I hate Sigur Ros!

Buick6

too punk to drunk
I paid 75 bucks to see them. Their audience are a pack of privelidged left-leaning exqisitely fashion-hip wankers!! I got their first album, liked the first three tracks but the rest bored me, much like the concert!

I mean what are they, Coldplay meets Radiohead via Slowdive with a guy yodeling over the top? Enya-hardcore?

I couldn't sing you any of their tunes, and their live show is turpor personfied.

They don't even communicate with the audience, let alone acknowledge them!

And their audience think they're @ Church or something, such is their reverence!

And half their crowd dig them coz Gwenyth Paltrow gave birth to their muzak, well my daughter listens to Eno's 'music for airports' - the real shit!

Fuck em!
 
Last edited:

Melchior

Taking History Too Far
So, given that the album mostly bored you, why exactly did you spend $75 on going to see them? Also

Buick6 said:
privelidged left-leaning exqisitely fashion-hip wankers!!

I resemble that remark! Well, the privileged, left-leaning bit.
 

Buick6

too punk to drunk
Melchior said:
So, given that the album mostly bored you, why exactly did you spend $75 on going to see them?



.

Curiosity (and a mate asked me if I wanted to go)...

and the cat got bit on the arse! (and hipster pocket!)
 

soundslike1981

Well-known member
A bad Windham Hill 'Sounds of the Whales & The Rainforest' record for the indie rock set.

If I ever play Can for another 19 year old and hear them say "This sounds like Sigur Ros but not as advanced". . . .
 

greeneyes

Bit Mangler
I'd rather there were more Sigur Ros's in the world than Coldplays, Radioheads and Slowdives!!

I thought the show last night was great. I loved the fact that they didn't say anything. It's all about the music maaaan - that pretty much sums up their whole attitude. Nice down to earth guys too.
 

In Moll

Active member
I've never even heard Sigur Ros. They're filed next to a small group of bands that I remain totally indifferent to ever hearing, for whatever reason.

&

$75 is steep!

greeneyes said:
I'd rather there were more Sigur Ros's in the world than Coldplays, Radioheads and Slowdives!!

I've seen Slowdive dragged through the mud a few times now on this board...I wonder why? -- 'cause imo Souvlaki and Pygmalion are both fantastic. & what relation do they have to either coldplay or radiohead?
 

Buick6

too punk to drunk
soundslike1981 said:
A bad Windham Hill 'Sounds of the Whales & The Rainforest' record for the indie rock set.

If I ever play Can for another 19 year old and hear them say "This sounds like Sigur Ros but not as advanced". . . .

Beautifully stated. If only SR had 1/1000000th of Can's brilliance

greeneyes said:
I loved the fact that they didn't say anything. It's all about the music maaaan - that pretty much sums up their whole attitude. Nice down to earth guys too.

Bullshit! If that's the attitude you might as well get a live DVD in 5.1 sound with all the trippy visuals and whatnot and get the 'immersive' experience in the comfort of yr own home, rather than sit in a theatre full of prententious twats that deserve to be suicide bombed!
 

3underscore

Well-known member
Buick6 said:
rather than sit in a theatre full of prententious twats that deserve to be suicide bombed!

I have had a pretty shit day today, and am deciding to take complete umbrage to such a stupid remark, Buick.
 

owen

Well-known member
regardless, sigur ros are utterly grotesque- the richard clayderman of shoegazing (which makes slowdive the esquivel)
 

shudder

Well-known member
I'm not sure I quite understand all the hatin'... I mean, clearly they really don't sound much like U2, radiohead, or coldplay... (well, I haven't heard the new album SR tho). They definitely share the dreaminess of slowdive, but really don't sound too much like them either. I used to be a fairly big fan of theirs (coincided with the peak of my radiohead fandom/adoration, sometime between kid a and amnesiac, before I discovered that other bands exist and existed), although I haven't listened to them in a good long while at this point....

Of course, this forum is filled with people a little older than me, so I'm probably just ignorant of all kinds of visionary stuff which paved the way for them, etc.. (which Can album do they sound like? I've been meaning to check out can for a long time now...). Still, I can't quite understand the vitriol with which some people (ILM, Dissensus) hate on them. Does it have as much to do with their popularity amongst indie kids as with the music...?
 

