ITT: What don't you like about this album
Because I think it's perfect
>>64313435
the noise to folk shit don't work
and I love both genres, made most of it unlistenable
the last song and first song are the only things of note, and only a little of the first song cus they ruin it with some of the least seamless harsh noise infusion
>>64313463
i dont understand
why would any body think that
>>64313544
think what?
that the blend of harsh noise and folk doens't work?
because it doens't
it's either asynchronous acoustic guitars or the harsh noise, no blend or movement between either
>>64313463
>>64313612
except it's lo-fi folk. the lofi combined with the noise create a signature raw sound.
and if you think that the noise in the Glow pt 2 is "harsh", you should really listen to some more music.
>>64313696
except it was pretty indistingushable from pic related in terms of noise.
And there is a reason the sound is so unique, it's shit. It does't work. They didn't do anything new, just slam two things together that shouldn't really even touch.
I think it's a great record but at the same time I'm a little irked by the timing of some of the strumming. I know it's imperfect, lo-fi folk but some of the guitar doubling is so off it hurts me a bit.
>>64313737
I'm sorry but there's really nothing about the "noise" on The Glow that's even that harsh. The relatively short lengths for which it shows up, not to mention it's just guitar distortion and clipped drums playing actual melodies that almost anyone can get into, means almost everyone I know, 'pleb' or not, has been able to get into it. Anecdotal sure, but I just can't understand where you're coming from with this.
anybody here listen to this lp while reading the lyrics? I feel like thats how you have to listen to phil's records
>>64313839
baffling I suppose
I just couldn't wait for it to be over when I heard it
>>64313894
I didn't read them for a long time and still loved it when I heard it, but reading them later on did improve it. I wish I had done it earlier
Maps has this squeaking sound that sounds identical to my chair I sit on and I always look down and make sure it isn't my chair making the noise. Other than that it's a perfect album.
>>64313894
The lyric sheet and all the photographs inside the lp really improve th listening experience.
i may be an absolute pleb but i personally couldn't really get into the really noise parts of samurai sword.
Especially since what lies under is a pretty fucking good tune.
Still one of my all time favorites though, whilst i might still like Mount Eerie and it was hot we stayed in water more... maybe
>>64313435
It's a personal 10/10 for me. The first album I've ever loved
>>64313435
Most of the best really complete songs are fairly early on. After a while it's tracks that are less interesting musically, like I Felt Your Shape, or more formless ambience. Of course even those are really good, but there aren't really any tracks like I Want Wind to Blow or the Moon once you get further into the album. The lyrics to I Felt Your Shape is one of my favourite in the world though.
>>64313435
I just sampled it.
1/10.
No, literally, I considered giving it 3/10, then 2/10, and honesty to myself disallowed me to.
It sounds like just a couple of midschoolers strumming on their guitars and whining. As far as I reckon, there might be some 30 to 60 seconds' worth of a good melody on that album.
I don't understand. Do you people intentionally listen to soporific stuff?
>>64315916
And for what reason did it make you feel that way?
>>64315916
at first the album sounds really unappealing.
the beauty in it comes from a few good listens, preferably on a cool rainy day :^)
>>64315976
Because in my formative years, I associated guitar playing with THIS.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZKIh5aCYCI
>>64313435
It's really good. Masterpiece.
>people thinking it's harsh noise
What the actual fuck
>>64316064
Well then, it's your fault for comparing two things that are completely different. Also, guitar playing isn't the point of this album
>>64316142
>comparing two things that are completely different
Yes, good and bad.
I love this album so much and I have no idea how people can hate it as much as some do in this thread
It's okay.
>>64316172
So what tracks did you "sample" anon
I can never understand how people find time out of their day to bait
>>64316142
>Also, guitar playing isn't the point of this album
I'd argue that the guitar playing is one of the key elements of the album.
>>64316261
Of course it's an element, but the whole guitar virtuosity this that's present in Yes isn't important here. This album was all about tape experimentation
>>64316308
>This album was all about tape experimentation
So it's an achievement in 'tape experimentation', not in music.
People lacking the talent to become musicians abuse the definition of music to include various kinds of gadget and sound manipulation so to be able to claim to 'innovate' musically without having to do the hard musical work. I despise this kind of cheap cheating. But I despise people who enable such cheating by playing along and insisting that those works are, in fact, music, even more.
>>64316644
>it's not music unless I say it is!
Yes it's an achievement is tape experimentation, but it's obviously musical, have you even listened?
>>64315916
"sample"
huh
>>64313612
harsh noise HAHAHHAHAHAHA
>>64313435
too sad / depressing
>>64316674
>>it's not music unless I say it is!
