Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
is actually pretty good. Lots of stuff I'm wanting to check out which I haven't yet etc.
first I assumed this article was about the 'noisey' rock bands..but mentioning wolf eyes etc I've realised the writer thinks he/she is describing all there is to noise in the last 10 years.
it does get a bit lolsome when they start talking about lo-fi - and the Animal Collective pyramid lead is a little tenuous, but I think it's not too bad. There's some good stuff mentioned.
Pretty good. This and the artist lists had some good stuff. I liked what Matthew Herbert and Jamie Stewart said and whatnot.
gonna seriously check out some of the bands mentioned there
is a little wide of the mark (I honestly think that Andrew WK would be a better fit), and it's very, very US centric, isn't it?
I know that Digital Hardcore haven't been nearly as influential this decade as they were in the 90s, but Berlin gets hardly a mention, and I'm surprised by the absence of Fennesz.
Still, it's a decent summing up for those that are yet to dip their toe in the waters.
veryAC and US biased.
That isn't a problem if he was just writing about American Tapes as the harsh end of a scene around AC.
But the article tries to paint a picture of AC and 'friends' vs sonic youth and co. The biggest insult is talking about NO Fun fest but completely ignoring the artists NO Fun was created for in the first fucking place.
and the focus on AC/Gang Gang Dance is pretty baffling and unnecessary, especially when it reduces mentions of people like Kevin Drumm to a sentence. And even if it's very much an overview and doesn't really scratch the surface of things, how can they not even name-check Yellow Swans? It kind of feels like they've approached the article with the view that no one will read it unless they make some tenuous link back to Animal Collective (who were on Fat Cat in their early days iirc, hardly a bastion of 'noise') and as I said, I have absolutely no idea why GGD are even mentioned in passing. It just feels a bit like writing a retrospective of dubstep that centres around the fact that Avey Tare once told Ryan Schreiber that he was totez digging Zomby.
then TV on the Radio would have been the hook on which the article was hung, and the year before it would have been Battles.
as ac or ggd or bd, not that doesn't make all the links tenuous and baffling. I think its like "heres a bunch of bands who have their own pretty detailed and diverse but ultimately detached history, it'll be easy to write about so here's the effect it kind of but didn't really have".
the move from avant garde noise to really accessible but unique music is interesting.
Its an article with about 6 different ideas for articles shoved together, not that surprising it omits some stuff and is a little cluttered.
On 1st January 2010 Pitchfork will rebrand itself as the Animal Collective Fansite you see. They're just trying to make the process gradual.