Guest Benedict Cumberbatch Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 don't post link please. thx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Enter a new display name Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 I don't know why, but absolutely all the links that host Yesterday And Today seem expired. Is Kompakt really making sure that the album doesn't get shared? By the way I have been listening to Yesterday And Today everday (got the joke?) since I got my copy. I have never listened to the same album that often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
playbynumbers Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 it's all i've listened to for the last 2-3 weeks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest beatfanatic Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 yeah same here and I think i need to take a break from it otherwise I will start hating the new album. The fact that there are only 6 songs doesnt help either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest zaphod Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 lol why would anyone listen to the same record for 2-3 weeks? this really isn't that good guys. the way you're hyping it would make me think it's the album of the decade or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karmakramer Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 lol why would anyone listen to the same record for 2-3 weeks? this really isn't that good guys. the way you're hyping it would make me think it's the album of the decade or something. I've listened to it few times so far... its good, but yeah... I enjoyed the new Wisp more honestly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mr Salads Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 I think this record has too many tracks! I cant really listen to it all the way through without getting exhausted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Grizz Posted May 23, 2009 Share Posted May 23, 2009 After consistent listens I've decided this is my favorite album of the year thus far, and British folks should note its available on play.com for only £7.99 which is pretty much a bargain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest beatfanatic Posted May 23, 2009 Share Posted May 23, 2009 I think this record has too many tracks! I cant really listen to it all the way through without getting exhausted. i see what you did there.you are one intelligent person Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaini Posted May 24, 2009 Share Posted May 24, 2009 omgz more of the same *loop* *loop* *loop* *TA-DA!!!1! this is what you were listening to* he has a sound and it's a good one. but zeeeeero progression. the bread cover is awesomesauce though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karmakramer Posted May 24, 2009 Share Posted May 24, 2009 omgz more of the same *loop* *loop* *loop* *TA-DA!!!1! this is what you were listening to* he has a sound and it's a good one. but zeeeeero progression. the bread cover is awesomesauce though you can't be serious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
playbynumbers Posted May 24, 2009 Share Posted May 24, 2009 yeah, wtf also, this album has plenty of progression ... his first album was recorded on his laptop, solo, and this album was recorded with a full band (and the drummer from battles); the instrumentation is very different, the songs are different. it's one of the clearest 'progressions' i've ever seen from first to second album Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaini Posted May 24, 2009 Share Posted May 24, 2009 trlol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Enter a new display name Posted May 24, 2009 Share Posted May 24, 2009 yeah, wtf also, this album has plenty of progression ... his first album was recorded on his laptop, solo, and this album was recorded with a full band (and the drummer from battles); the instrumentation is very different, the songs are different. it's one of the clearest 'progressions' i've ever seen from first to second album You're talking as if he was the least repetitive producer that ever existed in the Milky Way. The repetition in The Field's music is what makes him so special, I must say. He is coming to Montreal on June 19th and I am not sure if I would like to see him play mp3s of his songs as they appear on his albums. Any feedback on his concerts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mr Salads Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 Yeah, get stoned before you go Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest arbee Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 Yeah, get stoned before you go him ? stone ? forget about it.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
playbynumbers Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 yeah, wtf also, this album has plenty of progression ... his first album was recorded on his laptop, solo, and this album was recorded with a full band (and the drummer from battles); the instrumentation is very different, the songs are different. it's one of the clearest 'progressions' i've ever seen from first to second album You're talking as if he was the least repetitive producer that ever existed in the Milky Way. The repetition in The Field's music is what makes him so special, I must say. He is coming to Montreal on June 19th and I am not sure if I would like to see him play mp3s of his songs as they appear on his albums. Any feedback on his concerts? oh lol, no, i didn't mean it that way; his songs are repetitive, and thank god. the point is that his second ALBUM wasn't a simple 'repeat' of his first album. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karmakramer Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 oh lol, no, i didn't mean it that way; his songs are repetitive, and thank god. the point is that his second ALBUM wasn't a simple 'repeat' of his first album. Seems like the Pitchfork review completely missed the new recording method and the dramatic differences between this and "Sublime"... they gave it an 8.0... (sublime got a 9.1, I believe) When I interned at "Pitchfork.tv" I edited this !!! / Field collab, which I thought was probably one of the best things I worked on while there (and one of my favorite pieces overall)... you can check it here: http://pitchfork.com/tv/#/episode/61-/5 I wonder if this collab contributed to his decision to record with a band on this album? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
playbynumbers Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 sublime got a 9.0. it's the same reviewer, as well. (and i loved that !!! collab when i first saw it!) i really and truly don't agree with the review; she seems to think that willner was trying to expand into a new sound, but half-assed it, where this seems to obviously not be the case. i'm guessing she just didn't like the 'new' tracks, but i have no clue why Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Benedict Cumberbatch Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 first listen right now and i'm impressed. the 'everybodys got to learn' cover at first sounded awful but ends up being incredible. album of the year? can't think of much else i've heard this year, grizzly bear is all reckon. so is this or is this not a buzz record? i feel like it is from the sound of it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Enter a new display name Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 i really and truly don't agree with the review; she seems to think that willner was trying to expand into a new sound, but half-assed it, where this seems to obviously not be the case. i'm guessing she just didn't like the 'new' tracks, but i have no clue why Yeah, I didn't enjoy the review. The reviewer keeps saying shit about Yesterday And Today while comparing it to The Field's debut album. Why giving it an 8.0 out of 10 if Jess Harvell describes the album so negatively? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karmakramer Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 i really and truly don't agree with the review; she seems to think that willner was trying to expand into a new sound, but half-assed it, where this seems to obviously not be the case. i'm guessing she just didn't like the 'new' tracks, but i have no clue why Yeah, I didn't enjoy the review. The reviewer keeps saying shit about Yesterday And Today while comparing it to The Field's debut album. Why giving it an 8.0 out of 10 if Jess Harvell describes the album so negatively? Pitchfork reviews are based a lot more around what they want to "market" then what they actually think is good. I've learned to really take the scores worth a grain of salt... Pitchfork cares far more about "discovering" something and "marketing/owning" something then accurately reviewing albums. I remember while interning there was a dispute about the "Yeasayer" review and how at the last minute they knocked it down to a 7.6 from an 8.4 or something because they didn't want "Yeasayer" to become too much of a "Pitchfork band." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest zaphod Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 yeah pitchfork is essentially mtv on the internet. they brand things, that's what it's turned into. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest beatfanatic Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 i really and truly don't agree with the review; she seems to think that willner was trying to expand into a new sound, but half-assed it, where this seems to obviously not be the case. i'm guessing she just didn't like the 'new' tracks, but i have no clue why Yeah, I didn't enjoy the review. The reviewer keeps saying shit about Yesterday And Today while comparing it to The Field's debut album. Why giving it an 8.0 out of 10 if Jess Harvell describes the album so negatively? Pitchfork reviews are based a lot more around what they want to "market" then what they actually think is good. I've learned to really take the scores worth a grain of salt... Pitchfork cares far more about "discovering" something and "marketing/owning" something then accurately reviewing albums. I remember while interning there was a dispute about the "Yeasayer" review and how at the last minute they knocked it down to a 7.6 from an 8.4 or something because they didn't want "Yeasayer" to become too much of a "Pitchfork band." that yeasayer record was amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
takeshi Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 I liked this but I think I enjoyed 'From Here We Go Sublime' more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.