Kanye West - Dark Twisted Fantasy

idk how you are trying to frame subjective reactions as objectively wrong

― .\ /. (dayo), Monday, November 29, 2010 6:44 PM (11 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

we can stand on two sides of a mountain, describe it from different perspectives, but it doesnt mean there isnt a mountain in front of us

if you want to make an argument that this record rehashes kanye's past glories be my guest

Even "devil in a new dress" is being mischarcterized as a retread -- for one kanye never employed soul samples in that fashion on his album -- and even the soul sample is used as a launching point for something more grandiose & elaborate

lol at everyone shaking their fingers at deej for questioning lex's motives after lex posted this upthread:

kanye review FILED.

i'm not letting people get away with calling this good-but-flawed, this is a HORRIBLE album that i hated more with each listen

― lex lex lex lex lex on the track BOW (lex pretend), Monday, November 22, 2010 4:31 PM (1 week ago) Bookmark

jeeezus your mountain analogy was stupid the first time around, no need to remind us of it again

Albums**

Deej I'm gonna hold you to this "sometimes generalizations can be positive in their reductiveness" thing cuz it's retarded

man maybe this is the nantucket sleighride of hip hop

I would like to hear an argument for how this is the same sonic territory tho

Deej I'm gonna hold you to this "sometimes generalizations can be positive in their reductiveness" thing cuz it's retarded

― jagger reupholstered my pussy (J0rdan S.), Monday, November 29, 2010 6:47 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

^^^^LOL. mad ironic

im gonna hold you to never making any broad generalizations about a record ever

jeeezus your mountain analogy was stupid the first time around, no need to remind us of it again

― .\ /. (dayo), Monday, November 29, 2010 6:46 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

***sigh***

ok ill put it another way. if you want to make an effective argument & convert people that your way of seeing things is worthwhile, it helps to be able to find *common ground* so ppl think you are actually evaluating the work in question & dont have some popist (for example) ax to grind. Yes, of course everything ever is subjective, but then why even post on this message board? why not just read mp3 aggregators

Alright fine -- your generalization is wrong and not positive. How's that?

Deej is right

Also dayo should step up if he thinks he's wrong

lol at everyone shaking their fingers at deej for questioning lex's motives after lex posted this upthread:

kanye review FILED.

i'm not letting people get away with calling this good-but-flawed, this is a HORRIBLE album that i hated more with each listen

― lex lex lex lex lex on the track BOW (lex pretend), Monday, November 22, 2010 4:31 PM (1 week ago) Bookmark

― congratulations (n/a), Tuesday, November 30, 2010 12:46 AM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

how does this bring my motives into question when the content of that post backs up what got printed?

review as response to reviews instead of response to record

this is a HORRIBLE album that i hated more with each listen
this is a HORRIBLE album that i hated more with each listen
this is a HORRIBLE album that i hated more with each listen
this is a HORRIBLE album that i hated more with each listen

looks like a response to the record to me

lmao @ the navel gazing line, tho

I'm not gonna argue over whether or not this album retreads past kanye glories cause I think the 2 basic premises of deej's argument is wrong:

you hurt your own credibility in criticizing a record, even if yr right, when u refuse to ascribe anything that could be seen as a positive quality to record that may in fact have some redeeming qualities. a much more damning critique = pursuing truth more than rejecting every strategy as a failure simply bcuz you decided the album has failed

― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Tuesday, November 30, 2010 6:20 AM (2 hours ago) Bookmark

i think letting your feelings for the work as a whole / the critical response to the work overwhelm your ability to accurately describe the lp in question in a critical manner is more dishonest

― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Tuesday, November 30, 2010 6:31 AM (2 hours ago) Bookmark

basically because the argument is based on 1. questioning the motives of the reviewer and 2. claiming that there are objectively definable aspects to this album that all crits can agree on. as for the 1st, deej has the luxury here because lex has been an active contributor to this thread and deej has had the benefit of reading his posts - but I really don't see how this impacts the reading of the review itself, which is entirely self-contained and capable of being understood without referencing lex's contributions to this thread.

as for point 2... this is the deej point that deej has been harping on that has completely mystified me. people bring different perspectives to music, and I don't know how you can say that one review accurately describes a record whereas another one doesn't - the farthest you can go imo is that you agree with one description but disagree with one. using terms like 'accurately' is disingenuous imo

