The links you posted in The Strokes thread were misquoted and lied about,
oh...you mean the stuff i copied and posted straight from the kerrang site...as well as linked to...i can see how that results in lies and misquotes... 🙄
They don't do it solely for corporate gain.
thats it son...keep trying to convince yourself of that
If you can find me a site that has magazine transcripts, I'll look for the quotes.
isn't that what i just asked you to do?...back up your own opinion?
Originally posted by jaden101
oh...you mean the stuff i copied and posted straight from the kerrang site...as well as linked to...i can see how that results in lies and misquotes... 🙄
I thought you meant the other bs links that I disproved. The ones you are now referring to are ones where you tried to prove that Kerrang vote for the awards, not the readers. Despite this not being true and it being a fact that it's fan voted. You can dislike this, but it's still a fact.
Originally posted by jaden101
thats it son...keep trying to convince yourself of that
After the amount of times you've tried to say "Nah, Kerrang give them the awards" despite it being factually false, I'm curious as to who YOU are to say that.
Originally posted by jaden101
isn't that what i just asked you to do?...back up your own opinion?
This is how desperate you are. Asking me to prove that a gig actually happened, and that a review said what I said it did.
I'm not trying to avoid proving it, I just don't know how I can turn a magazine into binary code and show you it here. Actually, see bottom of post. Muse played the 100 Club in July of 1999 and Kerrang were there. So out goes your claim that they are bandwagon jumpers. They were dismissed by NME as "similar to Radiohead" which suggests that they not only understand Radiohead but bandwagonned the hell out of Muse years later.
As for that review, NME.Com.
And just because I can, pictures do speak louder than words. I think you'll notice in the pic below, it says "Muse, July 9th 1999. 100 Club."
Beginning with the line "Initially dismissed as a wannabe Radiohead..."
...And stay down.
-AC
"Nah, Kerrang give them the awards"
sorry...where am i quoted as saying that...or is that you doing what you accuse me of...misquoting
Beginning with the line "Initially dismissed as a wannabe Radiohead..."
now are you going to show me the NME quote or not...thought not
although the thought of you spending the last 20 minutes frantically searching through your old copies of kerrang is rather funny 😆
Originally posted by jaden101
sorry...where am i quoted as saying that...or is that you doing what you accuse me of...misquoting
It's called a paraphrase, it's your belief that Kerrang give them the awards. It's fact that they do not. End of that part and end of that stupid "Arguing for no reason" belief.
Originally posted by jaden101
now are you going to show me the NME quote or not...thought notalthough the thought of you spending the last 20 minutes frantically searching through your old copies of kerrang is rather funny 😆
I said NME dismissed them as a wannabe Radiohead, which they essentially did.
I'm linking you to the reviews. http://www.nme.com. Click reviews, search "Showbiz." Your only argument there is that I am not doing the duty of pasting it here. If I was avoiding you seeing it, I could understand. You asked where the review was, I willingly gave you the source. You choosing not to check it just proves that you are now even more ashamed of the utter whoopings I continually deal you.
Even funnier than me providing the proof (which isn't funny) is you asking for said proof then because I did actually shut you up, try to make fun of the fact that I could provide it. Weak and childish.
-AC
Even funnier than me providing the proof (which isn't funny) is you asking for said proof then because I did actually shut you up, try to make fun of the fact that I could provide it. Weak and childish
you provided proof than NM " knocked them as a wannabe Radiohead"?
did you?...no you didn't
http://www.nme.com/news/3987.htm
thats the review of showbiz...guess you think that it isn't there is deliberate?
Originally posted by jaden101
you provided proof than NM " knocked them as a wannabe Radiohead"?did you?...no you didn't
http://www.nme.com/news/3987.htm
thats the review of showbiz...guess you think that it isn't there is deliberate?
I provided the source of the review. NME reviewed it, they have a reviews section. It's not stupidity to assume that an album they reviewed, will be there is it? No.
I googled the NME review for Showbiz and I am yet to find it. When I do, I shall post it. Or you can use the hands I'm assuming you have, and do so also. Because it's not like I'm intentionally dodging you. I know I'm not, you know I'm not.
