Author Topic: the killers  (Read 7977 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

modage

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 10761
  • Respect: +698
    • Floating Heads
the killers
« Reply #15 on: August 28, 2004, 03:59:00 PM »
0
they wish they were new order.
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

Thrindle

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1077
  • Respect: +3
the killers
« Reply #16 on: August 28, 2004, 11:03:25 PM »
0
You are all cynical bastards.
Classic.

meatwad

  • The Magic Flight
  • ****
  • Posts: 645
  • Respect: +1
the killers
« Reply #17 on: August 29, 2004, 12:49:22 AM »
0
i heard the band name came from some new order music video. maybe that's where they get the comparision from.

anyway, they really need to stop

Sleuth

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 3468
  • dead comic genius
  • Respect: +8
    • http://www.conologue.com
the killers
« Reply #18 on: August 29, 2004, 10:09:00 AM »
0
So that's where they came up with the name "The Killers"
I like to hug dogs

meatwad

  • The Magic Flight
  • ****
  • Posts: 645
  • Respect: +1
the killers
« Reply #19 on: August 29, 2004, 10:16:33 AM »
0
Quote from: Sleuth
So that's where they came up with the name "The Killers"


well, i guess there is a new order video from a few years back, and in the video they are making fun of these trendy hipster bands, and there is this joke band in the video, and they are called the killers. i think i actually hard one of the band members say this

godardian

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 3733
  • Respect: +6
    • Trappings
Re: the killers
« Reply #20 on: October 02, 2006, 12:10:50 PM »
0
Well, it's not surprising that there's so much Killers hate here (at least a couple years back). They're SO not indie. They have huge ambitions, which discounts them in many people's eyes. Their attitude reminds me of what made the Smiths so special so long ago: "Well, you can call us indie if you wish, but we're simply a great pop band. If you have to call anything with intelligence or wit or beauty 'indie,' so be it, but we want as many people as possible to hear our music, and anyone with a brain or heart can understand it." That's so out of step with the usual cloistered, incestuous indie disingenuousness/tentativeness, and much more like the outrageously confident stylish, hyper-modern and very intelligent glam/punk attitude of yore. The Killers belong in the Roxy Music/Pulp lineage of louche Warholian "rock" bands, not anywhere near the little-garage likes of White Stripes or The Strokes. And The Killers' "Glamorous Indie Rock and Roll" stands with Kathleen Hanna's version of "I Wish I Was Him" as an affectionate indie piss-take.

The reviews for the new album are terrible. But... I LOVE IT!!!! To me, it sounds absolutely nothing like Bon Jovi (take that, Entertainment Weekly!!) or "arena" rock. All the spin is appallingly off-base. The Bruce Springsteen thing is pretty much thematic only. I was just saying to someone that I don't really like Bruce Springsteen and I don't really like Duran Duran, but there are salvageable interesting parts of both of their MOs, and the Killers have done an expert job on that salvaging. I think Sam's Town is a very good record. I didn't fall in love with the first record right away, although it REALLY grew on me. This one is riveting from the word go.

Is it just me and Thrindle who appreciate The Killers? Has anyone heard the new album?
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

Pubrick

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 12170
  • Lynchian identity mystery
  • Respect: +769
Re: the killers
« Reply #21 on: October 02, 2006, 12:18:46 PM »
0
So that's where they came up with the name "The Killers"
goddamn, one day i'm gonna collect all of sleuth's unappreciated jokes. this one was pretty good.
endless 'nothing is what it seems'-isms

edison

  • The Return Threshold
  • ****
  • Posts: 949
  • Respect: +2
Re: the killers
« Reply #22 on: October 02, 2006, 12:45:48 PM »
0
Is it just me and Thrindle who appreciate The Killers? Has anyone heard the new album?

I initially liked the first album the first time I head it but then I quickly lost interest. With Sam's Town, I didn't like it at first listen, but last night I gave it another shot and it really sunk in. Like this one a lot more than Hot Fuss. I like the new direction they went with this.

