Reviewing any album leaks that come my way. But my writing skills are balls, so each review will be kept under 30 words. And in sentence fragments.
Monday, November 13, 2006
Bloc Party - A Weekend In the City
Release Date: February 6, 2007
I just vomited. Haha, what did you expect me to say? To tell you the truth, I only listened to the first three songs. And then I vomited.
22 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Yeah, that album kind of blowz. Maybe Bloc Party should spend less time living and more time dying. That might seem unusally harsh, but you have to bear in mind that they licensed their music for a car commercial.
yeah and if joanna newsom did decide to sell ys to a shitty pixar movie in order to make some extra cash, yeah, she would lose credibility...though the music would probably fit. it all depends on what you're supporting or backing up, and why you're doing it.
when broken social scene decided to soundtrack the whole half nelson movie, they didn't come off as "selling out" at all. man, it even made me like them more. it was done so well and artistically, and i'm sure bss wasn't doing it for the cash. the film, by the way, is amazing.
i know what you mean, and some people are dicks like that. i admit i kinda am. it comes with the idea that when you discover a band you like, it becomes YOUR band, and no one else can like them. i think i fought through the whole modest mouse thing alright (i was in a dizzy confused state for a year), but now i still love em. through counselling and pills, i did it. i should watch out for relapses though.
when i like a band/artist, there's more to it than just the music. i know that sounds silly, but there's other things involved, including how they present themselves, why they're making music, how they deal with the industry, and in this case, their integrity. it's all a bundle.
going back to hockey, without a doubt, pronger is one of the top, if not the best, defencemen in the league. we all know that. but right now, every oiler fan wants to club him in the skull. does that have anything to do with his hockey skills? no.
why do people not wear clothes made in india? i know that's a whole different story, and you can't even compare the two, but it's the same concept. are clothes from american apparel really of that much higher quality? (maybe a little). but it has everything to do with the source. some people feel this way about clothes, some people with music.
but does it have anything to do with the actual quality of the clothes? i know this is a whole different discussion, but it shows that with everything, there is more than just the output.
Holy crap this is awesome! Have I mentioned I miss you guys dearly?
Bloc Party is one of those bands that I totally dug, I listened to, I even bought the first album. And then, somehow, something happened, and like five days later I regretted the whole escapade and realized that I found them completely irritating. I'm not sure what it was that happened. I had this initital adoration that was so short lived that in the end, I just can't even listen to it anymore.
I personally feel like the indie scene is super hard on the bands they champion, but I have to say I'm kind of straddling the fence on this one.
I have to agree with Marc on the point that it doesn't make sense to abandon an artist when they foray into the world of major labels. I mean, the new Decemberists album is a perfect example, and whether you like Death Cab for Cutie or not, their musical output hasn't suffered tremendously from existing on a major. I also think that some artists can get away with having their work used commercially. I was certainly disappointed to hear Spoon on a commercial once, but it hasn't been detrimental to my enjoyment of their music.
On the other hand, I think what you're getting at Andrew is an issue of sincerity of intent. That's where the part that comes behind the music exists, in my opinion. So when you're saying you listen to an artist and it's for more than just the music, I think it's about that. What are their intentions?
I would argue that there are a lot of artists who do have very sincere intentions. I mean, listen to Ys. Of course, does anybody actually think she was trying to cash in the big one with that album? Of course not. It would probably be a complete financial catastrophe on the majors. But I don't think that every major label artist is only around to hit the cash register.
I think intention comes through clearly in music, and though that might not be important to some people, it is important to me. It's like walking into a commercial art gallery and seeing a bunch of hokey Canadian landscape paintings, and you have to wonder to yourself, "hmm, was this person really trying to say something? or were they just producing paintings they knew would sell to some joe who likes the look of the mountains?" I think that "art" needs to have intent. Even if the intent is just to make beautiful stuff, that's still an intention. Music can be purely about aesthetics. It doesn't always need to have a message or a deep meaning, but it certainly can.
In the end, I just care that the artist is saying something. Somehow. And I think it matters to me why they're making music. It affects my enjoyment of something, just as when I stare at a black square on a piece of white canvas by Malevich, I can appreciate the Suprematist movement. Or when I look at a fucking lightbulb in a corner by Dan Flavin, I can see he was trying to make a statement about reductionism and simplicity of form.
It has to matter. But I think that mattering can mean a lot of different things.
That's my two cents. Now I have to go write my Architectural Structures exam. Go span/depth!
and if they said yes to that, yes they would like to support and help mass market the production and purchasing of vehicles, and maybe make a buck off of it too, then things get messy.
and cmon, do you really think that an executive was touched by bloc party's music. he or she most likely was like, hmmm...what are kids listening to these days. let's find music that will somehow hit home with that easily impressionable demographic.
Uhh... nope, they still suck. And nope, my comment had nothing to do with anything I read on Pitchfork. In fact, as far as I know, there hasn't been much buzz about Bloc Party's decision to license their stuff at all, I just despise car commercials.
But do you know what I despise more? Bloc Party. WHY? Because the guy can't sing worth shit. End of story.
