Welcome to the brand new Therapy? message boards! Find out what’s new or give us your feedback.

Am I being too critical?

#

Started by effect (effect) in General Therapy? Topics

Am I being too critical? Its just this Band competition that Michael McKeegan is judging for TV seems a million miles away from the Therapy? I’ve envisioned.
I think it’s embarrassing. Fair enough you could argue what he does outside T? is his choice but I believe in the all or nothing days. I think Therapy? should definitely be put first before any other ‘projects’ especially one as ridiculous as this “Rock Idol” shite.

Posted on Mon, 12 November 2007 at 18:59

You’re viewing replies 1–30 of 54 by 18 people

·

Page: First | Previous | | Last

#1

Dermot (The Derm) wrote:

Meh. I only saw a bit of one episode, but I thought he came across well.

Posted on Mon, 12 November 2007 at 19:08

#2

up_in_flames (Tom) wrote:

It might bring some attention to t? aswell, so what’s wrong with that?

Posted on Mon, 12 November 2007 at 19:21

#3

mrs h wrote:

I haven’t seen it, it sounds a bit cheesy - but if he is genuinely interested in helping out new bands then good for him! :)

Posted on Mon, 12 November 2007 at 19:35

#4

loco wrote:

the boys have to eat

Posted on Mon, 12 November 2007 at 22:45

#5

allroy wrote:

Better than taking part in this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SuperGroup

Posted on Mon, 12 November 2007 at 23:28

#6

hoochalobster (Sarah) Super Moderator wrote:

In what way do you think this programme is being put ‘before’ Therapy? ?!

Posted on Tue, 13 November 2007 at 07:52

#7

Dennis wrote:

I think that yes, you are being too critical.

Posted on Tue, 13 November 2007 at 09:39

#8

effect (effect) wrote:

I don’t think he’s helping new bands if you want to do that then you should start a record label (like blunt) in fact I think his appearance is supporting the idea that a ‘Rock school’ is a good thing. ‘Rock school’ is fucking stupid and will never produce a band like The Clash, Nirvana, Therapy? or even a Metallica instead you’ll get another Busted or McFly or Maroon 5.
Music comes from the heart, soul and gut, not the ambitions of center stage lights. These are the all or nothing days. It’s all or nothing. This kind of shit should be rallied against and the bands that take part,the insincere, the liars with stars in their eyes should be crucified.
This is what T? should stand against.

Posted on Tue, 13 November 2007 at 11:52

#9

Cuchulain wrote:

I think you should relax and have a nice cup of tea. Sure you’ll feel better after it.

Posted on Tue, 13 November 2007 at 11:58

#10

hoochalobster (Sarah) Super Moderator wrote:

I haven’t seen this year’s programme so I should probably hold fire but I think it’s harsh to make those judgements about every single band. I doubt very much there is any time in the programme for a detailed analysis of their bands’ history/ progression before the show and their motivations for applying.

If I was in a band and I had an opportunity to play my music to a) someone as cool as Michael McKeegan and b) a wide audience, both live and on TV to gain a bit more exposure and hopefully some new fans then I think I would probably do just that.

Posted on Tue, 13 November 2007 at 12:04

#11

effect (effect) wrote:

Don’t drink tea instead I like to boil a pot of sugar, red-bull, iron brew and coffee and inhale the mix through my left nostril. My septum is worse than that guy from Status Quo.
During my last confession I sneezed and covered the Priest’s face in a white goo of skin and bone cartilage.

Posted on Tue, 13 November 2007 at 12:17

#12

Dennis wrote:

here, have this glass of crushed Pro Plus mixed with Rocket Fuel coffee and Relentless. That’ll calm you down a treat.

Posted on Tue, 13 November 2007 at 12:19

#13

effect (effect) wrote:

Hoochalobster I can’t agree with you, I don’t think you’re wrong, I just won’t accept grays from the black.