Scrap that:
nme - Showbiz review (October 1999)
In Devon, no-one can hear you scream. Muse's story is the familiar tale of late-teen provincial hell and, hailing from the dead-end resort of Teignmouth, it's no wonder they've fashioned themselves as champions of black-clad outsider chic. Apathy is not an option, hanging around the common room looking a bit mysterious is.
Their debut LP is a deadly serious affair then, and inevitably draws comparisons to Radiohead. John Leckie ('The Bends'😉 produces, serrated guitars rule and happiness is discarded as a premise only suitable for emotional retards.
The problem though, after setting up such an academic concept, is that 'Showbiz' is not as clever as they think it is. True, it never mopes as morosely as Thom Yorke's lot, but then it doesn't always have the ability to lift the soul either. So 'Unintended' and the title track are overwrought, prone to excruciatingly bad pseudo poetry, and barely escape the tag of being a gothier Strangelove.
But if they sometimes go too far, Muse's high sense of drama makes perfect sense elsewhere. Mixing Radiohead with the odd flounce of early Suede, or the wailing algebraic lunacy of Mansun, they can produce mini epics. 'Uno' is an Addams Family flamenco, jaggedly wallowing in unrequited love, just one small step away from an injunction for stalking, while 'Cave' and 'Fillip' are superior takes on the well-worn path of brooding guitar pop.
In view of all this, that title is the closest they get to a joke - because it seems certain Muse would rather peel back emotional scabs than actually go whoring down the Met Bar. It's not for the frivolous, but with a little fine tuning, escape from an oblivious West Country seems increasingly likely. 6/10
Jim Alexander
http://www.rocketbabydolls.com/nmeoct99.html <----Link.
Then in 2001, they started fellating Muse when Origin of Symmetry came out.
Sleep doggy.
-AC
so in your mind thats a negative review?...seems like quite a balanced view to me...picking both good and bad points about the album...neither hating it or fellating it...hard to see why you had such a problem with the review
http://www.rocketbabydolls.com/nmefebr1999.html
although perhaps you should have linked to that one
granted the radiohead comparison is wrong
but i've said before...muse albums are generally weak...especially in relation to their live stuff...i personally dont like their albums but i saw them live a couple of years ago and they were superb
Hahahaha, how ironic. This will be quick:
A) I never said it was a negative review. I said they continually compared them to Radiohead. Which they did, in their review of Showbiz. Which is what you asked me to link, which I did.
B) No, I shouldn't have linked that. Because that's not the one you asked for.
Secondly, I read that before I linked you to it. It's proving my point. I never said NME didn't like Muse, I said they cited them with Radiohead, because they did. You denied this.
They do it again in the link you mentioned:
"But you do sound like Radiohead though. Matthew: 'We don't want to get pigeonholed so easily.' Oh come on. If there was a National Sounding Like Radiohead Championship you'd be on the expert judging panel alongside Radiohead and another band who sound exactly like Radiohead.
'We take our influences from a lot of American bands like Nirvana,' Matthew asserts. 'And yeah, Radiohead at the time of 'The Bends' were doing new things with guitar music that it's not hard to be influenced by. If that's your opinion, fair enough. I just don't care.'
Muse, then. Sound like Radiohead. Only better."
Where, oh where do I even begin with these mugs:
Firstly they are throughout the interview, trying to force Matt to admit they are right about HIS music, trying to pigeonhole the band into a sixth form description that their pitiful minds can understand. Idiotic morons. THEN, if that didn't prove my point about how they knocked Muse as a wannabe Radiohead (which it does), it proves my point that they felch Radiohead when they got popular.
They wrote that reviewing and had the nuts to say Muse were like Radiohead (point one proven) only better. Hahahaha, better than Radiohead. THEN, down the line when OK Computer came out, they started having sex with the CD hole and claiming OK Computer was one of the greatest albums ever and that they were more or less peerless.
