Drowned in Sound

Search



editors

no votes
?
by su_bliminal
played a secret FREE gig today on brick lane. yeah it was pretty good. anyone go?
su_bliminal | 27 Aug '05, 02:04 | Send note | Report this | Reply

Re: editors

I attended.

Re: editors

Editors can fuck right off.

Re: editors

No, they can fuck right back actually. I've got their album on now and its good. I hope they play well in the MEN.

That's right Editors! Fuck right back. Come on!

Re: editors

oh, good point JB...........er no

Re: editors

You're like Macbeth! Oxymorons... gotta love 'em!

Re: editors

i forget what they are......*looks at feet*
im just mildy annoyed at Brainlove's "ruling" on bands, there was no need to say that, unless you're willing to back it up

Re: editors

I completely agree.

He thinks he doesn't have to because he's John Brainlove.

If he does, you can warrant there'll be a few 'they are so cunty my eyes water when hearing their farty music's in there somewhere.

Oh how I love his arrogant, supposedly-superior take on music.

Re: editors

I would agree too. Comments like that are like piss-poor trolling. It serves nothing except to start a backlash (which in this case is deserved). Brainlove has developed that nasty snide superior attitude, whereby he's a tastemaker and everyone should concur with his synopsis about music & artists, which to me is bullshit. There's nothing wrong with having opinions & voicing them but 'Editors can fuck right off'??? Grow up.

Re: editors

Damn good post^.

Re: editors

i quite like editors' record. its a lot better than i thought it might be.

Re: editors

I find Editors very bad.
Really average music and his voice is awful.
But thayt's just me apparently.

Re: editors

I find editors very bad too, they're just really dull, nothing new, no spark, blah blah blah. They're so blurgh I can't even be bothered to listen to them again to pinpoint what it is that bores me so..

Re: editors

What they said. ^
Judges ruling on Kleeb's post: gey.
Bring on the 'backlash'.

Re: editors

I agree with the stupid trolling bit. Explaining yourself is the ideal thing to do. The forum would be very dull if everyone was just saying 'band x can fuck off' all the time. Seeing it once is bad enough.

However I detect no nasty snide superior attitude.

Re: editors

It was meant in a tongue in cheek way actually but the intended humour doesn't seem to have carried through very well. Oh woe is me, the woods of Dunsinane are surrounding Brainlove HQ, I don't think I will survive the fury of this terrible 'backlash'! Backwash more like.

Re: editors

Yeah, I thought my bit of the backlash kicked arse. You must be reeling now.

Why did the baker have brown fingers?

Re: editors

From poking them up his wife's bottom, I would imagine.

Re: editors

I can't believe I posted that. How crude. Sorry world.

Re: editors

Because he kneaded a poo.

Re: editors

haha. gross. I might take the christmas crackers apart next chrimbo and replace the knock knock jokes with things like that.

Re: editors

i like editors while acknowledging their faults.

blood is a bit of a rubbish song.

Re: editors

munich is pretty good though

Re: editors

Brainlove.
If you are in attendance at this TDK shebang this evening, I will tear your head off, should you wish to identify yourself by donning some garish garb, possibly a diamante robe.

Re: editors

Ouch.

Re: editors

What a new and exciting fucktard we have here.

Re: editors

DiS is getting better and better...






( on second thought, maybe not ! )

Re: editors

He brought it upon himself with that nasty comment.

Re: editors

DiS is not supposed to be nice.
Ans that comment was quite funny.

Re: editors

You're an arse kissing boob.

Editors can fuck right off.

If you find that quite funny, you're a bit of a nipple.

Re: editors

Thank you for being such a nice boy !

I've never been a John-brainlove fan, but i can't see why his post creates such a fuss.
If it had been about Keane or Embrace, everyone will have said 'you're so right'.

And your post on the thread about Martbowsky's website being hacked is not really different.
So you're an hypocrite.

Re: editors

Thank you for being such a nice boy !

I've never been a John-brainlove fan, but i can't see why his post creates such a fuss.
If it had been about Keane or Embrace, everyone will have said 'you're so right'.

And your post on the thread about Martbowsky's website being hacked is not really different.
So you're an hypocrite.

Re: editors

Editors will most likely fuck right off in a few years, and I suspect nobody will remember them.

They have a couple, maybe 3 good songs though, I actaully really like blood, but the album = more bad stuff than good stuff. They're interpol-lite, really. But with more pro tools production.

Re: editors

No sign of you last night, Brainlove.
Another time, God willing.

Re: editors

Your schoolyard threats are quite laughable.

Re: editors

God willing, Brainlove.

Re: editors

You are creepy.

