Muse - Over-rated and unsuitable to play at Wembley Stadium

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fwoy said:
...is it really worth arguing?
Click to expand...
Loved your whole post bro, but this was the bit that stuck out.

When i jumped on late last night/early this morning after getting home from a gig and saw this thread i knew straight away who it really was who started it and kinda couldnt help myself.

But then i thought how many times can you help one dude along in the process of making a complete f*ck knuckle of himself before it stops being fun?

I can perfectly understand why some people might not get the Muse thing. Their tunes wont resonate with everyone, and i guess some people dont like to be challenged or made to think a bit deeper than those magic 3 chords, completely inane lyrics and extremely average musical ability that Noel and the boys have made their living from.

But i wont question Oasis' stadium worthiness, as any band who means that much to so many people obviously has a bit going for them and deserves their time in the sun.

But to even consider questioning the musicianship and /or live performance of a band featuring players the caliber of the 3 boys in Muse, regardless of whether you dig their songwriting ability or not, is simply making an ignorant arse of yourself.

I have absolutely no doubt what so ever that if you ran the same notion past Noel or whoever is on the Oasis payroll of musicians these days (particularly their rhythm section), they would have no problem agreeing that Muse are all f*cking incredible players who put on one of the best live shows going around, especially in larger venues. They headlined the Pyramid Stage at 04 Glastonbury for f*cks sake!!

But anyone with a reasonably functioning pair of eyes and ears and even semi-average intelligence could acknowledge that.
 
Andy Bell said:
As for Carlos, mate, i remember in another thread you basically saying that Keith Moon was an ordinary drummer.

Sorry sunshine, but as soon as that was typed I have lost a lot respect for you matey.

Mate, you don't rate Keith Moon, you say Muse is ahead of U2 and Oasis in ALL RESPECTS, you really are not the sharpest tool in the shed mate.
Click to expand...
But i really must reply to this.

LtD, i want YOUR opinion (not that of Noel or Zack) as to why you think Keith Moon was a great drummer.

Try to avoid blanket statements and try to put a bit of thought into it.
 
Carlos said:
In just about every facet of what makes a band great, Muse comprehensively sh*t on Oasis, U2 and any other current UK band who you think could fill a stadium from such a great height that the poo would have ice on it by the time it landed on the posers.
Click to expand...

U2 a UK band?

Muse sh*t on U2?

Wow, you just lost a lot of credibility Carlos.

Muse are OK, but to compare them to U2 (after calling U2 a UK band) is simply amateur.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

just maybe said:
U2 a UK band?

Muse sh*t on U2?

Wow, you just lost a lot of credibility Carlos.

Muse are OK, but to compare them to U2 (after calling U2 a UK band) is simply amateur.
Click to expand...

Here's the thing...when people have nothing to argue about, they attack pointless grammatical errors, and in this case geographical errors. This thread is not meant to be politically based on where exactly constitutes UK, but for arguements sake, when you type in United Kingdom into google images, this is what you get...

united_kingdom.gif


So in this regard, Carlos has made a mistake in generalising Ireland as UK, when only a portion of Ireland is. Pat yourself on the back buddy, you won that war. :rolleyes:

As for musicianship...any man who can look himself in the mirror realises U2's music took a back seat after Achtung Baby...they are now a recorded message about ending poverty...good luck to them. People will always buy tickets to their shows, because they know they will sing the old songs everyone loves.

If they started a tour and stated that the only songs would come off the latest album (not the best of either ;)) and would be interlaced with 1/2 hour speeches on poverty, there would still be a large component of sheep that would go, but then there may be some who would open their eyes and stay away.

U2 were a great band in the 80s and early 90s...U2 are jaded now...my view, my opinion. It's like picking an Australian Cricket Team...Steve Waugh was a great captain...would not be now though...his best is behind him. Let's enjoy Ponting in his prime...and Muse are Ponting :cool:.
 
Carlos could profess musical interest in Kevin Federline's hip-hop and still have more cred that anyone on this board!

I have seen U2 & Muse live. U2 puts on a monster show and really know how to tickle the emotional strings of the audience at exactly the right times. And musically they're tight as a fishes.

But from a straight up playing point of view, Muse enter my calculations for best live act I've ever seen (they'd be top 3). U2 are good, but not head-shakingly brilliant.

If we're talking massive stadium shows, then the Voodoo Lounge tour pumps them all. It was fecken huge! But musically, the Stones have always been hit and miss.