Jaden, aren't you tired of this? Or are you going to continue the facade of saying I don't back my points up or know what I'm talking about? To quote Michael Caine in Austin Powers: Goldmember...."Go on....lay down son."
-AC
Erm. Well as you two seem to have a history of quabbling meh........
They are a great band however. I first heard them on Myspace and that is where - i believe - their popularity grew. They wont survive a second album which is a shame, but that's Indie for you. But you should enjoy it while you can!
Especially if you havnt heard (of)
them. They are WELL random.
Secondly, I read that before I linked you to it. It's proving my point. I never said NME didn't like Muse, I said they cited them with Radiohead, because they did. You denied this.
no...you said they hated them..then when they got big they fellated them...which the review quite clearly shows isn't the case...is it?...no
as for the continuing not back up your points...finally you've got the message and for the first time you are least tried to post something other than your own narrow opinion...good to see something is finally getting through...well done...its only took you the 10 months that i've been on this forum to do it...
Originally posted by jaden101
no...you said they hated them..then when they got big they fellated them...which the review quite clearly shows isn't the case...is it?...no
Rating their album 6/10 and labelling it as nothing more than a wannabe Radiohead, which we've (you've) now realised they factually did. Then moving onto rating their next album 9/10 after Kerrang rated it well, yes. Fellating them. They fellate popular bands. This is fact, as I proved in my latter post.
Originally posted by jaden101
taken from the kerrang review of the same albumping
Yes? Point? They never knocked them as a wannabe Radiohead. They used the comparison. Which is inevitable and I don't blame NME for comparing the two, although I disagree. It's the fact that NME say this:
"But you do sound like Radiohead though. Oh come on. If there was a National Sounding Like Radiohead Championship you'd be on the expert judging panel alongside Radiohead and another band who sound exactly like Radiohead."
Kerrang have never addressed them in such a pathetic, patronising way. It stopped at slight comparative mention. Try again, dood.
Originally posted by jaden101
as for the continuing not back up your points...finally you've got the message and for the first time you are least tried to post something other than your own narrow opinion...good to see something is finally getting through...well done...its only took you the 10 months that i've been on this forum to do it...
I've been doing it this whole time, you just refused to see it, like you refuse to see anything that proves you wrong. Like you refuse to admit when you were wrong about Kerrang's awards despite being factually wrong. Despite being of the limited musical knowledge that you had to have all this explained to you. It just so happens that it took pictures and quotes to make you reluctantly admit it. It was like teaching a class of kids. It didn't take me 10 months, it took me a day. Because we haven't always been discussing this particular point.
I've been right in this debate from the start, you haven't. It's taken this long for you to admit it.
Once again you reply with some kind of excuse. Just leave it Jaden, really.
-AC
I've been doing it this whole time,
yet you've posted something other than your own ramblings for the first time today
They fellate popular bands. This is fact, as I proved in my latter post.
as is obvious from the band that this thread is about...those giants of the musical world...the internationally renowned...test icicles...oh wait...that actually disproves your point doesn't it?....yes
where as you admitted your self that kerrang have been promoting crap and popular bands for a good while now....thus proving my point that you are infact talking out of a proverbial hole
Originally posted by jaden101
yet you've posted something other than your own ramblings for the first time today
Just because I'm not always posting links to back myself up (because A) It's not always needed and B) I know that I'm not talking BS. Some people are never convinced) doesn't mean I'm rambling. You should be thankful it is actually me you're debating with, not someone like debbiejo.
Originally posted by jaden101
as is obvious from the band that this thread is about...those giants of the musical world...the internationally renowned...test icicles...oh wait...that actually disproves your point doesn't it?....yes
No, because they're actually known as an upcoming band in certain circles in America right now. They're being treated like Bloc Party did before everyone jumped on them, over here. So no. Once again I suggest you know, brushing up on the ol' knowledge.
Originally posted by jaden101
where as you admitted your self that kerrang have been promoting crap and popular bands for a good while now....thus proving my point that you are infact talking out of a proverbial hole
Hmm, funny if it were true. They haven't been "promoting crap". They've had a few shit covers in a row, and a few (which entertaining) passable articles because there isn't much going on right now, as Vic and I discussed.
