So, is Pete out of the Libertines or what? (This thread started 28th May 2004)

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

... as it's happened beore and no doubt will again...

I dunno. These guys.

Anyhow, it's a "Sun Exclusive" as reported by NME website.

― mark grout (mark grout), Friday, 28 May 2004 08:43 (twenty-two years ago)

never believe cash-in-hand 'scoop' reporting when pete libertine is involved!

― doomie x, Friday, 28 May 2004 08:48 (twenty-two years ago)

Thanks, d. I thought you might answer, didn't know it would be so quick!

Anyhow, it's not the Sun (it's only to be expected), but I despair of the NME ALWAYS reporting the sun rubbish as if it adds some distance when it's shown to be untrue...

― mark grout (mark grout), Friday, 28 May 2004 08:50 (twenty-two years ago)

i wish him well, he appears to be one of the finest men of our age, and is capable of beautiful prose. it is not our place, though, to engage in too much conjecture about the man. nevermind if he abuses the sun for a little money, he is naturally gregarious, and to lose that would be to lose the only thing we are within our rights to ask of him.

― matthew james (matthew james), Friday, 28 May 2004 09:59 (twenty-two years ago)

i am now going to politely ask what it is about this lot that inspires SUCH insano indie fanaticism cos i only discovered the huge extent of it the other day and frankly it scared me. y'know, explain it as if it wasn't something u just get or don't get (is this like me saying young gunz are really great or something)

― prima fassy (mwah), Friday, 28 May 2004 10:55 (twenty-two years ago)

It's cos they are the best band in eons and in a world that is dominated by such boring, bland, asswipes as Chris Martin and the staid American "rawk", The Libertines have been just about the sole thing to be excited about. I hope Pete's alright, the band is needed more than ever.

― CRW (CRW), Friday, 28 May 2004 10:59 (twenty-two years ago)

Last I heard (yesterday and from a good source) Pete's main short term problems related to remaining alive rather than remaining in the Libertines.

― Snotty Moore, Friday, 28 May 2004 11:00 (twenty-two years ago)

er ok indie dude but u'll have to hold my hand a bit tighter than that. are they defined by what they aren't? i ask cos i didnt realise the particular fervour about them b4, i'm working off the assumption ppl think they r particularly super important. i'm not asking anyone to explain general indie to me. yknow i quite liked... linoleum

― prima fassy (mwah), Friday, 28 May 2004 11:17 (twenty-two years ago)

the libertines have a delicate understanding of things that isn't present in your franz ferdinands (the pun in 'take me out' doesn't work, it's like being a kid and thinking "hey 'can' means that i can, and also a tine, that's wierd"). they have that rare ability to describe things without dramatising them. ithey pick up on tiny incidents of fate... "she'll never forgive you but she won't let you go," and so on. i held out against them for a long time due to a fair and justified distaste for the whole indie crop. super important, i'm not sure, they're an anachronism, they play hazier than your stands and stills and kills.
the difficulty is that it's hard to divorce the complex and tragic things going on with pete from the complex and tragic things going on within the songs, when someting like 'death on the stairs' and 'what a waster' deal in the same kind of plainitive and scurrilous reporting that pete's condition brings out discussion of.

― matthew james (matthew james), Friday, 28 May 2004 11:37 (twenty-two years ago)

That is so OTM it hurts.

Rather, certainly, than the old "oh they live on the edge and take drugs" rubbish...

― mark grout (mark grout), Friday, 28 May 2004 12:04 (twenty-two years ago)

fassy i share your confusion, except that i knew all about the fanaticism before i heard the records. to be fair i've only heard like two songs, but still.

― toby (tsg20), Friday, 28 May 2004 19:27 (twenty-two years ago)

it creeps me out. a lot of the fanatical admiration i've seen is connected to the fact that pete is such an obvious rock drug tragedy that a certain type of fan can blindly romanticize. ooh, he feels your pain! he'll die for your sins like cobain! step right up! watch train wreck unfold before your eyes!

― lauren (laurenp), Friday, 28 May 2004 19:33 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't think they're important at all but I like them. He writes really good songs and I think he'll probably write some great ones in his day.

I like Franz Ferdinand better... for the beats

― Sonny A. (Keiko), Friday, 28 May 2004 19:35 (twenty-two years ago)

Also, I didn't know anything about this Pete fellow being such a loser. Clean up, Pete.