Posted on Tue, 13 November 2007 at 12:21

#14

mrs h wrote:

The thing is this. The bands that you see as having ‘done it right’ - the Clash, Nirvana and Therapy? being examples you gave, then you also need to accept the fact that the only reason you have ever heard of them is that they were lucky enough to break through. If the Clash had started 5 years earlier they would probably have died on there arses, the way that a great many excellent bands do. You can’t just point at bands that have achieved success and attribute it purely to talent. If it was just down to talent there would be thousands more bands producing good records. So if new bands have an opportunity to showcase what they are capable of then there is always the chance that one or two of them might get lucky and be the new Clash or Nirvana or Therapy? for the next generation. Somebody has to - all those bands will be dead and buried in the next 40 years. Being different doesn’t get bands anywhere any more, there are too many of them! And the music industry is way more competitive now than it has ever been, so you shouldn’t be surprised that competitions are becoming part of the process. I’m not saying it’s right, but it is a matter of fact, and if you don’t accept it you’ll end up getting ulcers and panic attacks. Relax and let them get on with it - you don’t have to listen :)

Posted on Tue, 13 November 2007 at 13:12

#15

Dennis wrote:

Besides, there’s usually a lot less credibilty underneath the surface than you may think. Joe Strummer was in a band already when he saw the Pistols, ditched his existing band and started again, lifting the whole anarchy thing almost wholesale. Not saying the Clash were a bad band, or that they didn’t write heartfelt songs or anything, just that “credibility” isn’t a holy grail that you should seek at all costs.

Posted on Tue, 13 November 2007 at 13:18

#16

deadsetgav wrote:

And all Kurt Cobain borrowed enough ideas of other bands… Pixies anyone?

Posted on Tue, 13 November 2007 at 13:49

#17

effect (effect) wrote:

I never said anything about ‘doing it right’ or ‘being successful’ or ‘credibility’ or generation defining music they’re your words (Although the bands I mentions did do things that way I only used them as popular reference, I could have said bands like Shellac, Torn gates etc.). I’m talking about individual artistic expression and vision. I’m saying their individuality and vision isn’t or wasn’t achieved through Rock school or taught by judges. infact Pop competitions and band competitions are killing music and creating generic sludge. I pay tribute to those bands that ‘died on their asses’ or died with their hands untied. There are plenty of bands still out there like that.(ones that I have heard of because the are amazing and passionate not because they’re famous, as you seem to imply that I or anyone have only heard of bands that have broken through or that are famous).
What are you talking about break through to what? it about making passionate and affecting music not singing on ‘The breakshow with Richard and Judy’
You don’t have to give up because you don’t have a top ten album (the wipers, Therapy?(suicide Pact)). It’s depressing to read some of the above points.
I don’t have to accept anything there is no matter of fact. Relax? Ulcers?, panic attacks? thats ok Doctor just as long as I get to keep my passion and rotate the wall of death one more time
NANE

Posted on Tue, 13 November 2007 at 14:15

#18

Kill_Hill (Brendan) wrote:

deadsetgav wrote:

And all Kurt Cobain borrowed enough ideas of other bands… Pixies anyone?

ya right! all his ideas? bollox.

Posted on Tue, 13 November 2007 at 14:25 in reply to an earlier post

#19

effect (effect) wrote:

Most people know all this already and Cobain admitted he stole the base line of Teen spirit from Gouge away by the Pixies, but in my opinion he certainly had his own vision.

But this again has nothing to do with my original point. My criticism of Mc Keegan is he’s supporting a format (band competition/rock school/ talent TV show) that I think a band such a Therapy? or any lover of music should be violently against.

Posted on Tue, 13 November 2007 at 14:32

#20

Shade wrote:

Too critical? Don’t think so, but I think it’s possible that the quality of the critique isn’t very good. I think you’re simplifying the concept of the show and Michael’s participation in it. I’m not going to speak for him, or tell you how it is, but it might be a good idea to take a step back here and not be vehement about something you can’t possibly know everything about.

I don’t think this can at all affect anything Therapy? stands for, only an outside perception of the band.

Posted on Tue, 13 November 2007 at 14:32

#21

Shade wrote:

Hmm.. the format, I don’t really feel too much either way about this. Certainly not something I would do, but I wouldn’t condemn anyone else who’d do it for that alone. Haven’t heard any of the bands participating so I can’t even say what the average music that comes out of it is like, quality wise. I detest Idols stuff when it’s pure popstar fabrication contest, especially from an entertainment standpoint - but I don’t really feel strongly about rockband competitions.

Yeah, don’t really have a lot to say about this, honestly.

Posted on Tue, 13 November 2007 at 14:37

#22

effect (effect) wrote:

I think the concept of the show is that simple. Shade I’m interested to know why you don’t think I’m being too critical.

Posted on Tue, 13 November 2007 at 14:40

#23

Misanthropologist (d) wrote:

Effect, you’re suggesting that artistic vision and making an effort to get your music heard are mutually exclusive. They’re not. Further, if a musicians’ personal vision can’t survive the scrutiny of a panel of judges, I’d say it wasn’t much of a vision in the first place.

