Apologies for spoiling the love-in, but I've never really understood the heaps of critical - and more recently commercial - acclaim that seems to have come the way of Biffy Clyro.
Even back in the days of 'Justboy' and '57', one felt that the only reason the Scots were being given so much attention was because they were a more lively alternative to the comatose collective of Coldplay and their clones, the bands that clogged up the airwaves and charts of the time.
"'Mon The Biffy" say their disciples and, I've got to say, I'm with them on that one. As in, "Come on Biffy, wake up and write an original, interesting tune!"
At this moment in time they seem to be stuck in a Tardis, one programmed to travel to the ‘90s, with no means of escape. Last single 'Semi-Mental' saw the trio performing a damn fine impersonation of Troublegum-era Therapy?, and ‘Saturday Superhouse’ is comparable only with a song of the quality of a Foo Fighters b-side. It would have probably sounded great on the flip of 'This Is A Call' in '95, but it just sounds tired and laboured in the present day.
Let the love-in continue by all means, but count this writer out. Yawn…
I disagree
I don't think you can be too familiar with their back catalogue if you suggest they've never written an original or interesting tune.
Regardless, I reckon Saturday Superhouse is a lovely nugget of pop rock and murmurings of an epic album leave me satisfied that they're about to surprise me yet again.
:)
Unoriginal???
Look at any of the fluff in the top 5 of the US or UK pop charts and tell me that BIFFY CLYRO IS UNORIGINAL?
It's the buyers of top 5 songs that are the sad sacks that permeating buying boring, unoriginal music that keep us up to our necks in boring, unoriginal music!! MON THE BIFFY!
Biffy's singles
Have never really been truly indicative of the band's creativity - one of their biggest hits from a few years back, "Questions and Answers", is probably the dourest song they've ever written. The two songs they've released from Puzzle haven't exactly set the world alight either, but I'm still hopeful it'll be a great album.
I agree somewhat
but to say, "Come on Biffy, wake up and write an original, interesting tune!", would really be doing this band injustice.
Saturday Superhouse isn't the greatest song in the world, but then never have any of their singles - they just act as promotional tools for the albums, of which all 3 I love and (from what I've heard) the fourth will be a cracker as well.
That said Superhouse is a great singalong and Biffy are a bit like marmite.
Biffy Rip-off Band
Sounds like a frankenstein of about four songs from 'Bleed American' by Jimmy Eat World...
Mon the Biff
Biffy Clyro do write original and interesting tunes - 57 and Glitter & Trauma sound like nothing else out there and are rightly classifiable as 'different gravy'. The Infinity Land album, while flawed in places, was far from formulaic and a really good diverse listen, so the criticism just seems unfair. As far as the 90s sound, would you rather they straddle the zeitgeist by growing some horrors-esque fright-wigs and then sing jaunty jejune pop a la View?
hahaha
i described this song as a foo fighters b-side yesterday to my mate
great minds think alike.
lol
the reviewer should get perspective
your angry at biffy clyro for being unoriginal!?!?!?!?!!
sure they aren;t the most original band you will see but i think about a gazillion other albums are less original than them.
great review, so great that i just may not take your opinion seriously again
It's all good and fine
saying a million other bands aren't original either, but as I've stated elsewhere about other bands who are given credibility status when in fact they're nothing more than average copyisyts, why should they be treated any differently?
It seems to me that it's OK if you're a Nirvana/Sabbath/Sonic Youth/Mogwai copyist but not OK to be influenced by Oasis or The Beatles.
If your idea of originality is copying 3 of the former 4, as this lot seemingly do, then maybe it's you whose opinion shouldn't be taken that seriously.
What 3 of those 4 are they copying?
Nirvana I accept but who else...?
umm...
lets be honest here, nirvana were hardly original themselves were they, pretty much everything they did was done better by others before Nevermind and it's formulaic popsongs propelled them to stardom.
Very poor review from someone that is generalising all of Biffy's back catalogue when they obviously
From now on I'll read your reviews with a pinch of LOL.
