so tell me, why is Kaputt better or worse than Let England Shake?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (856 of them)

if you are releasing music, you have ambitions imo

crüt, Sunday, 5 February 2012 23:42 (2 years ago) Permalink

fwiw, i'm equating ambition with artistic experimentation and rigor, self-challenge, and the willingness to push an aesthetic hard enough to see what happens at its outer reaches.

what would the "outer reaches" of this particular aesthetic look like to you?

Tim F, Sunday, 5 February 2012 23:42 (2 years ago) Permalink

yeah! well you've also got "suicide" as merely "stupid pride", a somewhat hardline xtian sentiment which that indeed daring pantheism x astrology "gods are crazy / stars are blind" double whammy immediately vexes. and then yr everyday manichaean "be the devil and angel too" chaser. paris milton more like.

― rtccc (mwah), Sunday, August 27, 2006 1:17 AM (5 years ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

let me know when bejar comes up with anything a quarter of the worth of this

first period don't give a fuck, second period gon get cut (lex pretend), Sunday, 5 February 2012 23:42 (2 years ago) Permalink

it's ambitious enough. certainly sounds better made than most indie crud. that's my high praise.

scott seward, Sunday, 5 February 2012 23:46 (2 years ago) Permalink

i mean it actually sounds like it took time to make. and there was thought involved. and craftsmanship and all that. i appreciate all that. but yeah the voice ends up distracting me cuz it just reminds me of 15 other voices. this isn't a problem for me when it comes to synthesizers. pj will always sound like pj to me. though people heard siouxsie on this album. i seem to recall that.

scott seward, Sunday, 5 February 2012 23:50 (2 years ago) Permalink

what would the "outer reaches" of this particular aesthetic look like to you?

impossible to say until someone gets there, right?

i can only say that, in my entirely subjective estimation, kaputt feels like the product of someone laying back in a comfortable, well-defined place and doing what feels right. let england shake, otoh, feels like the product of someone deliberately stepping out of their comfort zone and pushing through to make sense of unfamiliar territory. neither approach is necessarily any better or worse than the other, but like i said, i get more, personally, out of what PJH came up with in the process. and i'm inclined to describe it as more artistically "ambitious".

Little GTFO (contenderizer), Sunday, 5 February 2012 23:51 (2 years ago) Permalink

xp Yeah, one thing I don't get is where people calling it amateurish are coming from. Reacting more to Bejar's background than anything, I guess. If nothing else, Kaputt sounds really slick and professional to me.

lag∞n affiliated (The Reverend), Sunday, 5 February 2012 23:52 (2 years ago) Permalink

it sounds great. on youtube no less!

scott seward, Sunday, 5 February 2012 23:53 (2 years ago) Permalink

i would still rather buy that Studio stuff though. they no longer exist, right? is there like a 2 cd thing i can buy? the complete Studio? now that stuff was ambitious.

scott seward, Sunday, 5 February 2012 23:54 (2 years ago) Permalink

that was like the last rilly good tip i got from ilm i think.

scott seward, Sunday, 5 February 2012 23:55 (2 years ago) Permalink

at least ldr is out there pushing her boundaries

mookieproof, Sunday, 5 February 2012 23:56 (2 years ago) Permalink

scott just look for Yearbook 2

⚓ (gr8080), Sunday, 5 February 2012 23:58 (2 years ago) Permalink

my problem with nu-80's type stuff is that i never stopped listening to actual 80's stuff? so there isn't actually a lot of nostalgia involved! does that make any sense at all? i've been listening to bananarama every year of my life since 1982 or whatever. they are still very much current to me. okay, maybe that makes no sense. those sounds are just a part of my life. completely. so in order for me to enjoy new stuff that sounds like old 80's synth/pop/newwave stuff the production OR the songs - and hopefully both - have to be REALLY high quality in order for me to enjoy them. like i said, dance people seem to do this the best. but dance people kinda exist to reference the past and make it new somehow. its like magic. non-dance music people usually aren't so swift. but this guy gets at something interesting. its not a total time-warp. which i appreciate. he's no blue nile, but who is?

scott seward, Monday, 6 February 2012 00:06 (2 years ago) Permalink

yearbook 2, okay, i'll write that down. thanks.

scott seward, Monday, 6 February 2012 00:06 (2 years ago) Permalink

my problem with nu 80s stuff is that ppl romanticizing the 80s are reliving the hideousness of boomers goin nuts about the sixties

like even though there was a lot of great shit that bears reinvestigating/closer readings, the perils of championing an era are so poisonous that it's better to just give all that shit a wide berth

unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Monday, 6 February 2012 00:12 (2 years ago) Permalink

so you think people should never any eras, or particularly the 80's?