My problem with licensing songs is related to the art vs. design debate. Art is made for art's sake. Design is form meeting fuction. The reason hipster people are drawn to indie music is because they have the illusion that it is a truer form of expression. It's supposedly not filtered by corporate agendas (agendae? agendi?). However, when it's used in a commercial, it becomes a vehicle for a company to sell a product and therefore loses it's legitimacy and appeal as art.
I don't think Run DMC wrote 'My adidas' for Adidas. I think they wrote the song and adidas picked up on it. Remember, Run DMC is credited with breaking hip hop into the mainstream. Using them in this debate is tricky, it illustrates a connection between commercial entities and music but under false pretenses.
Whoa, just to clarify, I think that admiring something for aesthetic purposes is perfectly fine. I think you may have misread me Mr. Benoza. There have been throughout the history of art, many arguments over art for beauty's sake. That's why there are still battles in conceptual art. Because some people believe that it only the idea counts and that the physical production of it is extranneous.
That's not my argument. I think there is room for pure aesthetic indulgence in the art world, including in the music world. All I said, was I prefer music that combines concept with beauty, and I don't think that all music does that. Now, whether that combination is better found from major label or independent artists is another question. I would argue that independent artists have more freedom to express their messages without the pressures of corporate executives breathing down their neck. Though the indpenedent artist may suffer from monetary concerns of their own, I think it's pretty obvious that most people who are putting a record out there are doing so because they want to.
By the way, I love Dan Flavin. And by the way, his pieces are worth a lot of money, and that doesn't disaude me from enjoying his work. But I think it's important to recognize that the debate between creating with sincerity and creating for commercialism is still raging in every facet of the art world.
Why do you think Warhol was so successful? Because he totally took the idea of art as a precious thing and said, "hey, fuck all you, I'm going to make art a commodity." So he started an art factory and pumped shit out constantly and made three hours movies of himself sitting on a chair and he watched as everyone consumed it and he became an icon and everything played right into his hands. The reason it worked is exactly the same reason this conversation is happening.
I don't think there is anything wrong with making money for your craft. But I do believe that one needs to be careful where they're selling their goods.
22 comments:
Yeah, that album kind of blowz. Maybe Bloc Party should spend less time living and more time dying. That might seem unusally harsh, but you have to bear in mind that they licensed their music for a car commercial.
Pat++
PS: They suck live. A lot.
errrm
GAWL A CAR COMMERCIAL?! THAT SONG SUKS NOW PITCHFORK SAID SO GUYZ.
Seriously, with mex on this one. Liking music because no one else does is just as bad as hating music because it's popular.
You know what will be cool? When liking music purely on its own merits becomes so rare that its the new 'indie'.
man, not saying i take either side in this, but you gotta think why some music or bands become popular these days. is it because of musical merit?
don't make me call you again lucas
yeah and if joanna newsom did decide to sell ys to a shitty pixar movie in order to make some extra cash, yeah, she would lose credibility...though the music would probably fit. it all depends on what you're supporting or backing up, and why you're doing it.
when broken social scene decided to soundtrack the whole half nelson movie, they didn't come off as "selling out" at all. man, it even made me like them more. it was done so well and artistically, and i'm sure bss wasn't doing it for the cash. the film, by the way, is amazing.
i know what you mean, and some people are dicks like that. i admit i kinda am. it comes with the idea that when you discover a band you like, it becomes YOUR band, and no one else can like them. i think i fought through the whole modest mouse thing alright (i was in a dizzy confused state for a year), but now i still love em. through counselling and pills, i did it. i should watch out for relapses though.
yeah, that's pretty much it. though the artwork quality doesn't change, the artist's credibility kinda does.
it happens everywhere. when cujo and dougie weight left for money, you can't tell me you didn't feel at least a little bit betrayed?
when i like a band/artist, there's more to it than just the music. i know that sounds silly, but there's other things involved, including how they present themselves, why they're making music, how they deal with the industry, and in this case, their integrity. it's all a bundle.
going back to hockey, without a doubt, pronger is one of the top, if not the best, defencemen in the league. we all know that. but right now, every oiler fan wants to club him in the skull. does that have anything to do with his hockey skills? no.
why do people not wear clothes made in india? i know that's a whole different story, and you can't even compare the two, but it's the same concept. are clothes from american apparel really of that much higher quality? (maybe a little). but it has everything to do with the source. some people feel this way about clothes, some people with music.
but does it have anything to do with the actual quality of the clothes? i know this is a whole different discussion, but it shows that with everything, there is more than just the output.
"i'll buy clothes that fit, that look good, that are comfortable. am i such a bad person for doing so?"
some people would think so. i personally, don't care that much.
Holy crap this is awesome! Have I mentioned I miss you guys dearly?
Bloc Party is one of those bands that I totally dug, I listened to, I even bought the first album. And then, somehow, something happened, and like five days later I regretted the whole escapade and realized that I found them completely irritating. I'm not sure what it was that happened. I had this initital adoration that was so short lived that in the end, I just can't even listen to it anymore.
