Mike Skinner (The Streets)

[Flimbo]

Mike Skint-er

THE STREETS star MIKE SKINNER has admitted blowing his fortune on gambling.

The rapper has splurged tens of thousands during boozy betting sessions — and has even been forced to remortgage his house to make ends meet.

Mike also revealed how his management almost had to cancel his huge US tour just months ago — because he got his hands on the tour funds and lost the lot in the casino.

What a fool. And the chorus of his new song is so utterly ridiculous and childish.

[drbastard]

God I hate this fool. Why the popular press praise this twisted toothed moron is beyone me. He represents the worst of the whole poverty pop culture.

[Tim]

They praise him because he's one of the most important pop artists of the last twenty years. People are gonna be praising this last album for decades to come. It's a genuine classic.
Dr Bastard you get way too hung up about movements and trends that don't actually exist. What is poverty pop? if he's the worst of it, what is the best of it? It's meaningless. Just listen to the records. Doesn't matter what anyone else is thinking saying or wearing. It's only the music that counts in the end and Mike Skinner is a staggering talent. How can he be a moron and write lyrics like that? What has his tooth got to do with it? If you don't find anything in the record to enjoy then that's fine. But everything else is irrelevant. It would be like hating the work of Brian Wilson because you don't like surfing.

[Rooneyboy]

I *heart* Tim.

Mike Skinner is indeed important, some people don't get 'it'. That is thier problem.

[Flimbo]

You're right Tim. He's such a "staggering talent.". I mean it must've taken him so long to think up such intelligent lyrics as these:

I saw this thing on ITV the other week,
Said, that if she played with her hair, she's probably keen
She's playin with her hair, well regularly,
So i reckon i could well be in.

And "Fit But You Know It" was a true work of art.

[Electrobix]

Rooneyboy said:

Mike Skinner is indeed important, some people don't get 'it'. That is thier problem.

Or opinion.

I'm on the fence when it comes to Michael Skinner. He can have flashes of genius (the backing track to 'Blinded By The Lights' perfectly sums up what is being described in the lyrics) but at other times I don't think he's anything special. I though 'Dry Your Eyes' was really overrated.

[Tim]

Flimbo said:

You're right Tim. He's such a "staggering talent.". I mean it must've taken him so long to think up such intelligent lyrics as these:

I saw this thing on ITV the other week,
Said, that if she played with her hair, she's probably keen
She's playin with her hair, well regularly,
So i reckon i could well be in.



And "Fit But You Know It" was a true work of art.

Yes, that's exactly what I mean. What's your point?

[drbastard]

I think Flimbo is making the point that far too many people read NME and take it's opinion to heart and then believe the hype.

I didn't say he was talentless, I kow he's good, but I can't get into him or his music. My brother loves him and my brother is a smack addict. I think it's to do with my not being able to relate to anything Mike Skinner is saying. Plus Fit And You Know It is the anthem for drug dealers in Glasgow, drug dealers that listen to Blur also.

In short, Mike may be talented but a staggering talent? I doubt he'll have Madonna longevity, in fact after Dry Your Eyes I doubt we'll be seeing much of him now he's slid into ballad hell.

PS I'm white and lowerclass so what do I know.

[Tim]

Paul said:

I think Flimbo is making the point that far too many people read NME and take it's opinion to heart and then believe the hype.

He made it very subtly then! I don't read the NME. I don't follow hype. Since most people don't read the NME, also, I imagine they're not following hype in any way other than hearing a lot of good things being said about a record - checking it out for themselves - and, presumably, liking it. Not that their opinion has any relation to whether it's good or not. Perhaps you try too hard to go against what you perceive as hype? Eventually it's much more enjoyable to just relax and like stuff! Stuff is good. Lots of it. Really really good. Some stuff by rubbish people is good too. Lots of stuff that idiots like is also really good. I find, anyway.

I doubt he'll have Madonna longevity,

Who will? If he never makes another album he'll be important for as long as pop music is important just as The Specials were/are before him.

in fact after Dry Your Eyes I doubt we'll be seeing much of him now he's slid into ballad hell.

Why would him having a smash hit single that lots of people love mean we'd not see much of him? I'm not sure I understand your logic. And it's from an album. An album with different tempos of tracks on it. And different moods since it tells a story. He hasn't suddenly become Westlife.
What's wrong with writing ballads anyway (which doesn't actually mean what the whole world uses it to mean which really gets my pedantic goat!)?

