it could easily be about a more abstract approach to the music
such as what, precisely, on this album?
― lex lex lex lex lex on the track BOW (lex pretend), Monday, 29 November 2010 23:05 (thirteen years ago) link
so...i say the "prog rap" thing is just a label people use to describe the way the album is packaged/marketed in the broadest terms, and you agree but take 20 posts of disagreeing to come around to saying so?
― some dude, Monday, November 29, 2010 5:05 PM (35 seconds ago) Bookmark
hey man whatever backflips you have to do so you still come out 'right' in this argument
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Monday, 29 November 2010 23:06 (thirteen years ago) link
not everything grandiose was prog. sergeant pepper's, derek and the dominos weren't prog, just "big". meatloaf had long songs and a story and the whole bit, i don't think ppl called him prog back then either.
i still haven't heard this record, i dunno, this argument is doing my head in already
lol xps n/a
― first as tragedy, then as favre (goole), Monday, 29 November 2010 23:06 (thirteen years ago) link
fwiw this argument is completely unrelated to the actual album and is just personalities deciding not to get along
― Yeezy reupholstered my pussy (DJP), Monday, 29 November 2010 23:09 (thirteen years ago) link
the prog rap tag is garbage no matter how you slice it. there's no shortage of rap albums that work with loosely defined concepts, that display musical/artistic ambition, that reach much farther beyond the conventional bounds of the genre than MBDTF. and "prog rap" hasn't been glued to them, so why stick it on this?
― phish in your sleazebag (contenderizer), Monday, 29 November 2010 23:10 (thirteen years ago) link
well, the original cover art depicted Kanye fucking a phoenix, ergo it's prog
― Yeezy reupholstered my pussy (DJP), Monday, 29 November 2010 23:10 (thirteen years ago) link
Latyrx is prog rap.
― altered boners (rennavate), Monday, 29 November 2010 23:11 (thirteen years ago) link
if roger dean drew kanye fucking a phoenix we'd be in business
― kl0pper city in the ghetto (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Monday, 29 November 2010 23:12 (thirteen years ago) link
ok goole and contenderizer said it better than i could have
― some dude, Monday, 29 November 2010 23:32 (thirteen years ago) link
a week in, i'm surprised to find myself enjoying this record more and more with each listen. figured it'd be something i'd enjoy intensely but very briefly, a bright blip. its rewards are proving a little deeper than that. after about 20 listens, the songs between the middle and the final stretch that seemed dull to me on the first few passes have opened up, to the point where i genuinely like every song on here. and i'm not yet tired of the front-end tracks i loved so much on the first pass. this despite the frequently atrocious lyrics and generally repellent "narrative persona" throughout. only thing i routinely skip is the chris rock bit.
― phish in your sleazebag (contenderizer), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 00:00 (thirteen years ago) link
n/a said it better than i could have \oO/
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 00:29 (thirteen years ago) link
captain save-a-progs itt
fwiw this record strikes me in a singularly pretentious way as fitting the epic-ness crossed with arty pretention of a 'prog rap album' the way diddy's epic-ness or mf doom's art-y pretention never could
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 00:30 (thirteen years ago) link
in conclusion no this doesnt have the exact DNA of prog but it totally makes sense as a tossed off summary of this record's epic scope / pretentiousness
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 00:31 (thirteen years ago) link
I dunno much about prog but I don't see how this is prog specifically aside from the cover art -- deej I feel like you're constructing an incredibly amorphous definition of the term and the qualities of this album that are 'different' could be described more accurately tho maybe less sensationally
― jagger reupholstered my pussy (J0rdan S.), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 00:35 (thirteen years ago) link
the reason its 'amorphous' is bcuz its a tossed off generalization
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 00:36 (thirteen years ago) link
but still feels close enough to the sort of laboriousness of the project. i think its weird that the haters are the ones arguing against the term frankly
Like I think you could just say that it's epic in scale and pretentious and save the whole discussion about the other parts of prog and it would only take three more words
― jagger reupholstered my pussy (J0rdan S.), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 00:37 (thirteen years ago) link
& 'i'm' not constructing this, lots of ppl itt were saying this was kanye's prog record so....
