On Thu, 27 Apr 1995, g303 wrote ">":
quoted 2 lines On Thu, 27 Apr 1995, vilexile wrote ">>":> On Thu, 27 Apr 1995, vilexile wrote ">>":
>> On Wed, 26 Apr 1995, g303 wrote ">>>"
[or whatever]
quoted 12 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.
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. Assume that such people are rational
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 4 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. 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 5 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. 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.
As for The Orb, they are destined to bore anyone who isn't going as the
same speed as they are. This is where most critics of SAW2 are wrong,
except amplified by the fact of an even slower development. Personally I
can sing along with either one, but you have to be in a frame of mind
where you can keep track of and appreciate melody and song structure that
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.
Anyway...
quoted 3 lines I don't say those things (whether i believe in them or not) because I> I don't say those things (whether i believe in them or not) because I
> haven't the time to qualify these statements. I just ignore all FSOL/ORB
> posts.
Me too, actually. But you did make those statements and it looks like
we're all still breathing air, is perhaps only because I valiantly raced
to their defense.
Sorry if I tricked you into reading an Orb/FSOL post! :)
quoted 5 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 Does it really matter what the name is? Listen to it. If you like it, buy> > > Does it really matter what the name is? Listen to it. If you like it, buy
> > > it. Period.
> >
> > What exactly is your point?
>
> 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 6 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. 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. Not a perfect criterion for a purchase, but
it has led me to some wonderful artists I would never have heard. 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.
On that same note, I buy everything that comes out on both Warp and 4AD
(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 6 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? I did
not slag the band off at all--I slagged the release, and that was all. I
bought the record on faith and was disappointed. 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. Everything else stems from that crucial
factor, or else the packaging, label fetishes, etc, become meaningless.
quoted 7 lines I am not disappointed enough in it to wish I hadn't purchased it--only> > 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. I said I could feel the band falling to pieces on that record. This
makes me sad, not angry; it doesn't cause me to lose respect for them. My
comment re name credits vs anonymity were political in nature and had
nothing to do with what I thought of Spanners itself.
quoted 3 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 3 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. 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.
einexile
ps - Papua New Guinea is crap!