Discussion in 'News' started by Hybrid, Nov 16, 2013.
How do you get that from the interview?
I'm giving my 2 cents for the last time (promise ), but I don't think something has really changed. All I get from this is that Mike miss something in the rock area, hence why he seems concerned about the current state of things in this genre. And saying that he has never carred about genres is not true to begin with. Yes, he always tries to mix things up, and to not get his band pigeonholed, ectera, ectera. But he has also always spoken in terms of genres.
"We have listened to a lot of folk during Living Things recording process"
"I'm really a fan of indie/hip hop music"
"I used to listen to a lot of 90 junggle music"
So him talking about a specific genre issue is not that of a surprise. I'm sure he could have done the same with hip hop or electronic.
What's exactly the problem with being fixated with something if you really want to hear more of it?
I don't see. Would you have reacted the same way if he said he was obssessed with more more eteral/dark/psychedelic music?
Yeah I don't understand how people are conflating Linkin park not wanting to be pidgeon-holed into a single genre, and the idea that labels should NEVER be used to describe music. That's just absurd.
The bolded is a good point. Let me reconsider what I'm saying while sticking with the ice cream analogy because that was good.
Yes, chocolate ice cream existed and still exists. Can't deny that. But most of the people who make ice cream these days are blending flavors, in my opinion, much more than they ever have in the past. It's like weird bits of cookie dough and nuts and caramel in the vanilla ice cream with chocolate spots. All sorts of different and interesting combinations.
One ice cream maker in particular has, ever since he started making ice cream, made it a point to blend lots of different flavors to make interesting combinations. All throughout his ice cream making career, he has kind of shoo'd off the idea that ice cream needs to only be one flavor, and around 2010 in particular he said a lot of things regarding chocolate ice cream that probably alienated chocolate ice cream purists. He has often wondered out loud why you'd even bother trying to worry about what these weird ice cream creations are called. "Minty cookie dough walnut oreo bits vanilla chocolate swirl." "Yes, but is it "vanilla" or "chocolate" or??" He has very often disagreed with this way of thinking.
Now this same guy is going to start questioning where all the chocolate ice cream went and why it isn't chocolate-y enough for his taste? Really? He helped shift the ice cream industry into what it is today. He's going to call out other ice cream makers after he made it a point to do what they were doing, and after he himself came under fire with a lot of the same criticism? Seriously?
What other reason would Mike have to bring up Nine Inch Nails "whispering too much" when asked how he feels rock has gone soft?
It's answered in the interview. He wants more cutting edge music, not louder or "more rock enough" music.
I agree up until you start implying that ice cream flavors/music genres are somehow a binary thing. It's not.
Xero21, let me be 100% honest and straightforward here, and let me say that I think you're biased by your musical tastes. As I said, would you have reacted the same way if he said rock music lacked eteral/dark/psychedelic, instead of agressiveness?
Your ice-cream maker could genuinely miss the chocolate flavour, and thinking that it isn't present enough in all those new flavours, despite being one of the responsibles for this. Sounds hypocritical at first sight, but he might not even be conscious he is one of the responsibles.
You'd be 100% wrong. This has nothing to do with what music I like. I have been headbanging like hell to the newest Death Grips album since it came out. I am not against aggressive music.
That's fine, then just say you miss chocolate ice cream. Don't start accusing chocolate ice cream of having an "identity crisis" and calling out other people for doing exactly what you did not too long ago. It looks really bad.
I'm not sure what you mean. Did you mean the bolded part about "is it vanilla or chocolate or???" because those were just two examples. It could be "is it vanilla or chocolate or mint or oreo or???"
Fair enough, that was the risk. I just don't get your reaction. It's like your "angry" at Mike's opinion lol Well, angry is not the perfect term, but still. Nevermind I guess.
The rest of the interview is great, by the way. I am excited by how Mike described the next album as shaping up so far. It's just this random fixation he's had over the past few months that just really irks me.
Mike just has a really irritating way of talking about music. Nothing against him personally, but he has this knack for talking at length and saying almost nothing of substance. He keeps throwing around words and phrases like "cutting edge" and "innovative" like he has some sort of authority in that arena.
Ok since this has created boatloads of controversy I should state that the originally answered question was this:
"What do you think about the state of rock music? Does "rock music suck, and it's depressing"?"
Which is what made him give the response he did. I reworded the phrasing of our question a little for the article (not his answer...just the wording of the question. Mike's answer is his exact quote) but that's what he was asked originally. So hopefully that puts things in a new light.
