Massive disappointments from artists you love

  On 9/7/2016 at 10:42 PM, Alcofribas said:

But I'm a big zizek fan so isn't it precisely that I give you a high five and so on.

I'm tempted to agree, although my point is a slightly different one - howshouldiputit - it is not that one believes the beloved thing (a person, a piece of music, whatever) is without flaws, but that one finds it perfect while fully aware that it is ordinary. Sniff

  On 9/7/2016 at 9:12 PM, Bob Dobalina said:

 

  On 9/7/2016 at 8:03 PM, Alcofribas said:

 

  On 9/7/2016 at 7:36 PM, LimpyLoo said:

Nah, I think it has way more to do with expectations...more 'Drukqs' syndrome than whatever you're talking about...

 

People filter and categorize information based on ideology, expectation and prejudice...this is why many great things are initially hated (ideas, music, art...take your pick)....

 

Why wasn't Drukqs immediately recognized as a great (or at least decent) record? People couldn't hear through their own initial expectations and prejudices, that's why...

 

Edit: @ Lopez

does this also work the other way round? like if at the time of its release critics praised drukqs as great would it be bc they are blinded by expectation and prejudice?

 

IMHO this is exactly what happened with Syro.  Everyone was so blueballed for new afx that it was going to be adored no matter what, and nobody seemed to mind or care that it was completely paint-by-numbers afx.

 

/HO

 

If SYRO is considered paint-by-numbers music to you, then you have reached the point as a music listener akin to where porn addicts hit when 'paint-by-numbers porn' involves flying monkeys, bathtubs full of midgets and pepto-bismol and hot-wheels-track penises

The execution, sounds, production, composition and just whole of that album must have taken so much god damn work and is really something only he can pull of in such fashion. Not even pulling a fan-boi here, but are you being serious? 

The first time I heard Bad Religion's "Suffer" I thought it was fucking amazing. The next album I bought was "New America" and was like "what the fuck is this shit?!"

  Quote

I don't go quite as far as that but I see what you mean. For me Syro was a solid, beautiful release. Vintage afx tunage, a couple of really excellent, top shelf tracks. But absolutely not a work of pure genius or a masterpiece. And some people really were saying that it was, and I agree with you that such people seemed to be prejudiced toward wanting it to be that from the get go.

It's almost like when your mate gets a new girlfriend and he thinks everything she does is just so fucking awesome and he's in love and she's perfect but you can calmly observe she's nothing special lol.

1) lol alco

2) I'm not saying its a bad album, "quite good" in fact  (even though I don't get this joke, lol?).  I like a lot of his musics but never to the point where I'd venture into the subforum.  To a disinterested observer I found the whole fanfare surrounding this release to be bizarre even by watmm-obsessive standards.  As if it were heresy to have any critical, non-laudatory opinion of it at any distance, to the point where in true surreal Chauncey Gardiner fashion it was ultimately elevated to Grammy-award winning status.

Aphex Twin won a Grammy, think about that for a minute.  Picture the stiffest pricks in the establishment music industry, dudes who are responsible for bringing you all the commercial the tripe on the radio, Justin Bieber, Kanye, LMFAO etc. getting together in a room, shooting the shit, and arriving at Syro.  Picture going back to 199X and telling someone "this dude's gonna win a Grammy someday;" it'd be like when Marty tells Doc that Reagan is president in 1985.

Basically I guess I'm just saying that there was some amazing sociological/groupthink/e-chamber (not gonna say it for fear of summoning JE) shit at play that pushed it way beyond the intrinsic merits of the actual album, das all.

  On 9/8/2016 at 12:36 AM, Audioblysk said:

If SYRO is considered paint-by-numbers music to you, then you have reached the point as a music listener akin to where porn addicts hit when 'paint-by-numbers porn' involves flying monkeys, bathtubs full of midgets and pepto-bismol and hot-wheels-track penises

 

The execution, sounds, production, composition and just whole of that album must have taken so much god damn work and is really something only he can pull of in such fashion. Not even pulling a fan-boi here, but are you being serious?

