pitchfork is dumb (#34985859340293849494 in a series.)

Majical Cloudz a good reference, too

Hats was recommended to me, by that record collector, because I had liked Spirit of Eden - not really similar records imo, but perhaps catering to similar tastes

there's a song on the new Destroyer record called "Tinseltown Swimming in Blood", probably a Blue Nile reference

oh yeah, Rod Stewart did a Downtown Lights cover in 1995 too!

so, three reviews per day for now, or for good?

the release schedule has had tumbleweeds rolling through it for the last three weeks. things pick up friday

yeah they always cut the number of reviews down in the weeks after EOY lists

I'm pretty sure I found out about the Blue Nile when fishing around for Steely Dan-ish music back in the mid-00s

I've been indifferent to the Blue Nile since the 80s fwiw

Release dates in January are dire for everyone

I mean,

https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/various-artists-bright-the-album/amp/

they never bothered with the new Gucci album, but what can you say i guess

It's interesting to see this perennial discussion

About like how an artist/band from decades ago with a very specific aesthetic bent, with shades of "uncoolness", when it becomes clear that "at this present point in time yes in fact there are people still listening to that band" that there is a discussion that follows. The discussion goes like "who told the kids about [x]?"

What is unique to me tho about The Blue Nile is that unlike other uncool acts whose influence in the popular canon waxes and wanes, I had heard absolutely nothing about them until.. 2012? I never saw them on any "Greatest Albums Of All Time" lists. I just opened up my 18-year old copy of "The Rough Guide To Rock" to check if there was even an entry (there is) and I don't know why that book compelled me at age 20 to check out Peter Blegvad or whatever and not Blue Nile

part of this is surely about how incredible the music is and how slight their reputation really was, so maybe it ends up feeling like a surprising correction when really musically this stuff stands up and above some much more celebrated groups

lol

I didn't really lol

Back in 2007 the Blue Nile was booked to play a show here but then the whole tour was cancelled. Wonder if they'll ever hit the road again.

I'd say the chance of that ever happening is... practically zero. *Maybe* a solo Buchanan concert/tour but Blue Nile reforming? I can't see it happening.

lol

― mag gerwig! (Whiney G. Weingarten), Monday, January 8, 2018 12:38 PM (forty-one minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

How is this “lol” I was hearing about how brilliant plenty of mostly mid 80s post punk bands where they were nowhere near as good or consistent as blue nile, also you have a bias towards the extreme /raw /punk/ hardcore rap end of the 80s spectrum & of course when history corrects for that bias among critics stuff like Sade and blue nile will rise in ppl’s estimations

i think he was lol-ing because that was some turrican-level elevating personal taste to the level of objective truth

Turrican doesn't like Blue Nile tho...

I fully expect the Blue Nile doesn't like Turrican either so it's all good

https://cdn.traileraddict.com/article/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/beetlejuice-michael-keaton-horror-comedy-1024x577.jpg

i think he was lol-ing because that was some turrican-level elevating personal taste to the level of objective truth

― porg and bess (voodoo chili), Monday, January 8, 2018 2:53 PM (twenty-six minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

basically this, but instead of "lol" it's more "come on now"

The ilx "lol" always conveys an eye roll to me. The rest of the internet seems to use it to indicate insecurity.

lol

I know the whole authentic/inauthentic distinction has been deconstructed to oblivion but I still fail to grasp how The Blue Nile is in any way comparable to Talk Talk, pace a shared zeitgeist. Beyond Paul Buchanan's voice, which ensures that the proceedings remain somewhat bearable, there's nothing compositionally interesting going on in Hats: the melodies are awkwardly predictable, doubly so due to the prevalence of slow tempos throughout (incidentally not a problem in and of itself), and in no way is the limited timbral palette ever deployed in a resourceful manner. I absolutely love, say, Avalon but still found Hats to be pretty fucking kitschy, or is that the whole appeal at this point? I also relistened to some Sade to check if I've come to despise 80s sophisti-pop altogether and, if anything, it made me want to further explore her (their?) catalogue.