'Pulling the definitional blanket' is the laziest way to win popular applause. 'No I can't play, and, uh, no I'm not that strong of a songwriter either, but well, there are OTHER aspects of music there that are EQUALLY important, such as this thing I did mixing, ain't it cool?'
Despicable.
>>64316834
Again, did you listen to it? The songwriting is very strong and the instrumentation is solid. It's just that he experimented with other aspects of music while writing/recording.
The fact that you think you can dictate what is and isn't music is laughable by the way
>>64316644
Kek did you really just say Phil Elverum is untalented?
>>64316834
Are you fucking kidding me right now
Phil is definitely a strong songwriter, and that is clearly proven in this album, and over that, he can clearly play and compose things for guitar and other instruments and he's a pretty alright drummer and he obviously proves that he shows some sort of musicality in him in this album.
And even then you can't say that everything that has to do with music is just instrumental skill, that's just stupid.
>>64316889
>The fact that you think you can dictate what is and isn't music is laughable by the way
>>64316935
>you can't say that everything that has to do with music is just instrumental skill
This is a fallacy for the simple reason that only narrowing the definition, e.g. of music, results in improvement. Art should be always defined as rigorously as possible with respect to technique, execution, composition, or else lazy asses will come and say that 'art (or music) is about free self-expression' (necessary/sufficient error) and take the proverbial dump on the canvas... or sheet, and claim their (yours) smug 'you can't prove it's not music, so it is'.
tl;dr you're being childish.
>>64313463
>>64313612
ppl thinking the lo-fi in this album is noise goes to show how little most ppl on this board actually know about music.
some music you can argue about how good is, how innovative, geniuine or whatever, but this is one of those albums that you just can't really argue against without looking like a retard.
>>64316064
hello dad
>>64317058
>we're being childish
Gain some perspective. Your opinion is stifling and discourages innovation
>>64317058
Once again even so, Phil does show instrumental skill and songwriting talent in this album.
And so far everything you have said has been based on your emotions around what music you like yes? So why shouldn't we be able to like something around our emotions around that music without you saying that it lacks talent just because it didn't cater to your dad-rock fetish.
>>64317119
>Your opinion is stifling and discourages innovation
No, YOUR legitimization of lazy paramusic stifles innovation because it rewards people as soon as they fart out a string of notes rather than tearing their product down by mercilessly comparing them with the best pieces of the past and mercilessly telling them, 'I won't applaud you until you are at least 25% as good'.
Quit your empathetic pampering.
>>64317157
>Phil does show instrumental skill and songwriting talent in this album
Binary error. Of course he does, and I never claimed otherwise. It's just a 1/10 album with respect to how much of it there is.
>>64317197
For fucks sake can you not tell what an emotionally fueled and personal album this is?
Do you really think, when making this album, Phil just sat down and went "I'm going to make really bad music that i don't care about and devote over a year of my life to doing so"?
And why should people constantly be looking back, isn't that what would stifle innovation?
>>64317243
>emotionally fueled and personal
Claims everyone who can't claim anything better.
>>64317197
How can your definition possibly promote innovation, when you yourself say that a musician must compare it to the best pieces of the past? All you want is to dwell on what is already considered good rather than the future. Generalizing all music that doesn't adhere to you rigid definition of what's good as "farts" and what not is the most childish thing I've seen today.
>>64317238
>'No I can't play, and, uh, no I'm not that strong of a songwriter either, but well, there are OTHER aspects of music there that are EQUALLY important, such as this thing I did mixing, ain't it cool?'
>>64313463
>harsh noise
you have to be trolling
>itt what do u hate about this album
>>64317117
there is no sonic difference
>>64317267
actually what >>64317243 is saying is incredibly correct.
You may not think noise music is good, but it's hardly noise music to begin with.
The songwriting is extremely strong and meaningful, the instrumentation is absolutely fantastic, and the style of which he put a few styles that were never pushed together was beautiful and innovative.
>>64317267
Because everything you claim has been fueled by your emotions and your personal views on music, you fuck-twat
>>64317058
there are other artistic movements apart from classicism.
>Art should be defined
youre arguing what art should or should not be, despite the fact that art is incredibly broad and maybe has around one or two generally agreed upon qualities.
anyone (or any dictionary or history book) will tell you in one way or another that art entails purposeful creativity (through the manipulation of senses).
any extension of this definition is your own interpretation of what art should be. I can't see how someone can't view the glow pt 2 as a unique, creative work
OK to all pleb phil-haters in this thread, please give me a critique of this song
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gz1--9EKDqM
>>64317337
fuck twat, damn. didnt know they let 7th graders playing call of duty modern warfare 2 on this board
>>64317243
>And why should people constantly be looking back, isn't that what would stifle innovation?