― Sonny A. (Keiko), Friday, 28 May 2004 19:35 (twenty-two years ago)

v creepy

thanks to matthew, s'good, i appreciate that, its something i can go and work with a little. art vs artist is a big old chestnut but to try and get something specific out of it would it be fair to say indie press (sounds like a rebuke from me but yeah yeah y'know: nme careless talk) is that much worse at finding a useful median between the two? obv every crit has some 'feel the voib' but is there too much history to handle? tom's eddie cochrane thing on popular is what i mean. like this is all fairly obv but man it just occured to me how pathetically grateful i am for matthew's paragraph, its not much really. compared to superfan doomie's reams and reams of revulsive screed...

― prima fassy (mwah), Friday, 28 May 2004 20:00 (twenty-two years ago)

questions:

1. revulsive - what is that?

2. eh? i don't understand what you just said?

3. superfan? until i went on tour i hadnt even heard their album and still don't own a copy. i get it, though. and thought i made it clear whenever i wrote about them.

― doomie x, Friday, 28 May 2004 21:34 (twenty-two years ago)

the difficulty is that it's hard to divorce the complex and tragic things going on with pete from the complex and tragic things going on within the songs, when someting like 'death on the stairs' and 'what a waster' deal in the same kind of plainitive and scurrilous reporting that pete's condition brings out discussion of.

eh? i don't get this. the songs are autobiographical. pete refers to lyrics constantly throughout conversation. you can't divorce them because they aren't to be seperate. the man writes out his life in song.

ffs. my bad. let's pretend i did not post on this at all.

― doomie x, Friday, 28 May 2004 21:38 (twenty-two years ago)

Lauren completely OTM. The Libertines are BORING and are only interesting if their main competition is Coldplay.

― deanomgwtf!!!p%3Fmsgid%3D4581997 (deangulberry), Friday, 28 May 2004 21:39 (twenty-two years ago)

if i am revulsive (what does that mean?) -- for portraying things, as is, as they are, then so be it.

the new album isn't boring. but then again if you are listening to secretly canadian back catalogue and black dice -- you aren't going to be loving-up the libertines.

― doomie x, Friday, 28 May 2004 21:40 (twenty-two years ago)

with pete, you can't seperate the art from the artist. and that might be his ultimate downfall. and you can't really understand that unless you spent time with him.

― doomie x, Friday, 28 May 2004 21:42 (twenty-two years ago)

you don't get it because morethanlikely - you are not 16 years old. pete has let go of that wall between fan and recording artist. a fan who logs onto the site realises that they have interaction with him. he may show up at yr house carrying an acoustic guitar if you email him. i was astounded to see the time that the he takes with the fans when he is on tour. its not a star-trip -- all the fans are on the same trip. i find that fascinating.

― doomie x, Friday, 28 May 2004 21:47 (twenty-two years ago)

that's not the reason for the admiration. basically, pete has built an entire sub-culture of rock'n'roll that is not based on drug usage. it is based on a weird collective feeling that his fans have, because, through abandoning the pretence of us v. them -- they are part of it.

― doomie x, Friday, 28 May 2004 21:50 (twenty-two years ago)

it seems to me, that you can only understand something through critical cliches. i.e. 'he does drugs. they idolise him because he is the jesus cobain christ of smack' or 'pete is not the art he represents.' reeks of someone willing to comment without really understanding. like soundbites that can easily organise thoughts.

― doomie x, Friday, 28 May 2004 21:53 (twenty-two years ago)

i guess that is my problem with ilx -- laziness masqued by a gang-mentality of what is, in ilx opinion, 'cold-eyed criticism' -- really, a series of cliches, that are flippant easy answers.

but that that is my issue. so i feel foolish for bothering to defend on this thread.

― doomie x, Friday, 28 May 2004 21:56 (twenty-two years ago)

i love the word "revulsive". it's clearly wrong but is head and shoulders more onomatopoeic than its correct alternative.

― Dave Stelfox (Dave Stelfox), Friday, 28 May 2004 21:58 (twenty-two years ago)

and that's one thing about ilx that i have noticed. it's become so meta, that, invariably, it is wrong. so, i guess, that's why i never try on ilx. stances are clearly shot down by the 'gang mentality', so arguments never occur -- and what becomes the status quo, eventually is meaningless.

but i still come to ilm because it is still good fun for a laugh and picking up the occassional recommendation. though the critical functions are shot to hell.

