― Matthew C Perpetua (inca), Sunday, 23 April 2006 21:35 (eighteen years ago) link
― kevinod (odtron5000), Sunday, 23 April 2006 22:00 (eighteen years ago) link
― kevinod (odtron5000), Monday, 24 April 2006 01:35 (eighteen years ago) link
― kevinod (odtron5000), Monday, 24 April 2006 01:36 (eighteen years ago) link
― Matthew C Perpetua (inca), Monday, 24 April 2006 12:49 (eighteen years ago) link
― Matthew C Perpetua (inca), Monday, 24 April 2006 12:50 (eighteen years ago) link
Sigh....7 more weeks then.
― Darren Skuja, Tuesday, 25 April 2006 23:38 (eighteen years ago) link
― Matthew C Perpetua (inca), Wednesday, 26 April 2006 01:52 (eighteen years ago) link
still, i'd say it's more radio-friendly than bull, even if it has more sonic youth elements in it. isn't the point of a single to try and lure more people to buy the record? to me, starfield and, point taken, self-obsessed are more accessible: guitars still conforming to sy's noise aesthetic but scrubbed clean a little bit. even that delay or phased guitar loop on starfield is a riff. then again, those distorted harmonics on bull are riff-y. opinions..like assholes..yadda yadda.
― kevinod (odtron5000), Wednesday, 26 April 2006 03:06 (eighteen years ago) link
― Alex in Baltimore (Alex in Baltimore), Wednesday, 26 April 2006 05:16 (eighteen years ago) link
ir·rev·er·ent (?-r?v'?r-?nt)
adj.
1. Lacking or exhibiting a lack of reverence; disrespectful.2. Critical of what is generally accepted or respected; satirical: irreverent humor.
― mts (theoreticalgirl), Wednesday, 26 April 2006 11:38 (eighteen years ago) link
I didn't know that! Thanks!
― Darren Skuja, Wednesday, 26 April 2006 23:59 (eighteen years ago) link
― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Sunday, 30 April 2006 07:01 (eighteen years ago) link
― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Sunday, 30 April 2006 07:07 (eighteen years ago) link
― Raymond Cummings (Raymond Cummings), Monday, 1 May 2006 13:32 (eighteen years ago) link
If you scan down, they put up lyrics to two forthcoming b-sides, both of which seem pretty fascinating to me.
― Matthew C Perpetua (inca), Saturday, 6 May 2006 22:07 (eighteen years ago) link
― mts (theoreticalgirl), Tuesday, 9 May 2006 17:57 (eighteen years ago) link
wow, new b-sides, when's the last time they released b-sides that were non-album songs and not instrumentals or covers? the last I can remember is the Washing Machine-era "My Arena".
― Alex in Baltimore (Alex in Baltimore), Tuesday, 9 May 2006 18:06 (eighteen years ago) link
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12679452/
― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 9 May 2006 18:19 (eighteen years ago) link
haha
― Cee Bee (Cee Bee), Tuesday, 9 May 2006 18:56 (eighteen years ago) link
― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Tuesday, 9 May 2006 19:23 (eighteen years ago) link
― mts (theoreticalgirl), Tuesday, 9 May 2006 19:25 (eighteen years ago) link
― Makrugaik (makrugaik), Tuesday, 9 May 2006 20:08 (eighteen years ago) link
Does this jibe with the sound on the rest of the new album?
― DOQQUN (donut), Tuesday, 9 May 2006 20:16 (eighteen years ago) link
― Matthew C Perpetua (inca), Tuesday, 9 May 2006 21:09 (eighteen years ago) link
― mts (theoreticalgirl), Tuesday, 9 May 2006 23:36 (eighteen years ago) link
― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Thursday, 11 May 2006 22:14 (eighteen years ago) link
― mobile ringtone, Thursday, 25 May 2006 10:47 (eighteen years ago) link
-- Alex in Baltimore (shipley.a...), May 9th, 2006.
I have a version of "Starpower" w/ Thurston doing vocals. Kim on vocals obv more interesting.
Took a listen to RR; tho it sounds warmer + pleasing, more focused than any recent SY thing I've heard, I'm not too sure if it will stick to the ribs. That's all, please resume spamming of thread...
― Edward III (edward iii), Thursday, 25 May 2006 15:13 (eighteen years ago) link
warmer + pleasing, more focused
this is my take as well, i am really into the rapture song although this:
"do you believe in rapture?" is good, but it'd be better if it ended with like kim getting rapturized and thurston being all like, "whaaaat? you promised!" and kim shouting tearful wailing "i'm sorry, i tried to save youuuuu...." as she and coco are borne aloft on pillowy wings.
is one of the funniest things I have read around here in months.