>>64317284
>All you want is to dwell on what is already considered good rather than the future.
Where ELSE would they look, you idiots? The future?
You're trying to misrepresent my position as conservatism while it is perfectly clear, including to you, that the point was that your instant, unthinking applause of lazy efforts such as OP's album results in musicians having a narrower range of musical possibilities and a higher opinion of themselves, which results in self-complacent self-reiteration.
I can try to talk at fallacies, but I'm not going to talk at ill will.
>>64317368
what's wrong with mw2
>>64317370
>results in musicians having a narrower range of musical possibilities
(Because they won't be aware of past pieces to compare themselves to.)
>>64317396
nothing, it's actually really fun
I just always think of that game when those kind of juvenile slander is tossed around
by the way for any phil fans out there, this is a pretty short documentary on where he draws some of his influences and how he makes his music. this is within the framework of his latest album, Sauna.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oS8OV-7c0Y
>>64317370
>narrower range
>for applauding something that expanded range
wew lad
that's some sick logic
>>64317370
That album clearly isn't lazy though, and no matter how anyone here tries to convince you it isn't you'll keep looking back to whatever kind of music you like to reaffirm that you have been right this entire time and that you have won.
I want you to explain what you think is lazy about it, so that i might understand at least somewhat where you are coming from, and if your only claim to how it is lazy is just because you think it sound sloppily executed, then you have clearly missed the point of this album.
>this faggot comparing it to "harsh noise"
>lmfao
>turn on 'deep'
oh...
>>64317370
Why does a musician need to compare themselves to the giants of the past? Wouldn't meticulously comparing their own work to those pieces just cause them to dwell on what's been done, rather than what can be done?
I've argued that all of your points stifle progression and experimentation and your only refute has essentially been "No they don't".
Your claims up to now have been completely baseless. She me proof that The Glow Pt. 2 is "lazy" and show me how not comparing yourself to the musicians of the past narrows the range of musical possibilities.
>>64317442
I've seen this, it's really interesting. His recording process is absolutely adorable and kind of inspiring in a way.
>>64317467
At least this instance of baitlogic is innovative...
Of course OP's album does innovate *very* mildly, but the point is that every recommendation towards the unknowing-better masses of a shit product takes away from them the time to seek and learn to enjoy (and hopefully imitate) better ones. You're poisoning the cultural standards.
>I want you to explain what you think is lazy about it
This can only be done with comparison from my side. Someone with only the idea of integers only has to learn about fractions.
>>64317516
>Why does a musician need to compare themselves to the giants of the past? Wouldn't meticulously comparing their own work to those pieces just cause them to dwell on what's been done, rather than what can be done?
Because ALL innovation is synthesis of the past. NO culture self-originates. A brain can have a large creative factor, so to say, but the kernels, the seeds, of ideas for musical composition necessarily come from the past. You're stupidly misrepresenting my position as harmful by definition, as recommending the degree of past-dwelling that's limiting by definition. Obviously my point is that *to the degree it's today being done*, short-sighted appreciation of albums such as OP's, resulting in the popular idea that they are good enough to be called art or music, does more harm than good.
tl;dr I'm quite impressed guys, that's some semi-smart pretending to be retarded.
>>64317784
>Because ALL innovation is synthesis of the past. NO culture self-originates
okay, that's something that I agree with.
But now could you point to me an example of Popular Music that is worthy of being called music or art? Are you the same guy who posted that Yes song?
>>64317916
>Are you the same guy who posted that Yes song?
Affirmative.
>an example of Popular Music that is worthy of being called music or art
I can't do that because I don't think I recognize the term 'popular music', and I don't know why you asked me to in the first place.
Here's what turned out to be a somewhat go-to song of mine reflecting what I love in music (and, even more importantly, musicians), though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_M-Lw4_Bfo
>>64318003
Wow that song is boring as fuck jesus christ.
What lazy un-emotional garbage
1/10, i'd like to call it maybe a 2/10 but my own superior musical taste prevented me from doing so.
>>64318003
>the musicians are more important than the music
>>64318003
Well I like Yes and Estradasphere is good and all that, but it seems to me like you are more biased towards a "virtuoso" quality in the music you listen to. I guess there isn't anything wrong with it, but I imagine you find yourself disliking more music than you like
>>64318077
There are two prongs to quality of music, hard-wired enjoyment of consonance etc. determined by the way our brains have evolved, and complexity/amount of structure in a pice, defined in relation to a cultural context (a song is good if it has structure so far unknown to the listener). They are both objective measures, and according to both, OP's album is bad.