― doomie x, Friday, 28 May 2004 22:05 (twenty-two years ago)

i'd actually agree on that

― Dave Stelfox (Dave Stelfox), Friday, 28 May 2004 22:10 (twenty-two years ago)

thanks for pointing out that my opinions are just part of a larger hive-mind. i'll keep that in mind next time i want to contribute to a thread.

― lauren (laurenp), Friday, 28 May 2004 22:13 (twenty-two years ago)

familiarity breeds contempt. biggest cliche about, really.

100 answer on why i am the new trolling-antichrist by morning.

off to watch chinatown.

― doomie x, Friday, 28 May 2004 22:16 (twenty-two years ago)

i certainly wasn't saying that at all, but it does happen re other things and at the risk of sounding patronising, which i really hope i don't, your points are always really well-made. this is a subject i'm quiteinterested re fassy's question, that's all coz i can't find any appeal in the libertines where i can with other indie bands despite them not exactly being my thing. i agree with what you were saying lauren, i thinks its a lot to do with wasted glamour live-fast-die-young cliche, mainly, though some other points here ave made me think there may be a bit more to it.

― Dave Stelfox (Dave Stelfox), Friday, 28 May 2004 22:17 (twenty-two years ago)

doomie what do you think of the bob markley record, and other post-wcpaeb records, (and what do you think of bob himself, did he ruin it for the others, or not?). only the october country record got a re-release?

apologies for diverting the thread away from libertines talk (i must admit to ignorance when it comes to this band, i know the name, but that is all, sorry once again), but i thought this might be something up your street, and those other threads have disappeared into the ether now (possibly like the records themselves, sadly)

― charltonlido (gareth), Friday, 28 May 2004 22:19 (twenty-two years ago)

ps - lauren, you use ilm like i do. it's not the scheme of 'being a critic' -- it's hey - i love music, here is a thought or an opinion. it's not the 'hey-ma-look-at-me-i'm-writing bs.' which is fresh and more enjoyable.

sorry!

re: october country -- 60s soft-pop band? wasn't my thing, gareth. hold on -- i want to get this apologise out to lauren before i answer yr question.

― doomie x, Friday, 28 May 2004 22:20 (twenty-two years ago)

my above post was to lauren btw

― Dave Stelfox (Dave Stelfox), Friday, 28 May 2004 22:24 (twenty-two years ago)

y'know -- for some strange reason - the west coast experimental pop band never did much for me because of the october country record.

i got the october country album in the post but found it too be to much of a pastiche. which is strange for me if you consider my musical tastes.

am willing to give west coast experimental pop band another go (only heard it at a friend's flat)-- if you can recommend something?

― doomie x, Friday, 28 May 2004 22:25 (twenty-two years ago)

hey gareth -- if you want to trade some stockhausen -- i've got a french psych compilation up on offer! i'll type out the tracklistings.

― doomie x, Friday, 28 May 2004 22:27 (twenty-two years ago)

thanks, guys.
d., if i did sound strident in my earlier post i should stress that it's down to the disgust that i feel over the way that the nme et al have vultured over the band. it makes me sick to think of people rubbing their hands, planning the farewell overdose cover spectacular.

― lauren (laurenp), Friday, 28 May 2004 22:30 (twenty-two years ago)

the records are all over the place, for the simple reason that they were sort of 2 bands at once (the story is long, complicated and kind of intense, but basically comes down to a bunch of talented guys wanted to make pretty guitar music but were nobodies, and a megalomaniac nutcase who just happened to be good friends with jack warner and the whole of hollywood, and wanted a band to showcase his ego, and to have sex with many girls, so kind of an uneven partnership)

anyway, so you get these west coast soft-psyche songs, and then you get these ranting weirdo on some of them. some say the frisson made something different again, others dont.

i consider the entire wcpaeb story to be the strangest of any band, which is why i am surprised you aren't more interested in them. maybe tomorrow i will revive the thread with it in more detail, because i'm sure the libertines would like their thread back!

check out wcpaeb part one (with vdp and zappa covers) first, i guess

dave, i am afraid i am out of the loop as regards 'misty cold', are there vocal version of this available yet, i still only have the instrumental

― charltonlido (gareth), Friday, 28 May 2004 22:34 (twenty-two years ago)

that sounds good doomie, certainly interested, only, i dont have any stockhausen! well, like one piece somewhere. its an area i am sadly lacking in.

apologies for the derailment, i did this the other day on another thread too, i dont want it to become a habit

