Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Available to pre-order now. Looking forward to this A LOT:
Makes up for the fact that I missed their show in Bristol...
It's slow, grandiose, choral - since it was made largely with a church organ it's got this really dense, contemplative sound that makes it an absolute delight to just lie down and sink into. Quite accessible for Hecker, I'd say.
I want it badly.
I'll look into that when I get back from work.
and on the subject of Mr. Frost has anyone noticed/knew anyway his old band do a remix on the b-side of Bjork's Triumph of a Heart single...? it's pretty great too.
I just don't like listening to it.
If you saw his set at ATP, he played a large chunk of the album there. It's possibly his warmest and most inviting record to date - there aren't many especially harsh textures, although the sub bass absolutely slays.
Not sure if Ben Frost's contribution extends beyond production/mastering duties though (pretty sure that's what the press release said anyway).
I did see him a couple of days earlier though at the Luminaire, but I thought that most of that was older stuff.
he slayed at ATP, really looking forward to this
Probably best of his ive got
Boomkat,Norman Records and Piccadily Records are handling preorders over in the UK.
Very impressed, and really enjoying the tonal palette employed. Flows superbly.
For example, I could have made it sound like a pig at an organic farm:
Solid growling sounds, consistent trotting motion, and a slightly chic yet muddy sheen all over.
i'm not really expecting this to sound like Chic at all.
meant to be under
"I can think of worse comparisons (hmm, ale)
Solid growling sounds, consistent trotting motion, and a slightly chic yet muddy sheen all over."
crap joke fail
and I'm now financially far worse off than I was 5 minutes ago.
An Imaginary Country was a bit too Hecker-lite but still pretty good. The tracks from Ravedeath I've heard are more my style. Ben Frost + Tim Hecker? You can't go wrong.
haunt me haunt me... which i do like but i find it to be a bit too glitchy & noisy in places. I like my drone to be more stars of the lidsy if you know what i mean. Would this new one suit me or would i be better going for an imaginary country?
this one's better. but an imaginary country is more pleasant/pastoral. pretty sure both are less glitchy than haunt me, haunt me but i have not heard that record in a loooong time. should listen to it now really.
really like the sound of this
Unnecessary and boring.
Seeing as Tim Hecker has observed that "the album isn't such a revered artform as it used to be," and that many an early comment has been made about this album's striking artwork, and that the album's name and track titles are such an enigmatic provocation to investigation, we'll begin — reverently — by judging this piece of art by its cover.
If 1600 words is too many, you're gonna flip when you find out about books.
You may find this shocking. I hope you're just trolling though.
I am nearly 40, have an MA in Continental Philosophy (in a distant past) and know a thing or two about books. A tiresome opening sentence, like the one that opens that review, doesn't really encourage me to go much further.
Like the album by the way. Made me think of the way A.R.Kane were fracturing and sculpting sound on songs like 'Sulliday'. Blissful.
It's not a particularly difficult sentence to digest and sets quite clearly the writer's initial parameters.
My main objection was dis-integration's claim that reviews should NEVER be that long. Firstly, where on earth could you get the gall to be so proscriptive on what is allowed to constitute a legitimate view? Secondly, the main problem with popular music criticism in my opinion is the lack of depth - every second publication has two lines and a star rating on an album, which is barely better than nothing. A lot of people really enjoy more detailed discussion, and as this is a relatively rare entry in the 1000+ word category of music reviews, maybe it has its place, even if your own attention span isn't particularly enamoured?
A review written like that, especially online, where attention is so much harder to keep, should NEVER be that long.
I've written reviews before that hit the 1500 word mark, and have tended to chop them down drastically. And this isn't because I don't think certain music doesn't deserve that level of insight and critical depth; rather that the context of normal review, written for people to either gain some insight into a record or to learn about it in the first place, needs to be treated carefully when going into that kind of depth.
It's less to do with attention span and more to do with number of relevant points made - if you're talking a lot, but not saying anything (as large portions of the above review do) then it's worth reconsidering your approach. The people reading a review are coming from a wide variety of perspectives and ultimately you're still writing for an audience.
I love books (the longer and more in depth the better, I'm a science graduate), and I read The Wire, which has some of the best in-depth and involved music criticism currently around (including reviews upward of 2000 words), but in both cases the context AND the quality of writing is good enough to merit that amount of depth. I'm a big hater of exceedingly short reviews and numbered scores, for sure, but I also think that at a time when they're increasingly becoming a sort of norm, being careful, succinct and selective in your approach to longer reviews reaps dividends.
This review does not do that. Go figure.
You're considering the multitude of listeners who come at it with differing levels of awareness etc, whereas I'm just thinking about the most intellectually satisfying review to read as someone who is already a fan and has heard the work in question and really appreciates some in depth analysis. I do however dislike your consideration of what is '"becoming a sort of norm"' as being equivalent of what is valuable and worthwhile. I also take issue with your notion that written content (e.g. The Wire) deserves different treatment than online content. What if I'm reading The Wire on an iPad? Still then? More and more content will be online (and online-exclusively e.g. FACT mag) in future, and I think it's absurd to deny those publications an equal expectation and right to quality and depth. I think your perspective makes sense in terms of gaining audience share etc, but I guess I just prefer the purist approach of writing for those will fullest knowledge rather than considering the n00bs(then again, I have no stakes, whereas I know you contribute for this site and have an obligation to consider the audience you write for).
