sherburne on underworld

[stimpee]

Well, i've already said that I disagree with the prognosis given and thats that. This guy aint the messiah, he's a journalist. He's got a point of view and i disagree, simple as that.

[change]

Originally Posted by kid cue

also, tribal duckie does not spell kid lubricant

I have a feeling that this was a bad time to jump into reading this post.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by kid cue

the exact quote is "At Underworld's worst, it seems to be aping the noxious monotony of the burgeoning progressive house scene — piled-up snare rolls and endless ascents, the music in lockstep with the crowd's drug experience". this says nothing about a complete dependence on the technique, or the band's capacity for "well made and performed music"; merely that sometimes, they get too PROG house.

Yeah....I read the whole thing. But having seen them perform live to support each new album since the mid-90's, I never saw that happen myself. And regardless, arguing that they get "too PROG house" from time to time is still a subjective argument, which is my entire point about his article.

Originally Posted by kid cue

believe me, i still adore Underworld and seeing them live that one time made me cry. but i do think you're overrating their diversity, and your counter-argument to the 'snare rolls' comment, that UW simply make really good music, hardly puts them above any of the criticisms in the article.

I don't think I'm overrating the diversity. Listen to The Chemical Brothers, or Daft Punk, or any of the other big names from the group of big electronic acts coming out of the 90's, and find me as broad a variety of tracks as what Underworld put out. Moaner, to River of Bass, to Pearl's Girl, to Skym, to Bruce Lee, to Luetin, to Blueski, and on and on. This isn't because I'm a fan of Underworld....I love all kinds of music....they just undeniably deliver a broad range of tracks, which I personally find to be a defining characteristic of their music.

As for the counter-argument, yeah....actually it is an effective counter-argument. When somebady is trying hard to prove that Underworld was "grasping at straws" and that they depend on simplistic tricks like the whole snare roll thing, they're completely ignoring that the music is made up of far more than that. Objectively speaking, Underworld makes quality music. Because he simply doesn't care for it, which is his right, doesn't mean it's not quality. If he wrote his article in a subjective way, I'd have no problem with it. But he's trying to push his opinions as objective fact, which is a major flaw. I mean hell, I think Justin Timberlake is a tool who i hate listening to, but I can acknowledge that there's quality in some of his music.

[BeautifulBurnout]

Originally Posted by kid cue

maybe i'm just projecting, but i remember hearing a lot of snare rolls (in the background, at the very least) the one time i saw UW live, and it did feel like a series of endless ascents.

I rest my case, M'lud

[mmm skyscraper]

Originally Posted by potatobroth

There is no worse way to stunt your progression than to take 5 year old, unreleased tracks, and call them new.

I wouldn't mind a 12" of Mofo b/w Laughing Tortoise.

[kid cue]

Sean if you're free, please tell me how it's possible for a critic to a) construct an argument about musical quality that isn't ultimately subjective, and b) convey to you that he's NOT trying to pass off said argument as 'objective fact' without inserting an IMO after every other sentence.

[kid cue]

Originally Posted by Sean

As for the counter-argument, yeah....actually it is an effective counter-argument. When somebady is trying hard to prove that Underworld was "grasping at straws" and that they depend on simplistic tricks like the whole snare roll thing, they're completely ignoring that the music is made up of far more than that. Objectively speaking, Underworld makes quality music. Because he simply doesn't care for it, which is his right, doesn't mean it's not quality. If he wrote his article in a subjective way, I'd have no problem with it. But he's trying to push his opinions as objective fact, which is a major flaw. I mean hell, I think Justin Timberlake is a tool who i hate listening to, but I can acknowledge that there's quality in some of his music.

this is just ...

Objectively speaking, Underworld makes quality music.

WHAT? look, i said pages ago that i didn't agree with the whole article, but ... what?

[Sean]

Originally Posted by kid cue

Sean if you're free, please tell me how it's possible for a critic to a) construct an argument about musical quality that isn't ultimately subjective, and b) convey to you that he's NOT trying to pass off said argument as 'objective fact' without inserting an IMO after every other sentence.

He presents his review as an objective study of thir artistic and commercial success. It's not....plain and simple.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by kid cue

this is just ...


WHAT? look, i said pages ago that i didn't agree with the whole article, but ... what?

Tori Amos has great control of her voice. I don't care for her songs, but she does. Rick Smith has a solid grasp of song construction. Are you unaware that there can be recognition of quality in art without personally being a fan of it?

[kid cue]

are you unaware that the recognition of "quality in art" does not directly correlate to an objective diagnosis of "quality art"?

that "Rick Smith has a solid grasp of song construction" does not equate to

Objectively speaking, Underworld makes quality music.

(which should probably serve as the official dirty.org motto)