That's all it is though. A month or two patch. Not a multiple year patch a la NME.
You're running out of things to say and it's really funny, hahahaha.
-AC
You should be thankful it is actually me you're debating with, not someone like debbiejo.
meaning?...or is that the famous AC ego?
No, because they're actually known as an upcoming band in certain circles in America right now. They're being treated like Bloc Party did before everyone jumped on them, over here. So no. Once again I suggest you know, brushing up on the ol' knowledge.
what's to know?...you say that NME only fellate the big and popular bands...and test icicles are currently neither...thus disproving your claims on yet another subject
it would seem that for one magazine its a cardinal sin to compare radiohead and muse...yet for another its perfectly acceptable...in your mind it is anyway seeing as you seem unable to grasp that fairly simple contradiction
You're running out of things to say and it's really funny, hahahaha.
cant say that i am...just getting bored showing you up over and over
Originally posted by jaden101
what's to know?...you say that NME only fellate the big and popular bands...and test icicles are currently neither...thus disproving your claims on yet another subject
There is a specific kind of music that they like. I never said they only, exclusively, never fellate anything else. I said they fellate popular bands. They do, undeniable.
Secondly, they felate bands that are supposed to be good. You know the kind, the kind that you'd be branded stupid to not like. Maximo Park, The Kaiser Chiefs, The Streets, The Arctic Monkeys, The Libertines (best band in Britain according to them). Now, Test Icicles. So no, not disproven. They're known here, they're known in America. Maybe you just don't know that much.
Originally posted by jaden101
it would seem that for one magazine its a cardinal sin to compare radiohead and muse...yet for another its perfectly acceptable...in your mind it is anyway seeing as you seem unable to grasp that fairly simple contradiction
I said I don't blame NME for comparing the two. Why did you ignore that? I'll post it again for you:
"They (Kerrang) never knocked them as a wannabe Radiohead. They used the comparison. Which is inevitable and I don't blame NME for comparing the two, although I disagree. It's the fact that NME say this:
'But you do sound like Radiohead though. Oh come on. If there was a National Sounding Like Radiohead Championship you'd be on the expert judging panel alongside Radiohead and another band who sound exactly like Radiohead.'
Kerrang have never addressed them in such a pathetic, patronising way. It stopped at slight comparative mention. Try again, dood."
Read that before you reply.
Originally posted by jaden101
cant say that i am...just getting bored showing you up over and over
You're only showing yourself up by continually getting smacked in the face by proof, running off, grabbing another point, bringing it back eagerly like a kid giving their teacher an apple, only to find out that your apple was green, and sorry, but I only eat red ones. Go back to your seat and let me continue educating you.
-AC
You're only showing yourself up by continually getting smacked in the face by proof, running off, grabbing another point, bringing it back eagerly like a kid giving their teacher an apple, only to find out that your apple was green, and sorry, but I only eat red ones. Go back to your seat and let me continue educating you.
until you actually prove your allegation that NME only feature popular bands then you might as well stop posting nonsense
even when you did finally post something other than your opinion it actually refuted your allegation because it was actually reasonably positve about a band who weren't big at the time
not to mention that you are the king of conveniently skipping over things that blow your argument to pieces...remember the bands i mentioned that were featured in NME when we were last having this debate?...not a word from you about that was there?...why...cause it showed you to be wrong again
then of course is the flip side of the argument in which you argued for kerrang as somehow not conforming to the corporate media suit wearing types...despite the fact that you admitted yourself that they've featuring crap...although you cant seem to admit that this is purely for corporate gain...when its quite clear to everyone else that it is
Originally posted by jaden101
until you actually prove your allegation that NME only feature popular bands then you might as well stop posting nonsense
When you quote me for saying "They only FEATURE popular bands", I'll admit to saying it. Because I didn't. If you go look at The Strokes thread I even said that they feature some "unknown" bands. I said they FELLATE (begins with an F, but it's not the same word kid) popular bands. Which they do. The Bravery, Franz, Coldplay, The Libertines, Radiohead, The Darkness, Muse. The difference between them and Kerrang is that Kerrang know shit bands and feature them for the obligation they have, being a publication. However, they will openly diss them if they are shit. NME have proven time and time again that they feel obligated to like these bands.
