|
|
'Interesting'. Good choice of words. It's all very well parrotting the kind of snide remarks or blithe put-downs (or in some cases, just blunt insults) you'll find anywhere in the music media, safe in the knowledge that most people posting to this forum will agree with you or fail to be arsed to post to the thread. But that doesn't really make for an 'interesting' thread either, does it? This thread's a case in point. Mildly querisome initial post from Tann (Gene are conceptually similar to Keane? Really? Why?) and then the same old same old same old blah blah blah...
"I can't justify either..." (Good! Glad you posted!)
"I'd argue the main difference is that I can see how people could love Gene, whereas I reckon the sort of people who scrawl Tom Chaplin's name all over their exercise books are few and far between..." (So... what? You can see why Gene had fans, despite their pitiful sales indicating that they didn't have many, but you don't think Keane have fans, despite large sales? Or is it just that you don't think Keane have fans still within the school system? Oh, wait, this is a pithy remark, it doesn't have to make sense...)
"Gene did a faintly acceptable imitation of the Smiths. Keane do an even crapper (astonishingly) imitation of Coldplay. Spot the difference." (So, we assume that Keane's raison d'etre is to cash in on Coldplay's success, but make the assertion that they're really bad at being Coldplay. But they've achieved success! I don't understand. Is it just a really big coincidence? Oh, hang on... pithy remark. Gotcha).
"Keane are a whole other proposition [from Gene], as I understand. And not a pleasant one." (They don't sound pleasant? They sound fairly innocuous to me. Oh, wait, this is a political thing - they're not politically pleasant, like the editor of Artrocker. No? Um... They eat babies? I hadn't heard that... hang on. Is this a pithy remark again?)
The evidence of your safe, smug wit is overwhelming. I mean, we could have discussion of why we don't think Keane are a good band, and why Gene were ok, if you squinted at them in a poor light, or why Keane's music sucks, or about the tension between deriding a group's musical output for being safe and familiar when the post deriding it as such is nothing but a safe and familar viewpoint couched in safe and familiar terms... but actually, upon reflection, Tann's initial post wasn't in the nature of being a query, was it? It was... a pithy remark. About two bands whose names rhyme. Oh. Oh well.
*facepalms* And people wonder why the standard of music writing is seen to be so low... |
|
|