[Closed] Muse = Smashing Pumpkins for the naughties?

nope.

Queen, yes. Pumpkins, no.

Siamese Dream is one cracking album.

Not really, I see Siamese dream as a real insight into the times, however Muse are more above the times, I mean that there is no such thing as a typical Muse album, I do enjoy how they are getting more orchestraic (sp?).

Both awesome bands though!

I see 'My Chemical Romance' to be the Pumpkins for the noughties, as countzero says, Muse are more of a Queen facsimile

I'm not one for 'contemporary' music, or following the latest trends, but Muse are one band that do stand out for me, because there's so much energy in their performance. It's just 3 blokes making all that sound.

Good stuff.

First time I ever heard this, I thought 'bloody hell, that's a tune and a half'. T'was on Chis Moyles an' all. One of the only two or three times I've ever had his show on. 🙂

Elf that was from Origin of Symmetry when they were good about ten years ago. Muse not so good these days.

Kev

I was watching Muse the other year at Glastonbury with a few mates. One of the girls in the group was getting a proper hard-on for them, big fan, and her BF was doing a good job a winding her up, not being a fan himself. Anyhow, he got me enlisted to help stir her up a bit as I'm good at it. Muse really passed me by, not my thing at all, so I don't really know their music. The first thing that pops into my head is that they sound a bit like U2. U2 of course being the antichrist of music for people "who are into" music. I tell the girl they're just the U2 of our generation and nothing to get excited about, calling them U2-2. She strongly disagrees as you can imagine if you're "into" music and at that exact moment, with proper comedy timing, The Edge stroles out on stage for a quick guitar solo.
That is all.

Not feeling it - two different sounds.

Impossible to dislike Muse, but they're in dire need of a testicle transplant. They're your wife/gf's favourite rock band - nothing wrong with that but the lead singer could do with channeling some more of the influences he goes on about (e.g. QotSA)

Wash your mouth out with soap for even suggesting such a thing!

+1 momo

Don't see the likeness, only heard small amounts of Muse but...

Siamese dream is quite grungy and how would you classify Machina? I won't bother, it has a fairly unique sound though

Certainly don't think either of those sound like Muse

God no! Smashing Pumpkins are way better. Muse is alright but meh, because I am feeling extra articulate tonight.

Not sure what my favourite SP song is... I do love Siamese Dream and the track Dissarm is the only one I can play on the guitar and sing (badly).

I think after the album Adore they went downhill. Would have coincided with Darcy leaving the band. She rocked.

[img] [/img]

The original line-up.

Thinking about it now, they were the band that pretty much defined my youth. Yay go pumpkin heads! 😛

I was always reasonably ambivalent towards Muse till I saw them live.

Bugger me, but Matt Bellamy is a top notch genius. The boy's incredible. And the other two aren't two shabby either. Quality live band, batters anything they've ever put down on disc.

Muse are dreadful. As "important" a band as Papa Roach. The fact that people point to them as evidence that proper rock music isn't dead, tells you just how dead it is.

Pumpkins are one of the greatest bands ever.

So no.

I do agree that Pumpkins and Muse share the same trait of sounding deep and meaningful and important, until you listen to the lyrics and realise they mean absolutely nothing.

The difference is that the Pumpkins' meaningless lyrics are backed by Billy's voice and Jimmy's drumming, whereas Muse are backed by a 36-piece orchestra and no bass line. It's like they've gone straight to the post-rehab overproduced "concept album" stage all dying bands go through, without ever having released the short snappy genius first album to justify the later crap.

Did you know, and I haven't verified this but read it on Popb1tch, that apparently the bassist in the Pumpkins is the girl on the left on the cover of Siamese Dreams? Surely not...

http://www.nme.com/news/smashing-pumpkins/55047

Muse are dreadful.

You are wrong.

Elfin hath spoketh.

You are wrong.

-no YOU are wrong, Elfin.

Muse are dreadful.

Seriously. Go and see them. Muse The CD and Muse The Live Act are two very different beasts.

I went to see them under duress as a band I could care more about. They blew my ears off. It's the second time in my life I've seen a three-piece and thought "how the crap do they do that?" (though, Matt Bellamy playing half an orchestra as a one-man band kinda answers that question). The last time was Therapy?.

I haven't seen them. Maybe I'm missing the point.

Any band whose songs don't work if you strip it down to a guitar, a bass and a drum kit, is $hit, and Muse prove that. They sound like a bunch of guys who learned to play their instruments in a pub, can't write any songs, but somehow have funding so could hire a bunch of classically trained musicians to gloss over the talent vacuum

Exactly what happened to Silverchair after they stopped ripping off every other grunge band on the planet btw

Muse... don't get it at all. Been to a gig, bizarre experience. Visually quite impressive but seems totally souless.

