Low: Classic or classic?

hhhYYOOOOOoooooooonk

you make a good point i guess i'd never thought of it that way.

welp, you've convinced me - I'm no longer a fan. Thanks!

they did start out really well

but an attack is followed by a decay. that's the physics of sound. the decay may be sustained, but in will eventually be released. i think we know what stage of low we're at now

seeing their release show next weekend. intimate affair in the woods (~250 attendees? if that?). stoked

"the same thing as ever" is really funny to say about a band that has made shifts in their sound as radical as double negative & drums and guns

Always hitting a new LOW

More goes really hard and I love it.

I haven’t paid attention to them since Long Division, since their sound did nothing for me (I was all about beats n’bass in 1996), and just figured since then it’s been 25 years of the same. Boy was I wrong!!! :(

The same thing as ever ; great early on and got worse as they progressed.

― ^TwIn*InFiNiTiVeS^, Saturday, September 4, 2021

don't feel this. they are one of the few bands who got better

their best periods are their early stuff & this current one

Haven't heard the new one yet, but I don't care for their avant stuff. I like them soft & mellow.

btw the new (touring, at least) bass player is Liz Draper

http://giantstepsmusic.org/liz-draper/
https://www.instagram.com/lizdraperbass/

xp you probably won't like the new one then, it's the loudest they've ever been. imo it's one of their very best though

Low have made one of my favorite albums of the decade for every decade they’ve existed. Curtain (90s), Fire (00s), Double Negative (10s).

that's because they're the best

https://toneglow.substack.com/p/tone-glow-077-low

good interview in tone glow, really gets into their dynamic as a band

yes was also coming here to post that, its a great read

i've been going back through the early instagram performances of the new material & it's fascinating to see how their ideas evolved from very straight forward arrangements before they got into the studio, to the album's walls of distortion with barely any percussion at all

i never even realised there's only prominent drums on a single track until i saw it mentioned in an interview recently

alan thinks 100 gecs are great

― ufo, Thursday, September 2, 2021 6:01 AM (five days ago) bookmarkflaglink

does he? I didn't necessarily get that impression from the quote. I think he was referring generally to stuff like the Paul Anka thing that was hyperlinked. Sorry but I'm having a difficult time imagining Alan and Mimi listening to that between like harvesting their beets and praying before bed

it's ambiguous but "That’s what young people should be doing—they should be smashing it and building their own vocabulary" sounds more like 100 gecs etc. than the Paul Anka Playing From Another Room video.

it'd make sense if he's at least a little familiar enough with them to think they're great, he's actually not too far removed from that whole world via the bj burton connection

it's ambiguous but "That’s what young people should be doing—they should be smashing it and building their own vocabulary" sounds more like 100 gecs etc. than the Paul Anka Playing From Another Room video.

it'd make sense if he's at least a little familiar enough with them to think they're great, he's actually not too far removed from that whole world via the bj burton connection

ah whoops

anyway i can totally imagine burton having played them for him & alan going "oh the distortion rules" etc

Alan and Mimi listening to that between like harvesting their beets and praying before bed

the fact that they do both is kinda what makes them so fascinating

The same thing as ever ; great early on and got worse as they progressed.

― ^TwIn*InFiNiTiVeS^, Saturday, September 4, 2021

don't feel this. they are one of the few bands who got better

― Dan S, Sunday, September 5, 2021 2:21 AM (three days ago) bookmarkflaglink
==============================================================================
Dan, I suppose I should have explained that better. As some people here are implying, I don't mean that Low still sound "the same as ever" - more that (for me anyway, and like a LOT of bands I am a fan of), they just stuck around too long, making not-so-great records compared to their first flush. I do like some of "Trust" but "Things we lost in the fire" just sounded tired. From what I heard of subsequent albums, I wasn't enthused - didn't have any of the qualities that drew me to the band in the first place. Particularly disliked "Double negative" - just sounds like someone off WARP remixing Low. Hate that cold, inhuman, non-spiritual sound.

they just stuck around too long, making not-so-great records compared to their first flush. I do like some of "Trust" but "Things we lost in the fire" just sounded tired.

This is like challop bingo.

xp

Hate that cold, inhuman, non-spiritual sound.

I have the feeling Low are now what My Bloody Valentine was in 1991. The cutting edge of rock music. Making noise tuneful (and soulful). Truly innovative.

they just stuck around too long, making not-so-great records compared to their first flush. I do like some of "Trust" but "Things we lost in the fire" just sounded tired.
This is like challop bingo.

― Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, September 8, 2021 2:20 PM (twenty-one minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

===================

I am sorry Josh in Chicago, that does not compute.

seeing as Double Negative was ILM AOTY, you're going to have a hard time getting people to agree with you on here

xpost Well, to me they do not sound like a band that's stuck around too long, "Things We Lost" is a contender for *best* album, "Trust" came out *before* "Fire," etc. Regardless, the new one and the last one show a band that's been around for decades still capable of surprise, even if said surprise may disappoint or annoy some. There are other (often still good) bands that have clearly stuck around too long, imo, especially compared to Low.

