Page 1 of 8

have the sisters turned s**t

Posted: 20 May 2007, 20:33
by keith's dad
i'm i the only one that thinks the sisters are now s**t and after first last and always nothing else is worth pissing on, floorland is ok vision thing wank everthing else who cares, the me the best are body electric and reptile house

Posted: 20 May 2007, 20:35
by scotty
They've been a bit shit since 87 IMO.

Posted: 20 May 2007, 20:39
by 6FeetOver
I disagree about the tunes themselves (well, most of them, anyway...some make me :urff: and always have, but that's neither here nor there), but I think Eldo's voice has been deteriorating horribly over the last 15 years. Sometimes, it seems that he can barely hit a note or hold a tune; quite often it's downright excruciating to hear. Makes me really sad! :cry:

Posted: 20 May 2007, 20:43
by keith's dad
saw then on the last tour f**king painfull could not hear a word he was singing and all the songs sounded the same, now don't get me wrong i used to love the sisters but when they spilt in 85 i think it was when the book was closed and should.nt have been reopened

Posted: 20 May 2007, 20:46
by GC
Yes, this may all be true. But who else is going to fill the gap in our empty lives.

Posted: 20 May 2007, 20:49
by Izzy HaveMercy
keith's dad wrote:when they spilt in 85 i think it was when the book was closed and should.nt have been reopened
Can't agree with you there. We probably wouldn't have had this forum then and the lovely people that frequent it... :kiss:


IZ.

Posted: 20 May 2007, 20:54
by sisterstekland
if you are goth, yep its a big change, i'm not so i love the sisters more and more.

Posted: 20 May 2007, 21:07
by Dark
I got sick of much of their stuff. And some of the new songs really are Piles Of Wank (tm).

I think maybe a little return to their roots would be in order. Get baldy behind a drumkit, draft in a guitarist who can't play chords, etc. ;)

Posted: 20 May 2007, 21:20
by Ozpat
sisterstekland wrote:if you are goth, yep its a big change, i'm not so i love the sisters more and more.
:notworthy: :D ......I am with you.

Here we go again.... :roll:
Every once in a while someone turns up talking s**t like this and collect some shared stuff before disappearing again....Next! :twisted:

Posted: 20 May 2007, 21:45
by Badlander
No they haven't. Now stop wasting your time and log out, if you so hate them. :roll:

Posted: 20 May 2007, 21:48
by taylor
agree totally s**t

Posted: 20 May 2007, 21:54
by scotty
For me, they peaked at The Reptile House, dropped a bit for First & Last & Always, dropped a wee bit again for Floodland and have nose dived at terminal velocity right 'till now :|, it's all opinions though and everybody's is a valid as everybody elses :wink:

Posted: 20 May 2007, 22:28
by more-sedatives-pls
Whomever says the quality of their live shows has gone up over the years, is blatantly lying. And don't even try to convince me that you actually listen to 'under the gun'.

But (Seymour): The occasional flash still comes through - eg ribbons, VT, C&B.

It just takes more work than it used to.

Posted: 20 May 2007, 22:39
by robertzombie
IMO the 90/91/92/93/97/98 shows were top notch (although I only have bootlegs to go by). And Under The Gun is a great track :).

Posted: 20 May 2007, 22:45
by biggy
I'd guess that most (not all, I never said all before you start) people who love them now didn't get to see them in the early days.

When they first appeared on the post punk/pre goth scene they really were something different. They were trashy rock n roll but with a thumping rythm. I've seen them maybe 150 times & the gigs around 83 have never been beaten. They were stunning until they got Waynee, then they lost a bit of their oomph. They were still good with him but not quite as good.
First and last and always couldn't match alice, floorshow, anaconda, temple of love, heartland, body electric etc

After the break, Floodland was quite a depature and it took me some time to get into it. It was a good album and something of a goth classic.

The anniversary gigs were good, not brilliant but good.
Vision thing wasn't the worst album ever but it was a pretty lazy one. Throwing a few riffs together & growing your hair doesn't make a memorable album.

On to the more recent line ups. The newer unrecorded songs are mostly pretty dull. The newer versions of the old stuff have ripped out everything that was good about the songs in the first place. F&LAA was memorable for the widdly widdly guitar yet now it's just simplified into chords.
The vocals are mainly just screams and incoherent mumbling.

The last time I saw them was rock city & they were absolutely dreadful. In fact the last few times I've seen them they've been rubbish.

If he stopped pissing about and put a proper band together he might stop the fans steadily drifting away.

Re: have the sisters turned s**t

Posted: 20 May 2007, 22:45
by eldorado69
keith's dad wrote:i'm i the only one that thinks the sisters are now s**t
I think you'm is !!! What a terrible thing to say. Keith should be ashamed of you.

Posted: 20 May 2007, 22:52
by 6FeetOver
Hehe - you're pretty funny there, eldo... :wink:

Posted: 20 May 2007, 23:30
by pikkrong
biggy wrote:
First and last and always couldn't match alice, floorshow, anaconda, temple of love, heartland, body electric etc
I'm agree.
And not agree with the first post. (Which is, of course, only my personal opinion.) I like Floodland much more than FALAA (which isn't bad). And I like their post-albums era songs.

Posted: 20 May 2007, 23:38
by Planet Dave
A great many songs written by The Sisters, throughtout their twentysix-odd years, are absolutely bang-on, musically, lyrically, whatever. Some aren't, hey ho.

Live, it seems to be going down the pan somewhat. How much of that is/was due to an overlong tour and/or rather iffy lead guitar remains to be seen. Bring on the full-on techno rave years!

Have The Sisters turned s**t? Nope. That bloody hippity hoppity garagey nonsense my son listens to - that's s**t.

Posted: 20 May 2007, 23:42
by eldorado69
SINsister wrote:Hehe - you're pretty funny there, eldo... :wink:

Thank you..............
Well, if he is going to make a statement like that he could at least check that he says it correctly.

Posted: 20 May 2007, 23:45
by 6FeetOver
eldorado69 wrote:Thank you..............
Well, if he is going to make a statement like that he could at least check that he says it correctly.
Hey, I'm Princess Pedant, and even *I* leave that stuff alone, man. No one needs that level of OCD here, hahaha! :P :wink:

Actually, it kind of made his statement funnier.

Posted: 20 May 2007, 23:59
by eldorado69
[quote="SINsister"]Hey, I'm Princess Pedant, and even *I* leave that stuff alone, man. No one needs that level of OCD here, hahaha! :P :wink: quote]

? You've lost me, sorry. OCD? pédant = pedantess, surely

Posted: 21 May 2007, 00:03
by 6FeetOver
OCD = obsessive-compulsive disorder

Pedant:
2 a : one who makes a show of knowledge b : one who is unimaginative or who unduly emphasizes minutiae in the presentation or use of knowledge c : a formalist or precisionist in teaching

*points to self*

:wink:

Posted: 21 May 2007, 00:08
by Maisey
OCD = Obsessive compulsive order

Pedant = A pedantic person. Women are still people (last time I checked) and therefore can still be pedants :wink:

Posted: 21 May 2007, 00:09
by Maisey
You got there first!