After hearing so many postive posts in regards to Sigur Ros I finally decided to listen to them myself. IMHO, it was some of the worst music I have ever heard. The production seemed elementary at best and the music was incoherent. Overall I was vastly disappointed after hearing so many on this site praise them. Im looking to hear from those who either agree or disagree with me. For those who disagree, Im just curious to hear why or what you like about Sigur Ros.

i like them, but i find myself not listening to their stuff very often. i have to be in that exact 'mood' to want to enjoy a bunch of slow, drawn out, really long songs. so, to answer your question, i like them because they're something extremely different.

While I'm by no means the world's biggest Sigur Ros fan, I was wondering what you found to be so "elementary" about their production. I think their albums sound great - much better than recent offerings from Avril Lavigne and Incubus (two artists you mentioned in previous threads).

By "elementary" I meant there music seemed like an elementary student produced it (A child between the ages of 4 and 12). Im glad to see you researched my musical taste by means of comparison, and although Im not a Avril Lavigne fan (aside from her song "Losing Grip") and I am a Incubus fan (aside from there recent album) I realize that it would be impossible for me to duplicate their music. When listening to SR, all I could imagine where little kids messing with their parents instruments.

It's funny, because I feel like I could easily recreate any Avril Lavigne song - just take an old Rick Springfield b-side, remove the vocals, and recite my 7th grade poetry over it. I don't have the proper haircare products to reproduce the "art" that Incubus creates.

Again, I'm not a huge Sigur Ros fan, but thinking that their music is easier to create then that of Avril is a little silly.

I'm surprised that one would think of an elementary production technique as well, especially considering the diving strings, escalating blankets of sound, etc. If anything, Sigur Ros seem to be more interested in creating dense atmospheres (I'm hesitant to say "walls" here) than cutting styles. Were they to have a production technique similar to someone like Incubus -just naming a previously mentioned band here- I think they would be thin and underproduced and altogether boring. As it is, Sigur Ros, for all their plodding musical habits, have an immense sound. It's monsterous.

Like Hollowgen, I don't find myself listening to them much anymore (though a couple Sunday mornings ago, they were absolutely crippling). I'm hesitant to even answer these questions because I'm not in the business of conversion. But I'll give it a go.

I suppose maybe the "kids messing with their parents instruments" feeling comes from Jonsi's bowed guitar (which, and I've seen them live, I don't think is as uncontrolled as you might assume). They take 2/3s of my favorite abstract/noise elements, tone & color (energy/"motion" is not something they take to heart), and put it into the context of melody. I'm not even really as interested in their songs as I am getting lost between their notes. It's a slowburning and heavy experience -one I wouldn't take into a car or party- that is best suited to stress and complete aural involvement.

I agree, I listened to a couple tracks about a year back. Sounded like complete shit.

What's even sillier is is that I totally agree with the process in which you deem an Avril Lavigne song is produced. By those standards, it would STILL be easier to produce a Sigur Ros song IMO. In order to produce a SR song I envision two pots, a hammer, a keyboard, and a guitar being played incoherently, without an effort to compose unity amongst my other members. Aside from that, other songs Ive heard from them sounded better when it was done by Mozart or Beethoven because of their ommision of pots, pans, or hammers.

Im glad to see we agree on Lavigne's production because under both of our standards as regards her production and under my standards as regards Sigur Ros' production, your estimation of SR is silly.

head-scratcher of the day:
Is it possible for an entire thread to be a thread crap?

I'm really not trying to start any trouble, but I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say here.

Ill help you, Just saying I heard a few songs from SR with classical elements which still had other elements that I disliked.

Fair enough. You're certainly entitled to your opinions. Looking back at some of your previous posts, I realize now that we probably don't agree on any music, so replying in the first place was probably a bad idea.

That makes sense. Your original wording made it sound like Sigur Ros covered Mozart and Beethoven, which (as we both know) is not the case. I still don't hear any pots and pans in the music of Sigur Ros, but I haven't listened to them in a while so we'll leave it at that.

