Quote:
Originally Posted by unique the beatles and stones are more widely thought of for musical ability and back catalogue rather than drugs, but pete is known more about drugs etc than his music. amy winehouse has comparable press coverage for her drug use etc, but her music is far more well known. why is that? to be frank, i'd say pete's music was crap, that's why. it's not played on radio or tv that much as it's not very popular to regular joe bloggs. if he didn't have his thing with drugs and kate moss and wasn't in the press his music would probably be heard of much less than it is
if you take a look at the guy, whilst he may have been off drugs for a while now, most people recall the numerous photos of him looking his he's been on drugs for the past 10 years and dragged through a bush backwards, then seen his awful blood "paintings" and the state he left his flat. it doesn't really set you up for expecting much from him, and when you first listen to the music it just sounds like a shambolic mess to most people
amy might have been a mess through drugs, but at least she had two excellent albums, the second of which was a huge commercial success and her music was played all over the place, so whilst she was always seen drunk etc in the papers, people knew she at least had some talent. as pete hasn't had much commercial success and isn't played that much on tv, most people don't know his music so will only speak about him on what they know about him, which is taking drugs and getting into trouble
personally i think he is hugely overated. having listened to the albums (not the new one yet) once or twice, i can't say i wanted to go back and listen to them again
look at michael jackson for example, he's had a hammering in the press, but he still sold out 50 nights at the o2 as his past music catalogue outshines the negative side. pete doesn't have anything like that behind him for joe public to think about instead of his personal life |
Again, it's all down to Opinions and of course everyone is entitled to their own, a lot of what you mention is opinion based.
The Beatles and Stones' back catalogue to one person may be seen as the best of any artist, yet to another person it may seem awful.
Commercial success isn't necessarily a measure of talent / quality of music, so I think the point you raise is a bit flawed.
That's like saying because Mariah Carey has sold more records than Dire Straits that she is the better musician. To some... yeah maybe she is... But "talent" wise, you can't compare a vocalist to the talents of a great rock band.
Every artist has their fans and haters, but just because peoples tastes vary it does not justify the amount of slack some get for their music when people havn't given them a try, fair enough you have gave him a listen and are entitled to your opinion, I just find it annoying when there are so many boy and girl bands out there with no talent who get praise and chary success on almost nothing, most of them can't write their own songs, play an instrument, or even sing!
Credit to Pete for doing that, he's not the best vocalist in the world, then again there are great artists out there who aren't, Bob Dylan for example (i'm not even going to try compare Pete to Bob, don't worry) but again it's down to what people make of it...
His personal life has his his career before he got much success, which kind of restricts him a bit, a lot of people now won't give his music a chance because of what they've read about him etc.
Amy Winehouse got success before falling into drug problems.
(and you say excellent albums - I don't share that opinion myself)
Michael Jackson had his success before the allegations.
Both had a reasonable fan base before the media jumped on them, the same can't be said for Pete, i'm not saying that's why he doesn't have success, but it wont help.
I believe he deserves more credit than people give him, especially with the state of pop music and such these days.