[PushTheBuena]

Meh, I liked the first album but Dry Your Eyes was some dreary shit and Fit But You Know It was somehow inexplicably shite even though the lyrics were good. There's something so smugly 'clever-clever' about him that I can't get into at all; the whole fetishisation of the minutae of supposed young, British, working class life makes me roll my damn eyes every time. I find a lot of what he says in his songs very predictable and kind of obvious. Though, as a fellow Brummie, I am bound to support him, at least in spirit.

[Tim]

I like 'clever clever'.
I don't see why it's fetishising. It's just fiction about a life he knows. It's the minutiae that makes it art. That it's predictable I would question - <Spoiler> who knew the grand would be down the back of the telly!?</Spoiler> It's certainly 'familiar'. But I don't think that's a criticism - just the inevitability of exposure. It was anything but when the first album appeared. Took me nearly a year to 'get it' and actually enjoy listening to it. I appreciated it on an artistic level but it was so far from anything I knew or was comfortable with in music.

I don't know if some of the dissenters here have just heard the singles and are judging it from that? The album needs to be listened to as a whole from start to finish. The songs are strong enough to stand alone but it's intended as a complete work and makes far more sense that way.

I don't expect everyone to like it. I think you have to be in a certain mindset to need these albums. But to question his talent or intelligence is crazy. He's one very smart innovator.

[Molly]

Tim said:

Not that their opinion has any relation to whether it's good or not.

I don't wanna get into the fisticuffs, but surely people's opnion is entirely relevant to whether something's good or not? There's no such thing as 'good' music, only what people think is good or bad. (Example: Lots of people think Coldplay are good. I think Coldplay are shit. I'll often say ' Coldplay are shit' but that's shorthand for 'I think Coldplay are shit because I find Chris Martin's voice whiny and their over-reliance on piano riffs a little trite.') Unless we believe Plato and go looking for the True Good and the True Music and see what happens when we mate them and frankly, who wants to do that? (Although I imagine the product might well be Belinda Carlisle's greatest hits.)

Long story short. Skinner is alright. I don't hate him but can't get excited about him and certainly wouldn't buy his album.

[Tim]

Molly said:

I don't wanna get into the fisticuffs, but surely people's opnion is entirely relevant to whether something's good or not? There's no such thing as 'good' music, only what people think is good or bad.

I disagree. I think there is such a thing as good and bad. We accept it in other art forms. It's agreed that Shakespeare and Mozart and Michelangelo and Hi De Hi are good - whether you enjoy them or not.
My reasons for arguing about music are an attempt to evaluate it. To actually decide whether it's worthy of inclusion into the artistic canon. I believe in taste but not in opinion, when it comes to judging art (or food - for that matter). We may never agree but the dissection should all lead to a greater understanding and appreciation - and hopefully to better art.

But, I think you're also saying that it's irrelevant to point out that it's 'just your opinion' or similar such phrases that are used here with regularity, yes? Since it's a given that it's someone's opinion - since it is they who wrote it. Of course we believe we're right - but that doesn't mean we are. I don't think it needs saying. It would make every post very tedious to read if it always carried a disclaimer. And just saying 'that's your opinion' isn't countering the argument it's killing it.
But that's just my opinion.

[Storm]

Mike Skinner is a genius. End Of.

AGDCFF is an amazing piece of work. I can wholly understand why people don't get it - it's very much an acquired taste. Like coffee. Or blue cheese. I like to think it's for a sophisticated palate.

In ten years time, this album will be the one that defines British music in 2004. No doubt.

[Molly]

I don't think Mozart is all that. *ducks*
I totally see your point. I can see why Skinner is important and why people would think he's good, but I don't think he's so fundamentally great as to be someone about whom I can say 'I don't like him, but I've got to admit he's talented.'
There's a problem in trying to evaluate something as good or bad because you could spend an eternity deciding on your criteria before you even start to apply them. I'm probably too lazy to go into it and would eventually lapse into 'Yeah, well, he's shit right, cos, yeah....Your mum!' I guess that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
I think it comes down to the fact that I have a very strange attitude to music and there is almost nothing I genuinely believe is 'good' and a hell of a lot that I really enjoy but believe is fundamentally rubbish.

[Tim]

Molly said:

I don't think Mozart is all that. *ducks*

That's okay *sweetie*.











© Bad Dad Jokes 1963

[Cherubic]

I'm torn by this. I've found the 'hooks' of all the singles off AGDCFF incredibly annoying, which I suppose might be part of their aim. Acting as a not 'clever clever' gateway to the song, but I hate them. His spoken word/monologue/raps are brilliant though. I think the following is one of the finest pieces of popular lyrical poetry I've ever heard.

