Sonic Youth new album "Rather Ripped"

-- Alex in Baltimore (shipley.a...), May 9th, 2006.

I have a version of "Starpower" w/ Thurston doing vocals. Kim on vocals obv more interesting.

Took a listen to RR; tho it sounds warmer + pleasing, more focused than any recent SY thing I've heard, I'm not too sure if it will stick to the ribs. That's all, please resume spamming of thread...

warmer + pleasing, more focused

this is my take as well, i am really into the rapture song although this:

"do you believe in rapture?" is good, but it'd be better if it ended with like kim getting rapturized and thurston being all like, "whaaaat? you promised!" and kim shouting tearful wailing "i'm sorry, i tried to save youuuuu...." as she and coco are borne aloft on pillowy wings.

is one of the funniest things I have read around here in months.

It's not a super-dynamic album.. it definitely has a consistent tempo and volume... which is perhaps the point. Granted, I came into the store halfway through the album, so I maybe I missed a raucous first half...

Consonant vs dissonant jangle and weave propelled by postpunk anti-groove; some noise. Basic tunes subservient to breath and rasp. Psychedelic, at least with Windows Media Player automatic mind-melt videos; other forms of mind-melt may work too. Obvious - from the same recipe as the last two albums, just diced into shorter chunks (seasoned with some hooks and changes even more finely aged) but who else will make it? Save for dumbass bar-band rocker "Sleepin' Around" and some singsong fatigue (tracks 9-11 -> "What would happen if they spent as much time on the vocal lines as on the guitars?": listeners worldwide), tight. "Do You Believe In Rapture?" = "Heroin" in harmonics, with drums in time. Other searches: "Rats," "Jams Run Free".

Then there's this clanger:
Another objectivity aid is consensus, as indicated by record guides, online compendia, and of course critics polls.

I mean, for at least 10 years consensus on VU and Sabbath was that they sucked donkey balls.

(awaits 200+ posts)

I'm not being flip. The taste vs judgment argument is someting I raised in my blog last night, and it's a conversation I'm having with a friend as I'm typing this.

-- Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (soto.alfre...), June 7th, 2006.

What's unclear, specifically?

Great punchline.

If somebody wants to champion that approach, that's fine (if they're strong enough as a writer they'll make it work). Just don't violate your own terms, especially when you're trying to provide an example of the approach in action. Christgau says Phillips shouldn't call SY "boring," she should talk about the songs in and of themselves without addressing her emotional response to them, then he says "let me give you an example," and uses "sandbagging" which is just a tricky way to say "boring."

That's not at all what he implies! especially when he quite vigorously defends his weakness for NYC Ghosts.

...the fact that objectivity only comes naturally in math doesn't mean it can't be approximated in art.

One technique, which I've just illustrated, is to replace response reports ("boring" and all its self-involved pals, like my "exhilarating" or Phillips's less blatant "dull") with stimulus reports.

To paraphrase, an approach to improved objectivity is through focusing on "stimulus reports" (which I take to mean descriptions of the music itself, the stimulus) as opposed to "response reports" (i.e. the reviewer's response to the stimulus). Okay, that's fine. Then:

Here's another instance: Boring or not, 1998's A Thousand Leaves unquestionably marked a turn toward the quietude, ruminative structures, and general fuzz level always implicit in their unresolved tunings and Deadhead-manquéjams—tendencies tersely deployed on 1994's Experimental Jet Set, Trash and No Star and fulsomely indulged on Washing Machine's sandbagging 20-minute "The Diamond Sea."

You can't say, "Hey, focus on the music (stimulus) instead of your judgmental response," then throw in a couple of your own judgmental responses.

I'm disappointed in his resorting to jargon (is "sandagging" like "teabagging"?). As for "fulsomely" – any word choice implies a judgment. I need to read it again, but if you're suggesting that he went up his own arse – intentionally or no – then I sorta agree.

Stylistically, is Christgau's a more interesting approach then just calling A Thousand Leaves exhilarating? Perhaps, but don't pretend it's the path to objectivity; it's just a writing style preference.

o. nate, those are some sandbagging pants you're wearing.

adjective

Affectedly and self-servingly earnest

Doubly ironic that the sentence was written in a "and here's how you do it!" spirit...

This sounds right.

usage: The senses shown above are the chief living senses of fulsome. Sense 2, which was a generalized term of disparagement in the late 17th century, is the least common of these. Fulsome became a point of dispute when sense 1, thought to be obsolete in the 19th century, began to be revived in the 20th. The dispute was exacerbated by the fact that the large dictionaries of the first half of the century missed the beginnings of the revival. Sense 1 has not only been revived but has spread in its application and continues to do so. The chief danger for the user of fulsome is ambiguity. Unless the context is made very clear, the reader or hearer cannot be sure whether such an expression as "fulsome praise" is meant in sense 1b or in sense 4.

I could picture Christgau viewing a 20 minute track as evidence of some pretentious wankery.

When I hear the word "sandbagging" I think of someone or something that slows down proceedings - isn't that the common business or legal use? As in weighing down, preventing the natural flow? I've never been hit with a sandbag, although I guess Daffy Duck has...

Goddamn this English language of ours...

You really think so?

Ian, I have no idea what that means.

Here's another instance: Boring or not, 1998's A Thousand Leaves unquestionably marked a turn toward the quietude, ruminative structures, and general fuzz level always implicit in their unresolved tunings and Deadhead-manquéjams—tendencies tersely deployed on 1994's Experimental Jet Set, Trash and No Star and copiously indulged on Washing Machine's stunning 20-minute "The Diamond Sea."

Perhaps less interesting sounding, but more clear. Is Christgau advocating the avoidance of clear word choices in favor of more vague ones in order to pursue "objectivity"? Let's forget the pejorative-or-nay for a minute - is calling "The Diammond Sea" "fulsomely sandbagging" better than just flat-out calling it "exhilarating" or "stunning"?

I suppose so, but a favorite album is also ranked according to other extra-formalist concerns: time, place, autobiographical minutiae. I don't see Rather Ripped as my no. 1 album this year, even though it's a better album than SN.