lolling stone review

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews/tomorrows-harvest-20130611

  Quote

 

 

Before EDM, there was IDM: so-called intelligent dance music, made by laptop auteurs who wouldn't be caught dead at an Electric Daisy Carnival...

I seriously need to stop reading music reviews.

Need to turn down the intellect and increase the soul!!

maybe we should have a thread for em all. and also one for interviews all in one place.

oh...

http://www.metacritic.com/music/tomorrows-harvest/boards-of-canada/critic-reviews

  On 6/12/2013 at 3:48 PM, keltoi said:

oh...

 

http://www.metacritic.com/music/tomorrows-harvest/boards-of-canada/critic-reviews

Lol, that Tiny Mix Tapes review.

I've read some of the tinymixtape guy's reviews...what is the point of shit like this?

  On 6/12/2013 at 5:01 PM, Alcofribas said:

I've read some of the tinymixtape guy's reviews...what is the point of shit like this?

To cite on a resume so they can jump to a larger, seemingly more relevant music journalism site to write even shittier reviews.

These people don't care about music. They really fucking don't.

I ranted about the RS and Tinymixtape reviews in another thread: http://forum.watmm.com/topic/78656-boards-of-canada-tomorrows-harvest/?p=2023211

Looking forward to Fantano's interpretation of events.

  On 6/12/2013 at 3:54 PM, mokz said:

 

  On 6/12/2013 at 3:48 PM, keltoi said:

oh...

 

http://www.metacritic.com/music/tomorrows-harvest/boards-of-canada/critic-reviews

 

Lol, that Tiny Mix Tapes review.

 

I'm not sure he went far enough with the whole blown kisses thing. Come on Reed Scott Reid (lol), you know you could've explored that idea more.

RS writer in action:

Honestly, I kind of pity his existence.

He tells me on twitter he's been a fan for years. "Nice try" he says.

https://twitter.com/joshuatx/status/344838607644790784

I'm giggling my ass off, this is actually making my day in an odd way.

I think he got the better of you in his last tweet.

  On 6/12/2013 at 5:39 PM, joshuatx said:

RS writer in action:

 

 

 

 

Honestly, I kind of pity his existence.

he sounds like he's speaking in-between bong hits.

  On 6/12/2013 at 6:08 PM, azatoth said:

I think he got the better of you in his last tweet.

Because he dodged some criticism? That's like saying Republicans win debates when they yell louder.

He spent 1/3 of the insanely short review on IDM and EDM.

Boards of Canada in 2006:

  Quote

 

 

We're just a band. Not an IDM band, not an electronic band, and not a dance band.

2.5 stars from the rolling stone community? sick times for boards of canada.

  On 6/12/2013 at 6:18 PM, keltoi said:

 

he sounds like he's speaking in-between bong hits.

 

that would make a lot of sense actually

  On 6/12/2013 at 6:33 PM, jasondonervan said:

lol thank you

  On 6/12/2013 at 6:36 PM, pattern recognition said:

2.5 stars from the rolling stone community? sick times for boards of canada.

apparently mere comments turn into "0 stars" - of the 4 comments all appear to scoff at the article but only two bothered to rate it 5 stars...

I don't imagine BoC fans taking the time to rate an album on RS's site

ps - 999 posts, congrats pattern!

i can't believe RS is still around, my wife actually got me a subscription as part of a fundraiser, and it's got very little worthwhile in it.

  On 6/12/2013 at 6:58 PM, joshuatx said:

ps - 999 posts, congrats pattern!

 

haha, thanks joshua, i'm pretty prolific.

Rolling Stone stays alive for the following reasons:

1. They publish excellent left-wing political and social commentary articles from freelance and guest writers. For example they ran the FOB Ramrod "Kill Team" story. It's oddly juxtaposed to their entertainment industry news content.

2. Their early reputation from the first decade they existed. It has been enough to keep readers when they began losing relevance in the late 70s when Hunter S Thompson left and when they ignored hip-hop and metal.

3. The general public just assumes they're like the NYT or Time magazine because they were first (same with pitchfork and their early existence online) so they buy it casually at newsstands or subscribe friends and family to the magazine.

  On 6/12/2013 at 9:55 PM, joshuatx said:

Rolling Stone stays alive for the following reasons:

 

1. They publish excellent left-wing political and social commentary articles from freelance and guest writers. For example they ran the FOB Ramrod "Kill Team" story. It's oddly juxtaposed to their entertainment industry news content.

2. Their early reputation from the first decade they existed. It has been enough to keep readers when they began losing relevance in the late 70s when Hunter S Thompson left and when they ignored hip-hop and metal.

3. The general public just assumes they're like the NYT or Time magazine because they were first (same with pitchfork and their early existence online) so they buy it casually at newsstands or subscribe friends and family to the magazine.

the political and social articles have been the ones that i've been enjoying, and i usually try to avoid anything political.

it is odd, i also subscribed back in the late '80s/early '90s, and thinking back i think it was over even then (that was the era of ignoring rap and metal you're referring to, i'm assuming). at the time i was obsessed with reading the english weeklies, then later select and other glossy english mags, and RS paled in comparison, in terms of quality and quantity.

Love how the Spin review begins by shitting on Daft Punk. I bet 90% of these "journalists" couldn't name another electronic act besides these two.

  On 6/12/2013 at 10:17 PM, Rubin Farr said:

Love how the Spin review begins by shitting on Daft Punk. I bet 90% of these "journalists" couldn't name another electronic act besides these two.

Sadder, is that their editors don't know that. Quickly may it die.

  On 6/12/2013 at 10:02 PM, pattern recognition said:

 

  On 6/12/2013 at 9:55 PM, joshuatx said:

Rolling Stone stays alive for the following reasons:

 

1. They publish excellent left-wing political and social commentary articles from freelance and guest writers. For example they ran the FOB Ramrod "Kill Team" story. It's oddly juxtaposed to their entertainment industry news content.

2. Their early reputation from the first decade they existed. It has been enough to keep readers when they began losing relevance in the late 70s when Hunter S Thompson left and when they ignored hip-hop and metal.

3. The general public just assumes they're like the NYT or Time magazine because they were first (same with pitchfork and their early existence online) so they buy it casually at newsstands or subscribe friends and family to the magazine.

the political and social articles have been the ones that i've been enjoying, and i usually try to avoid anything political.

 

it is odd, i also subscribed back in the late '80s/early '90s, and thinking back i think it was over even then (that was the era of ignoring rap and metal you're referring to, i'm assuming). at the time i was obsessed with reading the english weeklies, then later select and other glossy english mags, and RS paled in comparison, in terms of quality and quantity.

 

I fucking loved Select!

Bought it from '97 onwards.

So sad when it went tits-up in '99(?)