Re: editors

This band have no reason for existing and sound like they may have been given some early U2/Mission album. When they say they haven't heard of Joy Division I believe them as they were probably into the 'Chillis' before their record company told them the latest 'trend' - for me that makes them BAD (and I dont mean Big Audio Dynamite) bravo Brainers, SCL and Homesick

Sex Tourist you are taking it a bit seriously and obviously a coward to boot so lay off people

Re: editors

What's wrong with early Missions albums ?

And Editors aren't bad because they're playing the current 'trend', but just because they can't write a good song and can't sing.

Re: editors

Luyle - you gave king adora four stars. You have no right to an opinion about anything. Goodbye.

Re: editors

Wow !
You read 6 pages of my profile just to find a band to dismiss me !
You should have chosen Catatonia, Embrace, Leaves or Coldplay before !
King Adora made me smile with 'big isn't beautiful'.
Editors just makes me sick.

And you chose to register just to defend them !
I find them so dull, i can't believe someone's doing all that for them...

Re: editors

No - I didnt choose to register to defend them. I registered and this was the first article I felt the need to reply to. I don't need to say anymore/ You gave King Adora four stars. You cannot slag anyone else of after that.
You are entitled to find them dull. I find you dull but I wouldnt normally talk about it on a message board.
For what it's worth they aren't my favourite band but the record is pretty good and they are great live.

Re: editors

I can slag anyone i want.
I like what i like.
I dislike what i dislike.
I've the right to have my own tastes and my own opinions.
I've never said i was right, because i don't think there's right or wrong in musical taste.
Apparently, you do.

Re: editors

No I dont think there is a right or wrong I just think you are unmusical and a twat. Fair enough?

Re: editors

Thank you.
You're too kind !
Goodbye !

Re: editors

See it's annoying being slagged isn't it?
Try and bring some positivity next time you visit.

Re: editors

I don't care being slagged.
Why don't you post on another threads ?
Just tell us what do you like and what you don't like.
It's what's DiS is about.

Re: editors

I have never noticed Lyle being a negative poster, you are just judging him from one thread. So he doesn't like Editors. Do you have to be such a pussy over it?

But you know.. they're OK, pretty good live if you like that sort of thing.

Re: editors

Thank you !
When i don't like a band, i just say it.
But some people just seem to want only positive feedback on threads.

Re: editors

Yeah and when I dont like a person I just say it. I don't like Lyle. See I said it. that was my whole reason for subscribing. I don't like Lyle and am going to eat him.

Re: editors

?§?§!!!!!

Re: editors

Sorry, i was just rendered speechless.

Re: editors

Thank f&88

Re: editors

Ooh call me unmusical next!

With a side helping of that positivity that fueled your last couple of posts if that's not too much trouble.

Re: editors

No you are insignificant. It is Lyle I don't like.

Re: editors

At least I got the positivity.

Re: editors

No you didnt get anything. I am indifferent to you. You are insignificant.

Re: editors

I feel the positivity at least.

Re: editors

Cactus, you're an idiot. If there is one person on DiS who is nice and polite 99% of the time it is Lyle. An he has GREAT music taste. He has introduced me to a number of brilliant artists.

So lay off him ok?

Re: editors

Who asked you?

Re: editors

I don't care, i'm telling you anyway. Lyle is a friend of mine and there is no need to speak to him the way you are.

Don't take people slagging a band you like as a personal insult. It'll only make you look like a tit!

Oh, and for the record, I think Editors are one of the best live bands i've seen in years.

Re: editors

difference is, Lyles listened to more than a few seconds of editors, and chosen not to like it, whereas arguing with someone over one little comment is much less grounded.

Re: editors

Why does everyone assume they are lying when they say they haven't listened to Joy Division. They have admitted in the press that they like the Walkmen, the National, Elbow and REM...and they sound like they like those bands...what's the big deal??
And maybe the fact that the Radio One tent at Reading was completely full for them, at midday for christ sakes, is a good reason for existing. So that will be nine or ten thousand people that wanted to see them then, as opposed to the three people who I witnessed watching one of a certain Mr Brainlove's bands in Birmingham a couple of years ago. Bitter? No he isn't bitter or anything is he?

And as for you Mr prole art threat talking of no reason for existing. A 29 year old man that still feels the need to slag off bands on messageboards. Why don't you just not buy their records and ignore them instead?

Re: editors


yeahhhhh

Re: editors

You're an idiot cactus. You seem to be using the pathetic, cponstantly derided "popular = good" argument. They filled a tent at Reading? So fucking what? Take That filled Wembley, does that mean they're better than your precoious Editors? And suggesting I'm bitter because my band didn't break is just ridiculous! You don't even know me so you really don't have a leg to stand on. I was very happy with the way my band was going when we split, for the record. We were getting coverage in national magazines and radio airplay from Kerrang and Resonance, and label interest (heard of Mercury Records cactus?), and gig offers all over the country. Why did you even bring that up? Because some people don't like Editors and you can't handle it? GROW UP.