― charltonlido (gareth), Friday, 28 May 2004 22:37 (twenty-two years ago)

charlotte lesli - less filles c'est fait
christie laume - rouge-rouge
les fleurs de pavot - a degager
danyel gerard - sexologie
richard de bordeaux - je m'ennuie
christine pilzer - champs elysees
william sheller - exitissimo
les papyvores - le papyvore
stephane varegues - le papa du pop
messieurs richard de bordeaux and daniel beretta - psycho
monique thubert - avec les oreilles
l'ceil - bernadette
messiuers richard de bordeaux and daniel beretta - le drogue
philippe nicaud - cuisses neus bottes de cuir

amazing french psyche.

but got two copies! : - (

things you should check out tonight:

taste - blister on the moon
terry reid - season of the witch

and amazon -- are actually selling the fearless vampire killers soundtrack backed with rosemary's baby. that's become my holy grail - komeda stuff along with jean claude vannier.

re: lauren - yeah, i feel disgust as well. i think there is something re: the whole libertines sub-culture that people aren't, or don't want to know about. there is alot of bands coming up through that who are hitting the charts -- just people who are following the libertines route of being one-to-one with the fans. no difference.

and yeah, having spent time with pete, i can say that i am gutted and today's news and reporting of has left me disheartened and depressed. but i know that he's got some good people in his corner. i want him, the man, not the musician to get his act together and stay alive. y'know.

― doomie x, Friday, 28 May 2004 22:37 (twenty-two years ago)

oh. hello...

mm yeah you scorn 'cold eyed criticism' like people are scared to engage emotionally but when what u write is, just as you say, telling people "i get it, though. and thought i made it clear" how else is a reader supposed to feel? imagine he didnt feel the same way as you before he read it. there's nothing there for him to understand, and he feels like if he doesnt then he's not invited. and do i really have to be his buddy, go on tour with him, go to his secret gigs at a sick fan's house in northampton (haha oops i did do that actually. but it's a looong story) worm my way into the whole myth/cliche to get into the libertines? can't i just... be myself? it seems a bit silly

― prima fassy (mwah), Saturday, 29 May 2004 10:01 (twenty-two years ago)

revulsive - causing revulsion. like repulsion but a bit stronger i spose, from french reveller- to tear away. clearly wrong? what's the problem people

― prima fassy (mwah), Saturday, 29 May 2004 10:10 (twenty-two years ago)

i get it. it has f/a to do with what i had written but something else.. should have realised.

― doomie x, Saturday, 29 May 2004 10:42 (twenty-two years ago)

i was going to defend myself, wrote a big paragraph, but thought fuck-it -- i have to go and well, if you don't get me, i don't see why i have to point myself out when at the end of the day it doesn't really matter. the fans loved the piece. and i wrote it for the fans. and it was very popular and has been read over 150,000x. with not one complaint.

― doomie x, Saturday, 29 May 2004 10:54 (twenty-two years ago)

and bear in mind, one of the things, that people felt and have told me numerous times about that piece is that it is very much an 'outsiders viewpoint'. the band were told, in front of me, that i wasnt a fan, i didnt try to engage in any conversation that wasnt natural (because that is not me) and well, what i did is what was written. word-for-word.

― doomie x, Saturday, 29 May 2004 11:02 (twenty-two years ago)

as for worming my way in ... how? i havent been in touch since then. have had opportunities but why? i've got my own life to lead. and to be honest -- the only 'worming-my-way-in' i have done has basically been through hard work in supporting bands that i love and they appreciate the effort. and these bands and dj's who are doing psyche-folk-french-weirdness and are very unlikely to be support by mass-media.

― doomie x, Saturday, 29 May 2004 11:06 (twenty-two years ago)

did you check the wcpaeb stuff out yet?

― charltonlido (gareth), Saturday, 29 May 2004 20:02 (twenty-two years ago)

its funny, i was wondering today what prompted me to click on a link about a band i dont know anything about, i think it must have been marks strange title. why did you phrase the title like that mark, with the date in it?

perhaps i should have done the same for my francois rabbath thread (and quite a few other sadly forlorn and unanswered threads of mine), then maybe it might have got some answers. clever!