I haven't seen Oasis live other than on TV. I haven't seen anything which would indicate that they are a good live band, other than the fact that they have some catchy, emotive hooks which when drunk, may appeal to the masses. Coldplay rely on this too.

Last night I saw a bit of the Knebworth gig by Oasis in the mid-90's and they were shocking. If Liam was sober, maybe he'd have half a chance at putting in a half decent vocal performance, but that's a massive if!
 
It's perfectly acceptable to utilise British Isles, but I even got caned in Eire for using that term.

They like to reitterate their independence from Britain at all costs, a bit like we wish South Australia wasn't part of us! :D
 
From what I can gather from Muse fans that I know IRL they are a bit like Radiohead, those who love them think they are the greatest band to ever been on the face of the earth, those who hate them think they are completely ********house and don't understand why everyone loves them.
 
Great movie last night, Andy Bell (Ltd) was right saying that Oasis don't get much respect in this country and that they were huge in the UK. I've seen Oasis live and it was the best act I've ever seen even though they werent at there prime. Oasis>>>>Muse
 
Fwoy said:
U2 were a great band in the 80s and early 90s...U2 are jaded now...my view, my opinion. It's like picking an Australian Cricket Team...Steve Waugh was a great captain...would not be now though...his best is behind him. Let's enjoy Ponting in his prime...and Muse are Ponting :cool:.
Click to expand...

Hahah, U2 is so far out of Muse's league, in any era, it's not funny.

U2's music, even current era, will remain for a long time more than Muse's.

I like Muse, but let's not pretend they are anything close to U2. Or that they can match them in the live stakes.

Stadium rock aside, go and look at some of U2's performances from the 80s, where they built their reputation as a live act. Blows anything Muse have ever done well away, and a good reason they are rated as one of the great live acts. Go and watch Red Rocks.
 
just maybe said:
Hahah, U2 is so far out of Muse's league, in any era, it's not funny.

U2's music, even current era, will remain for a long time more than Muse's.

I like Muse, but let's not pretend they are anything close to U2. Or that they can match them in the live stakes.

Stadium rock aside, go and look at some of U2's performances from the 80s, where they built their reputation as a live act. Blows anything Muse have ever done well away, and a good reason they are rated as one of the great live acts. Go and watch Red Rocks.
Click to expand...

Sickening!
 
Sgt.Pepper said:
Great movie last night, Andy Bell (Ltd) was right saying that Oasis don't get much respect in this country and that they were huge in the UK. I've seen Oasis live and it was the best act I've ever seen even though they werent at there prime. Oasis>>>>Muse
Click to expand...
I watched that show last night, and the snippets they showed of that performance at Knebworth was nothing short of terrible. Liam couldn't hold a note; true he was of his face, but if that's the best 'stadium' concert they can do, they don't deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence as Muse.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Well Muse are obviously no where near as great as U2 in any sense, but when it comes to performing live they would certainly bridge the gap a little bit. I think at this point in time they're the two best live bands in the world. And as Muse are English, it's fitting they get the gig.

Of course, they're both a little behind the two greatest ever live bands to come out of the UK: The Who and Queen.

Just imagine either of those two bands performing at the new Wembley in their peaks!!
 
just maybe said:
U2 a UK band?
Click to expand...
As Fwoy pointed out (cheers by the way bro), i lumped the whole of Ireland amongst the United Kingdom. Mistake.
just maybe said:
Muse sh*t on U2?

Wow, you just lost a lot of credibility Carlos.

Muse are OK, but to compare them to U2 (after calling U2 a UK band) is simply amateur.
Click to expand...
Ok champ, lets try to make this simple to understand.

Firstly, the thread was mainly questioning the stadium worthiness of Muse and specifically (and completely hilariously) casting doubts over their rhythm section, and even more laughably comparing them to the rhythm sections of Oasis, U2 and any other stadium band who LtD thinks to be suitable to headline Wembley etc.

Further, he also cast doubts on Muse's live sound by virtue of the fact they're a 3 piece (despite the fact they have a touring keys player on stage with them), which i found pretty funny considering U2 are basically a 3 piece band with a front man (i.e bass, drums, guitar, voice, as well as a sh*t load of backing tracks).

Now this has nothing to do with the fact i personally find U2's music as interesting as uncooked rice. You and plenty of people obviously dig them and i'm not gonna rag on you for that. IN MY OPINION i find Muse's ability to craft a song infinitely more interesting than U2's. But this aint about that.

This is about comparing the bands' abilities as live players and their suitability to a big venue.