She brings her hands up towards where my hands rested
She wraps her fingers round mine with the softness she's blessed with
She peels away my fingers, looks at me and then gestures
By pushin' my hand away to my chest, from hers

Maybe it's all in the delivery.

I can see why people don't get him, I'm not sure I do. He's both hideously obvious and unsettlingly complex at the same time. But I think it's difficult to deny his talent and worth.

[drbastard]

Storm said:

In ten years time, this album will be the one that defines British music in 2004. No doubt.

Don't be so sure. Two words that shoot your argument into tiny little pieces:

Kula Shaker.

[Tim]

How does mentioning a band who were largely ridiculed from the start for their preposterous retro-rock and right wing views and whose career was a very brief blip on pop music history mainly due to the inexplicable influence Chris Evans had on music during a couple of years in the 90s have anything to do with anything other than a wish that the divine Hayley Mills had not encouraged her son to take up the guitar or hang around with his nazi hippy relative at a formative age?

[Spinny 3000]

I don't like his music. But he's neither a clown nor an idiot.

[Storm]

Dr said:

Don't be so sure. Two words that shoot your argument into tiny little pieces:

Kula Shaker.

When did anyone hail K as a masterpiece??

[drbastard]

Of course it was hailed as a masterpiece, at the time it came out it was a contender whether you all want to accept that or not. Of course attitudes change and we all realise how shit they were but not at the time.

The point I was making (I thought it obvious really) was that the rock press can be as fickle as pop, even more so. Don't count on The Streets being hailed as a genius in years to come. Honestly, as a result of his ballad getting to #1 the attacks will start soon. Trust me.

[Tim]

I wouldn't trust you as far as I could throw you!
I challenge you to find and post any credible review from the time calling any Kula Shaker release a masterpiece.
But you're so hung up on music journalism - no one else is! Bring on the attacks. All the greatest groups have been ripped to pieces by the dreary inkies.
I'm saying The Streets second album is a classic. And I reckon I'll be saying it's a classic in twenty years time. And I believe lots of other people whose opinions I do trust will be saying the same. I don't care what journalists say now or then.

[Electrobix]

While it's likely that 'A Grand Don't...' will be considered a classic, I don't think that should be a reason why people must like him. U2's 'The Joshua Tree' is regarded as a classic, but I don't particularly like U2. Ditto The Beatles' 'Sgt. Pepper'.

One person's classic in another's pile of shit. I see your argument about Mozart, Shakespeare et al being regarded as good and you're right, but that's because we've been taught to think of them as good.

I just don't think the 'It will be a classic, that means you are stupid for not liking him' argument really works. It's akin to the popular troll argument, 'it gt 2 numba 1 so it must b gud'.

Mozart's works are classics, but I'd still rather have Clint Mansell in my classical music collection.

[Tim]

Milk said:

While it's likely that 'A Grand Don't...' will be considered a classic, I don't think that should be a reason why people must like him. U2's 'The Joshua Tree' is regarded as a classic, but I don't particularly like U2. Ditto The Beatles' 'Sgt. Pepper'.

But I never said you should. I said that I perfectly understood people not liking it. Just that to suggest he was an idiot was what I was taking issue with.

I see your argument about Mozart, Shakespeare et al being regarded as good and you're right, but that's because we've been taught to think of them as good.

Really? You don't think it's that by being pointed out what makes these artists geniuses that we learn a set of criteria by which to judge not only them but everything else as well? I didn't accept that Shakespeare was good just because a teacher taught me he was. The teacher(s) taught me how to read it, how to understand it - and my own appreciation was born from that. The analogy I'd use is wine tasting. When you're a child wine probably tastes yukky, then when you're in your teens you like anything that gets you drunk without making you vomit. But as an adult it's possible to learn what makes a quality wine - the processes involved. You can develop a palate that can actually tell the difference between a quality wine and cheap plonk. Now taste still remains. One of you may like something very fruity and rich another may prefer something oaky and smooth. You may argue about the particular qualities of certain wines (if you're really really sad and lonely) but you'll be able to appreciate when a wine is deserving of a place in the cellar. Art, in my opinion, is no different. So when I say something is a classic I may be wrong but I'm not merely saying "I like it - you must be a spazz for not liking it" but I've actually swirled it around my metaphorical mouth, applied all that I've learned from appreciating previous great works, and awarded it the gold stars.

