View Full Version : The problem with The Editors
anagrama
03-10-2006, 10:15 PM
is that they sound like a genetic mutation of Interpol, The Cure and The Killers.......but worse.
anagrama
03-10-2006, 10:17 PM
100 posts, and it only took 3 years.
joy.
Moon Pix
03-11-2006, 02:11 PM
The thing is that this new wave cat piss is all the rage at the moment over here... its all we hear about. The advert for their shitty little record was all over the place.
Just more uninspired white boy commercial rock crap.
johansen smith
03-11-2006, 03:27 PM
I kind of liked the single
Fidelio
03-11-2006, 03:38 PM
I kind of liked the single
I agree. Songs like 'All sparks' and 'Munich' are not that bad.
tinobeat
03-11-2006, 03:39 PM
who the hell are the Editors?
actually, from what I'm reading, don't tell me.
Moon Pix
03-11-2006, 03:44 PM
who the hell are the Editors?
A really lame ass version of Talking Heads who were awesome.
David Byrne is seriously underratted.
Yeah, there are plenty of bands worse than Editors. "Bullets" is an excellent single, and the album has a lot of bright spots.
About 100x better than Antics, anyway.
A really lame ass version of Talking Heads who were awesome.
David Byrne is seriously underratted.Talking Heads? No sorry. You're thinking of Clap Your Hands Say Shut the Fuck Up.
tinobeat
03-11-2006, 03:49 PM
David Byrne is seriously underratted.
Its not possible for someone as famous and widely-loved and admired as David Byrne to be underrated. He is quite "rated", as it were (much to Matador Dave's chagrin).
Moon Pix
03-11-2006, 03:49 PM
Talking Heads? No sorry. You're thinking of Clap Your Hands Say Shut the Fuck Up.
Have they been getting a busload of hype where you live too? (CYHSY I mean)
Fidelio
03-11-2006, 03:50 PM
Have they been getting a busload of hype where you live too? (CYHSY I mean)
I guess they have everywhere.
Moon Pix
03-11-2006, 03:51 PM
Its not possible for someone as famous and widely-loved and admired as David Byrne to be underrated. He is quite "rated", as it were (much to Matador Dave's chagrin).
Oh yes... he is very rated but I sometimes think that some of his achievements go unrecognised. Then again thats usually in the mainstream that doesnt appreciate anything anyway.
Doesnt Dave like the Heads then? Why?
Yeah, Dave's almost proud of his Heads hatred. Everyone's allowed to hate a few sacred cows, though, so I don't begrudge him at all.
Fiona
03-11-2006, 10:05 PM
The thing is that this new wave cat piss is all the rage at the moment over here... its all we hear about. The advert for their shitty little record was all over the place.
Just more uninspired white boy commercial rock crap.
FFS they've hardly garnered massive amounts of media coverage in comparison to plenty of other current British bands. If anything they've created a profile and gained a following through very decent live performances and a not-half-bad album.
I agree with Paul, "Bullets" is excellent. "Blood", "Munich" and "Fingers in the Factories" are very good too.
But "The Back Room" isn't better than "Antics", imo Paul!
But "The Back Room" isn't better than "Antics", imo Paul!Don't pay me any mind. I'm a long-time Interpol detractor.
I heard their cover of French Disko, and that was enough of the Editors for me.
Kid B
03-13-2006, 01:05 AM
I haven't heard enough to make a judgment either way. I guess they just kinda blend in.
earl grey
03-13-2006, 02:01 AM
I heard their cover of French Disko, and that was enough of the Editors for me.
the stereolab song? really? i've heard the editors' name a lot but nothing more ... that makes me curious though.
the stereolab song? really? i've heard the editors' name a lot but nothing more ... that makes me curious though.
I got it off one of the mp3 blogs. I forget which one, but if you search blogspot, it might still be up.
Keith
03-13-2006, 09:57 AM
I can't beleave no one else has pointed out that they sound just like Joy Diverson in a bad way ofcouse. That's who their really ripping off. The thing is there's only one JD and they are great and a leadmark band. It's one thing to pay homege to them it's another altogether to rip them off in such a big way. The Editors are two note, two dimislion and all the singer does half the time is droll. Very dull!
I can't beleave no one else has pointed out that they sound just like Joy Diverson in a bad way ofcouse. That's who their really ripping off. The thing is there's only one JD and they are great and a leadmark band. It's one thing to pay homege to them it's another altogether to rip them off in such a big way. The Editors are two note, two dimislion and all the singer does half the time is droll. Very dull!Okay, Keith. Tell me one Joy Division song that Editors are ripping off.
(Note: "Joy Diversion" is probably the funniest typo you've ever made.)
Keith
03-13-2006, 10:58 AM
thank-you!
I don't know because i don't pay that much attention to the Editors. I've heard enough to know their rubbish and are a JD rip off band. To rip off a great band makes them worse then if they were just a poor band with no ideas. Even fans of Editors admit they sound like Joy Division.
thank-you!
I don't know because i don't pay that much attention to the Editors. I've heard enough to know their rubbish and are a JD rip off band. To rip off a great band makes them worse then if they were just a poor band with no ideas. Even fans of Editors admit they sound like Joy Division.My senses have become so dulled to every single one of these bands that I no longer view them as ripping off bands from 30 years ago, but working within a set system of musical characteristics. Some make it work, and (many) others don't. To crown Joy Division as the band that everyone rips off is kind of silly. Ian Curtis was a fucking lousy singer, yet many of the bands accused of ripping JD off have great singers. Editors, if I were forced to make a comparison, have a closer allegiance to the more polished and slick post-punk bands like the Chameleons or Echo & the Bunnymen.
