William Basinski - Disintegration Loops

  On 11/22/2012 at 10:12 AM, Friendly Foil said:

The picture on the cover is not even that tasteless. At least it's not one of those pics of people jumping out the windows, or of the explosion when the plane hits. This whole discussion is silly.

no- my point wasn't that the picture was (or wasn't) tasteless but rather about the sub-text in presenting it as part of this album.

  On 11/22/2012 at 5:26 PM, Alcofribas said:

  On 11/22/2012 at 11:06 AM, k h o v said:

well for nebraska : Steve reich made a fantastic record on the trains that crossed europe & america during world war 2 (yes, those trains), it's on Different Trains & its pretty personal too & quite strong indeed one of his best piece. on the Steve Reich matter, i think he changed a recent cover artwork because of 9/11, so yeah Basinski was quite respectful with the reissue cover art as it is what it is without being too obvious. i dont get the fuss about 9/11, as i dont think ambient artist can compose ONLY about airports & Koln forest.

 

did you hear the reich 9/11 piece? i love different trains and this seemed like a poor version of it.

yeah it was honestly really shocking to me when i heard it, it sounded like a VERY poor attempt to capture different trains using all these FAA and norad tapes I've already heard. I can't believe i bought the album.

  On 11/22/2012 at 8:40 PM, kinski said:

  On 11/22/2012 at 5:37 PM, Alcofribas said:

  On 11/21/2012 at 10:12 PM, sweepstakes said:

I seriously just thought it was kind of boring. Pleasant enough but rather than reducing me to tears as it seemed was the intended effect, I just skipped through it and was like, "yeah, OK, I get it."

 

Maybe I'm the problem it's not you, Disintegration Loops, it's me.

 

  On 11/21/2012 at 10:09 PM, Alcofribas said:

didn't MHTRTC get that score?

Lol yeah! After they had already given it like a 7.6 a few years before! Fuckin clowns

 

is it common for pitchfork to revise its reviews like that?

 

you guys do understand that the same person pretty much never reviews the same record twice there, so of course the rating is gonna change? especially after many years and staff changes? and they revise reviews only when there's reissue.

so the updated review rating was from some one else reviewing a reissue? i genuinely don't know how this works, just curious.

  On 11/22/2012 at 9:57 PM, Alcofribas said:

  On 11/22/2012 at 8:40 PM, kinski said:

  On 11/22/2012 at 5:37 PM, Alcofribas said:

  On 11/21/2012 at 10:12 PM, sweepstakes said:

I seriously just thought it was kind of boring. Pleasant enough but rather than reducing me to tears as it seemed was the intended effect, I just skipped through it and was like, "yeah, OK, I get it."

 

Maybe I'm the problem it's not you, Disintegration Loops, it's me.

 

  On 11/21/2012 at 10:09 PM, Alcofribas said:

didn't MHTRTC get that score?

Lol yeah! After they had already given it like a 7.6 a few years before! Fuckin clowns

 

is it common for pitchfork to revise its reviews like that?

 

you guys do understand that the same person pretty much never reviews the same record twice there, so of course the rating is gonna change? especially after many years and staff changes? and they revise reviews only when there's reissue.

 

so the updated review rating was from some one else reviewing a reissue? i genuinely don't know how this works, just curious.

yes.

  On 11/22/2012 at 10:10 PM, kinski said:

  On 11/22/2012 at 9:57 PM, Alcofribas said:

  On 11/22/2012 at 8:40 PM, kinski said:

  On 11/22/2012 at 5:37 PM, Alcofribas said:

  On 11/21/2012 at 10:12 PM, sweepstakes said:

I seriously just thought it was kind of boring. Pleasant enough but rather than reducing me to tears as it seemed was the intended effect, I just skipped through it and was like, "yeah, OK, I get it."

 

Maybe I'm the problem it's not you, Disintegration Loops, it's me.

 

  On 11/21/2012 at 10:09 PM, Alcofribas said:

didn't MHTRTC get that score?