flopson, Monday, 6 February 2012 00:13 (2 years ago) Permalink

should never champion*

flopson, Monday, 6 February 2012 00:13 (2 years ago) Permalink

I don't think this is 'championing an era'. it's playing w/ many of the sounds and themes of the era but that doesn't necessarily mean it's romanticizing them.

iatee, Monday, 6 February 2012 00:16 (2 years ago) Permalink

i get where you're coming from but i dunno i dont listen kaputt or west coast and go "oh cool 80's sounds here" i just hear awesome fresh music

⚓ (gr8080), Monday, 6 February 2012 00:17 (2 years ago) Permalink

ka*plop*

puff puff post (uh oh I'm having a fantasy), Monday, 6 February 2012 00:18 (2 years ago) Permalink

otm, I think the "80s sounds" of Destroyer are greatly exaggerated xp

Flag post? I hardly knew her! (Le Bateau Ivre), Monday, 6 February 2012 00:19 (2 years ago) Permalink

I agree with iatee. Dealing with archetypes speaks to our history. It may well involve "romanticization," but not necessarily in a negative way.

timellison, Monday, 6 February 2012 00:20 (2 years ago) Permalink

I think to be on the safe side we should avoid the 2000s and 2010s cause they are possibly tainted with nostalgia for the 80s and its associated 60s nostalgia and oh shit people back then were probably nostalgic for the 40s. No place is safe.

lag∞n affiliated (The Reverend), Monday, 6 February 2012 00:20 (2 years ago) Permalink

Except the 90s.

lag∞n affiliated (The Reverend), Monday, 6 February 2012 00:21 (2 years ago) Permalink

so you think people should never any eras, or particularly the 80's?

kinda. idk it's like I'm particularly reactionary abt the 80s 'cause that's the era I was sort most plugged-into-the-zeitgeist in and I'm like NO IT WASN'T ACTUALLY AWESOME IT'S JUST THAT YOU WERE YOUNG & YOU MISS THAT, but at the same time, I do think there are things about any given era that are distinctive/worth talking about/defining. But yeah when people think one era is "better" I think they're morons tbph. Like I think metal right after Venom hits, that's a really interesting era to me, but narratives in which there's a peak/good part after which there are diminishing returns/etc seem like moronic self-serving youth-romanticizing tragedies

unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Monday, 6 February 2012 00:22 (2 years ago) Permalink

No '80s revival music strikes me as an assertion that the '80s were awesome.

timellison, Monday, 6 February 2012 00:23 (2 years ago) Permalink

tim you're kind of not exactly an impartial party on this q am I right

unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Monday, 6 February 2012 00:24 (2 years ago) Permalink

idk aero I think you are reading this as an 70/80s retro kick when really it's more like imagining a 70s/80s alternate universe

iatee, Monday, 6 February 2012 00:25 (2 years ago) Permalink

In what way?

timellison, Monday, 6 February 2012 00:26 (2 years ago) Permalink

Sometimes I think the world was supposed to end in the 80s and somehow someone forgot to throw the switch and we've ask just been droning on ever since...theres this old sci fi short story called ”twilight” that deals with something like that

dave coolier (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Monday, 6 February 2012 00:26 (2 years ago) Permalink

xp @ iatee: well I think Bejar's particular deal is a sort of meta-investigating of the romanticization of the past, which has kind of always been his deal, but there's two things in play for me: what i think Bejar's doing, and how people respond to it. I'm considerably more reactionary about the latter, I dig what he does & we're pals besides though Kaputt hits all those 80s spots that I sort of would prefer to never hear again (as vs. a coworker of mine who thinks those sounds are the greatest things ever)

unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Monday, 6 February 2012 00:27 (2 years ago) Permalink

In what way?

don't you sort of adore the past unreservedly & champion much music from the 80s particularly?

unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Monday, 6 February 2012 00:28 (2 years ago) Permalink

Unreservedly? No. And partiality works both ways.

timellison, Monday, 6 February 2012 00:30 (2 years ago) Permalink

I don't think this is 'championing an era'. it's playing w/ many of the sounds and themes of the era but that doesn't necessarily mean it's romanticizing them.

romanticizing? yes, definitely.
championing? no.

I think the "80s sounds" of Destroyer are greatly exaggerated xp

??? it's hard to imagine a more explicit and direct musical evocation of a musical style & era, outside straight-up copycat/tribute shit.

