Topic: Keane: Perfect Symmetry (Read 14360 times)

bubba2match · « **on:** 03 Jun 2009, 21:04 »

What do you think about it?
I don't think much of it at all.
I regret buying it before listening to it, because the sound was just so...not Keane.
Actually, the new music style was offensive to my ears. I felt a little betrayed by the band I had come to love.
Yet, I went to the keane forum, and it seems I'm alone in my opinion. Is there anyone here that agrees with me?

Caspian · « **Reply #1 on:** 03 Jun 2009, 21:48 »

How can Keane do anything that's "offensive" to your ears? I thought the objective of this band was to make the blandest, most vanilla MOR possible.

Tom · « **Reply #2 on:** 04 Jun 2009, 00:19 »

el_loco_avs · « **Reply #3 on:** 04 Jun 2009, 01:10 »

Usually Keane makes me go 'meh' or mildly annoys me.

Spiralling was a nice track though.

Thrillho · « **Reply #4 on:** 04 Jun 2009, 04:17 »

You ain't from around these parts, are ye?

imapiratearg · « **Reply #5 on:** 04 Jun 2009, 07:30 »

I saw a Keane video on Fuse once.

I changed the channel.

Inlander · « **Reply #6 on:** 04 Jun 2009, 08:02 »

Watch as a community of people who pride themselves on their individualistic taste in music scorn a newcomer for not having the same taste in music as the rest of them.

Thrillho · « **Reply #7 on:** 04 Jun 2009, 08:12 »

Yeah, that's more or less what I expected to happen too.

iamiam · « **Reply #8 on:** 04 Jun 2009, 08:51 »

Quote from: Inlander on 04 Jun 2009, 08:02

a community of people who pride themselves on their individualistic taste in music

no, no harry. that is where you're wrong. it's a community of people who pride themselves on having the best taste in music.

20 jazz funk greats · « **Reply #9 on:** 04 Jun 2009, 08:54 »

people who have correct musical taste, as tommy would say.

pat101 · « **Reply #10 on:** 04 Jun 2009, 08:55 »

keane somehow managed to make music more bland than coldplay, which I guess is something of an accomplishment.

imapiratearg · « **Reply #11 on:** 04 Jun 2009, 08:58 »

Quote from: Inlander on 04 Jun 2009, 08:02

Watch as a community of people who pride themselves on their individualistic taste in music scorn a newcomer for not having the same taste in music as the rest of them.

It's not like it hasn't happened before.

The difference here is some bands are disliked on this board in particular, and some bands just aren't very entertaining.

A Shoggoth on the Roof · « **Reply #12 on:** 04 Jun 2009, 09:23 »

dude guys, you're missing the point. they make music with pianos. it's like a rock band, but instead of a lead guitarist, they have a pianist. I mean, anyone can give a dick a guitar and make a rock band, but it takes real talent to be a pianist.

Yayniall · « **Reply #13 on:** 04 Jun 2009, 11:35 »

Also I was in a car once, the radio was turned off of Sultan of Swing and Keane was put on.
I nearly did time.

Sox · « **Reply #14 on:** 04 Jun 2009, 11:56 »

Quote from: 20 jazz funk greats on 04 Jun 2009, 08:54

people who have correct musical taste, as tommy would say.

Musical Correctness is perfectly quantifiable! Who is Keane?

pat101 · « **Reply #15 on:** 04 Jun 2009, 14:53 »

Quote from: A Shoggoth on the Roof on 04 Jun 2009, 09:23

dude guys, you're missing the point. they make music with pianos. it's like a rock band, but instead of a lead guitarist, they have a pianist. I mean, anyone can give a dick a guitar and make a rock band, but it takes real talent to be a pianist.

I've played the piano for about 17 years, trust me I have very little talent.

