(Quite sure they're married since that interview.)
― caro's johnson (Eazy), Sunday, 13 May 2012 15:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
2009, I guess:
― Josh in Chicago, Sunday, 13 May 2012 17:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
The interesting thing afaic is his repeated insistence to "make music for yourself, not for others" which is some strange dogma that I can't comprehend
This is 100% true gospel dogma whatever you want to call it. You HAVE to make music for yourself. I mean it's kind of a selfish thing and kind of an ego trip but so is getting in front of a group of people and saying "Stand right there and watch me make these sounds for an hour!" At the end of the day, the only audience you have is you. Your popularity will go in waves, there will be shows where you are playing and nobody gives a shit, or nobody shows up, and you have to be able to deal with it. And if you are not making music for yourself then at that moment you will feel a psychic shock of worthlessness and you may as well just be working in an office, at least you'll be making some decent money.
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Sunday, 13 May 2012 17:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
Super looking forward to those interviews, btw! Thanks for the link.
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Sunday, 13 May 2012 17:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
adam otm, all you can really do is trust your gut and hope a few other people have somewhat similar guts
― some dude, Sunday, 13 May 2012 17:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
i love that photo.he looks sooo happy.he played the game his way, and he got what he wanted.lucky b*stard.re the cancer post : well, i could not read it for a few days for obvious reasons, but yesterday i did, and i'm glad.our situation was very different, but still, was wonderfully open and honest.
― mark e, Sunday, 13 May 2012 17:52 (1 year ago) Permalink
I always read about him talking shit about the Pixies but ive never really read any of those old interviews. Does anyone have any links? I'm pretty curious, all the interviews i can find are more recent.
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Sunday, 13 May 2012 18:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
http://michaeldempster.com/post/1256694678
http://www.dementlieu.com/users/obik/arc/other/kreuzen_fe10.html
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Sunday, 13 May 2012 18:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
In the 1960s and '70s, the left began to recognize that internal political debate was being hampered by crippling "revolutionary" circumspectness -- couching every "he" as a "he or she," Referring to mankind as "humankind," trying to be inclusive in every way to everyone. It was ridiculous -- to the left -- and so the phrase "political correctness" was coined to make fun of this awkward, stilted, revolution-speak language. So, when someone would speak normally, and one of the forbidden language forms or pronouns was used, someone else -- as a joke -- would chime in with "that's not P.C." It was a way for the Left to make fun of itself in a way that it needed to and deserved. Most importantly, it recognizes overtly that the trivia that dogmatists might criticize are unimportant. It was a joke that made a moderate, sensible point of critique within the Left. The Right took hold of the term, using it to ridicule earnest attempts to make discourse more civil or policy more responsible, painting them with the same brush as the myopic, dogmatic revolution-speak it was originally intended to make light jest of. It is now assumed by the general public that this notion of "politically correct" speech was a serious one, and that the left tried to impose it on others, and that it is an example of the Left overreaching in social areas. This is patent bullshit, and I am disgusted that nobody who wasn't around at the time recognizes it. Using the term reinforces the success of this right-wing propaganda move, and I hate it. I hate orchestrated right-wing propaganda moves.
So, when someone would speak normally, and one of the forbidden language forms or pronouns was used, someone else -- as a joke -- would chime in with "that's not P.C."
It was a way for the Left to make fun of itself in a way that it needed to and deserved. Most importantly, it recognizes overtly that the trivia that dogmatists might criticize are unimportant. It was a joke that made a moderate, sensible point of critique within the Left.
The Right took hold of the term, using it to ridicule earnest attempts to make discourse more civil or policy more responsible, painting them with the same brush as the myopic, dogmatic revolution-speak it was originally intended to make light jest of.
It is now assumed by the general public that this notion of "politically correct" speech was a serious one, and that the left tried to impose it on others, and that it is an example of the Left overreaching in social areas. This is patent bullshit, and I am disgusted that nobody who wasn't around at the time recognizes it. Using the term reinforces the success of this right-wing propaganda move, and I hate it.
I hate orchestrated right-wing propaganda moves.
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Sunday, 13 May 2012 19:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
I love the Shellac song "Ghosts". Did anything in particular inspire it or is there anything interesting about it you can share with us?
Just had the idea that if you could conjure ghosts it would be a pretty terrible power. Like you could just make somebody dead and a ghost just like that. Or take a regular dead person and make him a restless specter forced to roam the earth forever. And if the person with that power was a little girl, just amusing herself by making ghosts like she was making paper dolls or whatever. How cute and also horrible that would be. And then what kind of people would she do that to? Maybe a historical figure she learned about in school or another kid from the neighborhood or somebody from TV...
^^^love this, probably my fav shellac lyrics and i appreciate the insight
― call all destroyer, Sunday, 13 May 2012 22:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
surfer rosa & tweez, albums that would not be as good as they are if albini hadn't imposed his vision on them - I would think that this might cause him to question the aesthetic he arrived at ("hands off") tbh
― cosi fan whitford (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Sunday, May 13, 2012 8:25 AM (10 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
this is sort of interesting to me--i think steve is still imposing his vision tbh, you can recognize his recordings instantly. maybe it's more like these days you know what you're getting if you record with him?
― call all destroyer, Sunday, 13 May 2012 22:31 (1 year ago) Permalink
i think he's just more inclined to slip his vision in through the back door when no one's looking
― 10. “Pour Some Sugar On Me” – Tom Cruise (contenderizer), Sunday, 13 May 2012 22:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
It's a little like the Dogme 95 folks not imposing their vision with recorded music, fake lights, etc.--when of course you can spot a Dogme 95 movie from a block away.
― caro's johnson (Eazy), Sunday, 13 May 2012 23:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
to be honest i can't hear any sonic difference between surfer rosa and doolittle -- maybe it's the MP3s?the stooges album sounded like a regular high-gloss rock album.
― Philip Nunez, Sunday, 13 May 2012 23:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
In a way yeah he seems more like an engineer, someone who knows how to get a good sound and use the right mics. He says thats lots of times producers are responsible for you know, hiring a saxophone or crafting the arrangement or basically co-writing the song as recording. On Surfer he suggested a tempo change and pushed for the in-studio sounds ("You effing die!") but you get the sense he thinks of his job as simply getting the best sonic representation of a song/band. This is why he doesn't take royalties, I'm sure with his work ethic, if he was laying down synth patterns and extra instruments and stuff, he'd want credit.
The difference is between scaled-down multi-track analog and like a far more expensive 24-channel digital system. If you can't tell the difference then I'd say he did a pretty terrific job!
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Monday, 14 May 2012 03:08 (1 year ago) Permalink
it also matters a lot who mixes the record and who they're answering to/who they feel their obligation is to (label vs. artist vs. themselves vs. idk "posterity" or something) -- mix is 1) an entirely different discipline from recording/engineering and 2) absolutely as important as the recording itself. I don't know who mixed those Pixies records but that'd be where I'd look most for differences.
― cosi fan whitford (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Monday, 14 May 2012 03:18 (1 year ago) Permalink
surfer rosa was all albini. doolittle was a gil norton production but some other dude mixed it
― our love will change the world (electricsound), Monday, 14 May 2012 03:21 (1 year ago) Permalink