Heartland

i don't think much of Bauhaus nor Nick Cave, either. Both are commercial whores. David Tibet didn't have anything positive to say about werking with mr. Cave.

Oh come on, get off Nick Cave, he's not THAT bad, I really like some of his songs sometimes.
Wouldn't travel hundreds of kilometres to see him, though.

Like the duet with Kylie?

But to put it into perspective, even Mötley Crüe has some fun songs but i still wouldn't think much of them...nor would i go through much trouble to hear them. It's just aesthetics that people in general like about Nick Cave...hey i like pseudo-dark music and think black's cool, and Nick Cave caters to me on a silver-platter! (No offense meant, and it certaily doesn't apply to someone who just likes a few songs)

Who says that about Cave? The description you give is in fact more about The Sisters

I think Cave's more into pseudoblues/soul lately and people put him in line with Cash and Waits (up to you if that's correct).

I lost my interest after Murder Ballads (and in fact after Bargeld quit), which is a 75% fine album, including the Kylie song, yes.

What's wrong with commercial succes? Good music stands for good music, and if the next station is succes: great.

Must I dig Crass just because that neo-communist frontman walks around naked on his farm and eats his own grown beans? Must i Love David Tibet just because no-one gives a f**k if he put together his personal festival at the Roadburn Festival?

(That is, if he would've written just one nice song, no problem.)

Dude, itnAklipse, you remember me of the sad looking vegan pale faced punk boy with his Dead Kennedys shirt on who refused to continue dancing when Billy Idol came along.

he must to sell 1000 cd max to enough "artistic" and "true".
and sisters are true, after selling over 100 000 of one single in one country

You know nothing at all about me, and i categorically disagree with you.

i actually have anything against commercial success, Guns n' Roses did it successfully in my eyes, as did the Sisters.

And i absolutely hate a pretentious band like Grateful Dead. They are the industry's reply to the Doors and that's exactly why they are a huge commercial success with sheetloads of idiotic fans.

You see, when a real band comes along, like the Doors, or Guns n' Roses, the industry replies to it with their own controllable version consisting generally of a bunch of assorted assholes, such as a loser like Kurt Cobain. To topple down Gn'R because they were uncontrollable, and Axl still is, they created Nirvana, etc.
On the other hand it's true that some real bands became hugely successfull without being uncontrollable, i think Led Zeppelin is one of those, but as much as i like their music and Bobby's singing, i must say there's little point to their music, which is exactly why they are controllable.

There's your lesson for the day. Don't look to me for continuing this discussion, it's impossible to argue with a million idiots who have no idea of what i'm talking about to begin with, and whose primary interest is in bashing whatever i might say.

PS: One thing's true, though...i absolutely refuse to dance to a phenomena that's created for the purpose of selling it to me, or to an inferior phenomena that's given to me so that i wouldn't notice the real thing. Sorry. i love the world way too much to accept some artificial conconction created to estrange me from it. Ultimately it all comes down to control.

itnAklipse wrote:Like the duet with Kylie?

Oh yes, her in particular, she's got such a beautiful voice and such potential that sadly gets wasted so often.
Why oh why doesn't she do some backing vocals on Crash And Burn on the New Sisters Album. Von toying with a cardboard image of her on stage is just not enough, if you know what I mean.
Oh, and - much as I think you're mad (pot calling kettle), I must admit that I agree with the G'n'R / Nirvana comparison.

And - this

itnAklipse wrote: One thing's true, though...i absolutely refuse to dance to a phenomena that's created for the purpose of selling it to me, or to an inferior phenomena that's given to me so that i wouldn't notice the real thing. Sorry.

is very well said, too.
But what does it have to do with that Sisters gig in Portugal, huh?

i'm mad? Coming from you i almost take that seriously.

But yeah, i agree Kylie is a great singer and i actually like a few of her songs. Just commercial and soulless as f**k. Complete sellout from the getgo.

On the other hand, isn't it kinda understandable Von toys with a cardboard image of her rather than the real version?

itnAklipse wrote:i'm mad?

Yes you are, in my world "mad" does not necessarily carry a derogative meaning, though.

On the other hand, isn't it kinda understandable Von toys with a cardboard image of her rather than the real version?

Nope.

get a room you two, and of the padded variety!

kylie is ace, only bettered by 'girls aloud' who are unparalleled genius FACT!

itnAklipse wrote:And i absolutely hate a pretentious band like Grateful Dead. They are the industry's reply to the Doors and that's exactly why they are a huge commercial success with sheetloads of idiotic fans.