A Shoggoth on the Roof · « **Reply #16 on:** 04 Jun 2009, 16:54 »

(the secret is that pianist sounds sort of like penis)

Cernunnos · « **Reply #17 on:** 04 Jun 2009, 18:22 »

I have only ever heard one Keane song. It was actually pretty alright. Don't see what the big deal is. Really, it's a bad idea to just dismiss a band when they come out with new material just because they might have been bland had you actually given them a real listen the first time. but you didn't did you, qc music forums people. That being said, I have other musical priorities. There's just so much out there that it's actually perfectly acceptable to ignore a band, not as a value judgement of them, but as a matter of having more immediate interests elsewhere. Which is my case, when it comes to keane. Apologies, OP, i doubt there are many here who have paid enough attention to this band to have real a conversation about them, rightly or wrongly, not that we would really know.

the_pied_piper · « **Reply #18 on:** 04 Jun 2009, 18:32 »

I actually own the first Keane album from my indie pop teenager days and i still think its not a bad listen. That said, they didn't do well on the second album and the rock star-style cocaine addiction didn't help either. I've not bothered with any of the newer stuff as they got more bland as they went on which was a bit of a shame and i'm afraid that this new album is probably just like the second.

Lolocaust · « **Reply #19 on:** 04 Jun 2009, 18:47 »

hopes and fears is one of my favorite albums, havnt given the other album's a fair listen however

A Shoggoth on the Roof · « **Reply #20 on:** 04 Jun 2009, 19:07 »

I wouldn't bother giving perfect symmetry a listen, I got it (digital copy) from a friend who told me they were really cool (I should have known when they said like radiohead with pianos)
I haven't heard any of their other stuff.

bubba2match · « **Reply #21 on:** 04 Jun 2009, 20:25 »

Well... for those of you who have not heard it (i.e. all 98%), their last album was not bland at all. That was the problem. I went in, craving that wonderful semi-melancholy, semi-poppy sound of the previous two albums...and Keane betrayed me. They managed to record something that was...well...NOT bland.

I'm not ashamed to admit...my taste in music is very plain. Almost too plain. Like "church music" plain.
But enough about me. I want to know what you-all think about bands changing their styles. I guess it's bound to happen. Things change.
BLAH! You've had that happen, right?

Thrillho · « **Reply #22 on:** 05 Jun 2009, 03:23 »

It really depends. A lot of the time I think people are stupid for scorning their favourite bands for a change of style, but then I am prone to doing the same thing on occasion, just not always. I love Wilco, Pink Floyd and Radiohead, all of whom went through many drastic reinventions, but some other bands (one in particular the name of which escapes me at this second) I've hated their transformations.

BeoPuppy · « **Reply #23 on:** 05 Jun 2009, 03:50 »

Of course progress should be made by any band. However, if that band then makes music that I do not enjoy anymore I do feel sad. It's like a good friend moving away. For me that happened with Therapy? after Infernal Love, Tori Amos after her second album, Crimson Glory after their second ... and quite some more.

You know ... it's right to change. But I don't have to feel happy about it ...

imapiratearg · « **Reply #24 on:** 05 Jun 2009, 07:40 »

Sometimes change is good! Like, Sgt. Pepper's good! Sometimes it's very bad! Like, The Transplants bad!

billiumbean · « **Reply #25 on:** 06 Jun 2009, 04:43 »

And then you've got of Montreal change, which is the UFO-cult-mindfuckery of musical change.

I'm sorry, what was this thread about, again?

Scarychips · « **Reply #26 on:** 06 Jun 2009, 08:03 »

Yeah, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. I mean, Skeletal Lamping was a nearly perfect album.

Well, if an artist is going through a change that you don't like, well, that's too bad, just listen to the records you liked. You can't really change what an artist wants to do. So, yeah, like BeoPuppy said, you don't need to like an artist transformation.

Thrillho · « **Reply #27 on:** 06 Jun 2009, 08:26 »

I think where it really annoys is when you want to see them live, because you want to hear the old stuff but they're flogging the new album. I still regret not seeing Hope of the States during their first album era, I mean it's not like they were short of material, they had HOURS of early demos online. But then the second record came out and I didn't like it, so I put off seeing them - and then they broke up. So yeah, it can get more annoying than just not listening to the records.

Caspian · « **Reply #28 on:** 07 Jun 2009, 03:42 »

Tommy, you have suddenly gained 5 levels on the Good music taste rating by Caspian scale.

pwhodges · « **Reply #29 on:** 07 Jun 2009, 08:53 »

Well, at least you can be friends with each other...

The Beatles were far from the first artists to use drugs at times, and clearly were not the last; and significant artists can be distinguished from the mediocre whether on drugs or not. Sgt Pepper is not the best Beatles album (hard to say what is, mind!), but "incredibly damaging"? - come off it!

pwhodges · « **Reply #30 on:** 07 Jun 2009, 12:48 »

Simplicity is a great virtue; but you mustn't make the mistake (as is also too often done in classical music commentary, for instance, when Wagner comes up, or Schoenberg) of denying the possibility that complexity can also create great music. The same artist may even use both methods at different times. And the responsibility of an artist is towards their own music only - they can't be held responsible for the failures of their imitators, however much we may have cause to regret them.