I didn't say it's paint-by-numbers music, I said it's paint-by-numbers afx.  It's decent alright, but there's nothing on display that we haven't heard from him already.  I am really at a loss to identify anything that makes it a demonstrably superior effort than say, Chosen Lords or the Tuss shit, other than the words Aphex Twin and Warp attached to it.

Squelchy zipa-zip-zip-zipazipazip baselines? Check.

Crisp, skittering, ratcheted percussion with just enough bleeps 'n bloops to round it out? Check.

Detuned piano/synth/whatever stabs? Check.

Elements designed to intentionally grate b/c you know, this is challenging music? Check.

Just enough lush melodies to offset the above? Check.

A poignant, emotive solo piano track to gently close the affair and pull back the curtain on the sensitive side of rdj? Check.

(not pissing here btw, I just find it bizarre that apparent consensus of masterpiece goes unchallenged)

I find Syro markedly different than any previous aphex release. 

By that logic you could just lump all that together and say "has noises occurring  - check"

chosen lords the tuss and syro are all good though I don't get the argument. it's a disappointment because it's not "better"?

syro has so many good songs on it though. even if you don't like it as a whole. the tracks stand by themselves. Like, so many good songs.

  On 9/8/2016 at 4:35 AM, StephenG said:

I find Syro markedly different than any previous aphex release.

I disagree, though this probably has to do with you being an aphex fan (I presume, if not apologies) and I being less so. Totally subjective and not worth wasting server bits.

  On 9/8/2016 at 4:35 AM, StephenG said:

By that logic you could just lump all that together and say "has noises occurring  - check"

Not really, I was pointing to specific devices/styles (almost to the point of tropes) exhibited on prior RDJ releases that reappear on Syro.  They're well executed, don't get me wrong, but again to a non-fanatic (but one who appreciates his music nonetheless) it's the same Aphex emperor, only in new clothes.

  On 9/8/2016 at 4:37 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

chosen lords the tuss and syro are all good though I don't get the argument. it's a disappointment because it's not "better"?

 

syro has so many good songs on it though. even if you don't like it as a whole. the tracks stand by themselves. Like, so many good songs.

Apologies, no disappointment on my part, I was just following a tangent on the thread topic.  I agree that syro has many good tracks on it, I don't even dislike it as a whole. My whole point was to question the unquestioned laurels is has been bestowed

I'm definitely a fan, but not nearly to the level many people are. 

Not a fan of most of his early output (AB 5, CWLP... ON... ICBYD etc are all great though), not even all of the analord series...

I get what you're saying about "tropes" but those are consistent devices across all music... melodies, beats, etc, how each artist uses those things and how they're identifiable as that artist is .. their sound no?  I find you could do almost the exact same thing with any artist (that's why each good artist's music is like their own personal genre... ). At least that's the way I see it. I'm not very eloquent or good with words I realize I likely sound like an idiot lol.

I guess what I meant is that I find just checking those boxes off that way seems a little dismissive, as those things you've mentioned are part of why I like lots of the twin's music. I don't think something has to be groundbreaking to be genius. 

I really found the execution on Syro to be big and beautiful, and even restrained, very focused. Classic aphex sounds but I really didn't find the arrangement of everything comparable to his older output.

Just as an example I'm not really a fan of AE's else-q series (though it has its moments), but loved AE live + Exai.... Just goes to show we're almost as unique in our listening preferences as the artists are with their output I guess. 

tl;dr sorry 

I'd say Analord -> The Tuss -> Syro is a development, one continues from the previous, expands on its sounds and ideas. Syro kind of feels like the end result. A bit like the run from Hangable Autobulb through to Drukqs. So while there are definitely similarities, they each have a distinct feel also.

  On 9/7/2016 at 9:15 PM, Alcofribas said:

 

  On 9/7/2016 at 9:12 PM, Bob Dobalina said:

 

  On 9/7/2016 at 8:03 PM, Alcofribas said:

 

  On 9/7/2016 at 7:36 PM, LimpyLoo said:

Nah, I think it has way more to do with expectations...more 'Drukqs' syndrome than whatever you're talking about...

 

People filter and categorize information based on ideology, expectation and prejudice...this is why many great things are initially hated (ideas, music, art...take your pick)....

 

Why wasn't Drukqs immediately recognized as a great (or at least decent) record? People couldn't hear through their own initial expectations and prejudices, that's why...

 

Edit: @ Lopez

does this also work the other way round? like if at the time of its release critics praised drukqs as great would it be bc they are blinded by expectation and prejudice?

IMHO this is exactly what happened with Syro. Everyone was so blueballed for new afx that it was going to be adored no matter what, and nobody seemed to mind or care that it was completely paint-by-numbers afx.

 

/HO

I don't go quite as far as that but I see what you mean. For me Syro was a solid, beautiful release. Vintage afx tunage, a couple of really excellent, top shelf tracks. But absolutely not a work of pure genius or a masterpiece. And some people really were saying that it was, and I agree with you that such people seemed to be prejudiced toward wanting it to be that from the get go.

 

It's almost like when your mate gets a new girlfriend and he thinks everything she does is just so fucking awesome and he's in love and she's perfect but you can calmly observe she's nothing special lol.

 

The first three tracks on Syro are flawless in my book. Superb, fluent compositions, great sound selections, great instrumentation and phrasing. The rest of the album is just somewhere between OK and "meh" for me with occasional moments of excellence.

  On 9/7/2016 at 9:32 PM, hoggy said:

 

  On 9/7/2016 at 9:15 PM, Alcofribas said:

It's almost like when your mate gets a new girlfriend and he thinks everything she does is just so fucking awesome and he's in love and she's perfect but you can calmly observe she's nothing special lol.

 

this made me think of something Zizek said, not sure where it was exactly, that true love is not based on someone being perfect, it's more like you see all of who someone is, and you still love them even though you see their flaws and ugly points - like, you know they are just an ordinary person, but at the same time they are the absolute for you. 

 

I have heard this theory before and never understood it and I still don't understand it. And funny thing is that my girlfriend is not just an ordinary person (even when thinking rationally about it) even after so many years. I would say I love her because her good points predominate the negative points. So I don't think the theory is correct. The same goes to the music.

  On 9/7/2016 at 10:42 PM, Alcofribas said:

There's a great deal of superlative in critical praise. Things are "perfect," "genius," "the best," "10/10" even upon first listen. I think that kind of stuff is more indicative of what people want something to be rather than accepting it for what it truly is.

 

Agreed. I always laugh at "this is probably their best yet" after first couple of listenings after a release...

  On 9/7/2016 at 11:19 PM, hoggy said:

 

  On 9/7/2016 at 10:42 PM, Alcofribas said:

But I'm a big zizek fan so isn't it precisely that I give you a high five and so on.

 

I'm tempted to agree, although my point is a slightly different one - howshouldiputit - it is not that one believes the beloved thing (a person, a piece of music, whatever) is without flaws, but that one finds it perfect while fully aware that it is ordinary. Sniff

 

I yet have to hear something ordinary and love it. Even pop hits have something special and fresh in them when I like/love them. It can be small details that change everything.

Jeez, you gotta get out of Poland for a couple of weeks. Take the train south to Crotia this weekend. Couple of days in a hostel or something. Take advantage of being in mainland Europe.

i kind of agree though...i don't love music because it's ordinary. that's just a weird sentiment. the things that set it apart are what appeals...

  On 9/8/2016 at 10:47 PM, keanu reeves said:

i kind of agree though...i don't love music because it's ordinary. that's just a weird sentiment. the things that set it apart are what appeals...

Exactly. And it could be really small details (like subtle intonation nuances of vocals or a really good drummer with great feel or just a great chemistry of a band) that set it apart. It does not have to be try-hard original.

  On 9/8/2016 at 10:26 PM, WNS000 said:

I love her because her good points predominate the negative points

really? you worked out that you love her on a spreadsheet?

  On 9/9/2016 at 12:10 AM, hoggy said:

 

  On 9/8/2016 at 10:26 PM, WNS000 said:

I love her because her good points predominate the negative points

 

really? you worked out that you love her on a spreadsheet?

 

What? No. I just thought about it for sake of this thread and this was the conclusion. And I actually believe this is how it works scientifically too. You get some advantages for being in a partnership. When those advantages become irrelevant or weak you tend to change partners or live alone (subconsciously or consciously).

the point is that love can't be love if it is based on some calculus of pros and cons, by definition

anyway.... the point was just that people probably love stuff that seems totally boring or unlovable to you, and for them, it is perfect, not because it has this or that property, but because it just is, and they love it

so I .. agree with someone before... and the other person I kind of agree with - I dunno, I'm lost. I don't know if I agree with myself anyway

  On 9/9/2016 at 1:01 AM, hoggy said:

the point is that love can't be love if it is based on some calculus of pros and cons, by definition

 

anyway.... the point was just that people probably love stuff that seems totally boring or unlovable to you, and for them, it is perfect, not because it has this or that property, but because it just is, and they love it

 

so I .. agree with someone before... and the other person I kind of agree with - I dunno, I'm lost. I don't know if I agree with myself anyway

I think love is by essence (how it works in brain and in evolution) logical and rational (although we don't perceive it like that).

I think the absolute *best* way to be befuddled by the world is to start with the assumption that humans are--above all else--logical and rational.

You know how experimental findings in psychology tend to be counter-intuitive?

(Like when you put a person in a room with other people, show them a a picture of a long line segment A and a shorter one B, have everyone else say B is longer, and then that poor person will likewise say B is longer)

The reason psychology findings are very often "counter-intuitive" is because our intuitions about humans (e.g. They are, above all else, logical and rational) are wrong.

Now, there is a sense in which the person who gets the a > b question wrong is "logical and rational" as far as an agreeable social strategy goes (or perhaps humans have an evolutionary heuristic of deferring to group consensus on 'wisdom of the crowd' grounds).

But anyway, humans are certainly not "logical and rational" in the classical sense. This is abundantly evidenced by Motivational Reasoning (TL;DR = our logic is subservient to our goals and emotions) and Behavioral Economics (which is probably just a case of "value/utility" having previously been too narrowly defined, but the point stands).

As far as "love" being the result of some sort of cost/benefit analysis: in some roundabout way, perhaps. Again, there are all sorts of ancient biological heuristics driving many of our actions, but I don't think that's what you're talking about ("logical and rational" can be stretched to describe anything, but in that sense it is completely vacuous and trivial). Humans don't just act randomly, that's for sure. But on a conscious or cognitive level, most of what we do has little to do with logic or rationality. We find our-self attracted to someone, but we can't account for why ("they are beautiful to me" is just a trivial restatement of the facts...why are they beautiful to you?). Mostly, we are just "sussing vibes" and "following our gut"...and while "our gut" might have good evolutionary reasons for steering us where it does, that is not "logical and rational" in the sense we're talking about.

So I disagree *smiley face or w/e to denote that my disagreement is friendly*

keep your preposterously boring insane ramblings to the general banter forum Limpy

*titter*

  On 9/9/2016 at 5:50 AM, beerwolf said:

keep your preposterously boring insane ramblings to the general banter forum Limpy

You seem overly upset about it

beerwolf, do you normally lash out at people for boring you?

Because that's really only something a depressed asshole does.