I can listen to Hats a lot more often than I can take Spirit of Eden - even if the latter in many ways seem the greater musical accomplishment

i think he was lol-ing because that was some turrican-level elevating personal taste to the level of objective truth

― porg and bess (voodoo chili), Monday, January 8, 2018 1:53 PM (one hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Ahh ilx is now forbidden from suggesting one artist might have a more consistent catalog than another

Imo that argument more reflects a misplaced faith in the existing canon’s impartiality than it does some sort of neutral statement about me being “biased”

the reason why they're coming back into consciousness these days is because a lot of currently popular and acclaimed bands cite them as a major influence, not because they're objectively a lot better than bad brains or whoever

it's hard to say bc i'm so, like, long gone in the kitsch woods, i'll never resurface, but even when i was getting into the blue nile the appeal was not kitsch. i can't even tell if they are kitschy? there's an earnestness in buchanan's voice and in the long glowing chords which could be confused for kitsch i guess? but even then it's like a deeply remote earnestness, like the lifelong accumulation of one's feelings about the moon transposed to music. but also i bristle at "there's nothing compositionally interesting going on in hats," like, there's economy and precision in the way those songs are designed even though they are overflowing with feeling. is that not compositionally interesting? (also this pre-hats but "not compositionally interesting" isn't as easily applied to something like "from rags to riches," i think)

hey btw was there ever a succesful ilm attempt at determining why x artist was popular at a given time?

I don't know, the faux-string orchestra buildup in 'Over the Hillside' makes me cringe (I say this as someone who mostly listens to classical music) and that nasal, overly simplistic synth riff after the initial chimes in 'The Downtown Lights' made me laugh. Nice voice, though – that's not the 'kitschy' part, as far as I'm concerned.

xp

I like love the Blue Nile just as they are, but some days I am a tiny bit sad that they weren’t actually a collaboration between the bands Blue and Nile

The sustained intensity of "The Downtown Lights" is quite something, not a/c at all

lol at "not because they're objectively a lot better than bad brains or whoever"

see what I'm saying?

oh wait, misread

the reason why they're coming back into consciousness these days is because a lot of currently popular and acclaimed bands cite them as a major influence, not because they're objectively a lot better than bad brains or whoever

― porg and bess (voodoo chili), Monday, January 8, 2018 3:21 PM (one hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

of course there's no objective truth about who's more consistent than who but if there's a style of music which is ignored by critics even though its best proponents are, lets say 'on par' with bad brains then yes they're going to get more attention w the distance of time

i didn't really mean bad brains, as a random example idk the teardrop explodes i remember hearing super music nerd ppl talking about like they were a big deal maybe a decade ago but come on they're not on blue nile's level. there's prob some other obvious examples

you guys act like your idea of what's taken seriously is detached from subjectivity even though you'll be dismissive of some artists & enthusiastic about others, we argue all the time on here that x album is better than y, i don't see why it's off the table to suggest blue nile might have been underrated relative to their quality for a long time! except that you think its a Conspiracy that pitchfork likes them now

also i dont care about any of the indie bands that apparently have taken their influence from blue nile & that stuff had zero bearing on why I personally got into them

I don't know, the faux-string orchestra buildup in 'Over the Hillside' makes me cringe (I say this as someone who mostly listens to classical music) and that nasal, overly simplistic synth riff after the initial chimes in 'The Downtown Lights' made me laugh. Nice voice, though – that's not the 'kitschy' part, as far as I'm concerned.

xp

― pomenitul, Monday, January 8, 2018 3:39 PM (one hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

ppl laugh at sincere things bc they make them uncomfortable

the sincerity of blue nile codes to me as a kind of aesthetic bravery, a vulnerability, which is Cool but often tends to seem so more in retrospect

I agree wholeheartedly but I don't hear that at all in The Blue Nile. So that's not what made me chuckle. 'It's all subjective anyway', etc.

d-40 OTM - subjectivity is the name of the game. unless you're so and so

had not heard the album until now -- this is basically sophisti-coldplay

lol jesus

MC LOL Jesus.

how are we loling now

Somewhere between ILM and the rest of the internet.

Listening to the album for the first time now myself - the first song sounds like something that would play on Miami Vice while Sonny Crockett has neon-lit sex with a woman you know is gonna die before the end of the episode.

Kaths

nice takes itt