Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
The Supremes can slag people off. The Pippettes can shut the fuck up.
Oasis make amazing music? So it's ok for Noel and Liam to slag everyone off?
but when it's done in such a petty unfunny uninspired way it just makes me sad
attitude is a bad thing. If you need to air your grievances it's because you're a pathetic whinging loser.
I don't find it morally wrong or anything. I just find it very very sad.
It's because they're not good.
(this may be a very weak point as I have heard a minimal amount of pippettes)
seriously "musicians" slagging each other off is possibly the worst thing ever (when it's the pipettes at least).
They could have at least thought of something funny or actually offensive to say.
when they started, I think wearing identical dresses can still be classed as some form of style gimmick?
(I do like the Pipettes despite this)
STYLE = A GOOD THING.
Someone should explain to them that they're all as bad as each other.
whether they were "in" at that time or not is irrelevant.
they're shit and rely on their image a lot.
standing up for three girls in short polka-dot dresses isn't a surprise in the slightest?
The only point I don't agree on is The Horrors, they're shit aswell as the other yawnsome bands they laid into.
they just said that the Horrors could be great if they bothered...
That's nonsense. Indie girls who like 50s/60s stuff have been wearing polka dots for years and years (and there's a lot of them!) Look at the Schla La Las - they were doing it way before the pips...
But you know what I mean. A year or so ago you could walk down the street maybe seeing one person wearing something polka dotty. Instead now it's about 50.
Isn't that article EXACTLY like a DiS thread?? Yes - this is what we sound like!
We have the advantage of not being the Pipettes.
and their opinions on music.
I dislike the fact that as soon as someones popular, if they dislike a band it's suddenly seen to be attention seeking and spiteful. They are just doing what everyone else does, but they happen to be in a band themselves.
blah blah blah
but fair call. I do, however, quite like DPT but totally HATE the Kooks with a passion, how dare you take a Bowie song title and sully it's good name!
They are only saying what they actually think, and would say to friends ... off the record, etc.
But they should probably watch their mouths a bit if they want to be this big hit they are aiming to be...
It does piss me off because I'm a Brighton boy, and I don't like Brighton being associated with bands like the Kooks. Despite the fact that I'm going to see them live in September where they'll be saying "this is a home town gig, bla-de-bla-de-bla."
I'll shutup now.
so very trail-blazing in slagging off other people's bands, it's quite strange that they've only started it after Lily Allen did, no?
But she's made it trendy for girls to try and Stand Up For Pop, instead of craggy, grumpy men pretending that they did the same old stuff much better (eg Oasis)
that its a clevery hatched plot, whereby they have seen Lily Allen slag everyone off and thought it would be good business sense to do it themselves.
But perhaps she has brought a bit of legitimacy to the whole affair - they think they can get away with badmouthing all and sundry now or something. I don't know. That Becki one has always been a bit controversial I think.
She is an intelligent young woman and some of you lot and others find that scary.
i love your condescending tone
The kooks are shit.
Everything is just shit.
Modern life is rubbish.
DiS is full of similarly opinionated outbursts, yet some DiSers are criticising the Pipettes for it! And now look - we're all discussing it and giving them TONS OF PUBLICITY. SO they were clearly right to do this because it IS controversial and we're all suckers!
...if you play music you basically ought to know a little better.
It does seem hypocritical that people who don't play music are welcome to criticise bands but people who do get slated for doing it but to me it's a simple matter of courtesy and respect that you don't publicly criticise people working in the same field as you.
Furthermore non-musicians criticising acts do so from a purely objective viewpoint. If you're a musician yourself then it's difficult to come across as objective in the same way and it does suggest a certain arrogance as you're implicitly saying "I'm better than they are"
Obviously there is the other matter (as we see in this thread) that by criticising others you're essentially setting yourself up to be criticised too.
I think it's good that musicians have opinionated and passionate but I do feel it's a touch disrespectful (and, dare I say it, unprofessional) to criticise other bands by name.
It's interesting to me because it's also pretty unique to music. You very rarely see, for example, film stars publicly criticisng each other.
I don't know if it's just me but, as soon as I see any act slagging off somebody else (even if I love the act doing the slagging off and hate the act being slagged off) I almost inevitably lose a little respect for that act.
...I only have an issue with musicians publicly criticising other bands. They're as entitled to their opinions as the rest of us off-the-record but I just think there's things that shouldn't be said to journalists.
What they said was pretty much true. It's just a shame they aren't much better.
they hardly came up with anything particularly original and groundbreaking.
Quite aside from what I said before, it's a shame when people go for really obvious targets.
agree with everything they say in that interview. apart from i like one of the kooks singles.
I hope it did go like that. I'd probably like 'em more if it did!
Seriously, I can see how people fall into the trap and I don't blame 'em for it but I think as a general rule bands ought to be a little more media-savvy and try to keep their opinions a little more private.
