This is my last post to the list on this topic.
*Hoo-rah!*
quoted 4 lines On Fri, 28 Apr 1995, vilexile wrote ">":
> On Fri, 28 Apr 1995, vilexile wrote ">":
> On Thu, 27 Apr 1995, g303 wrote ">>":
> > On Thu, 27 Apr 1995, vilexile wrote ">>>":
> >> On Wed, 26 Apr 1995, g303 wrote ">>>>"quoted 27 lines What is your problem with _Spanners_?
> > > > What is your problem with _Spanners_?
> > >
> > > I simply don't like it. I don't have a moral problem with it, if that's
> > > what you mean. It obviously had a lot of work put into it, etc. I think
> > > it shows the band falling to pieces, which is kind of sad. I could go
> > > through it rubble by rubble and point out what I think doesn't work about
> > > it, but that would be kind of lame.
> >
> > I'm not sure what other people think, but empty criticism, is at best
> > foolish and at it's worst, dangerous. People read what you say and might
> > have been put off buying what they might have considered to be a brilliant
> > work, by your quick easy jibe.
>
> Nothing that happens on this list is dangerous, and if someone takes a
> basically meaningless statement as a reason not to buy an album, then I
> am not the one with the problem. I agree that opinions should generally
> be qualified, but in the case of a hyped album which is now three months
> old, I, not having been on this list at the time, assume that many people
> have clocked in with their opinions and at this point nitpicking the
> specifics of the music would, to me, be just kind of rude. Once everyone
> who cares has either bought the record or decided not to, I don't like
> the idea of calling something obnoxious to someone's attention and
> ruining something for them which they had previously thought of as
> perfect. Perhaps this sounds presumptuous, but my reasoning is based in
> the fact that I am often affected in that way. I've got nothing against a
> bad review and I still might post one if anyone really wants to read
> another Spanners review. quoted 3 lines In the meantime, I reserve the right to clock in with snappy, low intensity
> In the meantime, I reserve the right to clock in with snappy, low intensity
> opinions on old releases for the benefit of whomever might care what I
> think and make a mental note of it. quoted 1 line Assume that such people are rational
> Assume that such people are rational quoted 3 lines and that they will judge my quick snipe according to how they judge me,
> and that they will judge my quick snipe according to how they judge me,
> and grant them the right to take whatever sort of advice they wish. They
> are not dangerous and neither am I.quoted 7 lines This is why this list is curiously devoid of criticism. People don't want
> > This is why this list is curiously devoid of criticism. People don't want
> > to slag things off (generally) but in any case can't be arsed to write
> > considered reviews. And besides you don't review something you don't
> > like. So you keep stumm.
>
> Well count me out of that school since abou the first thing I did after
> resubbing here was spout about how much I hated the Evolution comp. quoted 3 lines I
> I
> also reviewed Spanners on 4ad-l when it came out, 4ad-l being dear to my
> heard and choc full of Black Dog enthusiasts.quoted 8 lines I mean I could say ooo.. lets see.. errr.. FSOL are a bunch of pretentious
> > I mean I could say ooo.. lets see.. errr.. FSOL are a bunch of pretentious
> > wankers who built their reputation on the base of one (admittedly good)
> > track (Papua..). Or that the Orb are the most over rated bunch of self
> > righteous tossers ever and that all their music is boring. (eee, I enjoyed
> > that! :)
>
> The problem is the people who don't take issue with those sorts of
> statements. quoted 24 lines I think my own pronouncements re Spanners were considerable
> I think my own pronouncements re Spanners were considerable
> less inflammatory. So, to prove to you that I am indeed not part of the
> destruction of idm as we know it:
>
> FSOL *are* pretentious wankers who seem often to be more concerned with
> musical politics than with music itself, but they have been victim to a
> lot of undeserved criticism, I think, for the very reason they don't
> deserve it: What makes them unique and great is their knack for hiding
> what is happening. Throughout Lifeforms especially, they use stealth
> tactics to manipulate the emotions--at least the emotions of someone who
> isn't irritated at all the noise, etc, or trying to analyse the record
> and failing. (No offense.) For me, that record is full of emotion and
> epic qualities, and I never understood why, because it sounds like just a
> lot of bullshit--until I realized how much I loved it. What they do on
> that album, musically, is similar what early Seefeel accomplished
> rhythmically (with the organization of their feedback and noise into
> groovy patterns) which is to construct harmonies out of the looping noise
> and thrown-in samples. They will take a melody, drop some unknown element
> out of the background and make that melody meaningless, and then add in
> some samples from the last track which unbeknownst to us (if we are
> enjoying it passively) completely change the ambient chord progression
> and cast the melody in question into a whole new light. While this is
> definitely not for everyone, they do a hell of a job with it and I think
> it is brilliant.quoted 1 line As for The Orb, they are destined to bore anyone who isn't going as the
> As for The Orb, they are destined to bore anyone who isn't going as the quoted 5 lines develop over a long period of time, or else yes, there is nothing to be
> develop over a long period of time, or else yes, there is nothing to be
> gained. Added to this fact is that repitition just plain turns a lot of
> people off after it passes a certain threshhold. A lot of people don't
> recognize when this happens so they blame their hate for the record on
> some other piece of the song, whichis wrong but probably inevitable.quoted 12 lines When their music works, it's timeless anyway, so
> > > When their music works, it's timeless anyway, so
> > > it hardly matters. It's nice to see a kind of evolution except I don't
> > > know which tracks are old and which are new.