If Im listening to mozart & i say it has some chill breakbeats, im lying. not to blow your mind here

using terms like 'accurately' is 'accurate' imo

as for his 'motives,' its not like im presuming his motives, hes made his motives completely known: he doesnt like the record & hes willing to be dishonest about its contents -- or at the very least, manipulative -- in order to make the case seem overwhelming against it. it hurts his own credibility with me

why are you saying he's being dishonest

and you know as well as I do that using a term like 'accurately' implies that there is some kind of 'correct' way of hearing this album, which... I would like to see you defend

because i dont believe that, if he was evaluating this record in a way which seeks to describe it as truthfully as possible, he would misrepresent its contents as i believe he has done here

there are no 'correct' ways to evaluate an album, but many many incorrect ones

I still don't understand how you're employing terms like 'accurately' and 'truthfully' in this argument. what is the 'truthful' way of describing this album and why does it apply to other people

i cant give a rhetorical example. you have to provide a statement, and i can say on a sliding scale where i think it might lie. much of alex's review is otm. much of it is ott.

this is, obv, an imprecise science. but some statements can definitely strike me as pretty much 'wrong'

deej as i said before, throwing around terms like "dishonest" just makes me put you in a box with all the newspaper commenters of people not to be taken seriously - i mean if you believe i actually like this album more than i'm letting on then i guess carry on, it's not as if rational arguments or logic will persuade you otherwise...?

no, i think that you let your dislike for the record affect your honest evaluation of what the record actually is.

im not saying "be more positive!" im saying be more right

wrong to you or wrong to everybody

not that i think im above doing the same, occasionally

deej it's not a good look to claim that there's a 'right' or 'truthful' or 'accurate' way of evaluating this record and then refusing to let everybody in on what is in the magic box that you see but everybody else doesn't

wrong to you or wrong to everybody

― .\ /. (dayo), Monday, November 29, 2010 7:17 PM (5 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

wrong to anyone i care to have a conversation with? if you think the 808s on the last Chicago Symphony record were too loud we might have problems

likewise, i still dont understand what on this record sounds like a 'rehash' of older kanye material -- certainly there are some kanye-esque moments, but none of this feels like a stylistic retread in any real sense

no, i think that you let your dislike for the record affect your honest evaluation of what the record actually is.

well you're the one arguing it's BIG and IMPORTANT despite not liking it very much so uhhh physician heal thyself

& you and lex have still failed to make a case for that statement

well you're the one arguing it's BIG and IMPORTANT despite not liking it very much so uhhh physician heal thyself

― lex lex lex lex lex on the track BOW (lex pretend), Monday, November 29, 2010 7:19 PM (37 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

george bush was big and important & i didnt care for him either, but i didnt pretend he didnt exist

I still don't understand deej's position. Why does he persist in arguing for virtues he only half believes in himself? Why is he defending the efficacy of other critics' arguments when almost everyone here has politely acknowledged them?

I know we're guys and lots of us don't give a shit about sports and this kind of discussion substitutes but -- well.

if lex can make a reasonable argument that this is a rehash, then my point no longer applies in this particular case. i dont see why he hasnt done so

I would like to hear that too -- from anyone

for the same reason i haven't responded individually to each of the people who've commented on the actual piece

in that case, ill continue to maintain it was a dishonest tactic attempting to overwhelm the reader w/ criticisms of the record that arent based in the actual content of the object being discussed

wrong to anyone i care to have a conversation with? if you think the 808s on the last Chicago Symphony record were too loud we might have problems

likewise, i still dont understand what on this record sounds like a 'rehash' of older kanye material -- certainly there are some kanye-esque moments, but none of this feels like a stylistic retread in any real sense

― lotta diamonds ... but prolly more display names (deej), Tuesday, November 30, 2010 9:19 AM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark

see again you're conflating 'empirical sonic evidence' w/ 'subjective critical response' - nobody is saying that kanye is singing through an airplane jet engine for the majority of this album, or that kanye west is actually from polynesia, or that he has three penises, or w/e

itt dayo finds out why everybody on ILX finds deej frustrating to argue with

its my subjective critical response that kanye has three penises.

whether a record is a 'rehash' or not is a more abstract characteristic, certainly, but its certainly something that i think people discussing music could acknowledge if it were actually happening. we might think its successful, or a failure, but just denying it when its there, or claiming it when its not? or at the very least, not providing an explanation for such a statement when called on it?

ok having not actually listened to this album in over a week (and i'm not attached to the hard drive my mp3s are on atm) so sans detail - it sounded like a graduation rehash most of all. specifically a lot of it sounded like a way inferior spin on "flashing lights" with the rich melody, strings, polished synths etc. pretty conservative throughout - if this is a musical statement it's far more about kanye going back to trad hip-hop post-808s (which he said all along eh was going to do), not going further and further out into experimentation. and a few attention-grabbing samples used unimaginatively.

still smh @ dishonest - it's too hysterical even to be annoyed by, and it's too obvious that deej is reaching for the word that's the worst insult for critics