Pixieofdoom's Response to Saul Beeson's Review

Written on: 07/01/2005

I'm reading this, I've read loads of positive reviews of The Others but I just don't get it. I had the misfortune of seeing them open for the Libertines at Brixton Academy last March and they were absolutely WRETCHED. The gutarist was incapable of playing. My better half, who is a fairly good guitarist, reckoned he was at best a beginner and seemed to be missing half the notes. Dominic Masters has an appalling voice, was completely out of tune (and not in an Ian Brown, can get away with it cause he's so charismatic sort of way) and the lyrics were not even as good as semi-illiterate 6th form poetry. The bassist and drummer seemed pretty good which left us wondering why they were in that particular band to begin with.
<br>
<br>Now, I realise that The Others have this manifesto and are trying to make a point with the guerilla gigs and the blurred distinction between band and fans, blah blah blah, but they seem incapable of conveying this message through their music and instead have to rely on talking about it in the press (and talking wayyyy too much about their love of chemical substances) which begs the question of wouldn't they have been better off either 1) Learning to play/sing or 2) Finding a different way to convey their message?
<br>
<br>One of the key things about being a band with a point to make is you have to be able to write decent songs. All those punk bands like The Clash, the Sex Pistols, etc. who came before The Others (particularly in their attitude towards their audience) all had catchy, well-written songs and a pretty good level of musical ability. So what do the Others have?
<br>
<br>My question then is this: Am I missing something? Did I happen to catch them in the worst performance of their career trying out new and half-formed songs or is their appeal for you something other than their actual ability to write catchy tunes and perform them to a reasonable degree of skill?