Viewing Thread:
"McFly"

I went to see them on Saturday night in the MEN and they were absolutely amazing. I was expecting an average pop show at best, but what I got was a fully fledged rock concert, with flames. Thats right, flames. They had loads of cool pyrotechnics and lighting displays and, for about half of the songs, a full ochestra backing.

My friends and I also managed to start a Mexican wave going before they came on. 10 of us sat in a line coninually waving until the people in front gradually caught on. Aided by a women about 6 rows in front, who had a whistle, (possibly a PE teacher) we got the attention of about a further 10 rows and our whole block started Mexican waving. It took about 5 attempts or so until the other blocks caught on, but when they did it travelled around the arena 10 times or so.

Anyway, back to McFly. They were great!! It was such a fun night of shouting and singing along, my throat still hasnt recovered from two days ago. They filmed footage for a live DVD that they are doing and I'm genuinely looking forward to it so I can watch the gig again.

Yeah, but whats wrong with liking both?

EVERYTHING

metalhead wrote:
> Unfortunately this is infact what passed for 'rock' these days. Bands
> like mcfly, kaiser cheifs, kasabian, bravery etc. etc. are classed as
> 'rock' for having guitars, while anyone even remotely heavier gets
> passed off as 'metal'. Tis gay.

I'm not really sure what "Rock" means anymore...
Bill Hayley and Elvis kind of started it.
The Beatles and Beach Boys were supposedly Rock and Roll.

I think most people mean Rock as in the Led Zepplin Template.
Out of interest, what would you class Kasabian as?

Strafio wrote:
> Out of interest, what would you class Kasabian as?

Umm 'Indie' I suppose, they certainly follow the lineage of the 'Madchester' days that started with The Stone Roses and Happy Mondays...

'Indie' means other things - i.e, 'indie' bands that are unsigned etc, and sh*te like Kasabian.

metalhead wrote:
> Unfortunately this is infact what passed for 'rock' these days. Bands
> like mcfly, kaiser cheifs, kasabian, bravery etc. etc. are classed as
> 'rock' for having guitars, while anyone even remotely heavier gets
> passed off as 'metal'. Tis gay.

The UK music industry has been ruined by pop, hip-hop and other rubbish quite badly over the past few years. Example time: Motorhead's latest album, Inferno, went top 10 in Germany, yet it barely got in the the top 100 in over here; Judas Priest's latest album, Angel of Retribution, only reached number 39 in the UK, when in most of Europe it sold well and got the band their best ever chart placing in the USA (13)... not only has this country forgotten how to rock, it's forgotten two damn good British bands. In fact, I could mention much more of this sort of thing but really can't be bothered.

McFly covering songs by The Who = Treason. Simple as that, they're p**sing over classics. Forget them and get some decent albums released recently; here cometh a brief list...

Iced Earth- The Glorious Burden
Bruce Dickinson- A Tyranny Of Souls
Black Label Society- Mafia
Motorhead- Inferno
Judas Priest- Angel Of Retribution
Megadeth- The System Has Failed

And so on. Rant over.

There's nothing wrong with pop and hip-hop - there are some awesome artists out there. I think you're making a big general swipe at the 'industry'...

EDIT: It's partly being ruined by people not accepting that eras move on - pop, R&B, soul, punk, rock, grunge, hip-hop, can all be defined by the decades they were popular in, but occassionally a fashion will come back round. You're just protective of the kind of music you like because it comes from when you were growing up, and has influenced you.

This (and previous) generation has always had naff pop acts, same as we've always had lame metal acts. Stop hanging on, man, just let it slide and enjoy it for what you enjoy it for. Maaaan.

monkey_man wrote:
> There's nothing wrong with pop and hip-hop - there are some awesome
> artists out there. I think you're making a big general swipe at the
> 'industry'...
>
> EDIT: It's partly being ruined by people not accepting that eras move
> on - pop, R&B, soul, punk, rock, grunge, hip-hop, can all be
> defined by the decades they were popular in, but occassionally a
> fashion will come back round. You're just protective of the kind of
> music you like because it comes from when you were growing up, and
> has influenced you.

Very little of my music comes from when I was growing up- I was born in 1988, and most of my music is from 1970-90. I know that things move on: I just personally detest hearing someone attempt the singing equivalent of over-acting with some banal lyrics over a set of weak synthesised pop backing track, or to hear someone talk very fast over a few basic beats.

As for a general swipe, yes. Though I prefer older rock, punk and metal it still does sound far better than (For example) the poorly written "Plastic" pop which seems to be aimed at 12 year-olds who want to be seen as "Cool" because they listen to the dross which is in the charts because radio stations play what they're paid to, not (As once was), what DJ's personally wanted to, or music sent in by independent bands wanting to get airplay, as a single example.

This is be coming mostly out of personal anger, but a fair degree modern music sounds simply crap to me. I have a Saturday job in a shop which constantly plays commercial radio and nothing else, and the garbage which gets played irritates me infinitely. I guess this is all a matter of taste, but I'll keep listen to the likes of Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, Metallica and Iron Maiden over what's pumped out by commercial radio at the moment; added to this, I do find that 80s pop music sounds often better than modern stuff... damn those synthesisers! :D

I've yet to meet the 12 year old that appreciated The Clash.

Yes, it's all about money - always has been. Do you think the classic Woodstock festival would have occured if large sums of money and profits weren't involved? Would the Manic Street Preachers be signed to Sony if they weren't interested in making money? Would Jimi Hendrix or The Beatles be as famous if they weren't as marketable?

MoTown? All they did was set the format for how Pete Waterman markets his next barely-legal, stocking-clad, lollypop-sucking, chart assault.

monkey_man wrote:
> I've yet to meet the 12 year old that appreciated The Clash.

My brother just turned 15 and has all their albums, that's as far as it gets in my experience...