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

Hello Everyone

#

Started by Buzzweasel

Hi I’ve been a T? fan for years and thought I’d introduce myself.
I am in a punk band but i’m not going to give the address out like other shameful people have been doing. I’m not into that kind of promotion.

I’ll just give you my anti-pop music site
(not very good yet)

http://www.buzzweasel.bizland.com

PS Great site Teethgrinder

Posted on Mon, 20 November 2000 at 14:18

You’re viewing replies 1–25 of 25 by 11 people

·

Page: First | Previous | Next | Last

#1

Teethgrinder (René Fennema) Administrator wrote:

Hey buzz, welcome! Glad you like the site!

Posted on Mon, 20 November 2000 at 19:27

#2

Unbeliever wrote:

Hey Buzz,
Here’s Hi from Unbeliever :)

Posted on Tue, 21 November 2000 at 04:43

#3

Unbeliever wrote:

Oh, and what’s wrong with Pop ?

Posted on Tue, 21 November 2000 at 04:43

#4

Buzzweasel wrote:

What isn’t wrong with pop music?

Posted on Thu, 23 November 2000 at 15:15

#5

Unbeliever wrote:

I asked you first :)

Posted on Thu, 23 November 2000 at 18:11

#6

Maykel wrote:

Err…nothing personal, but isn’t T? quite popular? That’s what ‘pop’ means, basically. I can remember T? was listed in several pop-charts on a ragular base! ;)

Posted on Thu, 23 November 2000 at 19:26

#7

White Psycho wrote:

Well that certainly wasn’t the British charts as far as I know, the shit that gets to the top of the charts is unbelivable.

Posted on Thu, 23 November 2000 at 21:37

#8

Dermot (The Derm) wrote:

Therapy? did quite quite well in the british charts… shortsharpshock got in the top 5. even their semi detached singles got in the 20s which isnt bad at all

Posted on Thu, 23 November 2000 at 23:38

#9

Buzzweasel wrote:

Sorry everyone I didn’t mean to start an argument. What I meant by ‘pop’ was the manufactured shite that big fat corporate pigs throw together and call them ‘bands’.

Posted on Fri, 24 November 2000 at 11:57

#10

Michael wrote:

Therapy? reached the 9th spot of the British charts with Screamager, and they scored an international hit with Diane. And Troublegum was a huge commercial success. So you could call T? poppy. However, Therapy? did not choose the easiest way. Instead of making Troublegum part II, they chose to take another path, and make different sounding albums. This is why T? is so great: they are not as predictable as other (rock)bands, they do things the way they like it, they do not let anybody (record companies) tell them what to do, and every single album has its own, different sound.

Posted on Fri, 24 November 2000 at 13:00

#11

Innocent X wrote:

Fuck the charts !!!
If T? or any band I like to listen to are listed in the charts, I don’t care. If I like the music, I listen to it. It’s so ridiculous to say that if a certain song has quite some commercial success, you should throw it away. Oh it’s commercial, I don’t listen to it, let’s be alternative … well fuck that attitude.
Of course most of the charts are filled with shit, but don’t judge a band or song based on a position in the charts.

Posted on Fri, 24 November 2000 at 15:54

#12

Unbeliever wrote:

What Micheal says is definately true.
And I totally agree with Innocent X.
And whenever I hear a Britney Spears song, I whistle along.

Posted on Fri, 24 November 2000 at 23:05

#13

Gena wrote:

Well, Buzzweasel, I’ve just been reading your ramblings about Mel C on your site, and it really pissed me off. Reason: 99% of your rambling about her is about her looks! First of all: she’s not overweight, she’s just not as skinny as the rest of the women you see on MTV. But even if she were overweight, who cares? That’s completely besides the point! And so what if she’s got many lesbian fans? Is that some kind of proof that she’s bad? Have you got some sort of problems with homosexuals, or what?

Now it’s sounds as if I’m a big fan of Mel C. I’m not. Had your critisism been about her music I wouldn’t be writing this. I probably hate Britney, A 1, Steps etc just as much as you do. But one thing I really hate with the plastic teen-pop industry is the fixation on how the artists look. Another thing I that annoys me is that women musicians often get judged by their looks, and men get respected for their music irrespective of their looks. I’m pretty sure that Andy’s body mass index is much higher than Mel C’s, but you haven’t mentioned anything about that on your homepage!

If you judge an artist from his/her looks and not from the music, you’re not much better than those 12-year old girls who have pictures of BSB over their bed because they’re ‘soooooo cute.’

Posted on Mon, 27 November 2000 at 10:10

#14

opalmantra wrote:

Backstreet Boys are cool!

Posted on Wed, 29 November 2000 at 20:02

#15

Michael wrote:

Hey InnocentX, I’m with you man… I don’t give a f*ck about charts either. What I do hate is when bands choose for the money, instead of the music. This is often linked with a poppier sound. A band like Krezip, for instance, definately went for the money, which resulted in a bad, bad album. Therapy? on the other hand, choose for the music, since they don’t give a damn about charts either. This makes T? a unique band, with it’s own unique sound. I haven’t heard anything like their music yet, which can’t be said about other bands…

Posted on Thu, 30 November 2000 at 10:25

#16

Buzzweasel wrote:

Sorry to offend you gena. It’s just a light hearted perspective on something that is meant not be taken seriously. Do you think groups such as ‘steps’ meant to be serious musicians? Of course not! They are all third rate cabaret artists thrown together in hope they would become popular and make loadsamoney!

As for the gay thing. I’ve got nothing against homosexuals, it’s just my sense of humour.