>>64318087
Not quite, sorry. I actually considered that parenthesis for a second. The 'importantly' referred to this discussion, because my original point was about the OP's album's author's laziness. Estradasphere has clearly worked hard as fuck to reach their level. I wanted to stress this.
>>64318171
>you are more biased towards a "virtuoso" quality
That's like saying that good people are biased towards morality.
>>64318234
>That's like saying that good people are biased towards morality
this statement just proved your bias and how stubborn you are to accept a range of music that you yourself have decreed unfit
>>64318298
>music that you yourself have decreed unfit
No.
I have understood that to posit nonexistence of objective standards of quality is always in the interests of people who lack it. I'm not going to give in to this kind of artistic terrorism, 'agree what I/my favourite band is doing is music or else you're narrow-minded'.
>>64318356
>>64318298
In other words, it's not I who unrightly decree some music unfit, it is you who unrightly decree it fit.
Music is bad until proven good -- and proving good can only be done in comparison with the past.
>>64318234
so please explain why strong virtuoso qualities are the embodiment of good music? and respond to this post >>64317362
your definition of "good art" fulfills your needs, sure.
but that doesn't mean that your definition of art matches the cultural consensus. as far as objectivity goes, it's fairly obvious that progressive musicians like Yes display impressive dexterity (dexterity that likely isn't matched by the microphones).
however as far as creativity goes (the only essential definition of art), the microphones are arguably on the same level if not higher than Yes.
>>64318356
What are the qualities that music needs to possess in order to meet these objective standards of merit, in your mind?
>>64318635
>so please explain why strong virtuoso qualities are the embodiment of good music?
Virtuosity is not-sufficient-but-necessary to reflect on stage pieces of certain amount of structure. It's obviously not an end in itself. It's just a condition, a measurement of compositional throughput so to say, how much information can go through the musician.
>as far as creativity goes (the only essential definition of art), the microphones are arguably on the same level if not higher than Yes
If you're not committing the error of equalizing both bands as *exhibiting* creativity without comparing the amount of it, then that claim is nonsense. Fucking around with production is an endless source of pseudoarguments for particular bands' apologists ('look what he did at 1:23! or check out that noise at 2:48!').
>>64318811
Not him, but I'll say the same thing everybody has been saying. The Glow Pt. 2 isn't pure experimentation, it's mostly actual songwriting, and good songwriting at that.
Did you actually listen to a substantial amount during your "sample"
>>64317362
>there are other artistic movements apart from classicism.
See >>64317370 and >>64317784 for explanation of this confusion.
>youre arguing what art should or should not be, despite the fact that art is incredibly broad
Understand that I'm not talking about particular applications of the term 'art', but the culturally harmful phenomenon of empathically applying it to everyone indiscriminately to the effect of disenfranchizing truly creative people from rightful credit. Equalization harms the good.
>I can't see how someone can't view the glow pt 2 as a unique, creative work
As I said, it is creative, to its own degree. Appreciations of works like it just displaces appreciation of better ones.
>>64319046
>Appreciations of works like it just displaces appreciation of better ones.
In fact, you all probably harm your '/mu/-core' artists by appreciating them for what they are instead of bashing them hopefully to the effect of them improving.
>>64318811
Can we both agree that quantity of creative output should follow after the quality? In that case, we should all record ourselves noodling away on some instruments for 10 hours and then our massive number of creative outputs will surely guarantee us a Grammy!
How would you determine what makes the quality of one creative output stronger than another? What makes the exploration of the guitar more creative than the exploration of production? Timbre and production are entire dimensions of music that you seem to disregard.
>>64318745
Art is, beside its neuroaesthetic component, evoking pattern recognition.
Since pattern recognition is a function (defined for the set of sensory stimuli possibly provoking the pattern in the brain), good art is that which evokes the moments of 'aha! that's what they did! I get it!' even in the strangest, most unconventional ways, from the strangest, most unconventional sensory data.
The more a piece does that and in more different ways, the more creative and better art it is.
>>64317058
>thinks we should return to the original form of art of banging on drums and painting buffalo on cave walls
Sheesh you're retarded. Art defined is the expression of one's senatorial experience, not "can jimmy draw between the lines? Good."
If you would read up a little and listen to the whole album you would see that The Glow Pt. 2 take a lot of inspiration from Phil's surroundings, and you can almost feel you are on the beach experiencing the same feelings.
If that's not art I don't know what is.
>>64319262
>senatorial
I meant sensorial lol
>>64319191
>we should all record ourselves noodling away on some instruments for 10 hours and then our massive number of creative outputs will surely guarantee us a Grammy!