It's not so much that I disagree with them, or don't think that they have a right to an opinion, but I just think the media look for stories like this and it can reflect badly on the band doing the criticising it's best to try and be a little careful in what you say in front of journalists.
it's like punk never happened
And you're wrong by the way.
I'm just sick to death of people recycling late 70s punk cliches as though they're still new and provocative and shocking. What the hell's punk about that?
I don't like futile half-hearted gestures like mildly slagging off acts that at least half of their target audience hate anyway. It's really shit target-bashing and is dull and unoriginal.
If the Pipettes were to turn round and make a genuinely insightful criticism of modern music I'd applaud them for it. But if you read that interview as being in any way a continuation of the tradition of punk philosophy then it takes a hell of a lot less to impress you than I would have expected.
I was responding to your comments about being "media-savvy" rather than a discussion aboiut what teh Pipettes said.
Punk, and all it comprised, was not an isolated brief epoch in the music business that should now be viewed nostalgically. It was a necessary reinvigoration of music and its effect is apparent today as much as ever. Every independent record/CD/download, every independently promoted gig night, every independent radio station, every fanzine including webzines, all are a result of change of attitudes toward making music that happened in the late seventies. It is not recycling.
...by missing my point completely, which is what you seem to do whenever you feel the need to bully and intimidate people. Which seems to be regularly.
Your points are every bit as correct as they are irrelavent to what I was saying.
Obviously all independent music is essentially a follow-on from punk. You are right that punk should not be viewed nostalgically. My actual point is that the punk should NOT be viewed nostalgically. So you're argument is bizarre to say the least.
Punk and the values bound within it are vitial to the creativity and future of music (and especially music that doesn't need or want to be endorsed by the music industry in the least). However, for it to function, punk must constantly evolve and move with the times. Sadly this does not happen and instead modern acts repeat the behaviours of late 70s bands, completely failing to realise that they have no shock impact or revolutionary qualites 20 or 30 years later.
Unfortunately punk, like everything else successful or different, is constantly in danger of being absorbed into the mainstream, especially in terms of the behaviours of acts. These acts become cliches and anything genuinely punk now must react against these behaviours as well as everything else stale, useless and commercially-orientated in the music industry.
Whereas slagging off other acts in the 1970s was a vital and new concept, now it is simply what every corporate act does to highlight their alternative credentials.
Your argument that the Pipettes are somehow reigniting punk in their tepid criticims at the softest targets completely ignores that it's actually what every act does these days anyway and there is nothing new, original or in any way punk about the Pipettes doing it.
For punk to continue to be as vital and relevant as it should be, it is necessary for acts to come up with new ways to react against the music industry rather than repeat past actions within a commercially acceptable enviroment and pretend they are being alternative.
"Your argument that the Pipettes are somehow reigniting punk ..." I have not argued that.
they aren't much better. I think these are easy targets on DiS but I'm not sure if they are amongst other crowds.
No. Did it get them chatted about on messageboards? Yes.
Why should a band have respect for all other bands? There is no reason why that should be the case. Bands are not exempt from being allowed to express opinions on people working in the same job. Further, I prefer bands to say what they think of other artists; it is the only thing that I like about Oasis.
When punk started a feature was the dismissal of most other music by the bands around. This was a positive feature; the lack of respect of other artists was needed.
I applaud not only the Pipettes views but their desire to express them. I hope it encourages others to do the same.
At the time of punk slagging off other acts was vital and necessary but now it comes across (even if it isn't intended) as incredibly petulant and cliched.
The whole concept of punk was rooted in the idea that all music from the past was no longer relevant and should be forgotten. The whole concept of the Pipettes is essentially 60s revivalism with an indie twist. Therefore, whilst it was relevant and necessary in punk music, it just feels unnecessary and petty.
If I might completely contradict what I said before, I would be happy for a band to make a smart, witty heartfelt and thought-through criticism of other acts, especially were it within the context of vocalising a cultural trend within music that they were reacting against.
But getting pissed off 'cos a band's saying their from a town they don't originally come from? Or 'cos they put their feet on the sofa on Jonathan Ross? It's hardly comparable to the genuine social anger that fuelled punk is it?
Genuine Social Anger?
...but my point was that punk happened because a genuine widely-felt disillusionment with the culture, politics and society of the 70s.
...but I'd say the spirit is/was entirely different.
Just that competition between the punk bands was a positive part of a vibrant music culture at the time.
Personally, I would never be so big-headed as to slag off other bands like this cos I admire anyone who gets out there and makes music. I see this as the Pipettes flexing their muscles and saying "look at us - we maybe pretty girls in fancy frocks but come and ave a go if you fink you're hard enough!"... It's all to create a feisty image and shouldnt be taken too seriously...
"Just that competition between the punk bands was a positive part of a vibrant music culture at the time."