I Love a Magician

  • The Ultimate Boon
  • ***
  • Posts: 588
  • Respect: +5
    • daniel chase peach photo
Re: the killers
« Reply #23 on: October 02, 2006, 01:12:29 PM »
0
the kills are better

JG

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1366
  • Respect: +53
Re: the killers
« Reply #24 on: October 02, 2006, 01:13:00 PM »
0
Well, it's not surprising that there's so much Killers hate here (at least a couple years back). They're SO not indie. They have huge ambitions, which discounts them in many people's eyes. Their attitude reminds me of what made the Smiths so special so long ago: "Well, you can call us indie if you wish, but we're simply a great pop band. If you have to call anything with intelligence or wit or beauty 'indie,' so be it, but we want as many people as possible to hear our music, and anyone with a brain or heart can understand it." That's so out of step with the usual cloistered, incestuous indie disingenuousness/tentativeness, and much more like the outrageously confident stylish, hyper-modern and very intelligent glam/punk attitude of yore. The Killers belong in the Roxy Music/Pulp lineage of louche Warholian "rock" bands, not anywhere near the little-garage likes of White Stripes or The Strokes. And The Killers' "Glamorous Indie Rock and Roll" stands with Kathleen Hanna's version of "I Wish I Was Him" as an affectionate indie piss-take.

The reviews for the new album are terrible. But... I LOVE IT!!!! To me, it sounds absolutely nothing like Bon Jovi (take that, Entertainment Weekly!!) or "arena" rock. All the spin is appallingly off-base. The Bruce Springsteen thing is pretty much thematic only. I was just saying to someone that I don't really like Bruce Springsteen and I don't really like Duran Duran, but there are salvageable interesting parts of both of their MOs, and the Killers have done an expert job on that salvaging. I think Sam's Town is a very good record. I didn't fall in love with the first record right away, although it REALLY grew on me. This one is riveting from the word go.

Is it just me and Thrindle who appreciate The Killers? Has anyone heard the new album?

godardian, i don't think they're hated by the "indie" (whatever that means) crowd because of their ambitions; i just don't see the correlation.  sufjan stevens, arcade fire: both undendiably ambitious, yet still praised by indie-hipsters everywhere.  

the main problem is that their pretensions are so misguided.   If they wanted to stick to writing semi-catchy but ultimately annoying hits, then so be it; but the minute flowers claimed that this record would be the best of the past 20 years, you have to actually start writing, you know, good songs.   even if his lyrics were passable(and trust me, they're far from it), he doesn't have the vocal ability to perform them in a tolerable manner.  

all this about their place in modern pop aside, what is it about their actual music that is good enough to justify any accolades?  


godardian

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 3733
  • Respect: +6
    • Trappings
Re: the killers
« Reply #25 on: October 02, 2006, 01:38:48 PM »
0
Well, it's not surprising that there's so much Killers hate here (at least a couple years back). They're SO not indie. They have huge ambitions, which discounts them in many people's eyes. Their attitude reminds me of what made the Smiths so special so long ago: "Well, you can call us indie if you wish, but we're simply a great pop band. If you have to call anything with intelligence or wit or beauty 'indie,' so be it, but we want as many people as possible to hear our music, and anyone with a brain or heart can understand it." That's so out of step with the usual cloistered, incestuous indie disingenuousness/tentativeness, and much more like the outrageously confident stylish, hyper-modern and very intelligent glam/punk attitude of yore. The Killers belong in the Roxy Music/Pulp lineage of louche Warholian "rock" bands, not anywhere near the little-garage likes of White Stripes or The Strokes. And The Killers' "Glamorous Indie Rock and Roll" stands with Kathleen Hanna's version of "I Wish I Was Him" as an affectionate indie piss-take.

The reviews for the new album are terrible. But... I LOVE IT!!!! To me, it sounds absolutely nothing like Bon Jovi (take that, Entertainment Weekly!!) or "arena" rock. All the spin is appallingly off-base. The Bruce Springsteen thing is pretty much thematic only. I was just saying to someone that I don't really like Bruce Springsteen and I don't really like Duran Duran, but there are salvageable interesting parts of both of their MOs, and the Killers have done an expert job on that salvaging. I think Sam's Town is a very good record. I didn't fall in love with the first record right away, although it REALLY grew on me. This one is riveting from the word go.

Is it just me and Thrindle who appreciate The Killers? Has anyone heard the new album?

godardian, i don't think they're hated by the "indie" (whatever that means) crowd because of their ambitions; i just don't see the correlation.  sufjan stevens, arcade fire: both undendiably ambitious, yet still praised by indie-hipsters everywhere.   

the main problem is that their pretensions are so misguided.   If they wanted to stick to writing semi-catchy but ultimately annoying hits, then so be it; but the minute flowers claimed that this record would be the best of the past 20 years, you have to actually start writing, you know, good songs.   even if his lyrics were passable(and trust me, they're far from it), he doesn't have the vocal ability to perform them in a tolerable manner. 

all this about their place in modern pop aside, what is it about their actual music that is good enough to justify any accolades? 