> >
> > Not hard to tell.
>
> I honestly haven't been able to listen to it as much as I would like to,
> plus my tastes are very narrow and I am probably mising knowledge of a
> lot of the markers I could go by. Except with a very few artists I cannot
> tell. Up until a couple of months ago I thought Transparent Balls was
> a few years older than Bytes. Though perhaps reasonably so since they
> seem to have been losing coherency all along. quoted 8 lines Ultimately *music* is music. It is not names/labels/limited editions etc.
> > Ultimately *music* is music. It is not names/labels/limited editions etc.
> > people should not be prejudiced by any of these things. The only way to
> > buy music is by listening to it.
>
> One has to be prejudiced by something; I prefer to use the reputations of
> the artists and the businessmen who deal with them as my guide. One
> cannot listen to everything, and I personally can listen to almost
> nothing, before making a purchase.quoted 10 lines You *can* buy labels or names, but you're not guarenteed *music*, only a
> > You *can* buy labels or names, but you're not guarenteed *music*, only a
> > nice bit of packaging (eg ABIV). There is of course nothing wrong with
> > this, in the same sense of there being nothing wrong with stamp
> > collecting. I don't collect stamps btw, but I do collect records both for
> > *music* and *packaging*. Christ, that's honest of me. I'm sure many others
> > would own up to this under pressure.
>
> Own up to what? As if there's something wrong with it. If the packaging
> has no value at all, it ought to offend anyone who takes the music
> seriously. quoted 3 lines I buy a lot of records for their covers because I like nice
> I buy a lot of records for their covers because I like nice
> packaging on its own, but also because it shows that someone involved
> with the release has taste. quoted 2 lines Not a perfect criterion for a purchase, but
> Not a perfect criterion for a purchase, but
> it has led me to some wonderful artists I would never have heard. quoted 4 lines You
> You
> have made some good points but you are also assuming some reasoning on my
> part which I would consider to be total foolishness. I have chosen my
> criterion very consciously and, for my purposes, very well.quoted 1 line On that same note, I buy everything that comes out on both Warp and 4AD
> On that same note, I buy everything that comes out on both Warp and 4AD quoted 6 lines (unless I know it will be an awful purchase) because of faith in the
> (unless I know it will be an awful purchase) because of faith in the
> quality that the label represents and out of respect for the people who
> cause the label to represent such quality to me. I also indulge in a deal
> of collectorism. But that doesn't mean I mix the music up with these
> other things. They may lead me to expectations but not to value judgements,
> and I don't think they do for many other people, either.quoted 8 lines I bought Spanners on the merit of their name.
> > > I bought Spanners on the merit of their name.
> >
> > So don't critise the music. You didn't buy it for the music you bought it
> > for the packaging. They have a good reputation, but you can't really slag
> > 'em off for just one release, if it had been universally panned, ok, but
> > it wasn't.
>
> How would my opinion have been legitimized by the opinion of others? quoted 2 lines I did
> I did
> not slag the band off at all--I slagged the release, quoted 2 lines and that was all. I
> and that was all. I
> bought the record on faith and was disappointed. quoted 4 lines If anything I have
> If anything I have
> spoken in defense of the record based on what I think caused it to fail.
> But I did not at all buy it for the packaging--I bought it because I
> expected to enjoy the music. quoted 13 lines Everything else stems from that crucial
> Everything else stems from that crucial
> factor, or else the packaging, label fetishes, etc, become meaningless.
>
> > > I am not disappointed enough in it to wish I hadn't purchased it--only
> > > enough that they are no longer my favorite band. Clearly the name doesn't
> > > matter to me *that* much or I would like all the BDP releases equally,
> > > yes?
> >
> > You obviously have little faith to dis them after one (in your opinion)
> > release.
>
> Again, I did not criticize the band itself. I don't know where you got
> this. quoted 9 lines Labels/names etc are STYLE GUIDES ONLY. People
> > Labels/names etc are STYLE GUIDES ONLY. People
> > shouldn't whinge if they get burnt, buying this way. Maybe they should have
> > listened to it first, if they were only after music, and not the packaging.
>
> I think it's reasonable to criticize a label for putting out a shitty
> release. Of course if someone comes out on 4AD and I hate it, it's
> foolishness to be angry at the band itself for it. I might rip on them
> for making a bad record *period* but the label is who to be pissed at, if
> anyone. (Personally I don't engage in this.)quoted 5 lines This 'name' business is not just limited to Spanners etc. The unecessary
> > This 'name' business is not just limited to Spanners etc. The unecessary
> > fuss kicked up over the Evolution compilation, repeat compilation, is a
> > kind of similar thing, (or something.)
>
> No it aint. That criticism was also mine and was specific. quoted 8 lines You can take
> You can take
> issue with the people who just said 'me too' if you like, but I was
> honest about where I came from with respect to that release, and I wasn't
> mad at the albums *quality* but at what I consider to be a flippant
> attitude and an interest in being a 'document' that took priority over
> the integrity of the album as a piece of listenable music. Maybe you
> think this is bullshit but it's hardly a cheap shot or an unfair point to
> be making.quoted 1 line ps - Papua New Guinea is crap!
> ps - Papua New Guinea is crap!