It is more valid
to copy Sabbath or Sonic Youth than Oasis, because those bands innovated. Oasis didn't even innovate their attitude never mind music, and the Beatles are so over-plagiarised that it's a very dull thing to copy them. Saying that, I don't have much time for any bands that "copy" things at all.
interesting
...
it sounds like
all my life by the foo fighters... the segue into the chorus, at the very least.
it's better than a 5/10 though. but only marginally.
and biffy fans, put this into perspective, he's reviewing one song, not their entire back catalogue... i'm hoping the album will be a little more diverse, at the very least.
Which cock
wrote this?
Seriously.
How can you say they don't write original songs? You haven't even bothered listening to their stuff. I challenge you to find a band that can write as breathtakingly original numbers like Toys Toys Toys, There's No Such Thing As A Jaggy Snake, Kill The Old Torture The Young, Time As An Imploding Unit, Bodies In Flight, Bonanzoid Deathgrip, Strung To Your Ribcage, or Now The Action Is On Fire!.
Get your head out your arse. If you're going to review something then at least make sure you know who the fuck you're talking about. Biffy's singles are always poppy and in my oppinion the weakest on the albums, which are full of cryptic, magical jiggary pokery.
I met them yesterday at an HMV signing. Lovely chaps.
I once met
my old Maths teacher in HMV - he was a lovely chap too. Your point being...?
That wasn't a "point"
that was just an afterthought.
My point was you have no idea what you're talking about. You probably knew that before you started writing it anyway.
Easily pleased
then Mr Loque. Good for you, and I hope you enjoy the next post-Kurt tribute band that comes along too.
What?
What makes them a Nirvana tribute?
You're making an arse of yourself now. If you'd listened to the songs I mentioned above then you'd realise you can't really pigeonhole them into anything.
You're just a bitter little wanker who doesn't like the idea of something he can't be arsed to listen to properly actually being good.
And you're just one of those
fans who takes it personally when someone makes a valid criticism of your overrated favourite band.
They're underrated
if anything.
And your criticisms lie in the mould of "they aren't original" which, no matter which way you look at it, is complete bullshit.
You don't know enough about them to make such comments about the back catalogue.
Really?
So my criticism isn't down to the fact that after seeing them live on several occasions and having heard the majority of their records they don't make any impression on me due to the fact it has been done better before but because "I don't know enough about them".
OK.
Whatever.
Next...
You're just a liar.
You can't have listened to the majority of their records because then you couldn't say they were unoriginal, whether you're a fan or not.
And don't play the "mehhh seen them live loads of times so I know all about them LOL" card because if you don't give a shite about who you're listening to live you don't listen anyway. I saw them live before I really listened to them and they made no impact on me at all, same goes for many bands.
Lazy reviewer, to be honest. Stick to what you know.
Utter nonsense
I don't know why you're choosing to hate one of the best bands around because none of your points are valid. Maybe you think by being one of the few reviewers who hate Biffy you'll create a bit of controversy and attract more attention to your ridiculous reviews?
I wouldn't care less about your silly little rants if it wasn't for the fact that people will read that having never heard the band and choose not to listen to Biffy because of your nonsense.
I take it
that was for gimp-face and not for me?
Oh right.
If you say so...
You obviously haven't bothered to even read the review as I've already stated in the second paragraph my long-standing gripe with this band.
A lazy review would be to just go with the flow, safe in the knowledge that people such as you behind rose-tinted specs will be appeased to read how great your favourite band are once again.
But then to do that would make me a liar wouldn't it...
Of course i read the review,
and i see no valid points in it. I'm all for critiscisms of bands, but only when it is based on some sort of truth. To me the review is rambling insults. Not professional in the slightest.
I agree with loque
Comparing them to Nirvana is a bit lazy. I don't know any two songs which sound the same at all. I really don't like Nirvana, Biffy on the other hand are one of my favourite bands of all time. For a three piece band with an amazing sound, songs which can have about 3/4 different choruses packed into one song, and catchy, yet with a nice complexity to them, you can hardly call them "tired and laboured".
He's just a little diddy man playing with big words
to fill his brainless days.
I don't like Nirvana either. They sound fuck all like them.
um
semi-mental is pretty much Nirvana.
Ugh
I knew the rapid fanboi backlash was a-comin'. Stop it, you're embarassing :(
Not rapid
But RABID!
It's not fanboy
it's just retaliation at a blatant shite review..
Oh loque loque
dearest loque.