So stop lying your face off and twisting my words.
Originally posted by jaden101
even when you did finally post something other than your opinion it actually refuted your allegation because it was actually reasonably positve about a band who weren't big at the time
It wasn't. Because my claim was that they knocked them as a wannabe Radiohead and more or less tried to force Matt Bellamy to admit it about HIS OWN music. Both the link you and I posted have proved this. You even tried saying "You should have shown this link", as a desperation act. Even your own attempt to go off-topic blew up in your face.
I never said it was a negative review, I made the point about Radiohead. See if you can catch me out without lying and claiming that I made points that I never claimed to make. See if you can do that. Because it's so, so sad that you've resorted to convincing yourself what my points were just so you can counter them, despite being not what I said.
Originally posted by jaden101
not to mention that you are the king of conveniently skipping over things that blow your argument to pieces...remember the bands i mentioned that were featured in NME when we were last having this debate?...not a word from you about that was there?...why...cause it showed you to be wrong again
It didn't, because I never said NME never feature other bands. You obviously confused the word "feature" with "fellate". They do begin with an F, so points for you there, but tsk tsk. Not the same word. I actually said that obviously they will feature other bands, they're a publication, it is their job. My point then and now was that they have shit writers and supporters, and that they fellate (not feature, fellate) popular bands and then genuinely support those bands (The Libertines, best british band, again I say it because it's stupid). You cannot deny that because it is an actual fact, so admit this and stop trying to force words into my mouth just because you are getting shown up. Hahaha, so silly.
Originally posted by jaden101
then of course is the flip side of the argument in which you argued for kerrang as somehow not conforming to the corporate media suit wearing types...despite the fact that you admitted yourself that they've featuring crap...although you cant seem to admit that this is purely for corporate gain...when its quite clear to everyone else that it is
Every magazine does something for corporate gain. I said, multiple times in multiple posts (and you accuse ME of skipping?!) that no magazine is free of influence. The FACT that Kerrang do have more non-influenced writers than any other music journalistic magazine, is not the point either. The point is that whilst Kerrang do FEATURE (confusing the term again you silly, silly boy) shit bands, they do not FELLATE them. They feature them because it is their job as journalists. NME feature The Bravery and The Arctic Monkeys, then give them mad ratings. Multiple reviewers. Give those kinds of bands awards too. Because NME awards are split between critical acclaim and fan reaction, Kerrang's are not (despite you not admitting this).
Shh. Stop being so drastic. You have been so unquestionably disgraced here that you are now telling me what my points are despite me not saying such things. Unless you are replying with something that counters (ha) or relates to my actual points, then don't reply at all.
Because the next time you reply with accusations that I've said things we both know I clearly have not, you're not gonna get a reply.
-AC
so what its boiled down to is this
NME features both popular and unknown bands
Kerrang features both popular and unknown bands
NME actually likes the bands it features
Kerrang doesn't like some of the bands it features and puts them on the cover simply to get people to buy it
NME gave a reasonable review of a muse album and wrongly compared them to radiohead
Kerrang gave them a decent review...compared them to Radiohead and called them "boring and univentive"
NME have some decent writers as per your quote
I'm not denying NME of any good writers, they have a couple
and some shit writers
kerrang have some good writers and shit writers
the only thing is you try and make up some strange excuse when a kerrang writer likes a band that you dont....or better yet you just call them the shit kerrang writers and not part of the "core" of kerrang
you can make up all the bullshit you want about kerrang to try and make it seem like you're reading some highbrow highly resectable publication...when in fact your reading a magazine thats the same as any other music mag...it just happens to cater to your albeit bad taste more than any other.
in other words you've beat yourself about the head by making statements...contradicting yourself...and then disproving your own arguments...
you really are one of a kind AC...it has to be said...