Well, I find their music wholly catchy, with the right mixture of shameless emotion/accessibility and wit/intelligence--a difficult but essential balance in pop. The melodies and lyrics complement each other in a way that insinuates them into the listener's consciousness. I don't really value standards of "vocal ability" in pop; it's not choral music or opera. For example, just so you know where I'm coming from, I think Johnny Rotten is an infinitely more effectual singer than Whitney Houston, even though he inarguably "can't sing." Brandon Flowers is no more tuneless than Stuart Murdoch (and certainly no worse than Thom Yorke), and I love Murdoch's singing. I think the "best in 20 years" outrageousness is merely a part of the performative/self-mythologizing aspect that The Killers probably "get" better than any current band. There's a failure to acknowledge/embrace the endemic artifice of pop that limits the likes of Sufjan Stevens and the Arcade Fire. Grandiosity is being leveled against The Killers as a kind of criticism, but without disproportionate grandiosity, we would not have had Sinatra, Elvis, Bowie, or Morrissey. Modesty was hardly a value for any of them, and when I say "ambition," I'm talking about The Killers aiming for that echelon--something beautiful and compelling for the masses, a permeating romanticism that becomes part of the common cultural currency and pop history. They're not quite there yet, but they're going for it despite the very good possibility that it's not possible in the world of iTunes, cloistered indie-ism, and endless one-hit wonders. It's foolish in a completely romantic, self-mythologizing way, and that strikes much closer to the heart of pop than anything (almost) anyone else is doing.

However, they are not receiving any accolades that I can see. Instead, it seems to me, they're getting bashed for exactly the qualities and ambitions I mention above.
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

JG

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1366
  • Respect: +53
Re: the killers
« Reply #26 on: October 02, 2006, 01:57:14 PM »
0
by "vocal ability" i don't mean range, rather the ability to interpret the material in question and add another layer to it.  flowers wants to write anthemic-pop that speaks to the masses, yet his voice lacks the passion and sincerity neccesary to do so.   

i have my reservations about their ambitions, but i think thats futile.  essentially, i think it boils down to this:  the music is too predictable and derivative, and the lyrics are too 'throwaway' ("bonfires of trust"?  come on godardian) to every achieve this said grandiosity.   i can admire their aspirations, but the music is still terrible. 



godardian

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 3733
  • Respect: +6
    • Trappings
Re: the killers
« Reply #27 on: October 02, 2006, 02:11:18 PM »
0
by "vocal ability" i don't mean range, rather the ability to interpret the material in question and add another layer to it.  flowers wants to write anthemic-pop that speaks to the masses, yet his voice lacks the passion and sincerity neccesary to do so.   

i have my reservations about their ambitions, but i think thats futile.  essentially, i think it boils down to this:  the music is too predictable and derivative, and the lyrics are too 'throwaway' ("bonfires of trust"?  come on godardian) to every achieve this said grandiosity.   i can admire their aspirations, but the music is still terrible. 




I think the voice is quite passionate, myself. The passion overflows the limited range, which is why it's so perfect for the material.

Is there anything so rank about "bonfires of trust/flash floods of pain" juxtaposition? Florid and a bit excessive, yes--that's why it's just fine and quite in keeping with their decadent intent, I think--but certainly not ludicrous or without precise meaning relevant to the closing, summarizing "good-bye" (to the listener) song in which they appear. In that case, I think the right words were found and sung in the right way to be resonant. Is trust not warm and comforting? Are flash floods not drenching and cold? Dylan writes much worse/incoherent/self-indulgent lyrics and sings them with just as much absence of ability to hold a note, and yet he's a legend for some reason.
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

I Love a Magician

  • The Ultimate Boon
  • ***
  • Posts: 588
  • Respect: +5
    • daniel chase peach photo
Re: the killers
« Reply #28 on: October 02, 2006, 03:05:55 PM »
0
that's pretty controversial!

godardian

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 3733
  • Respect: +6
    • Trappings
Re: the killers
« Reply #29 on: October 02, 2006, 03:13:57 PM »
0
that's pretty controversial!
 

I know it's a little quirk of mine that I really don't care about Bob Dylan('s legend). My sixties revolve around Phil Spector, The Kinks, and The Velvet Underground. I think PJ Harvey's version "Highway 61 Revisited" is pretty cool, though. How am I going to reconcile that with the Todd Haynes (whose legend I do care about) Bob Dylan project? We'll see....
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

 

DMCA & Copyright | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy