12 thoughts on “The Arctic Monkeys – Random MP3s

  1. Sorry Si,

    Heard the AMs on the radio the other with silly Jo Wiley calling them poets -thought they were crap then and still do now. It’s all been musically done and dusted many times with second (or third) rate lyrics. Sorry to doubt your opinion (‘objective truth’) but there it is!

  2. Thank you for acknowldging that my opinion is objective truth, I know that myself but it’s not often I hear it back.

    It HAS been done before and it will be done again but that doesn’t detract from how exciting it is at the moment. THEY have never done it before, it hasn’t been done THIS YEAR before, it hasn’t been about THESE TOPICS before, it hasn’t COME FROM ROTHERHAM before and it hasn’t been done by anyone so young in a long while.

    You have to embrace and enjoy these occasional bursts of energy that England’s dullest towns spew up, they are one of the things that make England great.

  3. sorry Si but cant embrace with such gusto such second-rate material even if it does supposedly represent the here and now. There are plenty of artists out there right now carving out far more orginal stuff.

  4. I agree that there are plenty more original acts around but I can’t think of anything I’ve listened to this year that is as exciting and erm… relatable toable? Their lyrics ARE great, not because they have literary merit but because they are so unpretentious, vivid and most importantly REAL. You could say that anyone could write these lyrics, but that doesn’t detract from the fact that no one else has. The material is not by any shrinkage of the imagination second-rate! Considering these are the first songs this band has ever put out, they are, to use an Americanism here, AWESOME.

    Are you sure you’ve listened properly? Listen to the 3 tracks I just put on here a couple more times. I recall you once said Leftfield were crap before declaring their first album a masterpiece. You are mistaken my friend, remember I speak objective truth.

    Don’t mean to be patronizing like.

  5. Okay, so perhaps I shouldn’t have listened to the AMs immediately after the Arcade Fire but it provided a useful comparison. Firstly, I’m not sure I agree that the lyrics are unpretentious – they seem quite in to the idea of lyrically posturing. For me the lyrics are dull and trite. The idea that no-one has written such lyrics might’ve been true twenty-plus years ago but The Smiths (amongst others) have cast a far more wry and sardonic view of the humdrum towns of northern England. I did quite like the start of ‘A certain romance’ but it soon lost its verve.

    So, I listened again, and again I found nothing to rave about. Yes, I did change my mind about Leftfield (and you never know maybe I will about the AMs) but that was a very different genre to open up to unlike the AMs who inhabit a familiar stomping ground.

    Do you think the songs are ‘awesome’ because they are the band’s first rather than becaues they are actually ‘awesome’? Remember Horses, The Smiths, Funeral, The Stone Roses and Grace. Do the AMs compare – don’t be silly!

    Maybe I’m just getting fat, old and bored but as I heard Noel Gallagher saying the other day ‘The Arctic Monkey’s – give me a break’.

  6. Don’t mean to be pedantic but the Arcade Fire album was last year. If that had been this year I wouldn’t have described the AMs as the most exciting band of the year.

    And no they aren’t a Stone Roses or a Smiths and I wouldn’t suggest they were for a moment but I would definitely compare them to Oasis who you used to love!

    Noel Gallagher is a clown, he couldn’t write songs as good as these (any more) if he spent the rest of his life trying.

  7. Don’t mean to be pedantic Si but the Arcade Fire album was released in the UK this year (but the point was that ‘Funeral’ was their first effort and this puts the AMs first efforts into perspective). Oasis – liked yes, loved no (and bored of now – maybe a benchmark for the future of the AMs?) Songs like ‘Live forever’ and ‘Champagne supernova’ mean that Oasis could, on occasion, transcend the norm but I very much doubt that for the AMs.

    NGallagher is a clown but at least he did write a few songs better that the AMs will ever produce.

  8. Champagne Supernova? They’ve already written about 5 songs better than that. Besides, that’s not the point, the point is that I get the last say on MY blog. So listen here:

    They may release a disapointing album and never amount to anything but that doesn’t take away from how exciting these MP3s are and the fact that they are 17! You’d have to be a right stick in the mud not to enjoy them whilst you can. The Arcade Fire are a different kind of phenomenon to be enjoyed in a different way.

    But I give up, if you don’t want to listen to them then suit yourself, it’s your loss. I have a Christmas tree to decorate (I think I’ll listen to The Arctic Monkeys whilst I do it).

  9. Arctic Monkeys are staggeringly talented in every single department. They have no Achilles Heel. They are the best new British band since The Smiths.

    I’ll listen to criticisms from someone with half a clue about music. That does not include anyone who rates the gibbering, infantile shite known as N. & L. Gallagher.

  10. Well David, to suggest that the AMs have no Achilles heel and are the best new band since The Smiths clearly forgetting the likes of The Stone Roses and Radiohead, is err, interesting. Maybe I haven’t got half a clue about music, but do you?

  11. Being a lad from up north i have to agrre that the Artic Monkeys are absoultly fantastic and u r an absoulute twat james for disagreeing. if the Artic monkeys are not as as good as james david and myself think how the hell did they manage to win an NME this year?

Comments are closed.