I find it funny how every interview we've done with the band has created in controversy. Back in 2007 Joe made an incorrect claim in his interview with us that the band had muted his scratching on MTM. It created such a fuss Mike had to issue a response to Joe on the LPMB stating they never touched Joe's work and that they don't know what happened.
I don't know how familiar you are with the band, but with how you're describing them I feel it must be cursory at best.
Muse hasn't been Radiohead-esque since their Showbiz days back in the late 90s.
The Queen comparisons are largely the result of Matt's voice being similar to Freddy Mercury's, and one song (United States of Eurasia) having a huge Queen vibe.
The introduction of dubstep into ONE song, regardless of how well you feel it was implemented, pretty much supports Mike's comments about a willingness to be creative and innovative.
Ferocity? Muse has it. Assassin, Stockholm Syndrome, MK Ultra, Plug In Baby, New Born, Unnatural Selection, Liquid State, the list goes on. I've seen these guys live, they are absolutely amazing.
Innovation? Muse has become more electronic over the years and has no issues crossing over into other areas. Examples include rock symphonies like Exogenesis Symmetry, Western-themed songs like Knights of Cydonia, the influx of dubstep in Unsustainable,
Energy? Muse plays some of the most energetic and driving rock music out there.
Songwriting, sophistication and craftsmanship? Muse is a cut above most bands in this area. Topic-wise, it's not all just personal introspection. For example, just from their last album, they chastize bankers and big business in Animals, the world's reliance upon fossil fuels in Unsustainable, speak about alcohol abuse in Save Me and Liquid State. As a whole, their songs are typically complex, transition and change pace constantly and build up masterfully.
I don't know how you cannot praise their craftsmanship and musicianship, either. How many other rock musicians can do what Matt does on the piano in Butterflies and Hurricanes, or play the bridge solo in Invincible, or the main riff from Stockholm Syndrome, or simply pick up and play the bassline from Hysteria? They are an incredibly talented trio.
The best thing about Muse is they have never done the same thing twice. For example, my first listen to their newest album absolutely jarred me for how different it was. I hated it. But I stuck with it and came to love it. It was just such a huge departure that it took a while to sink in. Kudos to them for being one of the few massive bands with the balls to step outside their comfort zone.
Honestly, the only thing I care about is that Mike (and the rest of the band I assume) has a mentality of trying something different, which is something I find pretty fucking exciting. Also, congrats on the interview guys. You all deserve it more than anyone!
Great interview Derek! Some really interesting answers about their new album, and especially the "get of the computer" thing which makes me really excited for LP6, as I found LT a little to polished and digital at points, and I would love a more raw and organic record. With that said, it's still far to early to start guessing how their new album will sound, because it's almost impossible to guess, and that really excites me!
I think that's the most important message to focus on. Weither or not people agree with Mike's vision about rock, it seems like his opinion about the whole thing might neverteless motivate him to try something different and innovative. If we get a great "innovative" record at the end of it, isn't that worth it?
I mean, when I hear Chester saying in this video (6:45 min)
Or when he is quoted saying in Kerrang that:
I just can't help but think that LP6 has potential. I might not have a single clue of how the final product will eventually sound, but if it's as surprising and insane as they claim it, it will sure be interesting!
YES YES YES, I hope <3
That's what I don't get about his whole problem. I'm pretty sure Trent Reznor isn't trying to be "rock" in the first place and I don't think he'd like to be categorized either. Trent made an album with calmer vocals, so what? That's a direction he probably wanted to go in.
And sure, Mike can be disappointed in this. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But he goes on saying that "rock needs more experimenting" and then talks about artists that, to me, don't even fall under the category "rock" because they try different things.
For the record, I know that he's trying to encourage more artists to experiment and obviously, I know he wasn't dissing anyone. But the way he chose his words makes him look cocky, like he's just pointing fingers and that he'll solve this "big problem". I guess what I'm saying is that he should choose his words more wisely before talking big like this.
It's a one paragraph answer. Not even that, a half a paragraph even. How someone can ascertain anything about a person from a few sentences is beyond me. Especially when you don't hear vocal inflection but are just reading text.
It's times like this I wish Mike was a member on here so he could defend himself against some of this ridiculous crap.
lmao oh man. Yeah, I'm talking complete and utter bullshit. Sorry, I'll stop questioning him altogether.
Seriously, I don't mean any harm with what I said. I have no problems with Mike whatsoever, and I think he's a great guy, but I just think he should've chosen his words a bit more wisely because they are so easily misunderstood. Like I said, it makes him look cocky but never did I call him that.
Separate names with a comma.