Author Topic: Artists that are never getting a positive criticial reappraisal  (Read 7162 times)

MiddleRabbit

  • Whatever it is you're selling, I don't want it.
Re: Artists that are never getting a positive criticial reappraisal
« Reply #60 on: January 08, 2021, 07:28:52 PM »
For flip’s sake.  Sorry.

George Oscar Bluth II

  • Karma: +69 / -420
Re: Artists that are never getting a positive criticial reappraisal
« Reply #61 on: January 09, 2021, 03:36:52 PM »
Franz Ferdinand however, still quite good.

This is true. They are. A level above the landfill indy of the era.

Re: Artists that are never getting a positive criticial reappraisal
« Reply #62 on: January 09, 2021, 03:40:43 PM »
The Lighthouse Family

Re: Artists that are never getting a positive criticial reappraisal
« Reply #63 on: January 09, 2021, 06:17:15 PM »
I remember the magazine Rock Sound having a huge war within its pages over whether Kula's then-new record (I think it had a deep sea diver on the front) should be given a good or bad review, and whether the band had a future or should be forgotten, with both writers and readers raging on opposite sides.

Re: Artists that are never getting a positive criticial reappraisal
« Reply #64 on: January 09, 2021, 06:28:24 PM »
Aqua
Not sure if it's a reappraisal or if it was always the case but I get the impression Aqua have some level of cred for how well they done a certain kind of dumb pop

Razorlight - they were shit at the time and are now massively outdated to boot.
Absolutely, Borrell's solo album sold something like 400 copies, to the point the record label were making jokes about it on the first week. They had to have hit unknown depths of irrelevance for this to not even get much "former chart topper sells <500 copies of new album lol" type attention.
Borrell being such an insufferable prick in the mid 00s and falling so far so fast might just leave everyone feeling a bit embarrassed for him

They're the kind of band where if you saw some of their songs on someone's playlist you just know they stopped paying attention to the world at the age of 17 in 2008.






RE: Mansun, I think they had their positive reappraisal in the mid 00s. Not that they were amazing or anything or anything but like "there's some neat stuff here and I like the enthusiasm of it all". Can totally see them having a few times in the future where acts cover a couple of their tracks.

Re: Artists that are never getting a positive criticial reappraisal
« Reply #65 on: January 09, 2021, 06:52:13 PM »
I thought Mansun were always loved and respected. I remember one of them collaborating with the singer C.A Davies on the Anchoress project (she just released an album with Bernard Butler too I think)

Re: Artists that are never getting a positive criticial reappraisal
« Reply #66 on: January 10, 2021, 02:28:42 PM »
Does that make his views OK with you?

I'm not jizzing in my jazz hat about the greatness of Crispian and his chums on every thread though am I?

NoSleep

  • Me and the hedgehog, we bursting the tyres all day
    • Space Is The Place
Re: Artists that are never getting a positive criticial reappraisal
« Reply #67 on: January 10, 2021, 02:37:35 PM »
You are about those other paedo-harbourers.

Brundle-Fly

  • "Why don't you do something to help me?"
Re: Artists that are never getting a positive criticial reappraisal
« Reply #68 on: January 10, 2021, 03:13:50 PM »
I don’t want to listen to them now, but it’s not because the singer’s a cunt.  If I was going to only listen to bands whose singers weren’t  cunts, I’d be into The Surfaris.

The Surfaris? Oh, so you're fine with Jim Fuller's non-returned copy of 'Bass Fishing In California' to the Glendora County Library then?

Rizla

  • That's not another knife - THIS is another knife!
Re: Artists that are never getting a positive criticial reappraisal
« Reply #69 on: January 10, 2021, 03:24:33 PM »
I thought Kula Shaker were fantastic live.  He’s a good guitar player - a lot better than most of the Britpop lot.


I've just remembered hearing scandalous rumours at the time that they made use of backing tracks on stage, particularly for the vocals; indeed that there was a noise gate on Mills's mic that cut in the recorded vocal whenever he chose to just mime, thus he could chuck his guitar all around ala Hendrix, and still have crystal clear vocals coming through. Does this ring a bell with anyone else?

Re: Artists that are never getting a positive criticial reappraisal
« Reply #70 on: January 10, 2021, 03:31:47 PM »
I've just remembered hearing scandalous rumours at the time that they made use of backing tracks on stage, particularly for the vocals; indeed that there was a noise gate on Mills's mic that cut in the recorded vocal whenever he chose to just mime, thus he could chuck his guitar all around ala Hendrix, and still have crystal clear vocals coming through. Does this ring a bell with anyone else?

Heard that rumour about Muse too.