I didn't mean in any way to imply that internet content doesn't deserve the same depth. However there's a lot of debate and discussion around attention spans online, and generally the accepted wisdom (whether correct or not) is that pieces need to be punchy online to hold the attention when there are so many other places elsewhere it could wander to. That doesn't stop me writing for upwards of 1700 words or so in my columns for this site (which incidentally I try to write with both accessibility for people who don't know particularly what I'm talking about, while also appealing to people who are really into it), but in order to ensure they're engaging for a wider as well as a specialist audience, there's a fine balance to try and strike, which I actually do believe it's possible to hit. Writing for a purist audience is actually a lot of the time easier than striking up a balance, but if you can find an equilibrium point I actually think it makes for a far more exhilarating and interesting read, regardless of how much you know about a subject. Good music writing combines accessibility with knowledge and evocative imagery, going into depth while not succumbing to dry academia or rambling, imho.
I also think I wasn't clear enough about what I meant when I talked about a 'sort of norm' - actually what I meant to say was I think it's awful that short, shit reviews with just a score at the end are becoming the norm. In order to combat that, the longer and more involved pieces of writing need to be succinct in the points they make, hard hitting and punchy, without sacrificing depth. Meandering writing simply sends a lot of people back towards reading the simplistic stuff.
That said, I agree with you for the most part I think!
to say i totally agree with this. What's that saying, something like- an intellectual says a simple thing in a complicated way, an artist makes a complex point in a simple way. Most people cannot and really shouldn't have to engage with 1700 words of self-indulgent pontification. I also find it hard to believe that people have 1700 valid words to say about something at its point of release. Later maybe, with more insight and perspective.
where a simpler communication of an idea would be more effective. And following on from that it is necessary to point out that verbosity and multi-syllabic words are not the same as complex ideas and shouldn't be mistaken for each other.
However, in defense of meandering: I consider a well-written review to be not just a technical examination, but also a piece of literature that permits its own flourishes with language and ideas. I don't mind reviews that digress, that are personal, that meander, that are a little gonzo, if I find the piece engaging (in fact I generally prefer to those to a 100% scientific description of constituent parts). Uninteresting rambling fails for sure, but I'm all for interesting rambling. Obviously any given piece can pass or fail that test depending on the reader!
again with you considering the full spectrum of the audience and me just considering the already-converted/aware. It's certainly necessary to strike an equilibrium between different types of readers, though I don't agree that that equilibrium is actually better writing than a piece written solely by an for an expert. I think it must necessarily involve a degree of compromise, where points that are too 'specialised' for a general audience are lost, and they represent potentially interesting and worthwhile content that the specialist would otherwise have the benefit of engaging with.
It is a tussle though for sure!
tinymixtapes are going for the most long annoying pointless boring review that has no insight award against the delightful cokemachineglow and some blog we're yet to hear about at this rate.
Epic music writing is all well and good, but this person has nothing to say and they still go on forever. You have to justify the length with something worth saying. I'm guessing he was being dramatic/flipant sayin it should NEVER be that long. Cos you know this review should have NEVER been this long.
p.s. books rule!
That's subjective. I say they do have something to say. So our dispute is there, not whether 'epic' writing should exist at all.
I found no insite and a lot of rambeling about a pretty good record.
the album is alright like, hasn't grabbed me like Richard Skelton, Stela Om Source or Oneohtrix Point Never from last year but its a nice enough listen.
Ravedeath, 1972. Enigmatic, disturbing and vaguely The Caretaker-ish. I'm in!
Based on the clips on RA this sounds fantastic. The best, of this sort of thing, since By The Throat. A church in Iceland is exactly where this need to be recorded.
That's my afternoon listening sorted then
early contender for being in the top 5 albums of the year!
though I'm a little unsure of Ben Frost's stuff in general. A bit too drippy.
Is it Joyriders 1996 B-Sides?
Tim Hecker is playing Corsica Studios for Bird on a Wire in May I've seen...
an absolutely fantastic album
i've just made 'Hatred of Music I' song of the day on the DiS facebook http://facebook.com/drownedinsound.com (trying to find an easy way to bring this feature into the site - maybe as a weekly/monthly mixtape of some sort?)
ah well this will have to do because i can't be arsed to start one. he plays The Piano Drop anyway.
that Pruitt Igoe ep is real great btw.
Wish I could go to New York for that Unsound night: Music for Solaris sounds amazing, and some Reich and Penderecki to boot.
(assuming that you're UK-based)
I went to session 3 - the one with the performances of WTC 9/11 and 2x5, among others. Was a marathon but well worth it.
i am 33 minutes through so far
its this la monte young record extended by loads apparently http://www.discogs.com/La-Monte-Young-Marian-Zazeela-The-Black-Record/release/381760