I didn't mean "competition between the punk bands", I meant the general dismissive attitude to existing styles of music and practices in the music business.
I should clarify - I didn't see that before responding below.
Basically I don't like half-hearted gestures. If bands want to play the game, they should be media-savvy and play it safe.
If bands don't want to play the game (and I'd rather this option), they should be ground-breaking and push things as far as possible.
Checking back I realise you simply commented on this story by comparing the Pipettes' comments to how people slagged off other music at the start of punk and I read more into it than was there.
If it's pretty young women, then anything they have to say about how dull everyone else is suddenly becomes a) valid and b) a news item. It's horribly tedious. This isn't a "women" thing though - it annoys me just as much when Mani or one of them out of Kasabian does it.
It's almost annoying that both The Pipettes and Lily Allen are actually ace. Why do they NEED to bother about slagging others off? It's fucking tabloid/ HEAT Magazine culture and I hate it.
Are just about the only punk rock thing happening on planet earth right now (at least since mclusky split up), and here they prove it again.
I think these comments could conceivably harm their career a little, but they said them anyway. Does it get more punk than that?
And they're right. With indie's current popularity there's a major stage-school assault on 'our' music, and it should be mercilessly mocked until it goes away.
'our' music? crappy stage school 60s pop wannabes? or crappy 60s beatles copyists? crappo nu-skiffle revivalists?
is it not okay to hate both the pipettes and indie schmindie shite?
SOMEONE GIVE ME SOME HELP HERE?!?!?
(I meant 'our' music as shorthand for, you know, leftfield guitar music, which traditionally hasn't been much of a lure to the stage school set, but has been more recently).
Hello alcxxk. I'm going to be nice because of your tastefully blurred profile photo. But would you care to explain yourself?
in my post?
Errrrrr you're totally, totally wrong.
'just about' and I was employing hyperbole. And in any case I wasn't asking you.
1) The punk rock bit of the Pipettes left about 20 years ago to be in the Indelicates.
2) Gwenno Pipette went to stage school (I think).
3) I'd rather indie (sorry 'our') bands went to stage school than sound like bloody Kasabian.
...they've slagged off Kooks, DPT and Razorlight. Isn't that what happens on this board every day? (Alongside slagging off the Pipettes, but, y'know)
1) Yeah, they're cool too.
2) True dat. They should watch themselves on that front, agreed.
3) Me too.
I really should get round to listening to the Indelicates some day given they sound like exactly what I'd be into.
Bit late to dampen this argument down, I know, but there's not really an 'us and them' here, is there, though? Gigwise are selling it as Pop Kids Slag Off All Of Indie, when a) said 'pop kids' formed and emerged from Brighton's alternative scene, are on an independent label and have just been on tour with John McKeown's new band and a Smalltown America act, and b) it just seems to be them having a go at the bands they don't like, who are the bands you expect them not to like.
(Oh, and FWIW I don't think Gwenno was stage school, but she's got a plentiful CV nonetheless which is all Googlable)
I don't know either way about the Pipettes but if the 'content' is good enough then it's style AND content.
They've clearly produced a record that's got some good reviews, though.
What? Surely slagging off bands is now pretty much the currency with which new bands get publicity?
Everyone voices opinions these days. Sadly most aren't really worth listening to.
Pipettes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dirty Pretty Things, Kooks, Razorlight etc. etc.
So they can carry on, frankly.
...that their backing band (The Cassettes) is basically The Electric Soft Parade, isn't it?
They are right about all those bands.
What's the problem again?
One of my posts has got to 100 replies!
â€œWe hate the Kooksâ€¦ we have to dislike them because they were made at the same stage school as Rooster!â€?
But that is absolutely ridiculous.
Someone else noticing the Horrors are style over substance is reassuring.
I'm shocked that only like, I and the Pipettes agree.
a lot of people would agree, really.
but its hard to tell whether things are compliments or not these days.
Not like my day etc.!
with you in your post about the Horrors last week.
as for the Pipettes though. They should of picked less obvious targets to slag off, and been a bit funnier. Like when the Icarus Line wrote $ucking Dick$ on the Strokes' tour bus.
now love the pipettes :D
Razorlight are shit? tell me something I don't know. Sounds like journalists trying to stir up trouble in a lame sort of a way.
Note to bands: if you're going to slag others off in interviews try and pick less easy targets.
ha...telling it like it is.
Shame they mentioned the style over content thing in relation to a band that isn't them...
The were rocking the polkas when no one was wearing them.
Then topshop thought 'hang on a minute...'
"(The Pipettes) have slammed Razorlight, branded Dirty Pretty Things â€œthe worst band in the worldâ€? and called Pete Doherty â€œjust a celebrity whoâ€™s renowned for being a smack headâ€?."
I HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT!
'riot becki' really needs her own chatshow it'd be comedy gold.