No. Cf. >>64319250. Such noodling would, in the pattern-generative sense, be simplistic. Each piece would be unique, each would strictly speaking be different, but there would only be one formula, and the amount of artistic 'getting it' would only amount to the lone 'aha, he's just hitting the instrument randomly every time'.
Incidentally, you described OP's album pretty well.
>How would you determine what makes the quality of one creative output stronger than another? What makes the exploration of the guitar more creative than the exploration of production?
Good question. Some human devices naturally evolve to hold more data. Language is more expressive than grunts. A hand is more expressive than a stump. This isn't changed by the fact that grunting and waving a stump is infinitely expressive.
>>64319250
>Art is, beside its neuroaesthetic component, evoking pattern recognition.
such an incredibly narrow definition. pattern recognition is definitely a component of some art. but art isn't limited to music. "The Arts" include:
>cinema
>plays
>poetry
>dance
>etc.
there are so many other elements that people have mentioned in this thread (emotional resonance, thematic content, imagery, the author's message, aesthetic, depth, etc.)
>
>>64313435
watered down GBV for people who don't like to drink beer out of a cup
>>64319541
That is nonsense
>>64319510
>thematic content, imagery, the author's message, aesthetic, depth
Those are all pattern recognition.
P.r. is not just recognizing a tree, a cat, or a numerical chordal relationship. When you find a piece to belong to a certain genre, or a certain mood, or certain movements of it to be correspondingly less and more introspective or whatever, that's also p.r.
>>64319628
>>64319510
And for other media, too. When you find a dance or a sculpture correspond to, say, the experience of having a dead daughter, it also evoked a pattern.
>>64319379
>Such noodling would, in the pattern-generative sense, be simplistic.
not necessarily. youre attaching your own quantifiers. noodling could entail explorations in melody and rhythm.
>Good question. Some human devices naturally evolve to hold more data. Language is more expressive than grunts. A hand is more expressive than a stump. This isn't changed by the fact that grunting and waving a stump is infinitely expressive.
then what makes exploration in rhythm or melody more expressive than exploration in timbre?
>>64316064
>he thinks any of Phil's albums are about technical skill
>>64317058
>its not good unless you put effort in it
>>64316644
>mfw plebs think talent has anything to do with making good music
>>64320982
this
That thought is the epitome of artist over art
>>64313463
Actually this. For example the transition from I Want Wind to Blow to the next track doesn't do it any favors. Not saying it isn't a good album (because it is) but it could have been improved with pacing
>>64321435
I love that transition. One of my favorite moments on the album
this album is literally impossible to criticise, no one is allowed to have a different opinion to "it's the greatest thing" without being torn to shreds or immdiately told they are worng with little to back it up. it's pacing is as subtle as a brick through a childs face
all of you fucking kys
The low ambient at the end is the only bit I don't care for, I always end up playing something else when that comes on.
Greatest A-Side to any album.
>>64321766
If your criticism is legitimate, I'd love to hear it. It's an all time favorite of mine, but I have all sorts of criticism regarding it.
Are you the guy who said it was harsh noise?
>>64321959
I'm not but how everyone reacted to him made me post that so essentially I am
>>64316644
Are yes's albums achievements in "skilled guitar playing"
>>64321670
Always considered it sloppy and lazy from an editing point of view but I think it's great that an artist's vision is bound to touch someone regardless.
>>64322006
Well, the reaction to his post wasn't even defending the album, it was just pointing out that it wasn't harsh noise at all
>>64321766
As a pretty big Phil fan, I agree. It's a good album but it's not the master piece people make it out to be, especially when they just love it so much because of the feelings and meaning behind the songs which I could give half a shit about. The pacing is pretty bad, some of the loud songs could've been toned down a bit to make them more listenable and less grating.
Although I'll fight you if you say there's anything wrong with Mount Eerie, that's the true masterpiece in Phil's discography
>>64320215
I'm not saying that effort is necessary for quality; I'm saying that in cases like OP's album, appreciating a lazy AND bad record will give a bad lesson to other aspiring people.
>>64322036
The transition into noise is supposed to be jarring, in the context of the narrative.
>>64322331
but it isn't jarring, it's cringey
like when a song drops in heavily distorted guitars but they are mixed horribly and they dont make the impact you can tell they were supposed to
>>64313435
Mount Eerie is better boyo
>>64322331
Again, I think it's great that an artist's vision will almost always find a way to resonate with somebody. I'm just not part of that camp but I respect it.
>>64322331
None of this has anything to do with the music being good though. It's cool that's there, I'm sure it's important to the die hard fans, but doesn't mean shit really.
