Page 2 of 3
Posted: 04 Feb 2010, 23:40
by Bartek
i know i know i should shut my mouth (break my fingers ) when i have nothing nice to say/write. but seriously it was a simple question: for what?/ what was the point of this post ?
Posted: 04 Feb 2010, 23:42
by MadameButterfly
every user to his/her own taste.
can't answer you as i don't know.
Posted: 04 Feb 2010, 23:46
by Bartek
that was the question to author of this post mrs Here Is The Link To Most Reliable Source Of Information (HITLTMRSOI).
Posted: 04 Feb 2010, 23:51
by Being645
Oh yes, I'm a mare, a night mare ... grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr ... and I can't even explain the world to you, Bartek or justify myself for my assiciations ...
and I wouldn't ask that from you. How's your sweet bitch, btw?
Posted: 04 Feb 2010, 23:59
by Bartek
don't be silly even of you showed me a real truth about the world i would buy it.
danke. since is real winter she more than happy. and she has another victim on her record - a duck. quack quack die.
Posted: 05 Feb 2010, 00:43
by Being645
hopefully nobody's seen it and you buried it nicely ...
over here a dove been killed in my bathroom ... sad day ...
Posted: 05 Feb 2010, 01:09
by Maisey
Surreal...
Anyway, moving on!
I have a friend how has a white, tight, sleeveless shirt with Sigue Sigue Sputniks name and logo emblazoned in sequins.
It's so horrid it's almost art.
Posted: 05 Feb 2010, 09:13
by Bartek
ERRATA: don't be silly even of you showed me a real truth about the world i wouldn't buy it.
@Beingwell i wasn't with her on that walk so i don't know.
Posted: 05 Feb 2010, 10:10
by Silver_Owl
Maisey wrote:Surreal...
Anyway, moving on!
I have a friend how has a white, tight, sleeveless shirt with Sigue Sigue Sputniks name and logo emblazoned in sequins.
It's so horrid it's almost art.
Magenta Devine actually had all the t-shirts printed and for sale at Camden market a good year before they even had a rehearsal. It was very much based on hype and marketing, which in a perverse way I kinda like.
Posted: 05 Feb 2010, 10:31
by timsinister
Maisey wrote:
It's so horrid it's almost art.
A more damning indictment I have never heard!
Posted: 05 Feb 2010, 11:10
by abridged
Looking back they had a rather gormless purity about them. The people who actually did change rock and roll (so to speak), i.e. Mr Cowell et al are something much more offensive....
Posted: 05 Feb 2010, 13:37
by Pista
I saw SSS as a fall back one night, when The Skellies decided they'd throw in the towel.
Got to the venue & was told, "they've split up mate".
So I trundled down to the Escape club (IIRC) & was a little freaked by the guy in the bogs with the red stilletoe boots who later turned out to be Degville, but it was Brighton, so, whatever.
They were actually not bad. Not taking it too seriously & they sounded great.
But, like
Jam~es said.
After one ellpee, the joke wore a bit thin.
But I will always remember "that" interview with the dreadful Muriel Gray person.
OMG did they p!ss her off a treat!
Posted: 05 Feb 2010, 13:41
by Norman Hunter
It's complete tat, but ace
Posted: 05 Feb 2010, 13:52
by Pista
Is it a 7"?
Posted: 05 Feb 2010, 13:58
by weebleswobble
3" mini disc (blank)
Posted: 05 Feb 2010, 14:05
by Norman Hunter
weebleswobble wrote:3" mini disc (blank)
I gave you it on mp3 IIRC
Posted: 05 Feb 2010, 14:09
by weebleswobble
Norman Hunter wrote:weebleswobble wrote:3" mini disc (blank)
I gave you it on mp3 IIRC
that you did
haven't listened to it though
Posted: 05 Feb 2010, 15:44
by Toaster Mantis
mh wrote:abridged wrote:At least they annoyed the NME for a while....
Which makes them somewhat more acceptable.
Wouldn't have called them total pants, like you I enjoyed some of their stuff, but they were nowhere near as radical and dangerous as they seemed to think they were.
That's actually what I think about SSS too, reading about their history they seem more like a publicity stunt with an attached musical group than vice versa. What I've heard from their second album certainly sounds less interesting than
Flaunt It, and more generic 1980s synthpop. I even watched one of the videos from later on, and it looked like they'd ditched the costumes!
Posted: 05 Feb 2010, 15:52
by weebleswobble
Stock Aitken and Waterman = Success
or not
Posted: 05 Feb 2010, 15:53
by James Blast
I was a Mondo Teeno
Posted: 17 Feb 2010, 12:05
by Spiggy's hat
mh wrote:abridged wrote:At least they annoyed the NME for a while....
but they were nowhere near as radical and dangerous as they seemed to think they were.
That just about sums it up really. The launch of the group, the image, the press soundbites, was/were a masterplan.........but sadly bar a couple of songs, they just didn't have the tunes.
IMO they over cooked things and tried to be a bit too ground breaking. If they'd stuck to punk/new wave tunes with plenty of synth over the top, they'd have probably been much bigger than they were & perhaps even become the new genre/future of rock n roll that they harped on about.
Posted: 17 Feb 2010, 12:15
by Quiff Boy
classic intro to an SSS interview with muriel grey:
"And now we're with the band that everyone's been hearing about but no one's been talking about..."
genious
completely one dimensional, very OTT and deeply silly, but i loves 'em
Posted: 17 Feb 2010, 12:46
by Norman Hunter
weebleswobble wrote:Norman Hunter wrote:weebleswobble wrote:3" mini disc (blank)
I gave you it on mp3 IIRC
that you did
haven't listened to it though
Posted: 17 Feb 2010, 12:50
by moses
SSS = Suicide for the pantomime generation.
Posted: 17 Feb 2010, 13:36
by hellboy69
Norman Hunter wrote:
It's complete tat, but ace
Yes, and yes!
Massive Retaliation (or Massive Retail as it mebbe should've been called) is still up there with the recorded works of Trans-X and Westworld as an 80s camp pop classic. "Sense-my-sation, baby." Inspired!