Now, i've said it already, but i'll repeat: there is no doubt that Oasis and U2 are big stage bands, although from the amount of stuff i've read, heard and seen, Oasis are incredibly inconsistent. U2's ability to play a stadium cannot be doubted though.

But you are trying to contend that Muse cannot stack up to U2.

So lets get into specifics shall we?

Matt Bellamy as a vocalist vs Bono as a vocalist:
When in form, i think Bono is reasonably ok vocalis and there are some U2 songs with great vocal parts, but they're parts that anyone with a reasonable vocal technique could nail and do much better. He has massive limitations, the gap between his best and worst is ridiculous and i've heard some howler moments where he hasnt gotten near the pitch of the song he is attempting, and other moments where his voice is simply packing it in and even more embarrassingly has actually lost his spot in a tune and come in at wrong moments.

He couldnt dream of taking his voice the places Matt Bellamy, either technically or creatively. I've been to/heard/watched a stack of Muse live performances. I've never heard Bellamy be anything less than superb, and thats not bias, thats fact. He is an absolute professional and effortlessly so much more a pure vocalist than Bono (and just about anyone else on the planet) that its embarrassing to even compare them.

Edge vs Matt Bellamy as a guitarist:
The Edge has a hugely distinctive sound which IMO makes U2 what they are just as much as what Bono brings to that table. But while he has a beautiful feel, a great meter and is a consistent live performer, when you take away the delay drenched sound and all the other effects, his playing is extremely basic and he is a hugely limited guitarist. He does however contribute some solid backing vocals , although many of his parts are provided via a sequenced backing track.

Matt Bellamy is in another universe compared to him as a musician and a performer. Technically, creatively, conceptually he makes Edge look like Susanna Hoffs and since we're also talking about their ability to fill a big stage, he also kills him as a live performer. Bellamy is a mental case on stage. Its not even a contest, and thats before we factor in Bellamy's ability as a pianist, especially live...

Adam Clayton vs Chris Wolstenholme
This was where LtD's original assertion about rhythm sections became hilariously farcical. Adam Clayton is the perfect bass player for U2. No doubt. But to even try to contend that he is a good bass player, let alone anywhere near Chris is verging on being mentally unhinged. Chris' ability as a vocalist has also come along massively, although again, some of his parts are sequenced via backing track.

Larry Mullen Jnr vs Dom Howard
And this is where it really gets embarrassing.

Back in the day, Larry was a pretty solid drummer who had some nice ideas, and throughout his career he's managed to have a distinctive drum sound, but thats as much to do with their sound engineers and drum techs as it is to do with him.

Now this aint about what they do on their recordings (although FWIW its been a very long time since i've heard anything resembling an exciting or interesting drum part from him) But as a live performer, while he is solid and reliable, he has lost all the energy and whatever little flare he did have back when U2 made interesting music. But despite the fact that for the last 10 or so years he has often looked on the verge of falling asleep when playing live, he still somehow manages to make all his parts look alot harder than they are, despite the fact that all his parts are really basic. Thats not a sign of a great drummer.

You dont need to have any idea about drumming to acknowledge that Dom from Muse is an absolute jet of a live performer and has an absolute mutherf*cker of a live sound. But being a drummer and being obsessed with it all, i can also point out how technically accomplished he has become and that some of his parts require way above average skill level. There are some finer points to his playing that put him in the absolute top bracket of the more mainstream dudes around today and in far away categories that the Larry Mullens of this world have never/will never occupy.

The only thing U2 have over Muse as a live band is their world wide popularity, the sheer volume of their back catalogue to choose from to play live (many of which i doubt they'd be able to pull off anymore anyway) and the size of the budget they have to inject into their live production.

Ask yourself this: name one tune from U2's back catalogue that Muse couldnt pull of absolutely faithfully and convincingly (let alone take to another stratosphere) live? I didnt say write (as this aint about songwriting), i simply said "play".

Now name for me just 5 Muse tunes that U2 (or Oasis * giggles *) could play even remotely convincingly live?
 
Carlos said:
bla, bla, bla
Click to expand...

You really are taking this seriously. U2 and Oasis are far better than Muse both live and on the CD. I don't mind Muse but they are very over-rated and you can still post 100 words in a post but not convince me. U2>>Oasis>>>>>>>Muse
 
Sgt.Pepper said:
You really are taking this seriously. U2 and Oasis are far better than Muse both live and on the CD. I don't mind Muse but they are very over-rated and you can still post 100 words in a post but not convince me. U2>>Oasis>>>>>>>Muse
Click to expand...
That's OK, because you're also the original poster with yet another name. And you're wrong.
 
just maybe said:
Hahah, U2 is so far out of Muse's league, in any era, it's not funny.