"they just stuck around too long, making not-so-great records compared to their first flush. "

This is an absurd opinion. You might not like their direction but this description seems totally off the mark.

I used to write comments like that when a band branched out from a genre style I was overly dedicated to. Sounds like they developed their sound and it wasn’t to Twin’s taste and they’re confusing that with the idea that band itself is floundering.

https://miro.medium.com/max/1250/1*DfGZPjzlD-bwGMrtTcGVsQ.jpeg

"they just stuck around too long, making not-so-great records compared to their first flush. "

This is an absurd opinion. You might not like their direction but this description seems totally off the mark.

― husked, tonal wails (irrational), Wednesday, September 8, 2021 2:52 PM (seventeen minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

=======

Sorry Husked - I just checked with the opinion patent office and it's actually registered as a valid one.

I used to write comments like that when a band branched out from a genre style I was overly dedicated to. Sounds like they developed their sound and it wasn’t to Twin’s taste and they’re confusing that with the idea that band itself is floundering.

― Evan, Wednesday, September 8, 2021 2:57 PM (sixteen minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink
==================================
I'm not confusing a change of tack with an objective drop in quality. To me, what I've heard of their later work just doesn't move me as much as their earlier work - therefore I think it's not so great - it's not an even remotely controversial opinion to hold !

i do think it's valid!

it's good when people disagree, it stirs up the pot a little too. i generally prefer their earlier stuff, too, though i include Things We Lost in the Fire in that too (maybe since it was the first I heard and got obsessed with). the new albums are very good and fully contemporary, which is a really hard trick for a band going on...carry the 2...65 years now. but if you were obsessed with the (_beautiful_) sounds of their first albums, the absolute quiet and the intensity - that stuff is still there now, but it's balanced by waves of noise and filtering. it's quite different, and - like all music - not objectively "better" or "worse"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdH3mTpjq-U

i never got around to making any sort of point, sorry. instead i did the preamble where i was like "both sides!"

but what i meant to say was i totally get someone who exclusively listens to low's 90s material only and prefers it. i wouldn't put it in terms of "they got worse", but "they got different". sometimes just holding onto the original perfect gemstone is fine

<i>cold, inhuman, non-spiritual </i>

These are not words I would describe Double Negative or the new one. I've been the reverse of Twin - when I discovered the band (late 90's) I thought they were interesting but boring. Hadn't heard anything from them for 20 years and then Double Negative comes out and it clicks. They're peaking right now and making me revisit their old stuff again.

Maybe in time the warmth, humanity and spirituality of these last two records will shine through for you.

I'm not confusing a change of tack with an objective drop in quality. To me, what I've heard of their later work just doesn't move me as much as their earlier work - therefore I think it's not so great - it's not an even remotely controversial opinion to hold !

― ^TwIn*InFiNiTiVeS^, Wednesday, September 8, 2021 11:18 AM (one hour ago) bookmarkflaglink

You'd originally framed it as the band getting worse, not just that it doesn't move you as much. I was responding to that. I have nothing against you saying the post-90s material is not for you.

I will come clean and say that I prefer everything up to and including "Trust" to anything they made after, and my preference is pretty strong. But Low are among my favorite bands, so I also love the newer stuff, barring "Cmon" and "The Invisible Way." The latter suffers from Tweedy's production and staid songwriting, and the former just doesn't click with me. I've tried many times, even within the past year because of this thread, and I just don't hear anything in it that grabs me.

The first six records tho? whew.

If we're talking the NEW new stuff, then I am much more enthusiastic. Everything since "Ones and Sixes" has been great...there were just a few years there where I get a little 'eh'

Which, yknow, addiction and the aftermath, maybe that has something to do with it.

I swear I will never understand the whole "Tweedy's production" thing on Invisible Way...like I know he's the dad rock boogie man so you gotta distance yourself but seriously it just sounds like an organically, pretty naturalistic record, not even that far from Things we Lost in the Fire....if it were the same exact record done by Jimmy McProducerhead no one would ever mention the production

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvqMfZE41pY

You're probably right, but a bunch of sub-par songs in his hands is not great.

It also sounds like he's pushing the Tweed to 11

Oh, did I hear a dustmote? Jeff Tweedy must have produced it.

they've said the acoustic direction on the invisible way was less about tweedy pushing them in that sort of direction and more just that his studio had lots of great acoustic instrumentation they decided to play around with. the songs are unusually weak for them though yeah

double negative really is a masterpiece on the level of kid a or loveless, etc., finding that real sweet spot between experimentation and accessibility