Re: editors

Yes, but still only three people came to your gig!! and I bought it up because someone said they had no reason for existing. I just pointed out that ten thousand people watching them thought they had a point to exist. I didn't say it made them better or worse but did suggest that the more people who care the more reason they have for existing. It is basic economics...the more people that like your band means the more people that buy your records means more people feel you have a right to exist. Someone cared enough to give Editors a deal whereas noone cared enough about your band. That doesnt make them better it just means more people think they are more relevant than you. And any band that has ever played in time has had interest from mercury records - what a laughable reply! You are a total idiot full of your own self importance Mr Brainlove.


Re: editors

You are attempting to make me angry by getting personal because are strangely unable to deal with fact that I don't like Editors. Very lame, and not worthy of a reply other than: discussion over.

Re: editors

And for the record, we never played a gig to less than about 25-30... and biggest gigs were in front of hundreds. Anyone who has been in a band will be familiar with small pub gigs when you're unsigned - even the fucking Editors I'm sure.

Re: editors

sorry to be pedantic but you are now a LIAR as well, or maybe forgetful. I watched your band in front of less than 10 people in a Birmingham gig.

Re: editors

Bullshit.

Re: editors

How much would you bet me? I recon I could prove that your band pulled less than ten people to a gig in Birmingham?

Re: editors

I would bet you roughly fucking zero. I remember that night (if you're talking about the Jug) because I smashed a guitar up onstage and then had to push through a crowd that went to the back of the room to get out and get changed, and had the promoter clapping and complimenting as we walked past her, which she would NOT have been doing if there were ten people in the room.

And you know what: I am fucking sick of talking to you. I don't care what shit you throw at me next, I'm not rising to anything else. Go and listen to your pathetic weedy limp indie music and stop bugging me about my old band you complete cunt.

Re: editors

You just proved my point. You come on here day after day with your ridiculous over inflated ego pushing your opinions on all and sundry. And when challenged on a basic point you get all childish and throw your toys out of your pram. Absolutely hilarious!
And No it wasn't at the Jug and YES there was hardly anyone there. And as for saying I liked weedy indie music (which incidentally isn't true) let me just point out that it was YOU that was in a band that sounded like a comedy BIS!! Fucking joker!

Take the bet, you chicken.

Re: editors

Do you always do that when someone makes a valid point?? For the record Editors aren't even in my top fifty favourite bands but your points were just plain wrong. See above. Not liking a band is fine but someone saying a band has no reason for existing is just wrong. I merely pointed out that several thousand people liking your records and gigs is probably a good reason to exist. A valid point which you seem to childishly refuse to answer??

Re: editors

steady prole. do you think they were signed before the started writign songs?

you idiot.

Re: editors

prole - sorry I called you an idiot. I don't know that. but im just saying that what you said was a bit silly. they were snowfield before they were editors and i don't think their songs were a hunderd miles away from what theyre doing now. you can't blame the label for telling them what to write. if you're going to slag them off, maybe stick to what you know is all.

Re: editors

Shit, there's a new breed of psychopathic humourless twats on board! Or is it just the same old rehashing themselves in new formats again.... BORING!!

It's fun to argue about music, just remember that kids.

Re: editors

I don't know why but if I read a shitty juvenile bickerstorm like this on the iMDB or something it'd annoy me and I'd stop reading but on DiS I find them hilarious and compelling. I love seeing strangers slagging each other off over some band.

And for the record I've never heard Editors and I think they're shit.

Re: editors

I like to call them The Editors.

Re: editors

I find it funny people can get so worked up defending such a dull and inconsequential band.

Re: editors

Yeah. Editors can fuck right off.

:D

Re: editors

Looks like im the only one indifferent here then.

Re: editors

I do think the album's pretty average, but I'll still object when someone says something so stupid like that.

Re: editors

I heard a track and thought it sounded like a band trying to write shite Interpol songs.

This thread is frankly ludicrous (if amusing) however. Wrighty, if only you didn't have a history of telling other forum members how twattish they were for liking X band (I believe the excreble Martbowski fell under fire most recently) then your claims against Brainlove might not seem like the hypocritical nonsense they are.

Clearly you just don't like him and I'd give you more respect if you just called him a twat for that rather than starting on one of your bullshit holier-than-thou rants about how patronising/out of order he is for making comments you'd let the rest of DiS get away with.