― charltonlido (gareth), Saturday, 29 May 2004 20:09 (twenty-two years ago)

i am so pissed off about this. pete is a shit. http://www.lmhr.org.uk/news/archives/000228.html they cancelled it on this basis?? why?? for me, what was exciting about this free festival was that it featured a lot of grime talent, was supposed to be located in finsbury park and actually had a very positive message. not only was it pushed out of finsbury park due to the met making ridiculous security demands, but it has also been cancelled from it's auxiliary venue, the Hammersmith Apollo. And why? because pete libertine is 'ill'? i'm ranting now but i'm genuinely upset by the fact that an event which has so much resonance at the minute what with up and coming elections and the threat of the BNP, should be cancelled for this reason. who cares about the libertines? the garage bill alone was enough to pull in the crowds. damn him.

― myke boomnoise (myke boomnoise), Wednesday, 2 June 2004 23:32 (twenty-two years ago)

yeah i was trying to get tix for that all day today only to find out that it was cancelled cos of pete. to be fair though, its not his fault, its the organisers. plus theyve had problems moving venues, blah blah, so maybe they thought noone would turn up, i dont know. they should have asked morrissey to replace the libertines, im sure he would have jumped at the chance.

*snicker*

― thesplooge (thesplooge), Wednesday, 2 June 2004 23:43 (twenty-two years ago)

fuck the libertines. the quality of their songs isn't sufficient to make up for the tedium of their soap opera antics

― the surface noise made by people (electricsound), Wednesday, 2 June 2004 23:44 (twenty-two years ago)

keith richards has given up cigarettes. sex and drugs and rock and roll is over.

― the surface noise made by people (electricsound), Wednesday, 2 June 2004 23:46 (twenty-two years ago)

the motto/life-aim of sex drugs and r n r should have ended long ago.

― thesplooge (thesplooge), Wednesday, 2 June 2004 23:47 (twenty-two years ago)

agreed

― the surface noise made by people (electricsound), Wednesday, 2 June 2004 23:48 (twenty-two years ago)

when you hear 50 yr old men spouting off about its virtues, any self respecting teenager should immediately want to be a vegetarian, tee-total, abstain from all sexual relations and never smoke so much as a rasher of bacon ever again.

― thesplooge (thesplooge), Wednesday, 2 June 2004 23:50 (twenty-two years ago)

jesus christ myke, you callous heartless bastard. the man is genuinely ill, whether or not you're fond of his music, you mention as if it was some diva sod act. it's important to stay alive if possible and if he's having problems in that respect you really ought have the good grace to give him some space to deal with that.

― matthew james (matthew james), Thursday, 3 June 2004 00:26 (twenty-two years ago)

if he's genuinely ill, maybe his keepers should stop making so much money off of his soon-to-be-corpse and actually do something to help the poor bugger.

― stevie (stevie), Thursday, 3 June 2004 07:08 (twenty-two years ago)

Quite. The only good thing to come out of the whole vomitous fucking travesty is that it lays the machinations of the PR/music industry flat out on the table.

Not that anyone seems to give much of a shit. Better to celebrate the willingness of a bunch of doe-eyed teenagers to fund the suicide of their hero, innit

― DJ Mencap (DJ Mencap), Thursday, 3 June 2004 08:22 (twenty-two years ago)

yes, perhaps on reflection my initial response was a bit callous, but i don't think he should be in a position where his illness effects events and ends up disappointing fans of his band and every one else of the bill. to be honest, in the sober light of day i blame the met for this one, making ridiculous security demands at finsbury park. a rock and pop concert? the hot bed of uk terrorism! of course a perimeter fence is necessary.

― myke boomnoise (myke boomnoise), Thursday, 3 June 2004 08:35 (twenty-two years ago)

true enough. it's good his keepers have let him the space mind - i remember reading one of the britpop books about the doe eyes one from elastica who went to the doctors to be told she needed to enter rehab there and then. "i can't, i've got to go to america in three days." and she didn't get clean for another three years.
it is the nature of his addiction that it's difficult to control and fix him up until he actually desires to do it though. the problem with it is there isn't really a precedent within moneyed industries for dealing with people who are on the crack pipe. people on the crack pipe are usually brought in by their dad or the fuzz in a full nelson and strapped to a bed, whilst musicians will often have a healthy and propulsive drug habit, you know? no-one was every worried for lemmy because he's a very level headed individual at heart.

― matthew james (matthew james), Thursday, 3 June 2004 09:57 (twenty-two years ago)

five years pass...

i like that new album quite a bit. totally unlike what i expected.

― titchy (titchyschneiderMk2), Monday, 3 August 2009 16:13 (sixteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.