Ok yeh maybe.... but they still sold the most singles that week so there must me thousands of people buying that single or was is just a coincidence that when ever Mcfly had a number one it was just because there was nothing else in the charts ..? i'm not gonna get in too an argument about it as every one is intitled to there own opinion

 

You know who else had a #1 single? Chico and Crazy Frog. Getting #1 doesn't really mean much anymore. =/

 

McFly are extremely arrogant because they have all these #1 singles under their belt, but it's practically meaningless. Just because they're a 'pop rock boy band' doesn't mean people automatically pan them; they do it because they just generally write terrible songs. My Chemical Romance's third album, The Black Parade, was critically acclaimed as well as Green Day's American Idiot, and they're pretty much the same genre as McFly.

 

If they actually wrote something amazing, they would get acclaim. They haven't though. They can keep on thinking if a band like Oasis wrote their songs it'd be heralded as one of their best songs ever, but that's just plain delusional and arrogant.

You know who else had a #1 single? Chico and Crazy Frog. Getting #1 doesn't really mean much anymore. =/

 

leona :lol:

 

 

well there is a boyband = bad, female singers = good vibe going on here a lot, mcfly are not THAT bad, they are not as annoying as some band's output

 

and talking of #1 songs and kinda oasis too. blur famously beat oasis to #1 with an utter load of $h!te, probs there worst song and to compare that song is even $h!tter than some of McFly's!!! (see Alex James has always liked his cheese!!!!)

 

McFly are extremely arrogant because they have all these #1 singles under their belt, but it's practically meaningless. Just because they're a 'pop rock boy band' doesn't mean people automatically pan them; they do it because they just generally write terrible songs. My Chemical Romance's third album, The Black Parade, was critically acclaimed as well as Green Day's American Idiot, and they're pretty much the same genre as McFly.

 

well on one hand you could argue that everything is pop music/low culture anyway whatever the genre is (like newpapers that label the reviews only pop/world/classical/opera), but thats would ignore tribal thing wouldnt it

 

even tho things may sound similar its more to do with context, marketing and cultural things rather than just the sound.

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2f/Bellybutton_albumcover.jpg

 

and of that cover, if its supposed to be like so bad and like a very faithful reading of the jellyfish songi would like to know what the orig review for that song were in the first place. has anyone got any old reviews for jellyfish??? i guess that nme and q would probs go on how they the greatest thing theyve heard since menswe@r

 

However, comparing yourself to Guy Chambers

 

oh yes Guy Chambers, out of failed useless 90s band that had no hits and nobody remembers :lol:, obv didnt have a #1 there!!!

 

http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/B000BOG1MG.02.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

 

Thing is though, all those POP STARS you named are perfectly happy with their functions as Pop Stars, McFly seem to think they're somehow worthy of more "cred" or whatever, which I dont think they are worthy of... At the end of the day, McFly are as manufactured as PCD or GA (or indeed The Monkees to take an example from the past...), the fact that they are in denial of this is what the fundamental problem is.

 

but the monkees rebelled and ended up doing things like head (not spiceworld or seeing double is it now?!?!?)

 

They seem to believe that they should have the respect afforded to, say, Radiohead, Editors, Morrissey, The Killers or Interpol, well, I say, come up with the tunes that can actually equal those acts, then we'll talk.....

 

When was the last time you saw Thom Yorke, Brandon Flowers or Moz getting their kits off at G.A.Y.....?

 

but its a different marketplace, its q and nme not totp, j-14 and tiger beat!!! and its usually girls and gays = pop fay stuff, inferior, rock = macho, male, much better etc etc.

 

but saying that indie marketing can be even worse for hype and being as just manufactured. even the concept of indie and alternative is a bit suspect these days when its so blatantly not either :lol: in many cases. like to see how little man tate, jack penate, the enemy etc etc progress, will anyone care in two year or will they go stadium???

 

with radiohead, think they would just turned out some boring dadrock arena band if they had just released the same stuff and not embraced the avant guard

It's definitely a fact that their songwriting talents are overlooked by many simply because of the type of music they make. But Tom Fletcher's no Lennon. He's written some amazing songs, he's also written some really bad songs. But weren't Gary Barlow's talents overlooked when he was in Take That? The credibility didnt come till later.

 

 

I dont like many Mcfly songs at all - Harry is goodlooking - thats about it lol