The pumpkins with Siamese dream, everything muse aren't, for me anyway.

Any band whose songs don't work if you strip it down to a guitar, a bass and a drum kit, is $hit, and Muse prove that

Muse do prove that, but not in the way you mean.

I'm no Muse fanboi, see my first post. You are, however, wrong. (-:

The converse are Radiohead, a bunch of classically trained musicians with guitars, and they're the exact opposite, e.g. I Might Be Wrong, just a guitar and a riff and trumps anything by Muse with their hired-in orchestras

Deliberately being contro btw 🙂

The converse are Radiohead

No arguments here. Very, very talented musicians but I've had more entertaining bowel movements. They're the 21st Century The Smiths.

When I saw Muse live a few years ago, they were absolutely awesome, their recent dross just sounds the same every time they open their gobs.

Definitely one to see live though, rather than bore yourself with a CD.

Not really heard much Pumpkins, but wasn't Billy Corgan a bit of a tit?

jhw, with respect, I fear that we may have to agree to disagree. (-:

-no YOU are wrong, Elfin.

Don't be so silly.

The Elf is NEVER wrong. Here is wisdom. Learn. Have enriched and enhanced life from this moment on.

Not really heard much Pumpkins, but wasn't Billy Corgan a bit of a ****?

I'll confess that the majority of my knowledge of the SP comes from The Simpsons.

sounds like just a guitar, bass and drums to me

The pumpkins star shone brightly for a short while, culminating in Siamese dream. Every album after that was a disappointment albeit with a couple of decent tracks on each.

I don't think muse are a good comparison. Muse are more considered, more constructed and more 'stadium' than the smashing pumpkins ever were.

I've said it before on here but I think Muse are what Radiohead would have been if they'd been any good.....

Main difference is that the Pumpkins have one of the best drummers of all time.

Whereas I have loads of Muse and Radiohead on my ipod, I have zero Pumkins on there. Don't think I could even recall one of their songs. I'm assuming from the Pumpkins bit of their name they're American, so default are rubbish unless they're a country and western band.

Started to get interested at the Glastonbury gig where the drummer's father died (tragic). Thought it was an interesting noise.

Lost interest when I heard the next CD that sounded like, yes, U2-2.

Next.

In fairness to the Pumpkins I would say that they had a very unique sound that no one else really captured where as Muse are ok but do have a real queen likeness to them.

The Pumpkins are quality IMO even though i very rarely listen to them these days if i hear a tune I instantly remember just how good the where.

2 bands really stand out for me from that time period....the Pumpkins and Janes Addiction.

It's the second time in my life I've seen a three-piece and thought "how the crap do they do that?"

The other must have been Rush!

Muse = Whiney middle class shite

No

Not usually my thing, but really enjoyed their set at Glastonbury Festival last Summer.

I like muse till that **** starts moaning all over it.

Muse are weak, Pumpkins had some excellent and genuinely quirky expression. Muse are formulaic. Admittedly the Pumpkins magic did seem to drop off a little with their growing success but Melancholy... is a double disc musical triumph.

I thought Muse had potential when they first came out, but they didn't seem to move past what the wider mass would like to hear. Shame really.

I just read the comment by PeterPoddy. Wow.

A lot of people misconceive Radiohead. Their range is fairly broad; In Rainbows, Kid A, The Bends are exceptionally different to each other. From what I've heard of Muse, it's the same sound, same vocal style, same "aesthetic" if you like. Radiohead on the other hand have repeatedly stepped outside of their own pigeonhole.

jhw - Member

Any band whose songs don't work if you strip it down to a guitar, a bass and a drum kit, is $hit, and Muse prove that. They sound like a bunch of guys who learned to play their instruments in a pub, can't write any songs, but somehow have funding so could hire a bunch of classically trained musicians

Um... Most of their music [i]is[/i] just a guitar (and pedals), a bass and a drumkit, with occasional piano and a few FX on triggers- they've got a 4th member for live shows now running most of the electronics but until fairly recently everything they did on stage was just the 3 of them. Surprising how much noise they made really.

As for "learned to play their instruments in the pub", I'm just assuming that's a troll? Holds absolutely no water with Bellamy... Apart from being not too shabby on a guitar, how many pub musicians could play the Albert Hall and knock out one of their tracks on their Grand Organ?

Can't stand Bellamy's voice,like fingernails down a blackboard to me,argh !

Herman Shake - Member

From what I've heard of Muse, it's the same sound, same vocal style, same "aesthetic" if you like.

Only heard the singles? Just as a quick sample here...