Little GTFO (contenderizer), Monday, 6 February 2012 00:31 (2 years ago) Permalink

imo kaputt sounds like "the Saturday Night Live Show Band"

flopson, Monday, 6 February 2012 00:32 (2 years ago) Permalink

there's a layer of irony that prevents this from romanticizing anything imo

iatee, Monday, 6 February 2012 00:34 (2 years ago) Permalink

I mean he's poking fun at 70s/80s signifiers while at the same time making remarkably pretty music w/ 70s/80s signifiers. the tension between those two things is what makes the album. imo.

iatee, Monday, 6 February 2012 00:38 (2 years ago) Permalink

But yeah when people think one era is "better" I think they're morons tbph. Like I think metal right after Venom hits, that's a really interesting era to me, but narratives in which there's a peak/good part after which there are diminishing returns/etc seem like moronic self-serving youth-romanticizing tragedies

― unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Sunday, February 5, 2012 7:22 PM (20 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

if I hadn't been around for both years, I'd probably pick '93. I was, though, and when I look at the '88 list, I get all BMW-driver-about-the-60s. It Takes Two came out in '88; as much I love a lotta '93 stuff (and as much as I think the strides made in '93 are kinda bigger toward broadening the genre, and therefore more "important"), hearing "It Takes Two" on KDAY was one of those "oh, shit, music is different after this for me" moments. You don't like it, so what, I don't care

― unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Sunday, January 8, 2012 3:20 PM (4 weeks ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

mainstream rap just gravitated towards what seemed like cover versions. I enjoy a lot of those songs now and can hear all the production work & polish but at the time it seemed like a sad turn

...I loved The Chronic and Doggy Style (and Uncle Sam's Curse what year was that?) but the element of rap that was like mindblowing sheer sonics gave way to what were essentially rock records structurally - same rules as rock in terms of how you get to the vibe/effect. whereas that late 80s stuff was so Structures In Sound - but then again, Wu Tang is fully up on that when they come around, and they weren't "throwback" to me at that point, they were taking that vision to where it would have gone next if it had remained the dominant discourse, which it didn't.

not that all rap had been dense layers of Bomb Squad & not that there isn't plenty of trad song structure at play in Nation of Millions and shit but that's how I break it down to an extent, rap becoming more a new approach to songcraft than a new approach to sound.

― unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Sunday, January 8, 2012 10:18 PM (4 weeks ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

flopson, Monday, 6 February 2012 00:44 (2 years ago) Permalink

lots of/most people currently enjoying 80s sounds were too young to remember the 80s anyway. Or not even born. So it's not about romanticising some lost golden period of youth like it is with the boomers and the 60s

sonderborg, Monday, 6 February 2012 00:47 (2 years ago) Permalink

aerosmith on the money. dre ruined everything.

scott seward, Monday, 6 February 2012 00:48 (2 years ago) Permalink

i grew up in the 80s, it was shit.

pfunkboy (Algerian Goalkeeper), Monday, 6 February 2012 00:49 (2 years ago) Permalink

i was there too man! and it sucked for me kinda but i did love a lot of music and still listen to a lot of it but i don't want to go back and don't want stuff to really sound like that all the time. cuz that would be boring. and most people suck at it. except sub-genre people. like rap people and metal people and dance people. and goth people.

scott seward, Monday, 6 February 2012 00:51 (2 years ago) Permalink

at the same time, I do think there are things about any given era that are distinctive/worth talking about/defining.

flopson did you overlook this part intentionally or are you just too stupid to understand it? I can explain if need be. either way, it's disturbing to know that you keep a file of my posts, stalking's a terrible look imo

unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Monday, 6 February 2012 00:52 (2 years ago) Permalink

"oh no you answered a q pitting one era against another, you HYPOCRITE!" dude you are like the dumbest person on this board, real talk

unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Monday, 6 February 2012 00:53 (2 years ago) Permalink

that's an overstatement but that shit pissed me off, participating in a discussion where two eras are compared isn't the same as being some "x era RULES" dumbshit

unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Monday, 6 February 2012 00:54 (2 years ago) Permalink

yeah even with music and undoubtedly there was some amazing stuff in the 80s, I was completely unaware of it! I still like the pop stuff i liked then but i dont get nostalgic for it nor do i want anyone else now to make sounds like back then (lol he likes doom metal)

pfunkboy (Algerian Goalkeeper), Monday, 6 February 2012 00:56 (2 years ago) Permalink

oh shut up you're such an unfun crank, so i recalled a post you made a month ago, that's a cheap shot

anyways i don't think that qualification exempts you from basically being a hypocrite, explain it to me please

flopson, Monday, 6 February 2012 00:56 (2 years ago) Permalink

and my pop stuff i liked ended about 1986 (i liked U2,Queen,PSB after that year)

pfunkboy (Algerian Goalkeeper), Monday, 6 February 2012 00:57 (2 years ago) Permalink

if you can't handle being taken to task on your own inconsistencies don't make such broad claims

flopson, Monday, 6 February 2012 00:57 (2 years ago) Permalink

oh shut up you're such an unfun crank, so i recalled a post you made a month ago, that's a cheap shot

lol I apologize dude I'm still mad at you from a shot you took at me earlier this week & also I'm tipsy, yr right I'm an unfun crank it's a personality defect I work on, sorry I popped off atcha man I just got mad

unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Monday, 6 February 2012 00:58 (2 years ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.