U2's music, even current era, will remain for a long time more than Muse's.

I like Muse, but let's not pretend they are anything close to U2. Or that they can match them in the live stakes.

Stadium rock aside, go and look at some of U2's performances from the 80s, where they built their reputation as a live act. Blows anything Muse have ever done well away, and a good reason they are rated as one of the great live acts. Go and watch Red Rocks.
Click to expand...

just maybe...you are wrong ;)

...and enjoy your show where only the latest album is the setlist. :D
 
I used to really like U2, but they've lost it now, that shocker of a song with Green Day just caps it. Give me 80s U2 and I'm happy. As for Oasis, too hit and miss, so I'll choose Muse anyday.
 
Carlos said:
As Fwoy pointed out (cheers by the way bro), i lumped the whole of Ireland amongst the United Kingdom. Mistake.

Ok champ, lets try to make this simple to understand.

Firstly, the thread was mainly questioning the stadium worthiness of Muse and specifically (and completely hilariously) casting doubts over their rhythm section, and even more laughably comparing them to the rhythm sections of Oasis, U2 and any other stadium band who LtD thinks to be suitable to headline Wembley etc.

Further, he also cast doubts on Muse's live sound by virtue of the fact they're a 3 piece (despite the fact they have a touring keys player on stage with them), which i found pretty funny considering U2 are basically a 3 piece band with a front man (i.e bass, drums, guitar, voice, as well as a sh*t load of backing tracks).

Now this has nothing to do with the fact i personally find U2's music as interesting as uncooked rice. You and plenty of people obviously dig them and i'm not gonna rag on you for that. IN MY OPINION i find Muse's ability to craft a song infinitely more interesting than U2's. But this aint about that.

This is about comparing the bands' abilities as live players and their suitability to a big venue.

Now, i've said it already, but i'll repeat: there is no doubt that Oasis and U2 are big stage bands, although from the amount of stuff i've read, heard and seen, Oasis are incredibly inconsistent. U2's ability to play a stadium cannot be doubted though.

But you are trying to contend that Muse cannot stack up to U2.

So lets get into specifics shall we?

Matt Bellamy as a vocalist vs Bono as a vocalist:
When in form, i think Bono is reasonably ok vocalis and there are some U2 songs with great vocal parts, but they're parts that anyone with a reasonable vocal technique could nail and do much better. He has massive limitations, the gap between his best and worst is ridiculous and i've heard some howler moments where he hasnt gotten near the pitch of the song he is attempting, and other moments where his voice is simply packing it in and even more embarrassingly has actually lost his spot in a tune and come in at wrong moments.

He couldnt dream of taking his voice the places Matt Bellamy, either technically or creatively. I've been to/heard/watched a stack of Muse live performances. I've never heard Bellamy be anything less than superb, and thats not bias, thats fact. He is an absolute professional and effortlessly so much more a pure vocalist than Bono (and just about anyone else on the planet) that its embarrassing to even compare them.

Edge vs Matt Bellamy as a guitarist:
The Edge has a hugely distinctive sound which IMO makes U2 what they are just as much as what Bono brings to that table. But while he has a beautiful feel, a great meter and is a consistent live performer, when you take away the delay drenched sound and all the other effects, his playing is extremely basic and he is a hugely limited guitarist. He does however contribute some solid backing vocals , although many of his parts are provided via a sequenced backing track.

Matt Bellamy is in another universe compared to him as a musician and a performer. Technically, creatively, conceptually he makes Edge look like Susanna Hoffs and since we're also talking about their ability to fill a big stage, he also kills him as a live performer. Bellamy is a mental case on stage. Its not even a contest, and thats before we factor in Bellamy's ability as a pianist, especially live...

Adam Clayton vs Chris Wolstenholme
This was where LtD's original assertion about rhythm sections became hilariously farcical. Adam Clayton is the perfect bass player for U2. No doubt. But to even try to contend that he is a good bass player, let alone anywhere near Chris is verging on being mentally unhinged. Chris' ability as a vocalist has also come along massively, although again, some of his parts are sequenced via backing track.

Larry Mullen Jnr vs Dom Howard
And this is where it really gets embarrassing.

