16922Re: answers on an electronic postcard and they'd better be good :)
- May 29, 2003The Flaming Lips have always struck me as psych-poseurs and the
music just doesn't seem very good. There is something very hollow at
the core of a record like Soft Bulletin. It might be ok on the first
spin, but there is nothing of lasting value. It wears out it's
welcome real quick. Wayne's vocals are kind of irritating. The
lyrics are banal. The music is ho-hum. And their more "electronic"
direction on the tracks I heard from the new album is distinctly
boring. Wayne's wacky Wilson/Barrett persona is grating and he tries
way too hard (ie the blood and the puppets, etc ad naseaum). They are
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, stuff1424@a... wrote:
> After a string of what I'd call more well developed artists on the
> operating either within or on the cusp of 'mainstream' music,
> larger audiences (Bjork, Radiohead, Mercury Rev), it's started to
bug me: why
> are the Flaming Lips never celebrated? Before the academics get all
> blurting 'leave that to the NME we want our Schnitzler's/
Parmegiani's etc.', the
> Lips efforts at forever pushing the limits of pop music (Hit To
> Zaireeka? Tapedeck symphonies?) are clearly worth celebrating,
however, most Wire
> critics remain casually dismissive of their work.
> It's almost like The Wire had plans but bottled out and stuck
> Mercury Rev frontpage when the Lips in rabbit costumes covered with
> obsession with insects and bizarre history to reveal would have
made a better
> story. What gives?
> One more thing- Roland Kirk primer anyone?
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>