Music Banter

Music Banter (https://www.musicbanter.com/)
-   Indie & Alternative (https://www.musicbanter.com/indie-alternative/)
-   -   The Libertines (https://www.musicbanter.com/indie-alternative/5771-libertines.html)

blainey 03-13-2008 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger (Post 454735)
And irritating scruffy no talent smack heads too?

In your eyes who exactly is talented? If you believe Pete Doherty has no talent, facetious as you may have been when you said that, then you've got serious delusions. Even before he became an 'irritating scruffy no talent smack head' he was an extremely bright student and had won competitions because of his poetry. Does that not constitute as talented?

Urban Hat€monger ? 03-13-2008 05:08 PM

Serious delusions?

I've HEARD a Babyshambles album. They sound like nothing more than a pub band with a pissed singer.

blainey 03-13-2008 05:13 PM

As an example, I find Bjork's music irritating, completely self-indulgent and pointless. I can still admit she has talent, however much I dislike her music.

Can I state that I think Pete Doherty is a complete prick who is abusing his copious amounts of talent, but that's the point, he still does have talent. How you could deny that after reading his lyrics and poetry is bewildering.

Lizzie 03-13-2008 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blainey (Post 454643)
If you read the above post and still think Alex Turner writes better songs then Pete Doherty than you're retarded or an AM fan boy. High school poetry students can write with more meaning then Alex Turner.

Lyicly, Alex Turner doesn't really compare to Pete Doherty
However, consistancy wise, the Arctic Monkeys are a far stronger band then the Libs

sleepy jack 03-13-2008 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blainey (Post 454940)
As an example, I find Bjork's music irritating, completely self-indulgent and pointless. I can still admit she has talent, however much I dislike her music.

Can I state that I think Pete Doherty is a complete prick who is abusing his copious amounts of talent, but that's the point, he still does have talent. How you could deny that after reading his lyrics and poetry is bewildering.

Because his lyrics and poetry aren't good.

sweet_nothing 03-13-2008 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lizzie (Post 454985)
Lyicly, Alex Turner doesn't really compare to Pete Doherty
However, consistancy wise, the Arctic Monkeys are a far stronger band then the Libs

And the Shins are better than the Artic Monkeys. I started this thread to talk about the Libs not make fun of Pete's drug problem or his lyrics. If your not a fan than don't post. :(

Rainard Jalen 03-14-2008 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blainey (Post 454643)
If you read the above post and still think Alex Turner writes better songs then Pete Doherty than you're retarded or an AM fan boy. High school poetry students can write with more meaning then Alex Turner.

Yeah. See, like, you might find this difficult to understand, but the intention of Turner's lyrics is not really to be "deep" and "meaningful". It's supposed to be entertaining and humorous.

I'm not an AM fan-bwoi. Cripes, I haven't listened to them in almost a year. But I can't avoid the need to point out that there IS a difference between Turner and somebody like Doherty. See, Alex Turner knows his limits. He has no grand pretentions about being a poet or some important cultural figure. He knows what he CAN do well, and sticks to his strengths. Pete on the other hand is this complete twonk who tries to be "relevant". *chuckle*. Poet my rear-end. Pete's writings have no political significance nor are they particularly insightful in terms of social commentary. In fact they're the typical bland issues that people have been talking about for years.

What irritates me the most about Libs fan-bwois - which is actually what you are, btw (loz, the irony!) - is that they are in no position to be thinking so highly of Doherty! The guy can hardly play his instrument; he evidently knows almost nothing about that whole songcraft thingee which is often kinda important to making good music; and then, when it comes to the one thing he does know how to do (i.e. lyrics), he's not even that good. He's hit and miss. Sometimes winners, sometimes duds - but almost never culturally significant! This guy isn't a musician. This guy isn't a 21st century Keats. He's a complete chaotic mess of an individual, about as much worth being idolized as he is being in a band with - which, suffice to say, is not very much at all.

blainey 03-14-2008 02:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rainard Jalen (Post 455122)
Yeah. See, like, you might find this difficult to understand, but the intention of Turner's lyrics is not really to be "deep" and "meaningful". It's supposed to be entertaining and humorous.

I'm not an AM fan-bwoi. Cripes, I haven't listened to them in almost a year. But I can't avoid the need to point out that there IS a difference between Turner and somebody like Doherty. See, Alex Turner knows his limits. He has no grand pretentions about being a poet or some important cultural figure. He knows what he CAN do well, and sticks to his strengths. Pete on the other hand is this complete twonk who tries to be "relevant". *chuckle*. Poet my rear-end. Pete's writings have no political significance nor are they particularly insightful in terms of social commentary. In fact they're the typical bland issues that people have been talking about for years.

What irritates me the most about Libs fan-bwois - which is actually what you are, btw (loz, the irony!) - is that they are in no position to be thinking so highly of Doherty! The guy can hardly play his instrument; he evidently knows almost nothing about that whole songcraft thingee which is often kinda important to making good music; and then, when it comes to the one thing he does know how to do (i.e. lyrics), he's not even that good. He's hit and miss. Sometimes winners, sometimes duds - but almost never culturally significant! This guy isn't a musician. This guy isn't a 21st century Keats. He's a complete chaotic mess of an individual, about as much worth being idolized as he is being in a band with - which, suffice to say, is not very much at all.

I agree, Pete is a terrible musician. I agree, the majority of his output doesn’t deserve anywhere near the coverage it receives. No, I don’t think he is a significant poet and not much of his stuff compares to actual acclaimed poets. Maybe if you had of actually read the thread before you ran your keyboard you would of seen I was responding to claims he has no talent and that Alex Turner has “more talent in his fingernails.”

And have you actually listened to any sort of amount of his discography? Obviously not, because you have missed a common theme in many of his songs about racism, poverty, domestic oppression and police violence. I don’t think Pete Doherty is anywhere near as good as what he is made out to be, but it just pisses me that people feel the need to hijack any thread about him to proclaim his lack of ability. It shouldn’t be too difficult to comprehend that some people may see some artistic value in his music.

Urban Hat€monger ? 03-14-2008 10:31 AM

Nobody is hijacking anything.

This is a thread to discuss The Libertines , not a thread to hero worship Pete Doherty.

I do love it how some people seem to think he's some sort of genius. As if the very notion that releasing one OKish album in 2002 and nothing else of any interest makes you one.

Look out Hendrix , Zappa , Bowie , Morrissey ... Pete's gonna show you what a real genius is :laughing:

sweet_nothing 03-14-2008 11:48 AM

Do you think Pete and Carl will get back together. And is it just me or did they seem kindof romanticly involved with one another.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:56 AM.


© 2003-2025 Advameg, Inc.