😂 😆 😂
Originally posted by jaden101
so what its boiled down to is thisNME features both popular and unknown bands
Kerrang features both popular and unknown bands
NME actually likes the bands it features
Kerrang doesn't like some of the bands it features and puts them on the cover simply to get people to buy it
No, not to get people to buy it. For variety, as per their job. Lots of people have shit music taste when it comes to rock, so if they're making a living of journalism, objective journalism, they have to do it.
NME believe The Libertines and Franz Ferdinand, along with Coldplay, are the best bands to come out of Great Britain. They have, in the high 90%, shit opinions on music. Save for the odd, and I do say rare, writer.
Originally posted by jaden101
NME gave a reasonable review of a muse album and wrongly compared them to radiohead
Which you denied, and I suggested. Then proved. They didn't only compare, they more or less tried to force.
Originally posted by jaden101
Kerrang gave them a decent review...compared them to Radiohead and called them "boring and univentive"
No, a writer called them that. Not Kerrang. NME have had about 10-15 writers label Muse as that. The site I linked you to proves as much. Kerrang for the most part have always supported Muse. NME have not. They continued to hound Muse as a wannabe Radiohead until they dived on OK Computer. Which also began felching, because they previously said they'd never outlive Creep.
Originally posted by jaden101
NME have some decent writers as per your quoteand some shit writers
kerrang have some good writers and shit writers
No, don't misquote me. I said they have "a few". This was when they were good. Now they have literally about two or three. Kerrang have lots of really good writers who aren't afraid to say certain things to the artists they review, interview or write about. NME are, fact. Proof? The editor of NME begging Justin Hawkins to do the magazine. Kerrang don't have to beg. NME thought they were the men, trying to say (paraphrased) "If you wanna do our magazine, you gotta be the joke band that you are." "What? F*ck off, mugs." "NO NO NO NO! Joking man, JOKING!"
Originally posted by jaden101
the only thing is you try and make up some strange excuse when a kerrang writer likes a band that you dont....or better yet you just call them the shit kerrang writers and not part of the "core" of kerrang
Well...that's not just me is it? One writer is one writer. If only one writer had said that from NME, then I wouldn't be saying what I am. Considering they continued their Muse/Radiohead hounding and bashing until Origin of Symmetry came out (which Kerrang didn't), that's why it's not an excuse. I've read both magazines quite a lot for reference. You haven't had any real experience with Kerrang so you are both:
A) Uneducated on the matter.
B) Immediately not objective.
Originally posted by jaden101
you can make up all the bullshit you want about kerrang to try and make it seem like you're reading some highbrow highly resectable publication...when in fact your reading a magazine thats the same as any other music mag...it just happens to cater to your albeit bad taste more than any other.
How funny. The same as any other mag. Yes. Because citing System of a Down, Tool, Opeth and The Mars Volta as the world's greatest bands is as bad as citing The Libertines, The Kaiser Chiefs, The Arctic Monkeys and Goldie Lookin Chain as great bands isn't it? No, it's not.
That sort of covers your bad taste part doesn't it? Yes. Let's not get into who has the better collective music taste out of Kerrang and NME, because it's a large enough massacre as it is.
Originally posted by jaden101
in other words you've beat yourself about the head by making statements...contradicting yourself...and then disproving your own arguments...you really are one of a kind AC...it has to be said...
😂 😆 😂
This debate in a nutshell:
It'd be more effective if you said something true. You more or less begged me for proof, thought you were cocky cos I "didn't have it". I prove my point as I always do, with pictures this time (cos you are a bit slow on the uptake), and instead of conceding the point, you took the route of making fun of the fact that I had provided the proof. Childish and pathetic.
Then you ask me for links. I give you links. You ignore it and post another link and say "Should have sent this one", which you would have used as an excuse but since it was you, it was ok. So I check the link and it further proves my point.
Shit out of luck, you run and grab every point you can, get them rubbished into the ground and finally resort to telling me that I made points I never made. Now you're resorting to your old, "Psh, bad taste" argument because you genuinely have nothing else.
-AC