Also the women artists and looks thing, it’s a sad fact that a majority of female celebs do get judge on looks alone. I’m not conforming to that, I’m just mocking it.

Sorry to ramble but I must put these people with large chips on their shoulders to rights.

Thankyou!

Posted on Thu, 7 December 2000 at 10:50

#17

johnnyboy wrote:

you stupid idiots you are so dumb like shit
what does popularity have to do with the quality of art you dumb dicks
most good bands are really popular and most shitty bands not and thats fair
if you know what i mean
‘fuck charts’ and ‘t? are pop’ who cares you bloody apes

Posted on Thu, 7 December 2000 at 12:07

#18

Gena wrote:

Well, frankly I still don’t see how making fun of someones looks is funny, since this sort of thing happens all the time in real life, especially to women. It is especially NOT funny with Mel C, since she has a disease, bullemia. Perhaps it was all the negative comments in the media about her looks that made here ill. Of course I knew that your text wasn’t meant to be taken seriously, but even in that context i found it to be out of line.

But I’m glad to see that you agree with me about the problem of female celebs getting judged by their looks and all that. Your apology is accepted!

Gena

Posted on Thu, 7 December 2000 at 14:28

#19

Buzzweasel wrote:

Cheers!

Posted on Thu, 7 December 2000 at 16:25

#20

Michael wrote:

johnnyboy, you’re not that smart yourself… There are tons of good bands which are not popular, at least, outside the U.S. Only people who like rock and listen to underground stuff know bands like Undeclinable Ambuscade, Amorphis, Face To Face, Terrorgruppe, No Motiv, In Extremo, Fuel, The Get Up Kids and even Therapy? Just because these bands aren’t popular, does not mean that they aren’t good. Fact is that most bands change their sound once they become more popular, e.g. Metallica, Foo Fighters, Krezip. I liked these bands better when they weren’t as popular as they are now. Metallica’s first albums, like Master Of Puppets and Ride The Lightning, were way better than the later stuff, like Load and Reload. And the 2nd album of the Foo’s was way better than There Is Nothing Left To Loose.
Again, I don’t give a damn whether a band is popular or not. The thing is, once bands become popular, they often change both music and attitude, which is not always good. But that’s my opinion, just live with it…

Posted on Thu, 7 December 2000 at 16:32

#21

Unbeliever wrote:

yep,
what happens a lot is that bands become bigger and bigger all the time, they become rock ‘n roll stars. Usually the quality of the music suffers from that. Therapy? had a deal with that too, that’s why I respect them so much. In my eyes they’re the biggest rock ‘n roll band ever because they have stepped back from the temptation to become rock stars. Hip Hip Hooray, ‘cause most big bands just bore me. And often it is such a loss. And the last thing I need is some rock star bullshit…right?

Posted on Thu, 7 December 2000 at 19:10

#22

johnnyboy wrote:

did i say my opinion b/w ? no
i said most bands , of course its not a rule , but most
good bands become popular due to the fact that people prefer
listening to good music which is logicalcase right ,
whats awful are the people that really say they only listen to underground bands and stop likin a band that becomes too huge

Posted on Mon, 11 December 2000 at 16:21

#23

opalmantra wrote:

Pop = populair; So the music is popular to ‘many’ people. This means they can be seen on TV, in magazines etc… on a ‘regular’ bases.
Good = something YOU like.

So something populair does NOT mean it is supposed to be good (to you).
Secondly you can not rate music in a way that it becomes measurable.
It is hard to for yourself, but even worse when you want to compare your views with others.

Posted on Mon, 11 December 2000 at 17:52

#24

opalmantra wrote:

Oh, and when people complain when artists become to popular:
There can be different ways:

-You were one of the first people who got ‘into’ the band.
You got their first CD’s, saw their first shows etc…
You probably don’t like it when things become too popular because
it’s a strange form of jalousy. You were starting to loose something
that was yours ‘alone’.

-Secondly, Artists become easily effected by fame and fortune and the rock-star bullshit. This means they still like making music but also
like to make money and want to reach as many as people as posible and play big stadiums. So they normaly hire some producer that knows what a ‘poppier’ sound sounds like. Right?

Posted on Mon, 11 December 2000 at 18:00

#25

Michael wrote:

Totally agree with you opal mantra. The thing is that most bands change their sound in order to become more popular. And this is when I start to dislike a band, when they choose for the money instead of the fans and/or music. But I also like popular bands like 3 Doors Down, Bush, Foo Fighters, and so on, but these bands were already making the same sort of music before they became more popular (although FF sounds a bit poppier now).
Not only do bands change their sound, with it they often change their attitude, which is what we call ‘rockstar bullshit’. This is obviously not the case with T?, since I don’t know any bands as big as T? that is so close to its fans. Also a band like 3 Doors Down, they are already pretty popular in Holland, but yet they chose to play in a small venue (013, small venue, about 350 people), which is a thing I can appreciate. The gig is much more ‘intimate’, a band is much closer to its fans this way.
Sounds to me you’re only saying this shit to provoke people, johnnyboy. I do believe in freedom of opinion, but not in the way you try to show your opinion. But I won’t descend to your level, it’s not worth it…

Posted on Mon, 11 December 2000 at 19:48

There are no more replies in this discussion. (Go to the homepage)

to post a reply. Sign in if you’re already a member.

You’re viewing replies 1–25 of 25 by 11 people

·

Page: First | Previous | Next | Last

Other discussions started by Buzzweasel

Title Replies Started Last post
New Drummer?? 29
Need Bass player for Manchester Punk Band 0  
The Police 3
Favourite Novelists/Writers? 29
I’m back!! 5

View all 7 discussions started by Buzzweasel.