IDM Mailing Archive

On Tue, 31 Aug 1999, Sean Cooper wrote:

quoted 2 lines what's the fucking deal? can somebody tell me what about "plays" they think

> what's the fucking deal? can somebody tell me what about "plays" they think > is so special? i've never felt compelled to listen to it more than the one

I dunno, I think my reaction is particularly strong just because I've listened _a lot_ to _Pet Sounds_. Here's some junk recycled from an e-mail to another list (apologies for the regurgitation, but hey): "It's comprised of two covers, which don't really seem to be based on samples of the originals as I expected. Rather an entirely different framework is constructed out of guitar, digital noise and [other] samples which are arranged such that some essence of the original manages to peek through. In particular "Don't Talk" has some original ghostly quality that must be taken from a sample of a vocal glissando from the original record (rendered so brief and timestretched to make it sound like a weird, microtonal modulation). Whether or not this is the actual methodology employed, it splits the listening experience into the part of you that recognizes and strains to make sense of the familiar Beach Boys part and the one that takes in all the rest. Comparable to any weird half-sleeping state you may find yourself in and shockingly artful."

quoted 3 lines p.s. i agree that comparing fennesz to f.m. is lazy and convenient

> p.s. i agree that comparing fennesz to f.m. is lazy and convenient > ("they're both on mego!"), but then i'd say that same of comparing him to > seefeel ("they both use guitars!")...

I just want to clarify that the original intent of the comparison was a RIYL one and it struck me that Seefeel was a much better litmus than FM. This is generally because I view both of 'em as safe bets for the shoegaze fan who's run out of Chapterhouse mixes to run down (I always associated early Seefeel with the post-Valentines explosion of early 90s, whereas Fennesz did his time peering out of the soft focus lens of Maische). Both F and SF believe(d) that there's something beautiful about draping things with wisps of euphonious etherea, although that's not the only reason to like either (obviously). -rob np- Doc Watson '64-68 (Vanguard comp with 4 prev unreleased cuts!)

quoted 5 lines what's the fucking deal? can somebody tell me what about "plays" they think

> what's the fucking deal? can somebody tell me what about "plays" they think > is so special? i've never felt compelled to listen to it more than the one > or two times it took to come to terms with it, and an additional dozen or > so times to try and understand (fruitlessly) what about it everybody seems > to love so much...

i actually really enjoy 'plays', especially the cover of 'paint it black'. i don't even know the rolling stones original (or if i do, i didn't notice), so to me it sounds like a new piece. on a first listen, the build-up & song construction struck me as awesome, but as this is the only fennesz thing i've heard... i thought it was catchy, in the very least, & with a very pleasing structure. though, if 'hotel parallel' is even more complex, intricate & varied than 'plays', as you say it is, i'd certainly love to hear it. unfortunately, this seems to be the only recent mego release that's impossible to find anywhere. ironically, i've had better luck finding the original tray edition of 'fsck' _after_ they decided to repress it. :) -- david

Hotel P was recently reissued in a jewel case. I beleive that skimo, bent crayon and forced exposure all have copies (at a reasonable price). for those that compare it to seefel: I don't get it. this is glitchy guitar with a nod to abstract techno. Seefeel to me was never that. -daniel Head Monkey Mad Monkey Records http://monkey.eliteware.com On Tue, 31 Aug 1999, david turgeon wrote:

quoted 23 lines what's the fucking deal? can somebody tell me what about "plays" they think

> > what's the fucking deal? can somebody tell me what about "plays" they think > > is so special? i've never felt compelled to listen to it more than the one > > or two times it took to come to terms with it, and an additional dozen or > > so times to try and understand (fruitlessly) what about it everybody seems > > to love so much... > > i actually really enjoy 'plays', especially the cover of 'paint it > black'. i don't even know the rolling stones original (or if i do, i > didn't notice), so to me it sounds like a new piece. on a first listen, > the build-up & song construction struck me as awesome, but as this is > the only fennesz thing i've heard... i thought it was catchy, in the > very least, & with a very pleasing structure. > > though, if 'hotel parallel' is even more complex, intricate & varied > than 'plays', as you say it is, i'd certainly love to hear it. > unfortunately, this seems to be the only recent mego release that's > impossible to find anywhere. ironically, i've had better luck finding > the original tray edition of 'fsck' _after_ they decided to repress it. > :) > > -- > david >

Before I get into why I think "Plays" is a great record I have to say that I loved this record from the first listen before I got a chance to analyze it. It's just a really beautiful, almost touching record. Now, what I think is cool about it is the way he deconstructs the originals, the development of the tracks and his tasteful use of DSP. In my opinion "Plays" manages to be more "complex, intricate and varied" within 2 tracks than the whole Hotel Paral.lel album. I find HP a bit static. Andrei Sean Cooper wrote:

quoted 28 lines I second most of the above (though I don't necessarily think Hotel ||

> >I second most of the above (though I don't necessarily think Hotel || > >lives up to the hype, a shortcoming that "Plays" renders pretty moot). > >However, if Hotel Parallel is "probably the best record on Mego," what > >does that make "Fennesz Plays"? Chopped liver? > > I DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS. > > i've read endless praise of "fennesz plays," and while i don't think it's a > "bad" record per se, i find it mostly without distinction beyond the goofy > pop tie-in (which at any rate i can locate nowhere but in the song titles). > whereas "hotel paral.lel" strikes me as a complex, intricate, varied, > masterful work of lasting beauty etc. same goes for his first ep, > "instrument," which held up next to "plays" makes the latter seem beyond > pointless... > > what's the fucking deal? can somebody tell me what about "plays" they think > is so special? i've never felt compelled to listen to it more than the one > or two times it took to come to terms with it, and an additional dozen or > so times to try and understand (fruitlessly) what about it everybody seems > to love so much... > > help! > > sc > > p.s. i agree that comparing fennesz to f.m. is lazy and convenient > ("they're both on mego!"), but then i'd say that same of comparing him to > seefeel ("they both use guitars!")...

quoted 3 lines I DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS.

> I DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS. > what's the fucking deal? can somebody tell me what about "plays" they > think is so special?

It's incredibly beautiful, fragile, fucked-up and original. Yes, so is the album, and I think it's an essential album, but the only track on it which comes close to the beauty of Plays is the last track. My opinion. Peter. -- Peter Hollo raven@fourplay.com.au http://www.fourplay.com.au/me.html FourPlay - Eclectic Electric String Quartet http://www.fourplay.com.au Raven: experimental electronic http://www.fourplay.com.au/sound.html "Of course, dance music can be a music where you lie on your back and your brain cells dance" -Michael Karoli of Can, quoted in Wire mag.