myself really getting back into them again. At the moment I'm absolutely loving BHAR, it might be my favourite album of theirs now (and I've been a fan since 2001). Also, the Exogenesis symphony is fantastic. I want to find more symphonic rock/electronic songs with complex structure like that, without straying into the realm of metal (ugh). One example I can think of is Sufjan Steven's version of You Are The Blood, which is admittedly not like Muse at all but is still amazing.
|
| # ? Jul 17, 2012 03:36 |
|
