UKC

I'll give them 9/10 on the crapness scale....I'll take a point off for their half decent single a while back.

In reply to wcdave:
"Just How Crap are the Arctic Monkeys?"

That's what my folks said about the Beatles*/Stones*!
*Delete as appropriate!

In reply to wcdave: There has been some info on the type of people who make such statements as you have done and that these statements are more about you than about what you are deriding.

Such statements as the Beatles are over rated etc are similar.

The vast majority of people who are knowledgebale about such things as music disagree with you. This does not mean that you are elevated on some plane above them but it does mean that you have no sense as to what is or is not decent.

Put another way you couldnt hit a barn door with a banjo when it comes to music you couldnt find both buttocks with your hands in musical terms.

You deserve Sade, Dido and Phil Collins

In reply to Fawksey: Ermmm....I just think they're shite sorry!

In reply to Fawksey:

Whoever were on ten minutes ago seemed enthusiastic but crap to me, so I turned them off. Was that them, bit like oasis?

In reply to wcdave: thats simply not good enough. It maybe a fact that to you as in beauty is the eye of the beholder they are crap but it actually says more about your ability to judge than it does about the musical prowess of the AM.

I wouldnt trust you you to buy my undies from Asda.

In reply to sutty: shouldnt ahve been I think they are on tomorrow

In reply to sutty: both albums have been well recieved.

In reply to Fawksey:

Were they on that jazz blokes programme the other week, WTF can't I remember his name? Plays piano.

If so they were quite good.

In reply to wcdave:

In the '22' household they are 10/10 on the crapness scale but that doesn't mean they are shite, perhaps I have no taste.

I'd rather listen to Nik Kershaw...........

In reply to Simon22: Jeez? Thankfully the 70's inspired me musically and then the 90's I was fortunate to totally miss the 80's most of it spent in service or in prison.

In reply to Fawksey:

Yeah, much of my childhood was spent listening to the dirge of the 1980's.

Thank god 'Madchester' and Acid House turned up in 1988.

Nik Kershaw aint bad though............

In reply to Simon22: you know youre lying to yourself.

However i have to fess up to downloading Status Quo and Suzi Quattro recently on itunes

In reply to Simon22:


'Wouldn't it be good' if he made a come back...

In reply to wcdave:
Nik Kershaw aint bad though............


'Wouldn't it be good' if he made a come back...
Or Terry Christian!
JEEZ! Move on!

In reply to wcdave:

Stop encouraging it!!!!

In reply to wcdave: Arctic?! I thought they were a firm of decorators...'The Artex Monkeys'

In reply to Fawksey:

Download 'The Riddle' and tell me I am lying.........on second thoughts probably best if you don't.

What about Frankie? F*cking awesome!

In reply to Padraig:

Yeah, but things are different now. My parents *automatically* hated the whole rock genre. However, I rate "current" bands such as British Sea Power, The Rocks, Cooper Temple Clause (RIP), Interpol, Art Brut etc etc....but I agree with wcdave that the Artic Monkeys have a high crapometer reading.

In reply to wcdave:

Mod band a la The Jam. I once promoted a gig with another mod band called Colliding Circles but CC were better than AM for sure.

In reply to Fawksey:

Do they really? As far as I can make out, the Arctic Monkeys "phenomenon" is just another case of a very medestly talented band being hyped byt the NME. All the "first band to make ot via word of mouth on the internet only" thing is itself just hype: they weren't going anywhere until NME started hypin theur web site.

In musical terms, the singer can't stay even vaguely in tune, their drummer is a "one beat wonder" and the guitar playing is extremely average. The songs are no better than those being turned out by a whole plethora of indifferently-talented bands: very little structure and unmemorable melodies. the best that can be said about them, IMO, is that they play reasonably tightly as a unit.

In reply to Fawksey:


Keep what you do in your spare time to yourself
I tend to not really like the Arctic Monkeys, they just don't push any buttons for me. As far as judging crap is concerned... I'm not a connoisseur.

Give it a rest, you're all just too old to understand.

In reply to Alasdair Fulton:

Currently watching recording of Glasto last night. AMs are one hit wonders, one trick ponies, a bit boring really. However, caught Super Furry Animals earlier. Now they are class!

In reply to Alasdair Fulton:

How do you make that out? I rate loads of contemporary bands...it's just that the Arctic Monkeys aren't one of them.

In reply to Rob Naylor: Just a wind-up, and a bad one at that!

What is it you don't like about them?

In reply to Alasdair Fulton:

Read my previous post about 6 posts up the thread.

In reply to Rob Naylor: Never really heard them live; which, oddly is usually something I use to properly gauge a band.

There's just something about some of their lyrics that connect with me; don't know why!

I'm on a total new music drive just now...who do you recommend as someone to buy?

In reply to wcdave: Arctic Monkeys - 6 or 7 out of 10 at most - a bit better than average. I think the twang are a lot better for a new band although I havent heard much by them yet.

The best new band for me is LCD Sound System who unashamedly wear their hearts on their sleeve re influences. Listening to their second album I think, thats Joy Division, or thats Talking Heads, thats The Fall, thats Human Leaugue, thats Lou Reed or Bowie (New York I love you) superb.

Klaxons are pretty good - with the fun nu rave thing - if I was a teen I would be into that. Good on CD but sadly I feel they are a bit weak live.

However none of the new bands (with exception of LCD) are worthy of kissing the feet of the mighty Iggy and the Stooges

: http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=249509