HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA YES
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /mu/ - Music
You are currently reading a thread in /mu/ - Music
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA YES
is it just me or is this total bullshit
>>66254147
The fuck does that mean? If I was a pitchfork reader, how the hell is that supposed to let me, as a reader, know whether I will enjoy the album or not? Fantano gets a lot of shit here, but at least he actually describes the sound, not bullshit, irrelevant descriptions
>>66254147
That's so fucking pretentious it makes me cringe
>>66254147
Highfalutin rambling from some hipster dip English grad.
Doesn't even come close to the inchoate nonsense over at TinyMixTapes, though. Those "reviews" are so fuckin pretentious that it's almost comical.
>>66254147
i think it makes total sense...it has that 90s hip-hop sampling style but evokes the nostalgia, vibe, and feelings of the sunny 70s. there are different levels and layers of sentimentality and reference points making it sound like it doesn't belong to any one era.
>>66254165
not everyone wants to read shallowly descriptive or formalistic reviews à la fantano. not even a fan of p4k.
AHHHHHH
>>66254219
>not everyone wants to read shallowly descriptive or formalistic reviews
This is what music reviews should be, I don't know what's shallow about actually describing the music itself. What seems infinitely more shallow to me and completely pretentious is writing verbose reviews that are completely reliant on references of other works of art, how many reviews draw references to literature? It's fucking ridiculous, we get it you're a cultured writer with a high education, but can you describe the fucking music.
>>66254058
p4k is famous for this kind of jokes
>>66254058
So is electro-swing /mu/core now?
>>66254298
If you want the music described to you why not actually listening to it?
>>66254147
>The stable of vocalists underscores another way the Avalanches play with time: the guests are mostly members of Generation X, who arguably made their best music during the Bill Clinton era. Which, when combined with the fact that collage music built from dense samples is technique closely identified with the '90s, gives the album a weird funhouse-mirror quality.
Collage music built from dense samples is a technique closely identified with the 90s? I mean it occurred then, but it occurred in the 80s too, and the 70s and even before then. What the fuck does he mean by a "funhouse-mirror quality"? Why does he use presidential terms to indicate a time frame?
>Nostalgia moves in 20-year cycles
What? I mean I guess that's arguable..
>which means that
Ok so we're just running with that?
>the '90s sampling artists the Avalanches were inspired by were drawing from the '70s.
What. The. Fuck. Are. You. Talking. About. Why, because all musicians work from a basis of nostalgia? What? Honestly what.
>So Wildflower's references are doubled: the original music is sliced and diced and processed and filtered through a sensibility that emerged two decades later
Ok, sure.
>and then that feeling is reflected once again into the present moment, two more decades later.
No it fucking isn't. Are they sampling samples? No. It's the same music being sampled 40 years later using techniques which existed 40 years ago as well as 20 years ago as well as right now. Fuck you.
>The feeling can either be comforting or unsettling depending on your angle of approach.
Fuck you.
This review reads like it should have a higher score
>>66254219
>not everyone wants to read shallowly descriptive or formalistic reviews à la fantano
It's a good thing he makes videos.
>>66254315
Because there is waaaay more music to listen to than there is time to do it in. Descriptions are one way you can quickly decide what you might want to check out next.
>>66254298
i guess it's more of a taste thing because i didn't find that excerpt pretentious at all - it's certainly not at tmt levels of wankery. actually the rest of the review was rather plain-spoken. i dunno, i guess with music writing i almost prefer the more "impressionistic" (though not flowery) reviews, as i don't have the academic when it comes to hyper-formal reviews and the adjective vomit that fantano spews tells me nothing as synesthetic descriptions are highly subjective. half the time when he calls something "icy" i have no idea what he's going on about lol.
i agree that often reviews are too verbose but i have no problems with the intertextuality/deconstruction aspects.
>>66254346
being a bit pedantic there, huh? :)
but yeah, that goes for all mediums of music criticism.
>>66254299
This is the correct score
>>66254381
For me personally, I'll take an impressionistic review of an album I've heard, because then I want to know what others think.
If it's an album I haven't heard, I just want to find out whether it's giving it a try because of >>66254359
>>66254058
>pitchfork
>2016
what are you doing
Fuck, was hoping for a 9, because that's what it is
>>66254411
yeah, that's definitely fair. honestly i guess it hardly ever matters to me cus i don't really rely on these sorts of publications for finding music anymore - they don't tend to curate the stuff i like (same for fantano).
>>66254480
How do you like to find new (to you) music?
>>66254493
juno, boomkat, discogs, nts radio, dj/radio mixes, interviews with artists i like, following labels, etc etc
https://clyp.it/bhjjivsf
>What's that Madame? 8,5, best new electroswing meme
AHHH Frankie Sinatra
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkQcao5gD1E
>>66254058
>Kevin Gates' debut album and Blackstar got the same score
Is 8.5 Pitchfork's official "Fuck if I know" score?
>>66254316
>the '90s sampling artists the Avalanches were inspired by were drawing from the '70s.
>What. The. Fuck. Are. You. Talking. About. Why, because all musicians work from a basis of nostalgia? What? Honestly what.
They didn't say all musicians work from a basis of nostalgia. But there's clearly an element of that in Avalanche's work...I mean have you even heard since I left you
>>66254429
just round the 8.5 to a 9 anon
>>66254316
>What. The. Fuck. Are. You. Talking. About. Why, because all musicians work from a basis of nostalgia? What? Honestly what.
Yes. Everything is a remix. Nothing is original. You can't really make music without being influenced by other music first.
>>66254429
>why can't this persons opinion be closer to my opinion
>>66254147
>tfw someone talks praise about an album you like but does it in a stupid way
Thanks /mu/ for introducing me to this uncomfortable feel
>>66254703
I legitimately do not see the issue with that part
>>66254147
this is literally not any better than any of that dude 21 pilots is so deep lmao copy pasta
AHHHHHH FRANKIE SINATRA
AHHH FRAN... YUM YUM YUM MUNCH MUNCH MUNCH I'M HUNGRY THESES TROGLODYTES SONGS ARE SWEEEEET
>>66254199
>that
>pretentious
It's a fucking decent description that's straight forward and does a decent job describing the album.
I'm not even a p4k fan.
>>66254975
God damn it, you have to hate and belittle everything you don't understand or like. What the fuck are you even doing on /mu/?
>>66254147
>>66254165
>>66254199
>>66254202
Further proof /mu/ doesn't understand music.
>>66254975
People are letting their rage-boner for Pitchfork blind them. At worst it's a bit wordy (prob didn't need to be a paragraph) but it does a nice job of the sort of phantom like and transportive quality that usually comes with the Avalanches music.
panned hard
the avalanches are finished
>>66255012
*nice job of describing
wtf i hate Frank Sinatra now