Lol yeah! After they had already given it like a 7.6 a few years before! Fuckin clowns

 

is it common for pitchfork to revise its reviews like that?

 

you guys do understand that the same person pretty much never reviews the same record twice there, so of course the rating is gonna change? especially after many years and staff changes? and they revise reviews only when there's reissue.

 

so the updated review rating was from some one else reviewing a reissue? i genuinely don't know how this works, just curious.

 

yes.

It's still pretty stupid, IMO. Unless there was some serious flaw with the original that got rectified. Which I don't think was the case for either reissue.

Also, much as I love MHTRTC, I would not give it a 10/10. Can't think of a record I would. Not SAW2, and I rate that even higher. But that's just, like, my opinion, man, and as mentioned before, ratings are silly.

it is a bit daft to have different ratings like that. i mean, what's the point of that? it kind of relativises the standard

  On 11/22/2012 at 10:31 PM, sweepstakes said:

ratings are silly.

Yup.

Some of my favorite records have gotten terrible ratings on Pitchfork.

What does it mean if I love an album that got a 3.7? I have bad taste?

Or what if I don't like an album that they've given a 9.6? Am I a philistine?

Having a rating system is highly presumptuous on multiple levels.

ratings are definitely weird. i guess if you were really familiar with a particular reviewer and agreed with them it could be meaningful, idk

ps, NUCLEAR HOLOCAUST OMG

no i didnt heard that S.Reich record indeed...

  On 11/22/2012 at 11:31 PM, Alcofribas said:

ps, NUCLEAR HOLOCAUST OMG

Like this opportunistic clownshoe:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dp3BlFZWJNA

i'm actually gonna make the Roland rs09 piece the reviewer imagined. it'll be lush.

*hebrews*

  On 11/23/2012 at 12:04 AM, Alcofribas said:

i'm actually gonna make the Roland rs09 piece the reviewer imagined.

That would be da bomb.

  On 11/23/2012 at 12:08 AM, LimpyLoo said:

  On 11/23/2012 at 12:04 AM, Alcofribas said:

i'm actually gonna make the Roland rs09 piece the reviewer imagined.

 

 

That would be da bomb.

lush

lol

it's pretty much a done deal -- ambient records sell man

lol

  On 11/22/2012 at 10:31 PM, sweepstakes said:

  On 11/22/2012 at 10:10 PM, kinski said:

  On 11/22/2012 at 9:57 PM, Alcofribas said:

  On 11/22/2012 at 8:40 PM, kinski said:

  On 11/22/2012 at 5:37 PM, Alcofribas said:

  On 11/21/2012 at 10:12 PM, sweepstakes said:

I seriously just thought it was kind of boring. Pleasant enough but rather than reducing me to tears as it seemed was the intended effect, I just skipped through it and was like, "yeah, OK, I get it."

 

Maybe I'm the problem it's not you, Disintegration Loops, it's me.

 

  On 11/21/2012 at 10:09 PM, Alcofribas said:

didn't MHTRTC get that score?

Lol yeah! After they had already given it like a 7.6 a few years before! Fuckin clowns

 

is it common for pitchfork to revise its reviews like that?

 

you guys do understand that the same person pretty much never reviews the same record twice there, so of course the rating is gonna change? especially after many years and staff changes? and they revise reviews only when there's reissue.

 

so the updated review rating was from some one else reviewing a reissue? i genuinely don't know how this works, just curious.

 

yes.

It's still pretty stupid, IMO. Unless there was some serious flaw with the original that got rectified. Which I don't think was the case for either reissue.

 

Also, much as I love MHTRTC, I would not give it a 10/10. Can't think of a record I would. Not SAW2, and I rate that even higher. But that's just, like, my opinion, man, and as mentioned before, ratings are silly.

