Daft Punk - Random Access Memories

  On 5/14/2013 at 10:32 PM, logakght said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_Access_Memories

 

holy shit. is the "Reception" a troll?

If you go onto Metacritic and take the average of the scores, it is actually 84 (total of 920 points for 11 reviews). How are they getting 90 from that?

  On 5/15/2013 at 7:31 PM, Ceerial said:

 

WTF is wrong with Metacritic? The average based on the 13 reviews is 83 (1080 divided by 13).

How much is Columbia records paying them to fudge their score?

  On 5/15/2013 at 7:26 PM, Friendly Foil said:

Man, I don't like this album AT ALL. It makes me so ANGRY.

No, their condesention towards music made with computers angers me.

  On 5/15/2013 at 7:31 PM, SR4 said:

 

  On 5/15/2013 at 7:23 PM, ZombieLincoln666 said:

The album is fucking kitsch garbage. The journalists who are trying to make Daft Punk out to be innovators are morons who know nothing about the history of house music. Even their old albums were nothing more than samples of entire funk/disco choruses with a minimal amount of work done: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwholYaw1Pw

 

So excuse me if hearing all this nonsense about how they are going to 'give life back to music' (or more accurately, muzak) makes me want to vomit. To top it off, they still have to rely on multiple collaboraters to write music.

 

 

have you ever heard the absolutely badass vocalized breakdown at the end of HFBS? that makes the whole damn thing, the loop was just a lead up.

 

ever listen to rap?

 

The loop is the entire basis for the entire song - so much so that Edwin Birdsong is credited as a co-writer. The vocoder part would be annoying if not for it.

I listen to a ton of rap, and I've never heard that type of ctrl-c ctrl-v sampling before. This would be the equivalent of loading the original song into an MPC and hitting a single pad once every 4 measures...

This album is really weird

  On 5/15/2013 at 9:33 PM, Wyern said:

This album is really weird

I was telling my wife last night that I listened to it a couple more times, then I had a massive brainfart, and all I could say was "it's a weird album." But it really fucking is.

That's why I like it, tbh. Actually I like it for most of the reasons why you guys hate it. The dad rock thing crossed my mind while I was listening and I thought 'awesome'; the pedal steel guitar in Fragments of Time is fucking excellent (then again I love pedal steel in general); and regarding the 'exact 70s pastiche', well I can relate to it because I'm currently working on an exact sound design clone of Ripples by Genesis, but I don't have any budget so it's not gonna be nearly as close as I want it to be :p

all the tracks are just badly written, forget about the fucking production and the 70s gimmick

  On 5/15/2013 at 8:32 PM, ZombieLincoln666 said:

 

  On 5/15/2013 at 7:31 PM, SR4 said:

 

  On 5/15/2013 at 7:23 PM, ZombieLincoln666 said:

The album is fucking kitsch garbage. The journalists who are trying to make Daft Punk out to be innovators are morons who know nothing about the history of house music. Even their old albums were nothing more than samples of entire funk/disco choruses with a minimal amount of work done: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwholYaw1Pw

 

So excuse me if hearing all this nonsense about how they are going to 'give life back to music' (or more accurately, muzak) makes me want to vomit. To top it off, they still have to rely on multiple collaboraters to write music.

 

 

have you ever heard the absolutely badass vocalized breakdown at the end of HFBS? that makes the whole damn thing, the loop was just a lead up.

 

ever listen to rap?

 

 

The loop is the entire basis for the entire song - so much so that Edwin Birdsong is credited as a co-writer. The vocoder part would be annoying if not for it.

 

I listen to a ton of rap, and I've never heard that type of ctrl-c ctrl-v sampling before. This would be the equivalent of loading the original song into an MPC and hitting a single pad once every 4 measures...

 

wow, well I certainly disagree with you on that, regardless of the quality of the new album.

  On 5/15/2013 at 10:55 PM, noise said:

all the tracks are just badly written, forget about the fucking production and the 70s gimmick

...could you elaborate?

  On 5/15/2013 at 8:32 PM, ZombieLincoln666 said:

 

  On 5/15/2013 at 7:31 PM, SR4 said:

 

  On 5/15/2013 at 7:23 PM, ZombieLincoln666 said:

The album is fucking kitsch garbage. The journalists who are trying to make Daft Punk out to be innovators are morons who know nothing about the history of house music. Even their old albums were nothing more than samples of entire funk/disco choruses with a minimal amount of work done: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwholYaw1Pw

 

So excuse me if hearing all this nonsense about how they are going to 'give life back to music' (or more accurately, muzak) makes me want to vomit. To top it off, they still have to rely on multiple collaboraters to write music.

 

 

have you ever heard the absolutely badass vocalized breakdown at the end of HFBS? that makes the whole damn thing, the loop was just a lead up.

 

ever listen to rap?

 

 

The loop is the entire basis for the entire song - so much so that Edwin Birdsong is credited as a co-writer. The vocoder part would be annoying if not for it.

 

I listen to a ton of rap, and I've never heard that type of ctrl-c ctrl-v sampling before. This would be the equivalent of loading the original song into an MPC and hitting a single pad once every 4 measures...

 

Well that's all well and good but we're talking about Random Memory Access, not Discovery.

To make it clear - I think this is a good album, it's just remarkably inessential. It's not what I wanted to hear personally but that's not fair for me to inject in my criticism of it. A lot of really positive or really negative reviews seem to be based off personal bias to the point where objective facts are either ignored or flat-out denied, and I find that very annoying. These tracks are structurally as well-written and musically complex, if not more so actually, than their previous work. Now I think it's a valid debate regarding the aesthetic and their overall concept for the album, it's relevance, their artistic merits, etc and we should discuss that.

One last thought, and I'm sure it's been touched upon already - but I'm realizing this album has less and less to do with their previous 3 - in the past they were always rooted in house music. Discovery had it's moments of what is the core of Random Access Memories with the saccharine and very 70s sounding synth solo on "Digital Love" (using the same Wurlitzer model Supertramp used) or the guitar plucking on "Something About Us." Without actually saying it, they've made a pretty deliberate decision to completely abandon their house roots, which they notably cited in the past, and in their effort to give "life back to music" they embraced some of the most quintessential and stereotypical pop sounds from decades ago. It's almost like they've said "we're making real music and therefore this is not club music" but I doubt they meant that at all. Surely some will make that claim and call it an odd sort of selling out.

  On 5/15/2013 at 11:23 PM, joshuatx said:

Well that's all well and good but we're talking about Random Memory Access, not Discovery.

 

To make it clear - I think this is a good album, it's just remarkably inessential. It's not what I wanted to hear personally but that's not fair for me to inject in my criticism of it. A lot of really positive or really negative reviews seem to be based off personal bias to the point where objective facts are either ignored or flat-out denied, and I find that very annoying. These tracks are structurally as well-written and musically complex, if not more so actually, than their previous work. Now I think it's a valid debate regarding the aesthetic and their overall concept for the album, it's relevance, their artistic merits, etc and we should discuss that.

 

One last thought, and I'm sure it's been touched upon already - but I'm realizing this album has less and less to do with their previous 3 - in the past they were always rooted in house music. Discovery had it's moments of what is the core of Random Access Memories with the saccharine and very 70s sounding synth solo on "Digital Love" (using the same Wurlitzer model Supertramp used) or the guitar plucking on "Something About Us." Without actually saying it, they've made a pretty deliberate decision to completely abandon their house roots, which they notably cited in the past, and in their effort to give "life back to music" they embraced some of the most quintessential and stereotypical pop sounds from decades ago. It's almost like they've said "we're making real music and therefore this is not club music" but I doubt they meant that at all. Surely some will make that claim and call it an odd sort of selling out.

 

I should have elaborated, my criticism was on what they said in interviews about RAM: http://pitchfork.com/features/cover-story/reader/daft-punk/

They criticized computers/laptops as being too easy to make music, and say the music created with them is lifeless and disposable. It is quite a hypocritical thing to say when the music that made them famous was just about the easiest type of music to make. I never had personal bias for them until they started saying all these condescending and pretentious things. I mean, how can they criticize laptop musicians for not playing "real instruments" when they have to hire musicians to do it? They wouldn't have money had they not sampled songs from other musicians.

But regardless, the new album is bad. I disagree that they've abandoned their house roots... House's roots is disco. House started as a post disco movement - conincidently in Chicago, which is also where disco died: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disco_Demolition_Night

i like it quite a lot

  On 5/15/2013 at 11:39 PM, ZombieLincoln666 said:

 

  On 5/15/2013 at 11:23 PM, joshuatx said:

Well that's all well and good but we're talking about Random Memory Access, not Discovery.

 

To make it clear - I think this is a good album, it's just remarkably inessential. It's not what I wanted to hear personally but that's not fair for me to inject in my criticism of it. A lot of really positive or really negative reviews seem to be based off personal bias to the point where objective facts are either ignored or flat-out denied, and I find that very annoying. These tracks are structurally as well-written and musically complex, if not more so actually, than their previous work. Now I think it's a valid debate regarding the aesthetic and their overall concept for the album, it's relevance, their artistic merits, etc and we should discuss that.

 

One last thought, and I'm sure it's been touched upon already - but I'm realizing this album has less and less to do with their previous 3 - in the past they were always rooted in house music. Discovery had it's moments of what is the core of Random Access Memories with the saccharine and very 70s sounding synth solo on "Digital Love" (using the same Wurlitzer model Supertramp used) or the guitar plucking on "Something About Us." Without actually saying it, they've made a pretty deliberate decision to completely abandon their house roots, which they notably cited in the past, and in their effort to give "life back to music" they embraced some of the most quintessential and stereotypical pop sounds from decades ago. It's almost like they've said "we're making real music and therefore this is not club music" but I doubt they meant that at all. Surely some will make that claim and call it an odd sort of selling out.

 

 

I should have elaborated, my criticism was on what they said in interviews about RAM: http://pitchfork.com/features/cover-story/reader/daft-punk/

 

They criticized computers/laptops as being too easy to make music, and say the music created with them is lifeless and disposable. It is quite a hypocritical thing to say when the music that made them famous was just about the easiest type of music to make. I never had personal bias for them until they started saying all these condescending and pretentious things. I mean, how can they criticize laptop musicians for not playing "real instruments" when they have to hire musicians to do it? They wouldn't have money had they not sampled songs from other musicians.

 

But regardless, the new album is bad. I disagree that they've abandoned their house roots... House's roots is disco. House started as a post disco movement - conincidently in Chicago, which is also where disco died: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disco_Demolition_Night

 

To me Daft Punk were the Skrillex of their era. Even Fatboy Slim and the Chemical Brothers are more reputable musicians. I never did nor still do not understand how Daft Punk escaped being totally left in the dust in terms of long term electronic music fan appreciation.

It must feel nice to be someone like Autechre (just an example dont jump on me) and witness the reaction to this album, Daft Punk being called innovators for doing some retro-bullshit that has been done before a million times while there are true artists out there that are true innovators and they dont get the recognition this bullshit album is getting.

  On 5/15/2013 at 11:44 PM, John Ehrlichman said:

 

I never did nor still do not understand how Daft Punk escaped being totally left in the dust in terms of long term electronic music fan appreciation.

Really good image management.

sure smells spergy in here

  On 5/16/2013 at 12:02 AM, kaini said:

sure smells spermy in here

fixt

i don't find this album "weird" or "good" at all. it's a total failure imo. they've created a completely tepid and derivative album, i genuinely see nothing about it to like. i mean seriously, tracks like "loose yourself to dance" reveal that without hooks sampled from other musicians these guys are barely more than amateurs. the song-writing is just so utterly dull. haha, "loose yourself to dance" is mind-blowingly bad.

9/10

obligatory rolling

lol

lol

lol yourself to dance

  On 5/15/2013 at 7:31 PM, Ceerial said:

 

Well, looks like the hype machine worked and didn't backfire at all.

I'm fine if this album manages to make acid jazz and italo disco a trend (again).

oops, i meant lol

  On 5/15/2013 at 11:51 PM, Deer said:

It must feel nice to be someone like Autechre (just an example dont jump on me) and witness the reaction to this album, Daft Punk being called innovators for doing some retro-bullshit that has been done before a million times while there are true artists out there that are true innovators and they dont get the recognition this bullshit album is getting.

My father in law got me a subscription to Rolling Stone magazine (have no idea why). he knows I'm 'into music' so i guess that's why he got it for me. Anyways, the amount of times they hold up totally derivative and samey artist as 'innovative' is astounding as fuck. The way they talk about Frank Ocean or the Knife you'd think they were talking about fucking Stockhausen or something. It's beyond insane.