I am no fan of the Dreadful Grate, but I really had to reply to this.
Just how old are you Dei?
It is very obvious that modern musical history isn't even on your scope from that totally uninformed riposte.

May I suggest that you go someplace else where your intelligence would be more suited?

Thanks.

Kylie is nothing but a boys dream come true: blonde, cute, easy to handle. Her voice is as squeeky (sp?) as a mouse's and there's neither heart nor soul in her songs. She's just Madonna for the undemanding. Now Madonna is something different altogether. Although I loathed her for decades, I have to give her credits for her parodies of every single female cliché ever invented. She sure as hell is hard to handle, at least some of her songs have a sophisticated touch, and after 30 years in the business she has even developped a halfway decent voice. Or she knows how to improve it technically. Kylie still squeeks (sp?)...

Jimbo: Once again i go against my words and try to explain (all in vain, i know).

What don't i know of modern musical history that my statement regarding GD would be so erronous (no idea how to spell that, erhm)? i know they were formed around the same time as the Doors but that's beside the point. They became the industry's favourite, without the least bit of danger Morrison posed to status quo, with his personal life and with his calls for people to "wake up!" from tv- and fluoride-induced slumber. GD is safe and posed as a rebellious band (whether it was like that from inception or they just sold themselves i have no idea, i'd wager for the first, just by looking at the people who formed it).

i would also say that the Cure is an industry band as opposed to the Sisters and the reason the Cure is much better known and much more popular is because of industry propaganda.

Why is name-calling prohibited but statements such as yours aren't? That's called hypocrisy in my book, but i've never seen an internet forum that wasn't drowning in it anyway - not that mainstream real life social code doesn't wholeheartedly encourage it also. There's few places my intelligence is "better suited" than here because most places are also inhabited by people like you, so this place is just as well when i need it. i think there's something about the very inception of internet forums that makes them nests for people like you.

Eva: That's a surprising angle Don't know what to say to _that_. All i know of her is that she's sometimes been nice to look at...

i thought that the Cure are more popular just because they're doing something, even s**t, albums big tourne and etc..

itnAklipse wrote: Eva: That's a surprising angle Don't know what to say to _that_. All i know of her is that she's sometimes been nice to look at...

Well, you're a boy (ok, man), too... But I'll forgive you...

Bartek wrote:i thought that the Cure are more popular just because they're doing something, even s**t, albums big tourne and etc..

So true.

dinky daisy wrote:
I think Cave's more into pseudoblues/soul lately and people put him in line with Cash and Waits (up to you if that's correct).

As far as I'm concerned, yes, Nick Cave falls squarely into the Tom Waits/Johnny Cash camp of dark-themed singer-songwriters. He certainly gets plenty of critical respect and isn't dismissed as being shallow and image-centric. Of course, I'm also an American, so the perception of Nick Cave might be different here than in Europe; I have no idea how he's thought of there.

For what it's worth, I'm a fan of all three of the aforementioned, Waits especially. I think he's an absolutely fantastic songwriter.

Yeah, but who determines who is counted among the great or not? Who determines who gets critical success?

i don't rate him anywhere close to Cash. i couldn't give a flying f**k of how Cave is generally rated in Europe. i rate Cave somewhere along with Nine Inch Nails (the category could be named 'gutter bollox') - which once again doesn't stop me from "liking" one or two songs of NIN.

Much better to think things for yourself than to let other people decide for you who is counted among the great or not.

To quote the great Mikhail Moiseevich Botvinnik: "i don't give a damn about what the majority thinks, i can think with my own brains."

Whatever.

Oh oh oh. itnAklipse, my darling, let me put your in fact-i-sell-carpets-but-do-roleplaying-and-read-Herman-Hesse-and-play-Tarot-to-pretend-my-spiritual-agenda head between my breasts. It's time Daisy calms you down.

I Even thought that you would dislike Cash for his name.

The Ring of Fire was a huge hitsingle, Cash did an album with covers (Depeche Mode! Whoo! I bet it's forbidden!), remember A Christmas with Johnny Cash, a movie...

So tell me, is Cash a commercial whore?

Or the fact that Lemmy wrote a handfull of Meatloaf songs, does it make him a whore? Or just a bloke who has to deal with the rock 'n' roll business?

What's the deal? I judge someone for his integrity, not his wallet. What politburo did you join?

I don't see the clue of this 'commercial whore'-fingerpointing.

By the way, i prefer a commercial whore rather than a pseudo-intellectual who's dropping lines from a Russian Chess player. Where do you get it from? Quotesonline.com?