I am certainly guilty of being extremely arrogant when it comes to my views on music. It's a side effect of having obsessed over it since my earliest memory. I need 'good' music around me all the time to keep me sane. It's so important to me to sort the wheat from the chaffe and the Winehouses from the Meluas, so often it feels like a crusade (popjustice if you will). I think I have ambitions to be the Brian Sewell of pop music - I'm always so surprised when people don't appreciate something I believe to be genius and equally as disgusted when they settle for something that isn't! I am also the child of Methodist preacher parents so I find it very difficult to ever sit back and allow people to think, what I believe to be, wrong things about music. Just as my dad would never fail to tell a sinner about the love of the Lord I feel compelled to evangelise wherever I see my beloved music being rejected by the world! It's a terrible habit.

[drbastard]

I cannot argue with opinion. There are, for instance, some fools out there that laugh at Patrick Wolf. My stupid friend for example hates him and that's his opinion.

My idea of team work is that I lead and everyone follows my orders. I know the world cannot see the genius of Betty Boo or Patrick Wolf sometimes and in turn I can't see the...cough...genius of The Streets.

In short, you say tomatoe I say tomato.

[happygrouch]

Has that man never heard of the word 'melody'?

[Tim]

Yes.

[Dudie]

Drawing anologies between Shakespeare, Mozart and The Streets and other 'pop' artists is quite an interesting exercise for a number of reasons:
1. Shakespeare and Mozart are among the few artists (Dickens, Austen and a few others) who actually achieved popularity in their own lifetimes. Most had to starve in garrets - not much in favour nowadays (in the case of lack of funds there's always an advertising deal or an appearance in I'm a Celebrity)- and die in penury and obscurity before achieving recognition post- humously. What a crock that must have been.
2. The bodies of work of The Streets and Mozart/Shakespeare can't seriously be compared. There are few pop stars/bands whose creativity is sustained. By comparison even Abba, The Stones and the Beatles only enjoyed a brief heyday of true creativity.
3. The culture of build 'em up and knock 'em down didn't really exist then (I don't think). There was no Heat maggo showing Shakespeare with a giant spot on his nose just to make sure he kept it real.

Much as I like Mike Skinner I honestly don't think anyone will have a fucking clue who he was in a hundred years or even 20.

[Tim]

Dudie said:

Drawing anologies between Shakespeare, Mozart and The Streets and other 'pop' artists is quite an interesting exercise for a number of reasons:
1. Shakespeare and Mozart are among the few artists (Dickens, Austen and a few others) who actually achieved popularity in their own lifetimes. Most had to starve in garrets - not much in favour nowadays (in the case of lack of funds there's always an advertising deal or an appearance in I'm a Celebrity)- and die in penury and obscurity before achieving recognition post- humously. What a crock that must have been.
2. The bodies of work of The Streets and Mozart/Shakespeare can't seriously be compared. There are few pop stars/bands whose creativity is sustained. By comparison even Abba, The Stones and the Beatles only enjoyed a brief heyday of true creativity.
3. The culture of build 'em up and knock 'em down didn't really exist then (I don't think). There was no Heat maggo showing Shakespeare with a giant spot on his nose just to make sure he kept it real.

Much as I like Mike Skinner I honestly don't think anyone will have a fucking clue who he was in a hundred years or even 20.

That's all very well but no one was comparing Mike Skinner to Shakespeare or Mozart. They were used in an illustration of how there can be accepted examples of 'good' in art that go beyond mere opinion. A completely separate argument (and Mozart and Dickens did receive critical maulings in their lifetime. Dickens deserved it because he's actually quite a poor writer - as opposed to good storyteller. I'm sure Shakespeare did too - by idiots, there were a lot of them in the olden days).

However,
what will or won't be remembered has no bearing on whether something is great art or not. But Mike Skinner will certainly be remembered in 20 years time because the hit records and artists of 20 years ago are all still very much remembered today. There are whole radio stations and magazines and concert reunions dedicated to the stuff. Twenty years isn't a very long time at all when you're on the other side of it.
The Streets album has topped many an end of year poll. That means it'll be recorded in history. It'll be in libraries both virtual and paper for as long as such things exist. And so for as long as there is interest in popular music he'll be known and remembered and referred to. That's just how things are. Nostalgia makes the world go round. As a music fan there's nothing that sold in the numbers The Streets have that I haven't heard of - stretching back over the whole history of the charts. Why should future music fans be any different?
My current musical passion actually stretches back hundreds of years. The recorded element of that at least 80. Those people couldn't possibly have imagined their little old folk songs would still be of so much importance so many years later. And now we have far better ways of preserving music and information - who knows what will be remembered? It could even be possible that in 100 years time people refer back to this very post on Popjustice to help them with their thesis on the music of The Streets. They'll get a 2:2 though as they spent too much of their course drinking space beer.