George Oscar Bluth II

  • Karma: +69 / -420
Re: Artists that are never getting a positive criticial reappraisal
« Reply #71 on: January 10, 2021, 03:38:09 PM »
The Lighthouse Family

Rewatching Peep Show this week and Johnson plays them in his BMW which is perfect.

Jockice

  • I really have red hair. And a **********.
Re: Artists that are never getting a positive criticial reappraisal
« Reply #72 on: January 10, 2021, 04:07:29 PM »
I thought Kula Shaker was a solo artist at first. Which is why when their publicity people phoned me up I said I'd be fine with interviewing him, I didn't in the end, or if I did I can't remember anything about it.

Re: Artists that are never getting a positive criticial reappraisal
« Reply #73 on: January 10, 2021, 04:43:55 PM »
The Vines? I'm still mildly embarrassed that I gave in to 'liking' them as a teenager and buying their first album and attending a couple of gigs, despite resisting for so long and still knowing in my gut they were shite and the NME were just hyping them for a laugh/to sell more magazines.

the ouch cube

  • you've got moomins on yr breath
Re: Artists that are never getting a positive criticial reappraisal
« Reply #74 on: January 10, 2021, 04:52:38 PM »
That whole era of guitar groups - the dregs of the New Rock Revolution to the midpoint of landfill indie - are probably prevented from getting a critical reappraisal due to the technology of the era not being very accessible. It was that sort of music which was always on iPod playlists and the passwords to those are now lost, the equipment obsolete/incompatible...

One of the reasons why the mid-2000s seems like it's a million miles away whereas the 1990s doesn't.

Re: Artists that are never getting a positive criticial reappraisal
« Reply #75 on: January 10, 2021, 05:03:46 PM »
I used to go an indie nightclub every week in 03-04 and I can probably remember all the classic tracks if I make an effort -hot hot heat, yeah yeah yeahs, Tenacious D, White Stripes, early Kings of Leon, the Transplants, Jet, Libertines, the Gossip, peaches...Arctic Monkeys and Killers were probably the last new artists I heard there.

Of course they played a lot of classic stuff too like Britpop, the Pixies, Buzzcocks songs etc, there'd always be a Metallica and RATM song and either Slipknot or Linkin Park

Re: Artists that are never getting a positive criticial reappraisal
« Reply #76 on: January 10, 2021, 05:12:27 PM »
I recently re-evaluated Scooter when someone pointed out that, musically, they are sort-of a 2000s European version of The KLF.

I see them more of a '90s group. They were huge when I was at school circa 1994 to 1996, especially the hit song Back In The UK which our music teacher taught us to play on the keyboard.

MiddleRabbit

  • Whatever it is you're selling, I don't want it.
Re: Artists that are never getting a positive criticial reappraisal
« Reply #77 on: January 10, 2021, 08:23:58 PM »
The Surfaris? Oh, so you're fine with Jim Fuller's non-returned copy of 'Bass Fishing In California' to the Glendora County Library then?

I give guitar players more wiggle room than I give singers.  At least Jim knew what a library was, even if he didn’t understand the rules properly.

Sin Agog

  • Dogs fucked the pope; no fault of mine
Re: Artists that are never getting a positive criticial reappraisal
« Reply #78 on: January 10, 2021, 08:36:57 PM »
Bush. Although whenever I brush up against normies, I'm always amazed by what kind of middling shite they can get really excited about (not to knock them or anything, as it's just notes and chords and shit).  Bush just released an album this year, so perhaps some people out there think they really were more than the cleanest of post-grunge also-rans?

Re: Artists that are never getting a positive criticial reappraisal
« Reply #79 on: January 10, 2021, 09:19:56 PM »
The Strokes

Re: Artists that are never getting a positive criticial reappraisal
« Reply #80 on: January 10, 2021, 09:57:14 PM »
You are about those other paedo-harbourers.

Is this where you say “Ahhh the Beatles did some shows with Jimmy Savile and Rolf Harris ahhhh!”? Again?

Be careful you don’t pull something with that stretch love.

Shit Good Nose

  • Several bags of balls
Re: Artists that are never getting a positive criticial reappraisal
« Reply #81 on: January 10, 2021, 11:25:46 PM »
Heard that rumour about Muse too.

I have it on good authority (genuine insider knowledge) that Muse definitely don't use backing tracks for music or vocals.  Apparently they've even told TV shows to fuck off when asked to mime.

Re: Artists that are never getting a positive criticial reappraisal
« Reply #82 on: January 10, 2021, 11:35:42 PM »
This thread is very confusing with its paedo harbours.


