Daft Punk's Random Access Memories

the first time I heard "fragments" I thought : doobie's "what a fool believes" !

what a foolish belief!

https://soundcloud.com/daftside-2/sets/random-access-memories-1

lose yourself to dance remix is amazing

http://www.npr.org/blogs/therecord/2013/06/19/193538349/the-dream-on-why-we-all-need-r-b

the-dream makes a very daft-punk esque statement towards the end

What is it about the '90s? You've said what they mean for you personally, but why do all of us keep going back? Why did it even stop?

I'll tell you why. MP3 interrupted what R&B was starting to be. It's like taking an engine out of something and saying, "Now drive your car really fast." It's not going to happen. It's the same thing that I deal with now. It takes a lot to put a 5-piece band on, even though we need it. We need those harmonies; I need those four background singers — not because I can't sing but because I need to relay the message of what the song is emotionally, or the feeling, period. [From] a money standpoint, it didn't really affect hip-hop — they could still keep going. You don't need a band to do hip-hop; you only need a DJ.

That money — when it goes away, you can't put on that show, which is where we are now. We can't put on that show unless we make it somehow to a big awards thing and then, of course, that means your favorite R&B artist at some point better do an up-tempo record, or an electric record, so they can get there to perform. Other than that, someone like me is probably never going to perform on that stage unless there's a certain person that's sitting there that hears a record and says, "I'm putting this on regardless. I don't care where it is on the radio, I'm just going to put it on." But then, that's a far cry, that's like lightning in a bottle.

MP3 interrupted what R&B was turning into, so that's why we're going back. We kind of tried to fix it and technology is helping us out a lot, but it's pretty hard to duplicate the fullness of what R&B had become at that time, and mood, with so little, whereas in hip-hop and rap and EDM and all those guys, they can do it with basically nothing.

via deej

eagerly awaiting the dead girlfriends thinkpiece on this

I'm enjoying the idea that new converts to Daft Punk on the strength of Random Access Memories are going to be all like "hey, what album did they do before this!? gotta give that a listen!"

I'm enjoying the idea that people used to programming and sequencers are going to be all, hey, what else has live drums and bass and stuff played by seasoned session players? I gotta give that a listen!

Doobie Brothers! George Benson! Michael Jackson! Chic! My god, the world is full of music!!!!

Is that Nicolas Jaar 'remix' of Lose Yourself to Dance a comment on how the original should be edited? hah.

why is a song called "lose yourself to dance" so slow and snoozy?

That said, only 'beyond' and 'fragments of time' were good. The treble bothers me a bit on the whole thing, not sure if it's soundcloud quality fault. 'Beyond' is an improvement on the original.

and why is that song called 'Giorgio by Moroder' if Moroder didn't actually wrote or produced any of it?

xxp it's slow so you can dance sexy.

and why is that song called 'Giorgio by Moroder' if Moroder didn't actually wrote or produced any of it?

― Moka, Friday, June 21, 2013 12:58 PM (7 minutes ago)

According to the liner notes, he actually has a writing credit on the song so...

am i ruining RAM by listening to the jaar remix before the original

it's so good!

and why is that song called 'Giorgio by Moroder' if Moroder didn't actually wrote or produced any of it?

― Moka, Friday, June 21, 2013 3:58 PM (20 minutes ago) Bookmark

i have no idea how to even process this question

why is a song called "lose yourself to dance" so slow and snoozy?

― i don't even have an internet (Hurting 2), Friday, June 21, 2013 2:47 PM (44 minutes ago)

i have no idea how to even process this question

Think of it as a name for a cologne

^^ exactly what I always am thinking

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/p480x480/163003_10150370492725651_2765479_n.jpg

Album production sounds great but except for ' doing it right' and ' life back to music' the songs seem a bit soulless somehow.

robots don't have souls

agreed it's really missing the soulfulness of harder better faster stronger

http://www.fdiskc.com/usrsyn/namm/2004/images/drummachineshavenosoul.jpg

agreed it's really missing the soulfulness of harder better faster stronger

― ty based gay dead computer god (zachlyon), Friday, June 21, 2013 11:34 PM (17 minutes ago)

You win that example, but, generally, don't think discussions of soullessness are irrelevant/that easily dismissed. That was part of their "genius" before, no? Squeezing water from the stone?

In other words, agree that RAM is a bit dead-eyed, somehow.

i'm trying to nail Lose Yourself To Dance on guitar and boy is my pinkie tired

According to the liner notes, he actually has a writing credit on the song so...
― Jersey Al (Albert R. Broccoli),

No writing cred for Starlight in 'Stella by Starlight' wtf

lol

It's made the dad-rock canon--manna for the haters : )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcL4zJxBMH8&feature=player_embedded#at=83

Despite my inane 'soulless' impression, it's in the top 5 of the year without question

I've heard "Doin It Right" and 'Instant Crush' from two cars and an open window of a house today, walking around town.

Which do you think is the next single? Or is it "Lose Yourself to Dance"?

It's funny, when I listen to it as an album, while I find almost all of it incredibly catchy, nothing stands out (in a bad way) as "obvious single," yet clearly it's got a few--maybe enough that it doesn't end up in used bins en masse despite being a rather weird album?

Each track is good. None of them sound like singles. They don't work together as an album. This is the weirdest best album of the year by far.

I realised today that this is my favourite album of 2013 (so far). Really wouldn't have expected that at the beginning of the year.

I would not at all have been surprised that a new Daft Punk album would be great--but I had no idea they would do something that matched so closely exactly where my tastes have evolved over the last decade. I *would* have been surprised that I'd also really love albums by the Flaming Lips and (to lesser extents) MBV, OMD, Thom Yorke, and Wire in the year 2013.

As to this question:

why is a song called "lose yourself to dance" so slow and snoozy?

― i don't even have an internet (Hurting 2), Friday, June 21, 2013 2:47 PM (44 minutes ago)

This is the answer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBXv37PFcAQ

hmm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBXv37PFcAQ

I still here this as a cohesive awesome album. Can't agree with those who hear something else.

It's good. Touch and Get Lucky are the spiritual heart of the album i think... pure pop bliss.

it is not killing me and it won't make my top ten (though i could see lose yourself to dance making a singles list) but this is THE album of 2013 unless proven otherwise

It's made the dad-rock canon

The touch-points for this album are pretty much dad-rock across the board, tbf. Session dudes, '80s disco, smooth jazz. And Daft Punk dudes are pushing 40. Dad-dance?

put that way, no wonder Lex hates it

xp
'lose your dad to dance'

More like "lose your dance to Dad".

Electronic Dad Music

Dad Punk

After hearing what they did on the three songs they produced on Kanye's album, I'm even madder at RAM

?

The first three songs on Yeezus are all furious dub-tinged menace, possibly the furthest away you can get from what they're doing on RAM without adding in metal guitars, and way more in line with the type of music I was hoping RAM would be.

You were just hoping, or somehow thought they'd given an indication it would be? As soon as I heard "Nile Rodgers" and "Giorgio Moroder" I took a guess at what it was going to be (which excited me) and what I imagined (and hoped for) was pretty close to what was. But isn't it a good thing they have the versatility to do both?