Back in the day, Larry was a pretty solid drummer who had some nice ideas, and throughout his career he's managed to have a distinctive drum sound, but thats as much to do with their sound engineers and drum techs as it is to do with him.

Now this aint about what they do on their recordings (although FWIW its been a very long time since i've heard anything resembling an exciting or interesting drum part from him) But as a live performer, while he is solid and reliable, he has lost all the energy and whatever little flare he did have back when U2 made interesting music. But despite the fact that for the last 10 or so years he has often looked on the verge of falling asleep when playing live, he still somehow manages to make all his parts look alot harder than they are, despite the fact that all his parts are really basic. Thats not a sign of a great drummer.

You dont need to have any idea about drumming to acknowledge that Dom from Muse is an absolute jet of a live performer and has an absolute mutherf*cker of a live sound. But being a drummer and being obsessed with it all, i can also point out how technically accomplished he has become and that some of his parts require way above average skill level. There are some finer points to his playing that put him in the absolute top bracket of the more mainstream dudes around today and in far away categories that the Larry Mullens of this world have never/will never occupy.

The only thing U2 have over Muse as a live band is their world wide popularity, the sheer volume of their back catalogue to choose from to play live (many of which i doubt they'd be able to pull off anymore anyway) and the size of the budget they have to inject into their live production.

Ask yourself this: name one tune from U2's back catalogue that Muse couldnt pull of absolutely faithfully and convincingly (let alone take to another stratosphere) live? I didnt say write (as this aint about songwriting), i simply said "play".

Now name for me just 5 Muse tunes that U2 (or Oasis * giggles *) could play even remotely convincingly live?
Click to expand...
Brilliantly said
 
Sgt.Pepper said:
You really are taking this seriously. U2 and Oasis are far better than Muse both live and on the CD. I don't mind Muse but they are very over-rated and you can still post 100 words in a post but not convince me. U2>>Oasis>>>>>>>Muse
Click to expand...
Only 100 words their was much more then that. Your clearly deaf, blind and dumb, as Carlos said, their isnt really anything U2 or Oasis could do that Muse couldn't, where as their is plenty that Muse do that neither bands could get close to doing good, they just as good musicians, thats pretty much a fact to anybody with half an idea about music.
 
Praising Oasis and sh1tcanning Muse in the same thread whilst Carlos is minging off his head on acid is just cruel. Poor bloke. And that's not even considering the brainless troll who becomes the target for his substance fuelled tirades.

Bit of thought, folks.
 
Coughlan said:
Your clearly deaf, blind and dumb, as Carlos said, their isnt really anything U2 or Oasis could do that Muse couldn't,
Click to expand...

Muse can't write songs as brilliant as Don't Look Back In Anger, Champagne Supernova and Live Forever etc. Its so ridiculously stupid to get personally stuck into people cos they like a band more than one another

I like Muse, I saw them at Festival Hall when they came out and absolutely loved it, they were awesome. But Oasis are better and I don't care if that means Im stupid :rolleyes: Oasis are better live as well, they are charasmatic, ridiculously entertaining performers and have an awesome catologue of songs that the whole crowd knows and gets into. I couldn't imagine a lot better than the whole of Wembley singing along to DLBIA. Muse put on a great show as well, and they do sound awesome, some songs live turn into absolute epics, but that doesn't make them better than Oasis. If I lived in the UK I'd love to see them both at Wembley, I think they could both pull it off

Its cool to bash Oasis these days and its cool to like Muse. Its a pity cos the people bashing Oasis probably didn't get to listen to 'Don't Believe the Truth' which was Oasis' best album since Morning Glory and one of the best albums of 06.

Oasis >> Muse >>>>>>>>U2
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Satan
Grammy winner gets arrested at Grammy
Replies
2
Views
268
Satan
Satan
Purple7x08_24
Artists with distinct and unique voices
Replies
11
Views
398
Plugger35
Plugger35
Aristotle Pickett
Beatles- Now and Then released
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
Professor Knowall
Professor Knowall
sherb
National Film and Sound Archive - Sounds of Australia
Replies
1
Views
987
Dan Moody
Dan Moody
R
What is the name of the piece of music played before the game that starts with a Heartbeat and is very orchestral
Replies
5
Views
866
CliffMcTainshaw
CliffMcTainshaw
wadistance
Spotify playlists that you love/need
Replies
0
Views
525
wadistance
wadistance
LeakyValve
Thanks Burt and Hal.
Replies
2
Views
826
LeakyValve
LeakyValve

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top