Album Rating: 4.5
The art cover comes off as shock value at most.
The music however is sounding nice. I'm listening to a stream of the album on Soundcloud and the beats on here are to die for!
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.5
I can't say I understand why it isn't necessary to "go deeper". Isn't all music aural art by design? The organization of natural tones and rhythms into a linear structure is what all artist do, so if the tones are read in accordance with its inherent code (the things that are naturally associated with it) shouldn't all music be read on a deeper level? Even guitar bands like the Arctic Monkeys or The Strokes can and should be read on such a level considering that their sounds hark back to something of a sociological plane.
And specifically to listen to THIS album without that mindset is kind of defeating the purpose. She herself spoke of music advancing the unconscious mind into the physical (ie aural plane) as a means of creating a singular Other. Isn't that the natural basis of music criticism? To see how well the music that has been written ties the listener's/society's unconscious to the real?
I don't mean this to be confrontational, but I find the reading of Laurel's album especially on other sites to be disturbingly droll.
Because there's more than enough going on here that you could just as easily enjoy it at face value as much as you could while knowing every detail about it. I don't need to know every little detail about an album before I hear it, and no one needs to read a thesis before they can begin to enjoy an album. My comment also didn't indicate that the only way to get any enjoyment out of it is to go inception on it, I simply pointed out that at the end of the day this is still an album filled with music and comprised of tracks - it should be treated in the same way as every other album. Listen to it, and see if you enjoy it
|
| |
Album Rating: 2.5
Just can't get into this girl's voice, unfortunately.
|
| |
@Deviant. - That's not really what I'm getting at. Her sound palette and delivery is shrouded in codes. That is to say, yes one can easily sit through the album, but because of what is being done and said those things should come to mind. One does not simply listen to Kid A. I think it is fairly automatic for one to realize that the album held a post-911 perspective, fear of the Other, destruction of the Bourgeoisie starting a snowball effect down to the proletariat. What I mean is, those albums shouldn't have to be explained, but people isn't on not listening to albums only making them background music; which I find ironic since they essentially are the soundtrack of the times.
Surely, one understands that the bands like the Alabama Shakes are the last phase in the so-called indie movement - they've put guitar/ indie music on life support and Laurel Halo, Julia Holter and James Blake are the next phase of "pop/indie".
Isn't it the job of the critic to read the codes that are being put on display by artist and then placing them in the rhizome accordingly? Or is this an example of more bastardizing of Barthes' theories.
You're advocating that the album as a listening experience and the album as a cultural marking point are two different things. Everything is text and must be read accordingly.
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.5
That is to say, yes one can easily sit through the album, but because of what is being done and said those things should come to mind.
Yes, but if they do come to mind they should be on the listener's own terms. Running around and saying well "the artist clearly speaks in codes and you can't just listen to this album" is the worst way to sell anything. If that's how you see the album then good for you, and I'm happy to hear and talk about how you perceive the album at great length.
One does not simply listen to Kid A.
I fucking walked through Mordor, what you gonna do??
I think it is fairly automatic for one to realize that the album held a post-911 perspective, fear of the Other, destruction of the Bourgeoisie starting a snowball effect down to the proletariat. What I mean is, those albums shouldn't have to be explained, but people isn't on not listening to albums only making them background music; which I find ironic since they essentially are the soundtrack of the times.
We all know the concept (or at the very least) the idea behind that album, but you're missing the point of being able to simply enjoy the album (or any album) simply for the sake of it being good music. Sometimes it's simply exhausting, and truthfully I sometimes enjoy throwing on something and just drifting away to it and not worrying about the implications or the intentions that the artist is trying to convey
Surely, one understands that the bands like the Alabama Shakes are the last phase in the so-called indie movement - they've put guitar/ indie music on life support and Laurel Halo, Julia Holter and James Blake are the next phase of "pop/indie".
Cool (high five?)
Isn't it the job of the critic to read the codes that are being put on display by artist and then placing them in the rhizome accordingly? Or is this an example of more bastardizing of Barthes' theories.
I've already given my thoughts on the album in case you hadn't noticed. I'm simply pointing out that understanding isn't a necessity. People are still able to enjoy things without the fullest of insights
You're advocating that the album as a listening experience and the album as a cultural marking point are two different things. Everything is text and must be read accordingly.
Oh god.....
I'm advocating that this album is a humbling and compelling experience to endure (?), I leave the rest to however the individual wishes to address it
|
| |
And the individual has no credibility to say what they feel about an album or art for that matter. The signifiers and pure intellectual laziness are ruling this think we call criticism. Rather than searching for a singular path we are please with simply enjoying the album. One should bath in it's objective qualities to become better versed in themselves, and criticism breaks down art so that the masses can understand that. Postmodern jokes and pleasure aren't the route to singularity.
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.5
You're the person from cleverbot aren't you? Be honest
|
| |
I'm really digging this. Review is very well done.
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
I was quite disappointed in this album at first, but I kept listening and it really grew one me. Unfortunately I felt the vocals and instrumentals clashed a lot on the album because otherwise it would be perfect. There's a lot of great beats on the album but they get drowned out by obnoxious vocals. She has a beautiful voice, and I really thought the vocal manipulation was an amazing effect... though I think she pushed the vocal aspects a bit too much in comparison to the rest of the elements of the music. I'm 90% sure her follow-up to this will be perfect on the bright side.
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.5
Light + Space is still the best song of the year. Without a doubt in my mind.
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
I smell a grower
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
yep this is growing on me pretty pimpishly
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.0
And the individual has no credibility to say what they feel about an album or art for that matter. The signifiers and pure intellectual laziness are ruling this think we call criticism. Rather than searching for a singular path we are please with simply enjoying the album. One should bath in it's objective qualities to become better versed in themselves, and criticism breaks down art so that the masses can understand that. Postmodern jokes and pleasure aren't the route to singularity.
lol
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0 | Sound Off
dev you should review chance of rain
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.5
You're not the first person to say that
|
| |
I'll be the next...
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.5
I still find this fascinating. And 'Light + Space' is a great closer.
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.5
this is amazing tbh, her voice is fucking awful but somehow works so well
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
its grotesque and it is beautiful
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
words are just words
|
| |
|
|