  On 11/22/2012 at 11:15 PM, Alcofribas said:

it is a bit daft to have different ratings like that. i mean, what's the point of that? it kind of relativises the standard

it's not stupid/daft. opinions change just as people change. and pitchfork never really tried too hard to present their opinions as facts, and were always open to admit their mistakes/revise their opinions/acknowledge an underrated classic.

and i have no idea why people flip out over ratings. it's just some numbers, is it really making a diference if it's 9.6 or 9.9?

the reviewer looks like a 70's private eye

  On 11/23/2012 at 9:42 AM, kinski said:

  On 11/22/2012 at 10:31 PM, sweepstakes said:

  On 11/22/2012 at 10:10 PM, kinski said:

  On 11/22/2012 at 9:57 PM, Alcofribas said:

  On 11/22/2012 at 8:40 PM, kinski said:

  On 11/22/2012 at 5:37 PM, Alcofribas said:

  On 11/21/2012 at 10:12 PM, sweepstakes said:

I seriously just thought it was kind of boring. Pleasant enough but rather than reducing me to tears as it seemed was the intended effect, I just skipped through it and was like, "yeah, OK, I get it."

 

Maybe I'm the problem it's not you, Disintegration Loops, it's me.

 

  On 11/21/2012 at 10:09 PM, Alcofribas said:

didn't MHTRTC get that score?

Lol yeah! After they had already given it like a 7.6 a few years before! Fuckin clowns

 

is it common for pitchfork to revise its reviews like that?

 

you guys do understand that the same person pretty much never reviews the same record twice there, so of course the rating is gonna change? especially after many years and staff changes? and they revise reviews only when there's reissue.

 

so the updated review rating was from some one else reviewing a reissue? i genuinely don't know how this works, just curious.

 

yes.

It's still pretty stupid, IMO. Unless there was some serious flaw with the original that got rectified. Which I don't think was the case for either reissue.

 

Also, much as I love MHTRTC, I would not give it a 10/10. Can't think of a record I would. Not SAW2, and I rate that even higher. But that's just, like, my opinion, man, and as mentioned before, ratings are silly.

 

 

  On 11/22/2012 at 11:15 PM, Alcofribas said:

it is a bit daft to have different ratings like that. i mean, what's the point of that? it kind of relativises the standard

 

it's not stupid/daft. opinions change just as people change. and pitchfork never really tried too hard to present their opinions as facts, and were always open to admit their mistakes/revise their opinions/acknowledge an underrated classic.

 

and i have no idea why people flip out over ratings. it's just some numbers, is it really making a diference if it's 9.6 or 9.9?

if the ratings are going to change over time and with different reviewers i just don't see the point of the rating system at all. it'd be like turning in a paper and getting a D but then the professor looks at it again in a year and gives you an A.

having different reviews and shit is cool but there's no point if you're like, "well, pitchfork gives this one a 7.6, 8.2 and 10."

And it seems sort of sycophantic to me for those albums in particular. They gave them positive but lukewarm ratings before. Now, after years of soaking in renown and influencing others, they acknowledge their importance by simply pulling out the arrow and sticking it where the bulls eye now appears to be, rather than admitting they missed the mark the first time.

Sorry I'm so heavy on the metaphor today, guys. I need to get back home and get grounded.

no, that was pretty good mate.

does pitchfork keep the older reviews up as well? or do they replace them with the new ones?

I think they removed the old MHTRTC one. Could be wrong though.

removed all up to 2001 i think, when redesigned. and if you can show a grading system that never changes i'd love to see it. every sort of music valuation is purely subjective so of course it will change over time. and if you don't see the point, hop on the tardis and travel back in time to slap the fuckers who first dared to subjectively rate things.

and you guys need to get one thing. pitchfork is not ONE DUDE doing all the work. it's SEVERAL PEOPLE. literally hundreds. they DON'T ALWAYS AGREE WITH EACHOTHER. really. it's not some deity, just a really big reviewing site with lots of power.

  On 11/23/2012 at 6:12 PM, sweepstakes said:

I think they removed the old MHTRTC one. Could be wrong though.

There's an 8.3 one here - http://web.archive.org/web/20000816163140/http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/b/boards-of-canada/music-has-the-right-to-children.shtml