Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Seems like all you lot were wrong, I bet you feel silly now.
idk, I did enjoy my listen yesterday - a lot in places - but it feels weighed down by the filler
seems like a lot of their scores to 'big name alt acts' this year have been pretty inflated. 9.5 for Bon Iver, 9.3 for Girls and a handful of others which were a bit like 'woah'
maybe they're over-compensating for what has been a good, not great year in music in attempt to 'spice up' the end of year lists or whatever, I just woke up, fuck you
Or a dog, whatever, fuck you.
lol, thanks for that
especially this year P4k is overrating a several records and grading more than 8.5 records that are not worth much more than a 7. in the ??the same proportion they're underrating excellent records with a 7,X note.
in a few weeks they'll publish a new list of top records that do not reached to the category "best new music". in same way they should also confessed in another list all the records where they had been led by the hype.
Yea I know it's just an opinion.
and with this I am not saying that the M83 record is an example of any of these cases. it's also just an opinion.
And loving it. Seems more immediate than the last album.
girls got over a 9. martyn's new album got less than 7. go figure
with an attitude of "this is what they thought this album deserved, and this is the score they gave it"
rather than mental theories about their agendas and score politics and other mind numbingly boring stuff
i don't really care that much about pitchfork anymore, and i certainly wouldn't take their opinion on anything as being all that reliable these days, but there does seem to be an element of politics or something like that with the way they rate stuff so predictably,
I would give it a 6.5
dunno wtf the dis review was all about
but as amusing as the (unbutchered) DiS review was, it read like a personal diatribe rather than a review. No idea whose score is more acurate but at least the P4K reviewer did a *review*. Neither opinion will sway my decision to buy the album but I know who gave me a better idea of what to expect.
It didn't read like a personal diatribe to me. And it *did* read like a review (in its unbutchered form, anyway). Because it was. Duh. The reviewer even said that he was an M83 fan and explained quite clearly (again, in the unbutchered version: the edited one was garbled) what he didn't like about the new album.
As for wondering which score is more accurate: "accurate"?! How can a score be accurate? It's an almost entirely nonsensical idea that there is some objective way of grading music (especially one that will give you, Yvash, a decent idea of "what to expect"). I can't bear P4K their degrees of perfection (they'll be giving records 7.654 or 3.589 soon) and I wish DiS wouldn't do it either.
C'mon now. All statements expressed as opinion; this really shouldn't need to be repeated over and over. The score is an overall irrelevancy to my point, but it can help simplify things. Here, I'll show you: I give the DiS review of Hurry Up, We're Dreaming a 4.638.
I liked their last one a lot too. I like this band a lot.
But I like how contentious it is seemingly.
I's good, but it's not that good. There is a lot of filler, IMHO, especially the ballads, they are appalling.
Was hoping he'd leave those ballads off this time. Not sure why I thought that, seeing as there seem to be progressively more on each album.
approace the double album without lame preconceived negative ideas about it. It's like the minute someone announces a double the critic and (dis board commentators) pull the phrase drawer from under the bed and grab "filler," "too long," "with a bit of editing it could be a great album" (always my favorite), or "for every (insert song name) there's a (insert song name)." It's like despite our technological advancement we still haven't figured out what a double album is supposed to be.
As far as the pitchfork review I love the last line and believe that sums it up. Pitchfork is mostly wrong in their reviews by the way but this is a nice exception.
i pretty much agree with what he had to say about this one. you all take pitchfork way-y-y too seriously. its good for a laugh tho
Giving a glowing review to something previously met with mixed responses...is a bit hard to fathom. Perhaps that is good, allowing subjectivity into their work and being less predictable.
On a personal note though, bloody hell, thought album was crap
or is it just a not-that-big coincidence? That's all I care about.
was terrible, po faced and concerned about what is cool in that writer's eyes. It was rubbish. Surprisingly the pitchfork one was considered, gave a sense the author knew the back catelogue and was more engaging to read.
I agree with the general thrust of the DiS review: he's stepped way too far into 80's pomp without the tunes or emotional connection to emerge successfully from the other side. I really wanted to like it, and I've nothing against double albums (flawed as they almost always are) but I can't see myself wanting to come back to it.
No idea what Pitchfork's reviewer is hearing in it to give it 9.1.
Its not massively something I can get behind but its alright. Just alright.
(the real estate album is better but different, obvs)
I don't get why people complain about the "filler" and the album being too long. It's only 74 minutes and some of the shorter instrumentals are the most moving and visual to me. This album is incredibly moving and I've not heard anything like it in my 30 years of life.
it's chilled out, lengthy, and just occasionally grabs you by the balls, which is exactly what I want from M83
what's the deal with the track 'Mirror' though - it's listed on the CD but I don't know where to find the download code?
Where did you see a track called mirror? Do you mean this, or something else?
It's listed on the CD case too, and in the booklet. From that web page I assume there's a code from somewhere to get it, but there's no mention of a code in the packaging.
very carefully below the booklet their is a long stream of numbers and letters! Just entered them and got maself a free download. AWESOME.
is it just the record, or something else? Do you mean the bar code numbers, because I seriously can't make those out...
on the inside, the bit of card that holds the booklet in place. It's a reeeeeally faint string of numbers. Shine a torch on it or somin'.
I had to just hold it under a light to see it. Thank you!
mine didn't work at first but then I realised some of the '1's were actually 'i's... my eyes hurt.
You're right! Got it. Thanks again :)
I see it here:
From the way the tracks are listed on the sleeve, maybe it's a way of combining the two albums in some other way...
between discs one and two
Got the vinyl version, so I guess I'll just need to wait for it to arrive. Is it a single track, or something else?
Not sure it fits in the middle of the album but it's an upbeat 6-minute cowbell-fest
it is really good. bit too over-stuffed and possibly pushes too hard at 'EPIC' but yeah, a solid 8
Midnight City doesn't have quite enough sax.
...and it sounds pretty great to me. Works really well - 2 great 37 minute albums. It goes pretty 80s but somehow gets away with it - it's sort of openhearted enough to get away with it without feeling like he's joking.
A lot of great songs but an insane amount of somewhat pointless interludes between them.
and it's exceeding expectations. Only complaint is that "Where the boats go" is pretty much lifted from Digital Shades vol. 1. Lazy...
what actually is this then? I'm not going to google it just you're all too indie to say who this is by.