Posted on Tue, 13 November 2007 at 14:47

#24

Dermot (The Derm) wrote:

You should ask Michael about this the next time there’s a Q&A session Effect.

I can kind of see where you’re coming from, and I’m not a fan of the show myself - but like I say, from what I saw of one episode Michael was pretty much straight down the line with what he thought about the acts.

Posted on Tue, 13 November 2007 at 14:56

#25

effect (effect) wrote:

No I’m not, I’m saying that personal vision is more important than commercial success . If you enter a competition this means you want to win the and the surest way to win is to please the judges (or what you imagine their ideal to be) therefore a band should try to appeal to the judges first relegating their personal vision to second place.

Good try Shade you almost had an opinion just gave up at the end ha ha (just joking)

I appreciate us T? fans are loyal and respect you for standing up for MMcK but I think it has to be questioned

Posted on Tue, 13 November 2007 at 15:01

#26

Misanthropologist (d) wrote:

“I’m saying that personal vision is more important than commercial success”
And breathing in and out is more important than posting on the WoM, I can still do both. Why? because tehy’re not mutually exclusive.
Entering a competition doesn’t actually mean you want to win (the runners up on popidol/xfactor etc still get seen), but even granting that you do, if you have that artistic vision that you’re talking about, you should believe that you’ll win based on that. It may not be true, but that’s neither here nor there. It’s perfectly possible to enter a competition and win or lose based on your own artistic merits.
All of which ignores the point that Michael (and T?) haven’t entered any competitions anyway.

Posted on Tue, 13 November 2007 at 15:09

#27

Dennis wrote:

I think for most artists “personal vision” and “commercial success” go hand in hand. That’s not to say all artists think “I want dolls of myself in Toys R Us before the month is out and I am willing to sing Big Band ‘classics’ on every TV game show between now and Christmas to do that” but that, well the more people who buy your records, the more people who get to hear your artistic vision.

The Holy Bible by the Manics is one fo my favourite albums of all time, and I think that has one of the purest musical and artistic visions of any album I have heard, yet it sold naff all in relative terms at the time and they have had much more success with much weaker statements. So, if compromising that vision to sell more is involved then you are absolutely correct to condemn such a thing. If however you can acheive success but without compromise, then that’s only a good thing, no…?

Posted on Tue, 13 November 2007 at 15:16

#28

deadsetgav wrote:

Kill_Hill wrote:

ya right! all his ideas? bollox.

I started to write it one way and then changed my mind - didnt remove the All - hence I never meant to infer he stolle all his ideas - but he definitely wore his influences on his sleeve… and borrowed the odd song (Come As You Are = Eighties by Killing Joke)

It was badly worded - Damn the edit function!

Posted on Tue, 13 November 2007 at 15:27 in reply to an earlier post

#29

effect (effect) wrote:

Misanthropologist Personal vision and commercial success are linked in that they’re related to being in a band and can affect each other hence the idea of creating commercial suicide by releasing a noncommercial album Suicide Pact(the tiTle may have arisen from this idea). AJC has mentioned this many times during SPYF interview somewhere along the lines of fuck what the Label wanted we made a record for ourselves. You have a point about trying to win a competition on your own merits is a possible attitude, but I doubt somebody with a clear vision and drive would reduce their art to be judged by others along with the wannabes. Besides MMcK is involved in a worse idea rock school, by it’s very definition the function of a school is to teach or a place where teaching takes place which at least implies Rock school will teach the Rocker students how to rock or the teachers idea of what rock is., quiet the opposite from realizing your own personal vision, you might fail you mid-term Rock tests if you dont pay attention, head banging 101Tuesday at 3.30

Posted on Tue, 13 November 2007 at 15:28

#30

effect (effect) wrote:

Dennis I agree you can do both.

But this again is on a tangent to my original idea/post. I’ve been pulled this way too. Most people feel I’m too critical and maybe my criticisms are too simple
but thats the way I see it, that simple.
Simple sees as simple is I guess. Maybe I’m guilty of black and whiting on this argument but it’s a swallow and chessboard to me.

Posted on Tue, 13 November 2007 at 15:39

You’re viewing replies 1–30 of 54 by 18 people

·

Page: First | Previous | | Last

and become a member of the message boards. Sign in if you’re already a member.