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 00:37 (thirteen years ago) link
― jagger reupholstered my pussy (J0rdan S.), Monday, November 29, 2010 6:37 PM (8 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
i think al was the one who brought this up & started making little pedantic contradictions
see this is where a mod with a good sense of humor would have autoreplaced "prog" with something obnoxious by this point
― overtheseas aeroplanes I have flown (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 00:39 (thirteen years ago) link
But why do we need tossed off generalities?
― jagger reupholstered my pussy (J0rdan S.), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 00:39 (thirteen years ago) link
i dunno i think ive been repeatedly calling ppl on denying what seems obvious to me?
new board descrip
― .\ /. (dayo), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 00:39 (thirteen years ago) link
anyway, as far as lex's review:
This album offers beats that retread past glories.
is one example of something i think is a pretty inaccurate description of what is actually going on w/ this album. love it or hate it. it feels disingenuous, like lex is looking for justifications for his hate, as if by aggregating enough 'minuses' ppl will realize emperor kanye has no clothes. it just feels like an unnecessary & inaccurate point.
another example is his characterization of kanye's career discography as being a steady nosedive but obv thats one for the x > y > z > a threads.
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 00:40 (thirteen years ago) link
whoever it was who suggested upthread that this album gives some of the same vibes as gloomy grandiose album rock (eg radiohead, wilco, etc) was otm. it's so self-consciously weighty.
most of the classic prog albums avoided this vibe though so 'prog-rap' is a bit off the mark to me
― ciderpress, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 00:40 (thirteen years ago) link
lol deej you are calling it inaccurate & unnecessary but not at all explaining why you think so
― .\ /. (dayo), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 00:41 (thirteen years ago) link
I agree that that's a pretty inaccurate description but idk reading motives into it is swampy water
― jagger reupholstered my pussy (J0rdan S.), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 00:42 (thirteen years ago) link
― ciderpress, Monday, November 29, 2010 6:40 PM (21 seconds ago) Bookmark
see ive heard ppl refer to kid a as 'prog rock' in a shorthand -- not as a whole summation of the record, but as a jumping off pt for people who dont know what to expect. and that sounds right to me too
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 00:42 (thirteen years ago) link
― .\ /. (dayo), Monday, November 29, 2010 6:41 PM (55 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
because it really doesnt sound much like any other kanye record, for better or worse.
sometimes a generalization can actually kinda shed light by being reductive? i think its useful for ppl expecting an album full of 'golddiggers' to recognize that they're going to have to hear instrumental fills in between verses, shit like that
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 00:44 (thirteen years ago) link
idk how you are trying to frame subjective reactions as objectively wrong
― .\ /. (dayo), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 00:44 (thirteen years ago) link
― .\ /. (dayo), Monday, November 29, 2010 6:44 PM (11 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
we can stand on two sides of a mountain, describe it from different perspectives, but it doesnt mean there isnt a mountain in front of us
if you want to make an argument that this record rehashes kanye's past glories be my guest
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 00:45 (thirteen years ago) link
Even "devil in a new dress" is being mischarcterized as a retread -- for one kanye never employed soul samples in that fashion on his album -- and even the soul sample is used as a launching point for something more grandiose & elaborate
― jagger reupholstered my pussy (J0rdan S.), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 00:45 (thirteen years ago) link
lol at everyone shaking their fingers at deej for questioning lex's motives after lex posted this upthread:
kanye review FILED.