I couldn't disagree more. I personally find sigur rós to be some of the most beautiful music I've ever heard in my life. Their music is not just a variety of sounds thrown together in a mix-matched hodgepodge - it is carefully orchestrated to sound a specific way.

Granted, their music is not to everyone's taste - clearly, it's not your thing. I, however, find it to be very relaxing and moving, especially viðrar vel til loftárása off their second album, ágætis byrjun - I think that song is quite possibly the most moving piece of music I've ever heard.

But, to each his own.

i think they are a real "live" band, just like radiohead. I like sigur ros a lot more than radiohead album wise. But i saw Radiohead and was so moved by their music, it was likea religous experience. i have heard the same from sigur ros.

Number 1: Did you even read my post?

Number 2: If you really listen to anything by Sigur Ros, you'll notice a very definite unity to the parts. I imagine you also think that you could throw down a 5 star noise album?

Keep listening to it and give it 3 months. You'll probably change your mind completely.

I wouldn't count on it.

Anyone who claims they can come up with the last 4 tracks of SR's debut album (among the loveliest music I have ever heard) as if they were playing with tinkertoys will solve the mystery of Dark Matter next, supplanting relativity theory and quantum mechanics.

It takes real sweat and effort and some genius to sound that inevitably, 'effortlessly' great.

The original poster didn't like the music, simple as that. But the analysis is completely wrong. What would he say to the music of Erik Satie, I wonder?

I guess for the same reason people can seriously discuss hair band ballads, there are people who just don't get music like this.
Their loss.

I couldn't disagree more with everything you've said.

ágætis byrjun is one of the best albums of the last ten years, IMO. From the song structures to the melodies to the performances to even the cover art, I love it. Staralfur and the title track are particularly amazing. () and Von are also terrific.

Also, IMO, the production on their albums borders on genius: a combination of Alan Moulder's distorted layering, ambient techno's bottomless bass and prog-orchestral touches. They're meticulously constructed and intricate albums, about as far from third-grader production as Keith Moon is from third-grader rock drumming. Listen to their stuff on a powerful stereo with a good subwoofer, you'll see what I'm talking about.

To each their own.

I guess to each his own, however; when I heard SR I was rather disappointed. The factor that made me curious as to why others liked them is due to my musical taste. It wouldve been easier for me to understand why I didnt like SR and others did if I was able to simply conclude that it wasnt my musical taste. As far as what I like to listen to, I believe the range of genres I listen to stretch further than most so I didnt want to conclude that SR's style simply wasnt for me. Instead Id like to believe that SR doesnt present their genre the way I like instead of simply not liking their genre. I am going to listen to a few others within their musical genre to try and solidify my oppinion of me not liking them instead of simply not "getting" their musicI.

Sometimes we are not necessarily ready for what it engrossing. Try again in a few years time. I'm guessing you are in your late teens or early adulthood. Wait 3 years and check them out again. I don't mean to be a dick, but most people in that age group are not ready for meaningful music, but quickly turn to that which is superb (or at least seek it out) just a few years later. When you reach that level, hold onto it tight and always stay open to unique music even if the musicians themselves may talk crap (e.g. about politics) when they are not performing.

Just my thoughts.

Eh, I disagree with that sentiment. I'm 20 and have been listening to Sigur Ros since I was 17 or 18. Besides, college rock (75% shit, 25% good) is called that for a reason. Really, Sigur Ros and similar bands exist because of my demographic, or it helps significantly.

If it isn't his bag, it isn't his bag. I doubt any age will change that.

I'm not exactly sure of what you said or if you misunderstood what I was saying. But Sigur Ros is one of my favorite bands ever, and I was saying sometimes it can take a little listening for people to start liking them.

While it sounds snobbish, it is true that certain music is better appreciated at a later stage in life. I know I appreciate Rush on so many more levels now than back when I was a teenager/college student.

That said, I agree that Sigur Ros is pretty bad. I tried the sample tracks from Amazon.com and was amazed that something so pointless could hold anybody's fascination.