I personally feel like the indie scene is super hard on the bands they champion, but I have to say I'm kind of straddling the fence on this one.
I have to agree with Marc on the point that it doesn't make sense to abandon an artist when they foray into the world of major labels. I mean, the new Decemberists album is a perfect example, and whether you like Death Cab for Cutie or not, their musical output hasn't suffered tremendously from existing on a major. I also think that some artists can get away with having their work used commercially. I was certainly disappointed to hear Spoon on a commercial once, but it hasn't been detrimental to my enjoyment of their music.
On the other hand, I think what you're getting at Andrew is an issue of sincerity of intent. That's where the part that comes behind the music exists, in my opinion. So when you're saying you listen to an artist and it's for more than just the music, I think it's about that. What are their intentions?
I would argue that there are a lot of artists who do have very sincere intentions. I mean, listen to Ys. Of course, does anybody actually think she was trying to cash in the big one with that album? Of course not. It would probably be a complete financial catastrophe on the majors. But I don't think that every major label artist is only around to hit the cash register.
I think intention comes through clearly in music, and though that might not be important to some people, it is important to me. It's like walking into a commercial art gallery and seeing a bunch of hokey Canadian landscape paintings, and you have to wonder to yourself, "hmm, was this person really trying to say something? or were they just producing paintings they knew would sell to some joe who likes the look of the mountains?" I think that "art" needs to have intent. Even if the intent is just to make beautiful stuff, that's still an intention. Music can be purely about aesthetics. It doesn't always need to have a message or a deep meaning, but it certainly can.
In the end, I just care that the artist is saying something. Somehow. And I think it matters to me why they're making music. It affects my enjoyment of something, just as when I stare at a black square on a piece of white canvas by Malevich, I can appreciate the Suprematist movement. Or when I look at a fucking lightbulb in a corner by Dan Flavin, I can see he was trying to make a statement about reductionism and simplicity of form.
It has to matter. But I think that mattering can mean a lot of different things.
That's my two cents. Now I have to go write my Architectural Structures exam. Go span/depth!
and if they said yes to that, yes they would like to support and help mass market the production and purchasing of vehicles, and maybe make a buck off of it too, then things get messy.
and cmon, do you really think that an executive was touched by bloc party's music. he or she most likely was like, hmmm...what are kids listening to these days. let's find music that will somehow hit home with that easily impressionable demographic.
Why is bryan always the smartest dude in the room? Love that kid.
Uhh... nope, they still suck. And nope, my comment had nothing to do with anything I read on Pitchfork. In fact, as far as I know, there hasn't been much buzz about Bloc Party's decision to license their stuff at all, I just despise car commercials.
But do you know what I despise more? Bloc Party. WHY? Because the guy can't sing worth shit. End of story.
PAT++
My problem with licensing songs is related to the art vs. design debate. Art is made for art's sake. Design is form meeting fuction. The reason hipster people are drawn to indie music is because they have the illusion that it is a truer form of expression. It's supposedly not filtered by corporate agendas (agendae? agendi?). However, when it's used in a commercial, it becomes a vehicle for a company to sell a product and therefore loses it's legitimacy and appeal as art.
BTW, I trash cat power for the same reason here.
this is ridiculous
I don't think Run DMC wrote 'My adidas' for Adidas. I think they wrote the song and adidas picked up on it. Remember, Run DMC is credited with breaking hip hop into the mainstream. Using them in this debate is tricky, it illustrates a connection between commercial entities and music but under false pretenses.
Whoa, just to clarify, I think that admiring something for aesthetic purposes is perfectly fine. I think you may have misread me Mr. Benoza. There have been throughout the history of art, many arguments over art for beauty's sake. That's why there are still battles in conceptual art. Because some people believe that it only the idea counts and that the physical production of it is extranneous.
That's not my argument. I think there is room for pure aesthetic indulgence in the art world, including in the music world. All I said, was I prefer music that combines concept with beauty, and I don't think that all music does that. Now, whether that combination is better found from major label or independent artists is another question. I would argue that independent artists have more freedom to express their messages without the pressures of corporate executives breathing down their neck. Though the indpenedent artist may suffer from monetary concerns of their own, I think it's pretty obvious that most people who are putting a record out there are doing so because they want to.
By the way, I love Dan Flavin. And by the way, his pieces are worth a lot of money, and that doesn't disaude me from enjoying his work. But I think it's important to recognize that the debate between creating with sincerity and creating for commercialism is still raging in every facet of the art world.
Why do you think Warhol was so successful? Because he totally took the idea of art as a precious thing and said, "hey, fuck all you, I'm going to make art a commodity." So he started an art factory and pumped shit out constantly and made three hours movies of himself sitting on a chair and he watched as everyone consumed it and he became an icon and everything played right into his hands. The reason it worked is exactly the same reason this conversation is happening.
I don't think there is anything wrong with making money for your craft. But I do believe that one needs to be careful where they're selling their goods.
Question:
Are TV commercials considered art/artistic?
Post a Comment