If all you want to read is glowing praise of your favourite band, post on their message boards or add a comment on MySpace, because you obviously can't take reasoned criticism of them.
I make valid points - whether everyone agrees with them or not - to substantiate my viewpoint.
You just throw childish personal insults as justification for your defence of Biffy Clyro.
I think that makes it game, set and match to me loque, don't you.
erm
i have to say that last sentence in your post is as petty and childish as anything the other guy said insult wise
i love biffy but hey dude it's only a review... i am sure the band are gutted that, of all people, a journalist doesnt like them... it wont bother them
its only mr gourlay's opinion, and what do opinions matter... not a jot
craig x
Fair dos
but I still stand by my original question:-
Why is it OK for artists to plagiarise the likes of Nirvana, Sonic Youth, Black Sabbath and Mogwai and not be called derivative, yet a band admits to liking or being influenced by Oasis and their ilk and is called all the names about being retro etc under the sun?
it isnt
and your suggestion that anyone thinks it is is bullshit.
plenty of bands get ripped into for ripping off those bands.
maybe what you cant see is that, with a band like sonic youth, their music is very idea and texture based, and that you can take their music as a starting point and create something relatively new. whereas with retro guitar pop, this is much less the case.
anyway, people are pissed off with the review not because its negative, just that the reasons for its negativity aren't very accurate. the chorus to this song is fairly pop rocky and foo fighters-y, but the rest of of it is fucked up structurally and rhythmically, in a wy that none of the bands you suggest that they rip off woul have ever done
I'm sorry but
EVERY band that admits to being influenced by Oasis gets ripped to shreds, yet a lot of bands who cite those previously mentioned are seen as being structurally inventive or whatever.
As for the review itself, I think my reasons are clear enough in that I think the band are overrated and that the song is nothing more than a pastiche of a Foo Fighters b-side.
but like ive said, the chorus is comparable to foo fighters
but the verses arent what foo fighters would write at all.
i cant think of any big examples, but im certain there are lots of "credible" bands who have expressed a love for oasis - i mean, theres a reason Ryan Adams and Cat Power have covered Wonderwall, and i dont think its irony.
its just theres a difference between being influenced by a band and ripping them off. rip offs will concentrate on replicating the sound, whilst an influence runs with the ideas. the ideas of a band like, say, sonic youth are much more about musical progression and change, and different attitudes towards playing their instruments, whilst the ideas behind oasis' music are more about communal sing alongs and accessible musical conserativism, which, generaly leads to bands that sound the same
You're just making yourself
look worse now. You wrote a shite review, just admit it. The single's not brilliant but the review was shite.
You haven't raised
one worthwhile, intelligent argument pal, so don't start bandying around personal insults as some kind of justification.
Every single one
of my arguements was worthwhile and intelligent.
It's definitely rabid
You're not gonna achieve anything though, other than reinforce whatever stereotype currently exists of Biffy fans as overly defensive, aggressive-when-challenged headbangers who are far too quick to take criticism of the band personally. As a Biffy fan I find this embarassing, because I associate that mentality with children; with bands like Avenged Sevengold and My Chemical Romance. I love Biffy, but I'm not crying about one review of one single on one website - what's the point!?
Yeah,
the review just hit a nerve..
hmm
as a friend of dom and a fan of biffy clyro ill give my opinion:
Biffy have written interesting songs. Eradicate The Doubt, 57, ...Jaggy Snake, Glitter And Trauma etc.
They do take influences from Mogwai, Nirvana and Sonic Youth, but id say they combine them rather than rip one of them off.
But this single is terrible, 5/10 is more than i would give it.
i'd say their
influences are more like
mineral , sunny day real estate , red house painters , and weezer
i know saracasm doesnt translate well to written word.... but oasis and mogwai ? ... i aint sure if you are being serious or not there
ho sez oasiz?
if you meant Dom you completely misread what her said.
listen to infinity land, there are lots of parts that take influences from mogwai, maybe not so in the song structure but the guitar sound and how it is layered
I'll
join the gang.
I disagree that they've not written interesting songs.
I agree that this song is pretty wank.
.
The 'biffy clyro sound like nirvana' argument is one of the lamest, laziest comparisons around.
I can't think of a single BC track that sounds like a Nirvana track. The form, sound, lyrics, intention are all different.