But that's assuming they're ripping anyone off, and I don't hear that happening.
earl grey
03-13-2006, 11:10 AM
Some make it work, and (many) others don't.
my general rule of thumb these days : if "interpol" or "bloc party" appear within the first 20 words of a band's description, tread very carefully.
Keith
03-13-2006, 11:53 AM
I don't remember saying about other bands doing it just the Editors. For the record Interpol are a wonderful band and do the JD/Bowie thing very well. The singer has a very rich and strong vioce and the music rocks and glowns with joy.
I don't remember saying about other bands doing it just the Editors. For the record Interpol are a wonderful band and do the JD/Bowie thing very well. The singer has a very rich and strong vioce and the music rocks and glowns with joy.No, I'm not saying you did. But JD seems to be the name most often used for comparison/slagging of these new post-punk bands... yet very few of them even merit the comparison (i.e. they DON'T sound like Joy Division).
I don't think Interpol's all that great (and despite all my defending of them in this thread, I think Editors still have a lot of room for improvement).
tinobeat
03-13-2006, 12:15 PM
yeah, I've pretty much learned that people dropping "Joy Division" as a reference to a band means two things:
1) that person has maybe heard "Transmission" and "Love Will Tear Us Apart", at most and has a penchant for super-lazy comparisons
2) I'm probably going to avoid said band at all costs. Interpol is pretty much the one exception I made.
Moon Pix
03-13-2006, 12:56 PM
I think people do it because Joy Division have become a metaphor for that sort of music so people tend to use them. People know what you mean when you say "they sound like Joy Division."
Same thing with Gang of Four.
The thing with Go4 comparisons, though, is that they're most often accurate. These bands are obviously modeling themselves after Go4 and make no secret of it.
But I haven't heard a band yet who's been compared to Joy Division that actually sounds like them for more than a second or two in any given song.
Keith
03-22-2006, 12:38 PM
No! No! and NO! I'm sorry but i'm not like that, having heard enough of the Editors to make a judgement(and i have more than enough) to me they should like Joy Division and i do beleave their ripping them off. If people feel other wise i can accept it, but it's a little unfair to group me in with other people who make the new wave/JD comparison. And also if people think Ian Curtis had a poor voice maybe they have not heard enough of Joy Division as vocals gets better them more you listern. In some of the punk songs his voice sounds off the chart!
Joy Division great! Editors Dull(maybe the odd good tune)
Moon Pix
03-22-2006, 12:57 PM
To be honest I think that when you look sat this whole new wave revival its all pretty unexciting and lame. The Editors arent necessarily any worse than any of the others. The Orsons and the Kaisers and the Maximo Parks of the world are at least as bad if not significantly duller than the Editors.
Keith
03-23-2006, 11:49 AM
Maybe but i just feel to Rip a great band like JD off(i at least think their great) is a little more of a crime. And don't you think the Kaiser's are more a pop/indie band a piss poor one but one non the less.
Moon Pix
03-23-2006, 02:02 PM
Im not really too sure about them ripping Joy Division off though. I love Closer and I cant really hear any of that in the Editors. They may have a similar guitar sound or something but there isnt anything wrong with that. I sure don't think that theyre anything special and they certainly arent unique but then again Jandek is unique but he's unlistenable so I dont think hes worth listening to him just because he's unique.
For me the whole thing got off on an uninspiring foot with Graham Coxon's "Freakin' Out" single and Franz Ferdinand's "Take Me Out Single." I ddnt like either of those and its been downhill even more since then. The big labels have latched onto signing any band that wears funny clothes and sounds remotely influenced by either Gang of Four, Wire, Magazine or Joy Division and then throwing loads of marketing money at them in hopes that the pop kids who don't know anything about indie will swallow it.
I think its interesting to note that the coverage Giant Drag have been getting in Britain is significantly more than many indie bands but is still relatively a hobo pissing in the woods when compared to all of this British new wave cobblers.
The Heartless Bastards have been lost alltogether in the mess of anti-American Anglophillic backslapping that the British music press is and alays will be.
Kid B
03-31-2006, 12:52 AM
Speaking of the Editors, they're on Conan tonite probally around 1:30 eastern time. That is all, carry on.
After the Conan performance, I like them a lot more. All rawk, no stupid posturing... and they're armed with Rickenbackers!
Paul Thek
03-31-2006, 02:52 AM
"Ian Curtis was a fucking lousy singer, yet many of the bands accused of ripping JD off have great singers."
I think Curtis' vocals was one of the more distinctive and interesting in rock/pop music. Up there with Morrissey and Michael Stipe. The last half of Closer is where he really makes an impression on me. I kind of prefer Curtis to Paul Banks, if one had to make a choice about such things (you know, one of those gun to the head, family dangling above a vat of acid kind of situations).
Keith
04-10-2006, 12:46 PM
You are so wrong he had a great voice espacilly in the punk sounding stuff. It's the singer from the Editors who drolls on. I supose if i'm honest he's voice sounds quite nice on some of their slower songs but on the whole i don't like it. Maybe if he stopped drolling he would sound better ofcouse it's the band as well.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.