Hacker News Reader

Comment by nutshell89 | Hacker News Reader

I'm not quite sure I get it, the album itself is kind of...mid? It's 2+ hours of an aggressively boring take on the previous decade's music ideals desperately in need of an editor.

Honestly, it solidifies the ideal that with the vast quantity of new music released today, that if damn near every song isn't worth the listener's time, those songs don't belong on an album, they don't belong on a remix album, they don't belong on a deluxe edition, they really only have a place in live shows, livestreams, or anthologies when you're dead.

View on HN

Thirty-two tracks.

No real barrier to the distribution of music might just mean we're getting less curation from the artists. There was a "discipline" that 12" of vinyl imposed that I miss.

I was going back through Pink Floyd's discography the other day and was reminded that The Wall was a four record album! And yeah I do think that exception proves your rule. They coulda trimmed that up a wee bit.

*four sides, two records. And "only" 80 minutes (not derogatory, it's my favorite album).

also a favorite album of mine, and contains one of my favorite guitar solos in history ("Comfortably Numb")

the whole album is timeless, but that solo in particular has always stood out to me. David Gilmour almost evokes something ethereal in those notes.

imagine suggesting that pink floyd edit down the wall so it's shorter hahaha

Perhaps Taylor Swift chose a middle ground by releasing both a curated set of 16 tracks, then an anthology of 31 tracks.

That is a decision about streaming money.

Its a concept album that celebrates the last 60 years of music history. Understandably a lot happened in those decades and cramming all that onto a single LP would lead spirit of the beehive style insanity. I think a double LP makes tons of sense here, the album is only 2 hours long so not like the length is absolutely insane. Obviously its not the tightest, but I think that lets the influences shine even more.

Music critics also love concept albums, I think because they spend all day listening to music so something unique is especially intriguing to them.

Seems to only celebrate a tiny little slice of those 60 years of music history to my ears.

Here is discussion about a recent work that impressed me as art.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39930463

what do u think of this song? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y59XYOjU1Hs&t=170s

Not the person you are replying to, but that sounds like an attempt to combine Billy Eilish with Godspeed You Black Emperor, while not managing to capture the essence of either particularly well. The result is utterly uninspiring and boring.

have you ever heard of no wave ?

I'm not sure why you set the track playback to the middle of song, but it feels very literal. There's the "suffering" starting from 2:50 or so from the distortion of the guitars — I guess it reminds me of 56k modems, maybe?

But because that distortion fades completely by ~ 5:00, and the track ends at 7:30, it feels like 90 seconds of "dead space" so it feels incomplete if that makes any sense. It's a song which places its emphasis on the dead center of the track, but because it doesn't build on the distortion or play off of it — it kind of overstays it's welcome.

That’s fine. Not everyone needs to “get it”. Some like it. Some don’t. Cool.

It's always the people who like something that have a persecution complex when someone says their thing sucks. Maybe look inward for your answers.

I mean didn’t you just describe every performing artist ever?

OMG this. Why do people get so upset because someone else likes something that they don’t? It’s OK to like different things.

>Why do people get so upset

Probably because of the extraordinary reception mentioned in the article and the claim that's being made? This is apparently the highest rating Pitchfork has handed out in half a decade and it's supposed to be an indicator of a major shift in the music industry.

That's quite a lot and after having listened to it I have to agree with the original poster, I don't really get it either. I expected the next Bowie after those reviews.

Sadly, pitchfork has recently been gutted. Wouldn't be surprised if the new masters are doing this purely for PR...

Giving this album 9.1 is the most old-Pitchfork thing they've done in years. It's the anti-PR move to do.

Pitchfork was already past its prime in recent years, but seeing it gutted by Conde Naste is a bummer.

Have you found a good alternative?

Since when does calling a piece of music or artist mediocre indicate 'upset'?

It seems perfectly normal for a large portion of passing readers to simply not care that much either way.

That’s fair. GP doesn’t really seem that upset, they just don’t like the record.

When I wrote this I was coming off another comment where the commenter seemed genuinely upset over the distribution medium. I think a little bit of my sentiment about that post dribbled through.

Even so, I wish people were more live-and-let-live about very subjective things like music. It’s a big world and art is not zero-sum.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com