keltoi Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 http://www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews/tomorrows-harvest-20130611 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zkom Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 I seriously need to stop reading music reviews. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lewps Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 Need to turn down the intellect and increase the soul!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keltoi Posted June 12, 2013 Author Share Posted June 12, 2013 maybe we should have a thread for em all. and also one for interviews all in one place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keltoi Posted June 12, 2013 Author Share Posted June 12, 2013 oh... http://www.metacritic.com/music/tomorrows-harvest/boards-of-canada/critic-reviews Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zkom Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 oh... http://www.metacritic.com/music/tomorrows-harvest/boards-of-canada/critic-reviews Lol, that Tiny Mix Tapes review. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alcofribas Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 I've read some of the tinymixtape guy's reviews...what is the point of shit like this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshuatxuk Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jasondonervan Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 Looking forward to Fantano's interpretation of events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest disoriental express Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshuatxuk Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 RS writer in action: Honestly, I kind of pity his existence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshuatxuk Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azatoth Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 I think he got the better of you in his last tweet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keltoi Posted June 12, 2013 Author Share Posted June 12, 2013 RS writer in action: Honestly, I kind of pity his existence. he sounds like he's speaking in-between bong hits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshuatxuk Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 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: We're just a band. Not an IDM band, not an electronic band, and not a dance band. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jasondonervan Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pattern recognition Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 2.5 stars from the rolling stone community? sick times for boards of canada. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshuatxuk Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 he sounds like he's speaking in-between bong hits. that would make a lot of sense actually Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshuatxuk Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 lol thank you 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pattern recognition Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 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. ps - 999 posts, congrats pattern! haha, thanks joshua, i'm pretty prolific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshuatxuk Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pattern recognition Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rubin Farr Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delet... Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hello spiral Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 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(?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.