Does this

or this

<edit- ironically, I kept getting Radiohead adverts on Youtube while picking these tracks out- all instantly recognisable as Radiohead 😉

Ok, some variance. The last song sounded like Keane (not a compliment). The orchestral piano thingy was technically good but not my mug of coffee and 1,2 and 4 had the same sustained Bellamy vocal thing. Hyperbole loses it's effect when over used. He's musically cried wolf too many times for me to be moved.

It is still the same aesthetic. Granted it is not identical and has some variance; which you would pray for from a a band that's been about this long.

Back to the original point:

Muse=orange squash (pleasant, but you never really go "I could murder a glass of squash)

Radiohead=pizza (available in a number of styles, sizes and depth. Suitable for both an individual or a group of people. Delicious)

Smashing Pumpkins=roast dinner (completely different, varied and highly satisfying)

Orange squash is available in hi-juice, smart price, organic, own brand etc but always tastes like squash.

Herman Shake - Member

1,2 and 4 had the same sustained Bellamy vocal thing.

And every Radiohead song with vocals has pretty much the same Thom Yorke vocals 😕 They're 2 very distinctive, instantly recognisable vocalists, but it seems like one of them's getting criticised for it here and the other isn't. (this isn't a criticism of Radiohead at all btw, I love Thom's voice).

I have no idea how you "musically cry wolf" though. It's not like he's going "Right, time for some high pitched vocals for maximum emotional effect" and overusing it, it's just how he sings. It seems like criticising Thom for croaking, or Tom Waits for always sounding like he's about to die of something horrible.

A more general question which occurred to me as I read this thread:-

Is there an objective standard of "good" music against "bad"/"humdrum" music - e.g., "a hit is a hit" - something impossible to describe but which everyone can instantly identify (e.g. the difference between the Pumpkins and Radiohead on one hand, and Muse on the other. Or the Chilis of Blood Sugar vs the Chilis of By the Way. Or Nirvana as against Bush).

Or is it all relative? Are the views of those people who prefer the Chilis' more recent Waitrose aisle music to Blood Sugar Sex Magik, valid? (I always left the party when By the Way came on, by the way). Do we have to accept that in some contexts, for some people, Muse are better than the Pumpkins...despite all evidence to the contrary?

Probably a question of degree, e.g. anyone who says Muse trump Radiohead is simply wrong on every level, objectively, but whether you prefer Radiohead's mid-90s stuff to their post-Kid A stuff (I'm the latter)...or Radiohead to the Pumpkins (I'm undecided) is a question of judgment/context

Pumpkins is quite varied

There's definitely elements of grunge/punk/stadium metal/shoe gaze/acoustic/goth .. difficult to categorise a bit like Radiohead it depends which CD and tracks you are listening to

Does Muse approach that diversity? Are they as technically accomplished? [as the Pumpkins]

I like music, it is good.
I don't like music which is bad, i just don't like it,
but music when it is played well sounds ace!
It's just when it's played badly it really sounds bad.

Great comments from the 3 above.

Northwind, I guess I personally connect more with the emotion put forward by Yorke than Bellamy. I dislike drama for drama's sake, it doesn't feel like genuine expression to me; which is my personal requirement for music to be good. I accept that some people just like that sort of thing.

Ironically, the Pumpkins frequently are/were dramatic for the sake of it, but I think they can't help being odd (maybe it's all a clever, well marketed act?).

I do feel that Bellamy chucks in the sustained high pitch to ice the cake a little prematurely. I have found Radiohead to be more emotionally stirring due to the build and crescendo, or restrained delicate nature of the music. It's more about the choice of when to create impact.

Power is nothing without control. (or some other cliche quote)

I like Pumpkins, probably were my favourite band when they were around.
I'm indifferent to Muse, although I can understand their appeal. I wouldn't go see them live cos I hate big gigs.

[i]backed by Billy's voice and Jimmy's drumming[/i]
Iha's guitar was the most important thing for me.

I think Herman states things as well as anybody. I have no issues with drama, or melodrama, but only when it's controlled, ie, held back as a gig highlight, or building up to big finale. I've never seen either Radiohead, Muse, or the Pumpkins for that matter, although I love 'head, the other two never really lit my candle, but I guess that Muse really have been a stadium band by intent from the beginning, whereas both Radiohead and the Pumpkins are bands you could easily see playing an intimate small gig and doing it well. Histrionics get tiresome when that's all that's on offer, there needs to be light and shade, and I don't think Bellamy really understands that. Corgan really could be up his own arse, though, from what I've read.
What is it with three piece bands and racket though? Or even duo's; Blood Red Shoes are incredibly loud, for a lad on drums and a teeny little girl with a guitar. And an amp/cab as tall as I am.
[img] [/img]
the lovely, and loud, Laura.