Jesse D Serrins

Well-known member
So that's 75 Australian dollars, ya? Not exactly sure what the exchange rate is, but what's that, like $50-$60 US? That's wierd, 'cause tix to US shows are about $30 US from what I saw, which is the absolute upper limit of what I'll pay for a show at this point. Contrast w/ Radiohead, who I think are upwards of $50 US to catch at this point.

Really have no idea how Can and U2 work as points of comparison, at all. There was a sense when they were first gaining popularity that they were riding the Radiohead wave, but I think that was somewhat coincidental in that the sound they were developing happened to fit into that picture. They're not, like, the best thing ever, but certainly the bashing seems a bit unwarranted to me.
 

ryan17

Well-known member
i am gonna front a little here and say...

sigur ros is what you get if you have an island of only white people bumbling about with each other listening to bjork.


i cannot think of a more boring enviorment for something to be concieved in.
 

michael

Bring out the vacuum
The vitriol over these guys is just typical hating, as discussed in the middle of the haters' thread, I reckon... not so much about the music in and of itself as the fact the haters believe the fuckers are completely overrated, that their fans are shit, and can think of artists they think are much more deserving.

I reckon Sigur Ros would be met with indifference from the same people slamming them here if the band were either a) even more "mainstream" in their reception, more like Coldplay or U2 in terms of market placement or b) completely unknown, and critically considered "not bad" rather than genius.

I think I'm just talking reception theory without knowing the theory, though. :confused:

Contra-factual Argument Man strikes!
 

soundslike1981

Well-known member
shudder said:
Of course, this forum is filled with people a little older than me, so I'm probably just ignorant of all kinds of visionary stuff which paved the way for them, etc.. (which Can album do they sound like? I've been meaning to check out can for a long time now...). Still, I can't quite understand the vitriol with which some people (ILM, Dissensus) hate on them. Does it have as much to do with their popularity amongst indie kids as with the music...?


For me, it has to do with the fact that they seem to serve as a blockade against better music, via the terms by which they are described to/amongst young people. I understand the youthful desire to feel that one is living at the pinnacle of human achievement in basically all fields--to be "where it's at". But it's just a general pet peave of mine to hear young people take that contemporist exhuberance and turn it into broad generalisations about the "greatness" of "their" music, especially in making (usually ignorant) ascertations about the relative merit of "their" music within the context of all music that has ever been made. Sigur Ros is a band that I find musically particularly banal, perhaps worse than generic indie rock in that it purports to be/is viewed by fans as being "so much more" (this may well be the beef against Coldplay, as well--I've never heard them). I've had multiple experiences with young people whom I try to get interested in 50 years of advanced/experimental/cool-as-fuck music, whose ears/minds are essentially blocked with the bizarre notion that Sigur Ros represent the zenith of a progression about which they know nothing--and it's left me a bitter old man ; )

Still--I'm pretty certain that if I made a mix of Can and Faust and Reich and Riley and Cage and Red Krayola and This Heat and Eno and Funkadelic and Stockhausen etc. etc. and attributed the tracks to bands mentioned on Pitchforkmedia.com in the last three months, kids would respond to it more positively than if I told them "this is music made before you were born". Maybe I'm just being the ultimate curmudgeon--but I plan to try it. Because the point for me isn't that "it used to be so much better," but rather that it isn't necessarily always "the best ever" now--and we should, if we care about music, hopefully listen to the best music we can hear, regardless of when it was made.

None of this ire is directed toward you, I hope it's clear. Something just touched a nerve. My references are probably dated by now--but Sigur Ros, Mogwai, Godspeed You Black Emperor, all this Constellation/Kranky stuff being sold to kids as "really groundbreaking" rubs me the wrong way, because it's so bloody far from breaking any ground (not even to rob the graves of better music).

As for Can---message me on Soulseek at username manireik and I'll hook you up. They may bring a whooooole lot of music tumbling down at you, but it's a fun ride.
 

greeneyes

Bit Mangler
It really irks me when people try to use "it's been done before" as a valid criticism of the music at hand. I like the sounds they make, hence I like the band. And hey, I like Can and Neu and Cage and Debussy etc etc etc as much as the next person. There's nothing wrong with liking new music as well as old music. Even then, there's nothing out there that sounds quite like Sigur Ros. They may not be incredibly ground breaking or the best thing ever, but they are certainly a good band to see live right now.

New bands influenced by other music don't necessarily serve as a blockade to appreciating older stuff. They can also open peoples ears to it - and that has to be a good thing.

Give the kids some credit.
 
Top