It's a lazy review in general whether i agree with it or not. Their new stuff hasn't blown me away but to describe Biffy as unoriginal and rip off merchants is just plain wrong, opinion doesn't come into it.
I'm not a massive fan
Saw them at Truck 2 years ago and wondered what the fuss was all about, and I don't own any of their releases. Since then, however, I've heard their singles (i.e. them at their most populist and derivative) and some rarities (e.g. interesting arrangement of Weezer's 'Buddy Holly') and I have to say that they stand out from most bands at their level of success in their approach to songwriting.
Of course, everyone's derivative to a certain extent and no-one can claim to have grown up in a musical vacuum these days, but to accuse bands of their ilk of wholesale ripping-off/sounding like a pastiche smacks of know-it-all indiekid-ism to me. I can see elements of better Nirvana songs in what I've heard of Biffy, but not enough to constitute a rip-off (to be fair, Dom never directly made that accusation). As for the Foos B-side thing, I find Grohl's songs far blander than any of Biffy's output.
At the risk of being an iconoclast, I'm sure it's possible to level the same accusations of derivativeness at any musician, but it's truer and more obvious of people who claim to be influenced by bands, who are in themselves inherently and irritatingly derivative.
Personally, if there's a Tardis headed for the early 90s, then I'm booking my seat.
it is a dull, dull song
forget the past and embrace the present. it smells rancid.
and not even as good as the band.
There is a perfectly
reasonable argument that Biffy are just a tired attempt to update the grunge sound with a bit of hardcore thrown in and a few rhythm changes. Reviewers picked up on this as far back as their first album, which got a pretty mediocre reception as I recall.
Not that I necessarily subscribe to that, but I can see it has at least some basis, especially for people who are not into that kind of music.
"write something original?"
are you having a laugh?
a bollocks review.
s'all just opinion
i love the Biff muchly, but agree this single is a bit shit as are many of their interestly record-company editted other singles. so fair review. tis only one song after all
they've written plenty of interesting songs
but this isn't one of them. boring single.
This song is really really awful
and even 5 is more than I expected it to get. Biffy could write ten songs like this before tea.
I'm a Biffy Fan
But this is a review of ONE song people. Frankly, a dull song at that.
The folks above taking it personally need to step back and calm down.
5/10 is more than fair, especially when the reviewer's not a fan. I'd give it the same and I love the band.
jeez
i think biffy are superb, but if they attract fans that can't take on boartd someone elses opinion, i think i'll just stick to Nirvana ;)
sheesh
this got on peoples tits didnt it.:(
i dont like it either. artworks fun though, pink floyd esk..
(ducks)
and i do agree with dom in a way, any band who ripps oasis do get a shating on, to be honest most bands do if they slightly resemble any artist..
its the way of the gun kids...
blah blah blah
chill out.
Oh yeah
and I never said that Saturday Superhouse was a brilliant song. It's just that apart from the three lines you used to actually review the single, it was just unjustified, arsey moaning about how you don't personally like them. For someone who says Biffy are boring when you like the Kaiser Chiefs is a bit of a LOL.
Kaiser Chiefs
got 3/10. Your beloved Biffy got 5. It's called objective, unbiased reviewing.
It's called
"shite".
Good
to see you've taken up intelligent debating once again.
its not called
objective unbiased reviewing
if it is you would be the only music journalist in the world to do such a thing and i personally dont believe that can ever be the case..... its impossible to be objective if you are going into writing a review of a band you already have an opinion on...
music journalists = poor journalist
thats just an opinion ...
craig x
no
music journalists- journalists who have other day jobs and do what they do for fun without financial rewards. at least on DiS
how can
a music review ever be objective?
heaps of racism
to the scottish
English lesson
An objective review - something that is undistorted by personal bias.
I love this band,
but this single disappoints me, as did Semi Mental.
I'm a bit worried about the album, but they've never released their best songs as singles anyway.
I like
the single, it's a good song. Not heavy, poppier than usual... long may the love in continue.
but you
clearly stated at the start of the review that you weren't into biffy, so that doesn't make your review either objective or unbiased!
either way, it's still not enough to kick up a loque-esque fuss over...
anyone else notice the remarkable resemblance to The Ideal Height as well, in terms of song structure?