Someday, (but maybe not before or if I get to the pearly gates) I will hopefully learn exactly what the significance of Daft Punk truly is.pulsoc wrote:FALSE!Robert Henke wrote: There is much more that can be done with a Vocoder then a Daft Punk track.
I don't quite get it; they can write a pop single just fine, which I totally appreciate but their albums are littered with a whole lot of bad, boring songs with a few cool parts to them. They also sound quite "dated" to my ears and not in a good way. I guess by dated I mean played out. There are countless artists that have produced their "sound" first and then Daft Punk comes out with a song using glitchy vocoded samples and everyone cums all over themselves like they have never heard it done anywhere else before.
Couple that with the stupid cyber masks over their heads (do they really still do that?) and I'm not so sure it's anything more than a slighty embarresing novelty act.
Check out Matthew Herbert. He's not what I'd call totally under the radar but the lot of you sound like Daft Punk are innovators! To me, Daft Punk is a mainstream version of what good electronic music was 10 years ago. Check out something like MRI's "All that Glitters" for a true example of how to create a proper album and not just a single for an Axe cologne ad.
I suppose If I was spoon fed crap like Green Day my whole life I'd think Daft Punk were the second coming too... I guess it's all relevant.
Daft Punk bores me. There I said it.