The thread for Portishead "Third"

portishead = thunderstorm
broadcast = lighter scattered showers, sunny spells

err... Joy Division = persistent sleet

Rotterdam termination source - canapes

this album is so not as "dark" as all the early talking point blog bullshit made it seem...the sounds may be real ominous and kind of scary or bleak but I'm not exactly crying into my iced coffee...listening now and I'm more like balling my fists and scowling at people and trying not to smash things...

this album is genius.

maybe that makes me "dark" but fuck it

"We Carry On" and "Small" are just so exciting to me...it's kind of like metal but the riffs are played on a keyboard and the guitar just kind of drifts in and out with those awesome stabbing noises and the drums and bass are all stripped and no-frills...so great!

So "Magic Doors" should totally be a single, y/n

i think 'The Rip' is next up - there's a video at least

I don't think they're playing Magic Doors live, so it's probably not on the cards.

Also, the video for The Rip is great.

"Magic Doors" is a favorite of mine, after ~10 spins.

Is there anywhere I can buy this in DRM-free mp3 form?

amazon?

not in the UK (bastards)

did anyone else notice that marcello writes in his blog about this album? on a one song per day base. today was "we carry on". i wanted to do the same but i never got any further than silence. additionally i didn't get past my mother tongue.

i heard that the original pressing of the vinyl in the US was warped....have any of you had problems? been waiting to buy it on vinyl

finally got it!! playing now. i love how fucking sprawling it is. gloomy sprawl.

Grawl. (The new genre name among the teeners.)

Plastic! the instrumentation is so rich,.

haha grawl

this drone on We Carry On makes me happy

You're not alone there.

yes this album makes me happy, too....i love it so, so much. however, I don't really see the "sprawling" observation here...seems pretty concise, each track explores an idea or two and then just kinda ends without ever really straying from that original idea. in fact, I wish it was longer. like maybe two or three times as long!

great synths at the end of Machine Gun

i mean sprawling in the sense that the songs, in and of themselves, aren't bound by a strict melody or structure. but it's my 1st listen, so

I really wish people would stop saying stuff like the songs, in and of themselves, aren't bound by a strict melody or structure because it is patently and demonstrably false.

if you wan't me to be more accurate, i might be able to later, but i'm just giving my 1st impression. sorry to fall short of your analytical skills, HI DERE

also kiss my ass =P

yeah but it's kind of ALL melody and structure on here....

if you wan't me to be more accurate

I lolled

ok. i'm wrong. FUCK

yeah but it's kind of ALL melody and structure on here....

i don't really know how much this means tho

i found it more textural, myself. and i think it would be shortsighted to say that this album is strictly structured and melodic. especially on the tracks where the melody fades into instrumentals to close.

it wasn't a judgment of the album re: good or great it was just in response to your claim about the songs being these massive unwieldy things which they are not... I mean fading into a few minutes of repeating instrumental phrases is keeping within a pretty specific structure

Yeah, but the instrumentals have melodies!

(xpost)

I mean fading into a few minutes of repeating instrumental phrases is keeping within a pretty specific structure

i agree, it is a specific structure but it's different from a lot of other music i listen to with stricter composition, centered around melody. that's what i should have said.

i also feel like some of the melodies on this sound very portishead to me, in that they're more atmospheric than composed.

And this is why music education is important, folks.

so you're here to educate people? isn't that incredibly pretentious?

this is why ppl don't post to ILM, because of its beloved teachers.

i'd rather talk about music with my elementary vocabulary.

i gotta agree with surmounter in that it's fair enough to have initial impressions. and if everyone had the same approach towards appreciating and responding to music, the medium would be very dull indeed.

incidentally, i recall listening to third for the first time and thinking that a lot of it sounded more liberated and less contained that the records that came before it. perhaps not 'sprawling' as such, but definitely a bit more expansive in sound. though as i mentioned somewhere upthread, the earlier portishead records are a pretty vague and irrelevant reference point for an appraisal of this one.

yeah it's 'looser'

(I think what Dan is getting at is that words like 'composed' and 'melody' and 'structure' are being thrown around without much regard for what they actually mean, it's all getting a bit Geir Hongro in here - it's nothing to do with the approach to listening per se)

well i think the crux of the problem tho is that you can't use a word without knowing the ins and outs of the definition. it's a conversation not a textbook.

Actually, you SHOULDN'T use a word unless you know the ins and outs of the definition because you might not actually be saying what you think you're saying and it makes it more difficult for other people to understand you. The entire point of a conversation is to exchange ideas and get your point across and, if you can't do that, you can't really contribute to the conversation.

x-post -- Surmounter, HI DERE actually DOES have technical music training and in fact knows what he is talking about. I've found this very helpful over the years since we like many of the same things, and it gives me both a greater knowledge and appreciation for those acts and songs. What's wrong with learning?

i know enough about the words i use to feel like i can contribute to a conversation.

what i don't like is when people have to lord their knowledge over me like my words aren't valid. i love learning, i don't like preaching.

i'd be much more open to hearing about your technical education if you didn't mock me with it.

i don't want ILM to be a place where i need to look every word up in order to feel like i can open my mouth.

i don't think there's anything wrong with learning. i think it's the tone that's the issue here. i won't argue that HI DERE has some extremely valid insights, and in fairness the highly refined level of music observation on ILM is the reason i generally spend more time here reading than contributing. but i just think that it's a little bit rich to shut down somebody who is trying to make a considered evaluation of what they're hearing.