What do you think of Pete Doherty?

[Matty_UK]

Just wondering what everyone here thinks of Pete Doherty from The Libertines/Babyshambles. He's actually really talented and his lyrics are unpretentious with a lot of depth, but I think a lot of that's been lost by his drug abuse getting him in the redtops every so often. He's a leftist as well, as is evident in some of his lyrics and the fact he was actually out there skirmishing with police in the Mayday riots. But a lot of people think he's a loser.....just wondering what the general consensus is.

[Roses in the Hospital]

The guy tries to hard to be a bad-boy rockstar and ends up just looking like a prat...though I agree he has produced some good music...

[Invader Zim]

The libertines are not punk.

[RebelOutcast]

It's my opinion that if he overdosed it wouldn't be a great loss, or even a loss.

[Sir Aunty Christ]

Yet another big talent gone to waste.

Mind you: Kate Moss, were'd that come from?

[Matty_UK]

Originally posted by Roses in the [email protected] 28 2005, 06:06 PM
The guy tries to hard to be a bad-boy rockstar and ends up just looking like a prat...though I agree he has produced some good music...
I don't get the impression he's trying to be a bad boy rockstar...from my very brief encounters with him, he's just soft; can't say no to fans. And this softness leads to drugs and then the drugs lead to stupid behaviour....

And to the guy who said The Libertines are not punk, they are certainly a branch of punk. Raw minimalist music and a focus on being open with fans? They're certainly more punk than the likes of Greenday et al, who get away with being called punk. More in common than the original punk movement than the bastardised adolescent-rock that has grown out of it.

[Matty_UK]

Originally posted by Sir Aunty [email protected] 29 2005, 02:56 PM
Yet another big talent gone to waste.

Mind you: Kate Moss, were'd that come from?
Pfft, Kate Moss is always following rock stars around. Whoever the NME is favouring at the time, she's there; Franz Ferdinand, Kings of Leon, White Stripes, The Strokes, Primal Scream are other bands where she's been trying to get in with band members. And the only one she finally gets is the hapless junkie...

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Matty_UK+Oct 29 2005, 08:46 PM--> (Matty_UK @ Oct 29 2005, 08:46 PM)
Roses in the [email protected] 28 2005, 06:06 PM
The guy tries to hard to be a bad-boy rockstar and ends up just looking like a prat...though I agree he has produced some good music...

And to the guy who said The Libertines are not punk, they are certainly a branch of punk. Raw minimalist music and a focus on being open with fans? They're certainly more punk than the likes of Greenday et al, who get away with being called punk. More in common than the original punk movement than the bastardised adolescent-rock that has grown out of it. [/b]
Wrong, the libertines are part of the new wave Indie Rock. Like the Arctic Monkeys, British Sea Power, the Cribs, etc.

[The Forum Idiot]

Oh god, now we get to the part where everyone starts trying to categorize everything.

Okay, here's a way of looking at it:



they are certainly a branch of punk. Raw minimalist music and a focus on being open with fans?


Ok, right. Now by that theory The Streets are a branch of punk. Okay, now if you say they aren't you're totally contradicting yourself.



Wrong, the libertines are part of the new wave Indie Rock.


Ok, right. Now, assuming by "indie" you mean an independant label and/or sound, The Streets are part of a new wave of Indie, not Indie Rock but Indie. Okay, now if you say they aren't you're totally contradicting yourself.

Some bands are impossible to just totally lump into one genre. The Libertines don't really fit into anything. The Streets don't really fit into anything. Does that mean they should be in the same category? I don't think so.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

What's with the The Streets obsession? :P But I agree on the non-categorizing thingy

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by The Forum [email protected] 30 2005, 10:06 AM


Wrong, the libertines are part of the new wave Indie Rock.


Ok, right. Now, assuming by "indie" you mean an independant label and/or sound, The Streets are part of a new wave of Indie, not Indie Rock but Indie. Okay, now if you say they aren't you're totally contradicting yourself.

Some bands are impossible to just totally lump into one genre. The Libertines don't really fit into anything.
Now, assuming by "indie" you mean an independant label and/or sound

No, I said 'indie rock', which by definition excludes The Streets. Indie rock origionally was defined by record label, this is no longer the case. In the modern sense the term has progressed to define a style of music, you confuse status with genre. The new wave of indie rock takes a lot of influence from post punk, classic 80's indie rock, britpop, rock 'n' roll, punk rock, etc. This allows for a greatly diverse sound.

Oh an yes, The Streets are indie, absolutely.

The Libertines are if anything poster boys of neo wave indie rock. Along with Frans Ferdinand and other bands.

[The Forum Idiot]

Well, in some ways The Streets very much are Indie Rock with rap built in. Listen to the guitar in Fit But You Know It and the lyrical stylings influenced (directly or indirectly) by Pulp and The Kinks. I wouldn't call them Indie Rock, but they show elements of it.

Furthermore with your definition of Indie Rock it covers virtually all of what is otherwise known as "art rock", "modern rock," etc. In the end its not really anything. Its just the popular rock sound of the moment, nothing more nothing less.

The Streets obsession is because I thought it would make a good example as it is comparable to both Indie and Punk in the definitions people were using, and I got A Grand Don't Come For Free yesterday for £3.97 and am very chuffed with my purchase. :P