i'm not letting people get away with calling this good-but-flawed, this is a HORRIBLE album that i hated more with each listen
― lex lex lex lex lex on the track BOW (lex pretend), Monday, November 22, 2010 4:31 PM (1 week ago) Bookmark
― congratulations (n/a), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 00:46 (thirteen years ago) link
jeeezus your mountain analogy was stupid the first time around, no need to remind us of it again
― .\ /. (dayo), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 00:46 (thirteen years ago) link
Albums**
Deej I'm gonna hold you to this "sometimes generalizations can be positive in their reductiveness" thing cuz it's retarded
― jagger reupholstered my pussy (J0rdan S.), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 00:47 (thirteen years ago) link
man maybe this is the nantucket sleighride of hip hop
― kl0pper city in the ghetto (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 00:48 (thirteen years ago) link
I would like to hear an argument for how this is the same sonic territory tho
― jagger reupholstered my pussy (J0rdan S.), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 00:48 (thirteen years ago) link
― jagger reupholstered my pussy (J0rdan S.), Monday, November 29, 2010 6:47 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
^^^^LOL. mad ironic
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 00:49 (thirteen years ago) link
im gonna hold you to never making any broad generalizations about a record ever
― .\ /. (dayo), Monday, November 29, 2010 6:46 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
***sigh***
ok ill put it another way. if you want to make an effective argument & convert people that your way of seeing things is worthwhile, it helps to be able to find *common ground* so ppl think you are actually evaluating the work in question & dont have some popist (for example) ax to grind. Yes, of course everything ever is subjective, but then why even post on this message board? why not just read mp3 aggregators
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 00:51 (thirteen years ago) link
Alright fine -- your generalization is wrong and not positive. How's that?
― jagger reupholstered my pussy (J0rdan S.), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 00:51 (thirteen years ago) link
Deej is right
Also dayo should step up if he thinks he's wrong
― jagger reupholstered my pussy (J0rdan S.), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 00:52 (thirteen years ago) link
― congratulations (n/a), Tuesday, November 30, 2010 12:46 AM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
how does this bring my motives into question when the content of that post backs up what got printed?
― lex lex lex lex lex on the track BOW (lex pretend), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 00:53 (thirteen years ago) link
review as response to reviews instead of response to record
― congratulations (n/a), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 00:54 (thirteen years ago) link
this is a HORRIBLE album that i hated more with each listenthis is a HORRIBLE album that i hated more with each listenthis is a HORRIBLE album that i hated more with each listenthis is a HORRIBLE album that i hated more with each listen
― lex lex lex lex lex on the track BOW (lex pretend), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 00:56 (thirteen years ago) link
looks like a response to the record to me
lmao @ the navel gazing line, tho
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 00:57 (thirteen years ago) link
I'm not gonna argue over whether or not this album retreads past kanye glories cause I think the 2 basic premises of deej's argument is wrong:
you hurt your own credibility in criticizing a record, even if yr right, when u refuse to ascribe anything that could be seen as a positive quality to record that may in fact have some redeeming qualities. a much more damning critique = pursuing truth more than rejecting every strategy as a failure simply bcuz you decided the album has failed― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Tuesday, November 30, 2010 6:20 AM (2 hours ago) Bookmarki think letting your feelings for the work as a whole / the critical response to the work overwhelm your ability to accurately describe the lp in question in a critical manner is more dishonest― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Tuesday, November 30, 2010 6:31 AM (2 hours ago) Bookmark
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Tuesday, November 30, 2010 6:20 AM (2 hours ago) Bookmark
i think letting your feelings for the work as a whole / the critical response to the work overwhelm your ability to accurately describe the lp in question in a critical manner is more dishonest
― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Tuesday, November 30, 2010 6:31 AM (2 hours ago) Bookmark
basically because the argument is based on 1. questioning the motives of the reviewer and 2. claiming that there are objectively definable aspects to this album that all crits can agree on. as for the 1st, deej has the luxury here because lex has been an active contributor to this thread and deej has had the benefit of reading his posts - but I really don't see how this impacts the reading of the review itself, which is entirely self-contained and capable of being understood without referencing lex's contributions to this thread.
as for point 2... this is the deej point that deej has been harping on that has completely mystified me. people bring different perspectives to music, and I don't know how you can say that one review accurately describes a record whereas another one doesn't - the farthest you can go imo is that you agree with one description but disagree with one. using terms like 'accurately' is disingenuous imo
― .\ /. (dayo), Tuesday, 30 November 2010 01:01 (thirteen years ago) link