Dazed · « **Reply #31 on:** 07 Jun 2009, 14:20 »

What did Frank Zappa do wrong again? I mean, despite writing irreverent, fun, and awesome music?

I mean, do you really just hate complex music simply for its complexity? I'm sorry to say, clinging to simplicity above all else and trashing all complicated music as "arsing about" is every bit as pretentious as some prog junkie bashing Bob Dylan for not having enough songs in 11/8.

Quote

Just because the option is there to lavish more time, more expense and more detail on a song, it doesn't make it justifiable.

What makes it justifiable is that sometimes spending more time, more money, and more detail on a song is what the artists want to do for their art. And, sometimes, it works out amazingly, and they create beautiful and memorable music.

TL;DR: Simple music can be good. Complicated music can be good. Claiming one is always better than the other is silly.

JD · « **Reply #32 on:** 07 Jun 2009, 14:53 »

Did that really need a TL;DR?

parm · « **Reply #33 on:** 14 Jun 2009, 09:51 »

So, yeah. Keane.

I was in a band that had been formed to play for the drummer's girlfriend's 30th birthday. We had a set consisting of early 90s Britpop and Madchester covers, some classics (Johnny B. Goode, that sort of thing), and some newer indie-rock stuff. In there, for some reason, was a Keane song. I forget which one.

The gig was going moderately well. I mean, as well as a gig at a party at which no-one is listening to the band and everyone is just sort of sitting around chatting to each other ever is, anyway. We were playing reasonably well and it was all okay. And then we played the Keane song. We got about two lines in before the chill descended on the room. Somehow, that one song managed to suck all the life out of the party. Our playing went to shit. We stumbled and mumbled our way to the end of the song. I may even have apologised into the mic. It was awful. And then we played Disco 2000 by Pulp, and everything was okay again. But jesus, they were the longest three-and-a-half minutes of my life.

Fuck Keane. Seriously, fuck Keane.

Hat · « **Reply #34 on:** 14 Jun 2009, 11:48 »

Quote from: imapiratearg on 05 Jun 2009, 07:40

Sometimes change is good! Like, Sgt. Pepper's good!

Why does Sgt Pepper's always get the rep for being the Beatles first really big change in their sound? Revolver is fucking badass

PS Tommy your opinions on Sgt Pepper's are incorrect it was a studio masterpiece that influenced the way people went into the studio to record and look I like prog-rock ok there is no way I'm letting you trash that album, its a fucking technical masterpiece sorry that you are a punk tommy I guess we were not meant to be.

Hat · « **Reply #35 on:** 14 Jun 2009, 12:11 »

Also who are Keane, I'm serious.

I wikipedia'd it and considering the average state of piano driven pop music, I'd probably prefer this made it over here than most of what is really popular at the moment.

the_pied_piper · « **Reply #36 on:** 14 Jun 2009, 12:21 »

From the first album, Hopes and Fears.

Bedshaped
Everybody's Changing

From the second album, Under The Iron Sea.

Crystal Ball
Atlantic

I don't think they're as bad as everyone makes out. Their first album is still fairly listenable now to me.

imapiratearg · « **Reply #37 on:** 14 Jun 2009, 15:17 »

Quote from: Hat on 14 Jun 2009, 11:48

Why does Sgt Pepper's always get the rep for being the Beatles first really big change in their sound? Revolver is fucking badass

I thought about it afterward and realized that Revolver was probably the point at which their style changed drastically, but I was just shooting for the most significant deviation from their typical sound I could come up with off the top of my head.

bubba2match · « **Reply #38 on:** 30 Mar 2010, 14:37 »

I was reading through my old posts, and happened upon this one. I had forgotten about it.
I did want to add one more thing before moving on with my life, though.
Keane's 3rd album sucks. The End.

Scarychips · « **Reply #39 on:** 30 Mar 2010, 15:15 »

So, that's the thing that was missing from this thread!! Well, it can now die in peace.

THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Author Topic: Keane: Perfect Symmetry (Read 14360 times)