Oh oh oh. You're as cheap as a Tesco's beer can, but that one has better content. (Hmm, bad oneliner, but at least my own).

Back to business: Mares Vivas Review! Has the mood changed yet?

after Belgium for sure

itnAklipse wrote:Yeah, but who determines who is counted among the great or not? Who determines who gets critical success?

You hit an interesting spot here, Dei...
My answer is:
a) Labels/record companies - there are only few to trust.
b) The journalists who review new records - I can only speak for Switzerland, but most of them are frustrated wanna-be musicians who will disrespect anything that doesn't suit their pseudo-intellectual demands. I maintain that most journalists here who review records or books harbour a deep envy and hate for the artists they critizise, because the latter don't have to work for newspapers to earn their living.
c) the audience, the general public. Remember that in 1990, when Vision Thing came out, literally everybody bought the album or at least had it on tape. People you would never have guessed listened to The Sisters. In my opinion the same happened to the Cure, only that they managed to stay on the bill because they offer a new album every now and then. When I went to see them twice recently I kept wondering though how all these civilians can survive "100 Years" or "Seventeen Seconds" when it's "Friday I'm In Love" that made them start liking the band. But I know, I'm an arrogant twit.

itnAklipse wrote:To quote the great Mikhail Moiseevich Botvinnik: "i don't give a damn about what the majority thinks, i can think with my own brains."

The question is: Do I have a choice? Or rather: _What_ choice do I get?
When I was a teenager I listened a lot to my then favourite radio station, cause that's where they played all the good (punk and post punk) music. Like "John Peel for the Swiss" it was... 5 years later it all got commercialized and now they only offer mainstream crap of any decade.
Where can I find out about (new) music I might like? A friend showed me 1 (!) promising profile on MySpace: "Post Punk" it's called. That's not much for an allegedly information-overkilled western world...

As for Nick Cave, Tom Waits, Johnny Cash, Leonard Cohen and the like: Regardless of whether one likes them or not, they deserve credits for rather sinister lyrics, and a dark humour. Remember that Nick Cave once was in the "Birthday Party". I agree with the person who said he/she lost interest when Bargeld left the Bad Seeds. It's the same for me. But the fact that Nick Cave and the other 3 gained the general civilian approval at some point and keep it for me can be explained. You can enjoy the sinister aspects, but you can also happily ignore them. In the latter case it's just four soft and charming male voices in your living room while the fire slowly burns down and you have your glass of wine. No need to change the world, no need to think.

- Oh, yes, hate me for the amount of words in this post, but you people got me started...

NIN: First, I think that similar to Marilyn Manson we'd have to be us-americans to fully understand what they're about. Second, I think that this is the music of the next generation after mine, the people who are at least 10 years younger than me. So the fact that I might not like them doesn't necessarily mean they're crap. I do like Trent Reznor though. I respect him because I think he's an intelligent musician and more than a good businessman. But my favourite record featuring him is a bootleg with sessions of him with Peter Murphy, where they cover Bauhaus, Joy Division and the like...

itnAklipse wrote:the category could be named 'gutter bollox'

I'll buy 20!

radiojamaica wrote:In an interview from the 'old' days Eldritch was asked about Bauhaus and bands like that. If my memory serves me correct, there was no postive response to that

That's right! And I also remember Andrew said that he hates to be compared to Bauhaus or something of the kind.

And... sorry it's off topic and not my concern, but - here's a couple of words about Madonna and Kylie. I'm a girl, but Kylie is much more pleasant to look at for me too, because Madonna is just too... hm... vulgar.

BTW, thanks, vicus, for finding that "Peter Murphy - Cuts You Up" video, it's a real treasure ! I mean the song is crap IMHO (sorry if I hurt someone's feelings ), but THOSE TWO MOMENTS!!!

P.S. I love Nine Inch Nails and Nirvana, by the way...

itnAklipse wrote:Jimbo: Once again i go against my words and try to explain (all in vain, i know).

do some research before spouting your inflammatory comments Die (*sic)
your point of view is far from common knowledge or expertise

I've wasted far too much time on an uninformed man from another country who no, I do not know, nor would I care to

you are offensive, over opinionated and unread

there is no point in me laying out a rational fact based argument for you because you will simply dismiss it - in your mind, your way is the right way

@ JB:
well said.. i bet he can say the same nonsence in lesser words aswell, just by saying pipi kaka poopoo, which will be more of his intelectual level aswell..