Saw Doctors

Daisy Chainsaw

Paedo Harbours

Re: Artists that are never getting a positive criticial reappraisal
« Reply #83 on: January 10, 2021, 11:38:19 PM »
god fucking Jet

Re: Artists that are never getting a positive criticial reappraisal
« Reply #84 on: January 10, 2021, 11:56:26 PM »
My first ever gig was 'Clubland Live' at the Hammersmith Apollo in March 2008, which had the following lineup:

N-Trance
Flip & Fill
Darren Styles
Ultrabeat
Scooter
Cascada

As a noughties teenager big on that music it was fucking incredible. N-Trance with Kelly Llorenna singing 'Set You Free' live. Scooter doing so well that they got a UK number 1 album a few weeks later which outsold Madonna. And Natalie from Cascada was one of my many teenage crushes, along with Avril Lavigne and the cheerleader from Heroes. All of them, regrettably for me, probably belong in this thread as I didn't know a single other person who shared my music tastes then or indeed now, who either a) burst into mocking laughter when being reminded of Scooter or b) say their favourite Cascada track was Castles in the Sky which gets half a point at least despite being completely the wrong group.

There were more tours later that year and into the next I attended starring a whole host of similar noughties Eurodance acts (Fragma, Sash, Lasgo, Basshunter etc) but I had to travel up to Birmingham to see them as that was the furthest south of the country they went, indicating clearly that it was far more a Scottish/Northern England musical scene while my fellow Londoners listened to garage and drum & bass instead.

Re: Artists that are never getting a positive criticial reappraisal
« Reply #85 on: January 11, 2021, 12:06:01 AM »
That whole era of guitar groups - the dregs of the New Rock Revolution to the midpoint of landfill indie - are probably prevented from getting a critical reappraisal due to the technology of the era not being very accessible. It was that sort of music which was always on iPod playlists and the passwords to those are now lost, the equipment obsolete/incompatible...
Huh?

NoSleep

  • Me and the hedgehog, we bursting the tyres all day
    • Space Is The Place
Re: Artists that are never getting a positive criticial reappraisal
« Reply #86 on: January 11, 2021, 05:34:38 AM »
Is this where you say “Ahhh the Beatles did some shows with Jimmy Savile and Rolf Harris ahhhh!”?

"Some" shows, eh? Savile toured with them for 4 years. You're suggesting that whilst there must be no smoke without fire for Zappa (regarding Estrada), that your precious Beatles are magically immune in their association with Savile.

EDIT: This has nothing to do with either the Beatles or Zappa, btw; I'm merely pointing out your own selective hypocrisy on this matter.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2021, 06:15:18 AM by NoSleep »

Re: Artists that are never getting a positive criticial reappraisal
« Reply #87 on: January 11, 2021, 08:02:48 AM »
"Some" shows, eh? Savile toured with them for 4 years. You're suggesting that whilst there must be no smoke without fire for Zappa (regarding Estrada), that your precious Beatles are magically immune in their association with Savile.

EDIT: This has nothing to do with either the Beatles or Zappa, btw; I'm merely pointing out your own selective hypocrisy on this matter.

But Zappa knew he was working with a paedo(?) and The Beatles most likely didn't? Jesus Christ, tons of people worked with Savile for decades without having any idea what he was up to.

monkfromhavana

  • Member
  • **
  • Top one, nice one, get sorted
Re: Artists that are never getting a positive criticial reappraisal
« Reply #88 on: January 11, 2021, 08:13:24 AM »
Happy hardcore, makina, donk and all that stuff has had a heavy resurgence in the last decade. I know that's not strictly critical reappraisal but I wouldn't want to be associated with any publications covering that sort of music so whether it's been documented or not I couldn't be sure. But obviously you know it will have been because music journalism is a cesspool.

It really hasn't. The stuff from between 1990 and 1993 has, as well as jungle, but happy hardcore....nope. Unless you're one of those people who think that "happy hardcore" is just the name of any form of dance music that isn't Aphex Twin.

I doubt happy hardcore will ever be reappraised, especially the later stuff, it's too one dimensional and too fast.

NoSleep

  • Me and the hedgehog, we bursting the tyres all day
    • Space Is The Place
Re: Artists that are never getting a positive criticial reappraisal
« Reply #89 on: January 11, 2021, 08:15:10 AM »
But Zappa knew he was working with a paedo(?) and The Beatles most likely didn't? Jesus Christ, tons of people worked with Savile for decades without having any idea what he was up to.

How do you know either way? All Gail Zappa's allegation implies is that they knew he was engaged in something supposedly criminal or dodgy. Savile's paedo activities were apparently an open secret by the account of many. Remember how Paul Gambacini got into trouble by making such a claim and nurses coming out to say they were told to turn a blind eye to Savile's activities at Stoke Manderville. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of using it as a stick to beat Zappa (so by default also Little Feat and The Magic Band) whilst pronouncing a clean slate for the Beatles, when in neither case are they are the guilty party.

Tags: