Boards of Canada Boards of Canada - Tomorrow's Harvest

Music reviews are useless anyway. I don't understand the fascination with album scores.

But that's a different discussion.

  On 6/10/2013 at 1:19 PM, Ceerial said:

Music reviews are useless anyway. I don't understand the fascination with album scores.

 

But that's a different discussion.

Review scores are handy if you're really insecure about the stuff you like.

  On 6/10/2013 at 1:21 PM, Friendly Foil said:

 

  On 6/10/2013 at 1:19 PM, Ceerial said:

Music reviews are useless anyway. I don't understand the fascination with album scores.

 

But that's a different discussion.

Review scores are handy if you're really insecure about the stuff you like.

 

They're generally useful for albums that aren't that accessible imo. If I listen to an album, I don't like it first time and it's got a 5/10 from reviewers then I'm not going to waste my time with repeat listens. If it's got a 9/10 then I might think I'm missing something...

Music taste is such a subjective and personal thing, more so than movie, books or anything else that's being reviewed by "professionals". Why everyone is desperate to hear what all these pretentious music reviewers gives in score, is just silly.

Ban music reviews scores. They are of no use to anyone.

#gettingangryaboutnothing

Split Your Infants

  On 6/10/2013 at 1:32 PM, Ceerial said:

Music taste is such a subjective and personal thing, more so than movie or books anything else that's being reviewed. Why everyone is desperate to hear what all these pretentious music reviewers gives in score, is just silly.

 

Ban music reviews. They are of no use to anyone.

 

#gettingangryaboutnothing

There's a subjective element, but I think comparing reviews within genres you can find a general correlation between what reviewers and fans like most. I like the typical 10.0 pitchfork-rated album more than I like the typical 5.0; usually the exact score i'd give is different, but it does give you a ballpark idea of where it stands in relation to other albums in the genre and by the same band.

  On 6/10/2013 at 1:37 PM, fsdapfad said:

 

  On 6/10/2013 at 1:32 PM, Ceerial said:

Music taste is such a subjective and personal thing, more so than movie or books anything else that's being reviewed. Why everyone is desperate to hear what all these pretentious music reviewers gives in score, is just silly.

 

Ban music reviews. They are of no use to anyone.

 

#gettingangryaboutnothing

 

There's a subjective element, but I think comparing reviews within genres you can find a general correlation between what reviewers and fans like most. I like the typical 10.0 pitchfork-rated album more than I like the typical 5.0; usually the exact score i'd give is different, but it does give you a ballpark idea of where it stands in relation to other albums in the genre and by the same band.

 

The only scores I really find useful are the ones on discogs (voted by everyone). They generally tend to be more accurate to the actually quality of the music (in my opinion). I don't care what some pretentious music-reviewer from pitchfork thinks. They care more about the artists' image and what clothing they are wearing, than the actual music, when they give album scores.

And it's not because I think TH has gotten bad scores (which it hasn't), It's just this whole music scoring thing that annoys me.

This is getting way off-topic.. my silly rant ends here.

  On 6/10/2013 at 1:48 PM, Ceerial said:

 

  On 6/10/2013 at 1:37 PM, fsdapfad said:

 

  On 6/10/2013 at 1:32 PM, Ceerial said:

Music taste is such a subjective and personal thing, more so than movie or books anything else that's being reviewed. Why everyone is desperate to hear what all these pretentious music reviewers gives in score, is just silly.

 

Ban music reviews. They are of no use to anyone.

 

#gettingangryaboutnothing

 

There's a subjective element, but I think comparing reviews within genres you can find a general correlation between what reviewers and fans like most. I like the typical 10.0 pitchfork-rated album more than I like the typical 5.0; usually the exact score i'd give is different, but it does give you a ballpark idea of where it stands in relation to other albums in the genre and by the same band.

 

 

The only scores I really find useful are the ones on discogs (voted by everyone). They generally tend to be more accurate to the actually quality of the music (in my opinion). I don't care what some pretentious music-reviewer from pitchfork thinks. They care more about an artist's image and what clothing they are wearing, than the actual music, when they give album scores.

 

This is getting way off-topic.. my silly rant ends here.

 

I've listened some more. I promised I wouldn't whine about it and then come back saying it's amazing, as I have been prone to do with Ae. But I am absolutely amazed it hasn't disappointed more fans, given that it's quite minimal, sparse and even undercooked sounding (to me - even if it has great detail on some occasions), and what with the early fade outs with track after track, the lack of much melodic depth in most of the tracks (irrespective of production qualities), and considering that 'Reach for the Dead' (one we already heard) is probably the best on the album - and that is has more 'filler' than I would expect, but now the 'shorter' tracks are longer than usual BoC short tracks, only with less going on and less melody, while the 'longer' tracks are generally shorter and generally don't build into anything, (ending early only to be interrupted with another vignette, etc.) I'm not talking about whether I like it or not, because I've waited 8 years and am willing to put up with those design choices to enjoy the good that's in there - I'm referring more to the hysterically positive initial reactions, which I find baffling in light of the pre-released hype, BoC's back catalog, the 'singles' released earlier, and now how the album actually plays.

  On 6/10/2013 at 1:48 PM, Ceerial said:

 

  On 6/10/2013 at 1:37 PM, fsdapfad said:

 

  On 6/10/2013 at 1:32 PM, Ceerial said:

Music taste is such a subjective and personal thing, more so than movie or books anything else that's being reviewed. Why everyone is desperate to hear what all these pretentious music reviewers gives in score, is just silly.

 

Ban music reviews. They are of no use to anyone.

 

#gettingangryaboutnothing

 

There's a subjective element, but I think comparing reviews within genres you can find a general correlation between what reviewers and fans like most. I like the typical 10.0 pitchfork-rated album more than I like the typical 5.0; usually the exact score i'd give is different, but it does give you a ballpark idea of where it stands in relation to other albums in the genre and by the same band.

 

 

The only scores I really find useful are the ones on discogs (voted by everyone). They generally tend to be more accurate to the actually quality of the music (in my opinion). I don't care what some pretentious music-reviewer from pitchfork thinks. They care more about an artist's image and what clothing they are wearing, than the actual music, when they give album scores.

 

And it's not because I think TH has gotten bad scores (which it hasn't), It's just this whole music scoring thing that annoys me.

 

This is getting way off-topic.. my silly rant ends here.

 

Ah I don't know, I think at this stage its actually much more hipster to hate on pitchfork. All the cool kids are doing it.

They're hilariously pretentious at times but I reckon they get the scoring basically right.

The problem with fan based sites is reviews tend to be quite extreme and fanboys can completely distort things,

  On 6/10/2013 at 1:54 PM, fsdapfad said:

The problem with fan based sites is reviews tend to be quite extreme and fanboys can completely distort things,

Well if there are fanboys of an artist, that means that artist is probably doing something right.

I know that sounds a bit silly and I hate fanboys as mush as the next man. But there is something to said for an artist's ability to make a fanbase. That is actually a proof of quality and that a lot of people like it.

One music site's review score is not necessarily a proof of quality.

And the reason I defend it, is because I actually don't think fanboys are just spamming high scores on their favorite artists on discogs, a lot albums have perfectly reasonable scores. Even the artists with a "cult" following has lower scoring albums. Let's take Autechre for example. We all know they have their fair amount of fanboys here on watmm. But Confield "only" has an 4.12/5 score. Considering how fanatical some ae fanboys are, I actually think that is a very reasonable and levelheaded score.

Been then again... There are no right or wrong score for an album. And I have trust issues with most music review sites, that might be my problem.

And I'm not a fan of so called professionals telling people what to like, or not to like.

edit: sorry about all this off-topic talk, but I've always wanted to discuss this.

It would have been nice if 'White Cyclosa', 'Collapse' and 'Uritual' were replaced with pieces that are a little more...interesting. :)

  On 6/10/2013 at 2:29 PM, Lianne said:

It would have been nice if 'White Cyclosa', 'Collapse' and 'Uritual' were replaced with pieces that are a little more...interesting. :)

It's not about individual tracks, though. This as an album, works superbly even without the 'tunes'.

  On 6/10/2013 at 2:38 PM, NorthernFusion said:

 

  On 6/10/2013 at 2:29 PM, Lianne said:

It would have been nice if 'White Cyclosa', 'Collapse' and 'Uritual' were replaced with pieces that are a little more...interesting. :)

It's not about individual tracks, though. This as an album, works superbly even without the 'tunes'.

 

I get you, and it's good you enjoy the album as a whole. I find that Geogaddi also had (probably even more) of those little tunes, but they were somehow much more interesting and less barren sounding (in fact, I loved them), and they all flowed into each other and into the 'bigger' tracks in a way that was really satisfying. Maybe I just have a dislike of fades!

It's not that I'm demanding this sound like Geogaddi, though. I like it when bands change their sound. In fact, I would have been happy if this were even more different to their past work, as much as I love that old stuff. It's more like Geogaddi showed me it is possible to have this sprawling album full of 'little tunes' work really well. It showed me what is possible.

  On 6/10/2013 at 2:02 PM, Ceerial said:

 

  On 6/10/2013 at 1:54 PM, fsdapfad said:

The problem with fan based sites is reviews tend to be quite extreme and fanboys can completely distort things,

 

Well if there are fanboys of an artist, that means that artist is probably doing something right.

 

I know that sounds a bit silly and I hate fanboys as mush as the next man. But there is something to said for an artist's ability to make a fanbase. That is actually a proof of quality and that a lot of people like it.

 

One music site's review score is not necessarily a proof of quality.

 

And the reason I defend it, is because I actually don't think fanboys are just spamming high scores on their favorite artists on discogs, a lot albums have perfectly reasonable scores. Even the artists with a "cult" following has lower scoring albums. Let's take Autechre for example. We all know they have their fair amount of fanboys here on watmm. But Confield "only" has an 4.12/5 score. Considering how fanatical some ae fanboys are, I actually think that is a very reasonable and levelheaded score.

 

Been then again... There are no right or wrong score for an album. And I have trust issues with most music review sites, that might be my problem.

 

And I'm not a fan of so called professionals telling people what to like, or not to like.

 

edit: sorry about all this off-topic talk, but I've always wanted to discuss this.

 

It's possible discogs is different; I've never really looked at it. Most fan based review systems (see amazon.com) are overrun with 5 star reviews for almost every album because the people who are most inclined to make a review for an alubm are the people who love it. Or occasionally 1 star reviews when people are really pissed off or underwhelmed with something. There's rarely a sensible medium.

I don't really like professional reviewers either, but idk, it just seems more disciplined. That can be a bad thing, obviously.

  On 6/10/2013 at 2:57 PM, Lianne said:

 

  On 6/10/2013 at 2:38 PM, NorthernFusion said:

 

  On 6/10/2013 at 2:29 PM, Lianne said:

It would have been nice if 'White Cyclosa', 'Collapse' and 'Uritual' were replaced with pieces that are a little more...interesting. :)

 

It's not about individual tracks, though. This as an album, works superbly even without the 'tunes'.

I get you, and it's good you enjoy the album as a whole. I find that Geogaddi also had (probably even more) of those little tunes, but they were somehow much more interesting and less barren sounding (in fact, I loved them), and they all flowed into each other and into the 'bigger' tracks in a way that was really satisfying. Maybe I just have a dislike of fades!

 

It's not that I'm demanding this sound like Geogaddi, though. I like it when bands change their sound. In fact, I would have been happy if this were even more different to their past work, as much as I love that old stuff. It's more like Geogaddi showed me it is possible to have this sprawling album full of 'little tunes' work really well. It showed me what is possible.

This album has everything you would expect - vintage synths, skittering beats, washed out voices and uneasy nostalgia.

What it doesn't have is the thing I loved about them most.

Melodies.

I find the melodies on TH to be really moving. It's just about personal taste. It's easy to forget that the fact that one person's interpretation can be the exact opposite of someone else's, has nothing to do with the music being inherently 'good' or 'bad'. It's just people perceiving things differently from one another.

  On 6/10/2013 at 3:51 PM, disoriental express said:

I find the melodies on TH to be really moving. It's just about personal taste. It's easy to forget that the fact that one person's interpretation can be the exact opposite of someone else's, has nothing to do with the music being inherently 'good' or 'bad'. It's just people perceiving things differently from one another.

I agree about the Melodies, quite of lot TH has emotionally affected me more than any other Boards album. Reach, Jacquard, Sundown, New Seeds, Come To Dust, they all really hit that spot in my head. As I said before the whole thing is very evocative and atmospheric.

How could anyone be talking about melodies on this album and not include Nothing Is Real?

  On 6/10/2013 at 4:27 PM, Joyrex said:

How could anyone be talking about melodies on this album and not include Nothing Is Real?

Yes! This!!!

Nothing Is Real is the definition of a good melodi, yes.

Nothing is real is easily my favorite track off the new album. So infectious. And those vocals are deliciously evil

On my 3rd listen... Amazing.

and New Seeds, and Palace Posy, and Sick Times, and Sundown, and Semena Mertvykh, and