|
|
Post by Doc Lobster on Nov 28, 2017 14:07:20 GMT -5
Maybe If Noel doesn’t think Oasis fans can handle his ‘new’ direction or wants to lose the parka monkeys he’s actually going for pretentious American hipsters? Tho doubt they’d be into having a scissor player, or a French speech in a middle of a song I very much doubt he seeks out to attract the American hipster crowd. Numerous shades of grey. He can cater for tastes that are neither caveman three chord clunky pub rock or snobby self indulgent avant grade ‘art’. Noel strikes a great balance by being nowhere close to either of these two types of shit. Both at opposite ends of the musical spectrum, but more similar than they think - I.e. they’re both shite. Pitchfork are completely out of their depth when it comes to avant-garde music (by the way, not everything is self-indulgent crap), or anything remotely challenging for that matter. Hipsters are more about indie pop and all that, they can't handle out there stuff. The only reliable publication for challenging music is The Wire. Not coincidentally, their reviews are descriptive and they don't give ratings (what's with all this decimal crap?). |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Nov 28, 2017 14:11:51 GMT -5
I very much doubt he seeks out to attract the American hipster crowd. Numerous shades of grey. He can cater for tastes that are neither caveman three chord clunky pub rock or snobby self indulgent avant grade ‘art’. Noel strikes a great balance by being nowhere close to either of these two types of shit. Both at opposite ends of the musical spectrum, but more similar than they think - I.e. they’re both shite. Pitchfork are completely out of their depth when it comes to avant-garde music (by the way, not everything is self-indulgent crap), or anything remotely challenging for that matter. Hipsters are more about indie pop and all that, they can't handle out there stuff. The only reliable publication for challenging music is The Wire. Not coincidentally, their reviews are descriptive and they don't give ratings (what's with all this decimal crap?). Avant grade covers so much though. For every William Basinski, you get some pretentious wanker who releases an album of white noise and calls it a work of art. Seriously, I heard an album recently that just sounded like mobile phone interference. I had to laugh at the morons who found it a ‘profound experience’. |
|
|
|
Post by chamu on Nov 28, 2017 14:14:52 GMT -5
Am I the only one who has zero interest in rating and charts? I guess I'm a bad fan? I don't mind reviews at all. Only when the album hasn't still been released, i use to read it for some information/opinion about the songs Charts mean nothing in 2017. But i don't know why, i'm really curious about them and i love to look at them every week!! |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Lobster on Nov 28, 2017 14:22:23 GMT -5
Pitchfork are completely out of their depth when it comes to avant-garde music (by the way, not everything is self-indulgent crap), or anything remotely challenging for that matter. Hipsters are more about indie pop and all that, they can't handle out there stuff. The only reliable publication for challenging music is The Wire. Not coincidentally, their reviews are descriptive and they don't give ratings (what's with all this decimal crap?). Avant grade covers so much though. For every William Basinski, you get some pretentious wanker who releases an album of white noise and calls it a work of art. Seriously, I heard an album recently that just sounded like mobile phone interference. I had to laugh at the morons who found it a ‘profound experience’. Avant-garde is not really a genre but a label for the stuff that falls in the gaps. That opens the doors for professional bullshitters, but if you're a discerning listener, you will recognise them easily. They usually feel the need to explain every small detail instead of letting the music do the talking. I tend to object to the use of the word "pretentious" just because the product in question is weird, though: one can be pretentious about a pop album. Certainly you could say the Gallaghers were pretentious in the 90s (maybe even still). |
|
|
|
Post by freddy838 on Nov 28, 2017 14:27:16 GMT -5
Always good to see positive reviews. Said before I get a bit suspicious about the goings on behind the reviews themselves but the score is in line with what I'd give it.
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Nov 28, 2017 14:49:40 GMT -5
Avant grade covers so much though. For every William Basinski, you get some pretentious wanker who releases an album of white noise and calls it a work of art. Seriously, I heard an album recently that just sounded like mobile phone interference. I had to laugh at the morons who found it a ‘profound experience’. Avant-garde is not really a genre but a label for the stuff that falls in the gaps. That opens the doors for professional bullshitters, but if you're a discerning listener, you will recognise them easily. They usually feel the need to explain every small detail instead of letting the music do the talking. I tend to object to the use of the word "pretentious" just because the product in question is weird, though: one can be pretentious about a pop album. Certainly you could say the Gallaghers were pretentious in the 90s (maybe even still). I think there's an awful lot of stuff that can be described as 'pretentious'. Don't get me wrong, I do love a lot of experimental artists but when you see somebody like, say Sean Lennon, then he's taking the piss in my opinion; artists and materials that think they're cutting edge, and actually go out their way to mock others who they think are beneath them, when in actual fact he's only a name by virtue of the fact he is merely the son of John Lennon. |
|
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5