― sleeve (sleeve), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 03:57 (eighteen years ago) link
It's not a super-dynamic album.. it definitely has a consistent tempo and volume... which is perhaps the point. Granted, I came into the store halfway through the album, so I maybe I missed a raucous first half...
― ((((((DOPplur)))n)))u))))tttt (donut), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 04:01 (eighteen years ago) link
― Raymond Cummings (Raymond Cummings), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 11:08 (eighteen years ago) link
― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 11:41 (eighteen years ago) link
― kevinod (odtron5000), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 11:53 (eighteen years ago) link
Consonant vs dissonant jangle and weave propelled by postpunk anti-groove; some noise. Basic tunes subservient to breath and rasp. Psychedelic, at least with Windows Media Player automatic mind-melt videos; other forms of mind-melt may work too. Obvious - from the same recipe as the last two albums, just diced into shorter chunks (seasoned with some hooks and changes even more finely aged) but who else will make it? Save for dumbass bar-band rocker "Sleepin' Around" and some singsong fatigue (tracks 9-11 -> "What would happen if they spent as much time on the vocal lines as on the guitars?": listeners worldwide), tight. "Do You Believe In Rapture?" = "Heroin" in harmonics, with drums in time. Other searches: "Rats," "Jams Run Free".
― Sundar (sundar), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 12:48 (eighteen years ago) link
Then there's this clanger:Another objectivity aid is consensus, as indicated by record guides, online compendia, and of course critics polls.
I mean, for at least 10 years consensus on VU and Sabbath was that they sucked donkey balls.
(awaits 200+ posts)
― Edward III (edward iii), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 12:51 (eighteen years ago) link
― Sundar (sundar), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 12:58 (eighteen years ago) link
I'm not being flip. The taste vs judgment argument is someting I raised in my blog last night, and it's a conversation I'm having with a friend as I'm typing this.
― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 12:59 (eighteen years ago) link
― Sundar (sundar), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 12:59 (eighteen years ago) link
― Sundar (sundar), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 13:05 (eighteen years ago) link
-- Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (soto.alfre...), June 7th, 2006.
What's unclear, specifically?
― Edward III (edward iii), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 13:08 (eighteen years ago) link
― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 13:29 (eighteen years ago) link
Great punchline.
― NoTimeBeforeTime (Barry Bruner), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 13:52 (eighteen years ago) link
― NoTimeBeforeTime (Barry Bruner), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 13:57 (eighteen years ago) link
If somebody wants to champion that approach, that's fine (if they're strong enough as a writer they'll make it work). Just don't violate your own terms, especially when you're trying to provide an example of the approach in action. Christgau says Phillips shouldn't call SY "boring," she should talk about the songs in and of themselves without addressing her emotional response to them, then he says "let me give you an example," and uses "sandbagging" which is just a tricky way to say "boring."
― Edward III (edward iii), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 14:25 (eighteen years ago) link
That's not at all what he implies! especially when he quite vigorously defends his weakness for NYC Ghosts.
― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 14:30 (eighteen years ago) link
...the fact that objectivity only comes naturally in math doesn't mean it can't be approximated in art.
One technique, which I've just illustrated, is to replace response reports ("boring" and all its self-involved pals, like my "exhilarating" or Phillips's less blatant "dull") with stimulus reports.
To paraphrase, an approach to improved objectivity is through focusing on "stimulus reports" (which I take to mean descriptions of the music itself, the stimulus) as opposed to "response reports" (i.e. the reviewer's response to the stimulus). Okay, that's fine. Then:
Here's another instance: Boring or not, 1998's A Thousand Leaves unquestionably marked a turn toward the quietude, ruminative structures, and general fuzz level always implicit in their unresolved tunings and Deadhead-manquéjams—tendencies tersely deployed on 1994's Experimental Jet Set, Trash and No Star and fulsomely indulged on Washing Machine's sandbagging 20-minute "The Diamond Sea."
You can't say, "Hey, focus on the music (stimulus) instead of your judgmental response," then throw in a couple of your own judgmental responses.
― Edward III (edward iii), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 14:45 (eighteen years ago) link
― o. nate (onate), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 14:47 (eighteen years ago) link
― o. nate (onate), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 14:48 (eighteen years ago) link
I'm disappointed in his resorting to jargon (is "sandagging" like "teabagging"?). As for "fulsomely" – any word choice implies a judgment. I need to read it again, but if you're suggesting that he went up his own arse – intentionally or no – then I sorta agree.
― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 14:54 (eighteen years ago) link