Author Topic: Musicological banter  (Read 863841 times)

BrettnotBritt

  • Member
  • Posts: 459
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #210 on: September 12, 2013, 12:29:24 pm »
Pitchfork just sucks.

What's hilarious/sad is that they rewrite their own history by scrubbing older reviews from their archvies. It's like they're embarrassed they reviewed a Less Than Jake or Sir Mix-A-Lot album and have to maintain this elite indie presence.

Because yes, this happened: http://web.archive.org/web/20000816190320/www.pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/s/sir-mix-a-lot/return-of-the-bumpasaurus.shtml

sweetcell

  • Member
  • Posts: 21397
  • I don't belong here.
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #211 on: September 12, 2013, 12:45:16 pm »
Pitchfork just sucks.

What's hilarious/sad is that they rewrite their own history by scrubbing older reviews from their archvies. It's like they're embarrassed they reviewed a Less Than Jake or Sir Mix-A-Lot album and have to maintain this elite indie presence.

Because yes, this happened: http://web.archive.org/web/20000816190320/www.pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/s/sir-mix-a-lot/return-of-the-bumpasaurus.shtml

wow.  well that's embarrassing (that they scrub their archives, not that they liked mixalot's disappointing 1996 album)
<sig>

azaghal1981

  • Member
  • Posts: 12034
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #212 on: September 12, 2013, 02:44:20 pm »
Pitchfork just sucks.

What's hilarious/sad is that they rewrite their own history by scrubbing older reviews from their archvies. It's like they're embarrassed they reviewed a Less Than Jake or Sir Mix-A-Lot album and have to maintain this elite indie presence.

Because yes, this happened: http://web.archive.org/web/20000816190320/www.pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/s/sir-mix-a-lot/return-of-the-bumpasaurus.shtml
That is pretty funny and sad.
احمد

hutch

  • Guest
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #213 on: September 13, 2013, 09:32:14 am »
can't believe there are still lawsuits over samples on pauls boutique

http://movies.yahoo.com/news/beastie-boys-cant-escape-pauls-boutique-sampling-lawsuit-050000640.html

killsaly

  • Guest
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #214 on: September 13, 2013, 10:28:30 am »
Mercury Prize nominees out.
It's a tough year to pick a hands down winner.
Disclosure would probably be my pick today.

Arctic Monkeys: AM
David Bowie: The Next Day
Disclosure: Settle
Foals: Holy Fire
Jake Bugg: Jake Bugg
James Blake: Overgrown
Jon Hopkins: Immunity
Laura Marling: Once I Was an Eagle
Laura Mvula: Sing to the Moon
Rudimental: Home
Savages: Silence Yourself
Villagers: Awayland
I have not heard a single album on that list...

And in other Mercury Prize News:
http://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/sep/13/my-bloody-valentine-slams-mercury-prize
Quote
"Isn't Mercury a phone company or something, anyway? What's that got to do with music?" Shields said in an exclusive interview. "We're banned by them, and do you know why? Because we're not on Amazon or iTunes. That's one of the qualifying criteria. You have to have major distribution or be on iTunes or Amazon."

Shields may be correct. According to the terms and conditions on the Mercury website, qualifying albums will have "a digital and physical distribution deal in place in the UK". My Bloody Valentine, who self-released their album, only sold the digital version of mbv through their own website. This may not be considered a "digital distribution deal".

"We released our record, mbv, independently," Shields said. My Bloody Valentine didn't even rely on an indie label such as Domino or Alcopop! Records. "It's interesting to learn that to be as independent as we are is ? virtually illegal," he said. "It's not a real record. Our album's not a real album because it's independent. The corporate-ness has got to such a point where we've essentially been told that we don't exist. So, technically, that album doesn't exist. OK? It's not allowed to exist according to the Mercury prize."

azaghal1981

  • Member
  • Posts: 12034
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #215 on: September 13, 2013, 10:41:30 am »
He is right in that completely independently released albums should be considered but his going on to essentially call the Mercury Prize a curse kind of negates his argument, no? If you don't want it, why complain about not being nominated for it?
احمد

bearman🐻

  • Member
  • Posts: 5407
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #216 on: September 17, 2013, 10:35:58 am »
For DFA1979...nice interview with Josh and Dean from QOTSA here:

https://soundcloud.com/thestromboshow/stromboshow-sept15-2013

azaghal1981

  • Member
  • Posts: 12034
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #217 on: September 17, 2013, 11:41:13 am »
This speaker list for the Future of Music Coalition conference looks great. http://t.co/lJZtg44AFS
احمد

Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #218 on: September 17, 2013, 11:49:08 am »
This speaker list for the Future of Music Coalition conference looks great. http://t.co/lJZtg44AFS

nice, sandy Perlman and Wayne Kramer are guests
The Keynote speakers look pretty dry...
local music showcase..but doesn't have any details
slack

azaghal1981

  • Member
  • Posts: 12034
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #219 on: September 17, 2013, 11:57:54 am »
John Conyers could be good.
احمد

wml7

  • Member
  • Posts: 3049

atomic

  • Member
  • Posts: 2093
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #221 on: September 17, 2013, 12:42:53 pm »
For DFA1979...nice interview with Josh and Dean from QOTSA here:

https://soundcloud.com/thestromboshow/stromboshow-sept15-2013

More of the story here
http://consequenceofsound.net/2013/09/someone-actually-hates-jay-z-and-his-name-is-josh-homme/

Not worth reading.  Ok so you don't like getting gifts of 300 dollar bottles of champagne.

James Ford

  • Member
  • Posts: 5620
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #222 on: September 17, 2013, 12:50:13 pm »
Every time I read something about that Josh Homme guy, he's always hating someone or wanting to punch someone. Seems like he needs to grow the fuck up.

bearman🐻

  • Member
  • Posts: 5407
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #223 on: September 17, 2013, 01:53:53 pm »
Every time I read something about that Josh Homme guy, he's always hating someone or wanting to punch someone. Seems like he needs to grow the fuck up.

Who ever said rock'n'roll was nice? Since when did everyone need to get along? Someone throws shit at him at his concert and he sticks up for himself. Seems justified. He's about to do a festival and feels like he's being treated like a criminal as he's about to get on the stage that'll be his for the next 60 minutes. Conveying that he's annoyed likewise seems legit. There's a TON of other interesting info to the interview that is way more relevant, but he makes one stray observation and the media wants to turn it into a feud just because he had the balls to express a feeling about someone that nobody else will say an unkind thing about. Sometimes people wear the black hat but it doesn't mean they are an evil person. Watch "Crossfire Hurricane", the Stones documentary. Rock'n'roll may be a dying genre, but that doesn't mean everyone is done writing the epilogue.

i am gay and i like cats

  • Guest
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #224 on: September 17, 2013, 02:51:58 pm »
can't believe there are still lawsuits over samples on pauls boutique

http://movies.yahoo.com/news/beastie-boys-cant-escape-pauls-boutique-sampling-lawsuit-050000640.html

yeah . . . stealing is weird that way.