when did this crap start where people say "such and such wonderful note happens at the 7:43 point of the song" all the time?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

it's totally annoying, you know that, right?

i mean do those people just stand there with stopwatches or what?

― composer of outlaw music for 40 years, Wednesday, 23 March 2005 21:48 (twenty years ago)

Since we don't have scores to refer to measure numbers, we use timings, as is a logical standard for recorded music. You have a better idea?

― Eppy (Eppy), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 21:50 (twenty years ago)

CD and media players generally provide this infomation, so it's an easy way to pinpoint a particular part of a song (piece, whatever).

― RS, Wednesday, 23 March 2005 21:54 (twenty years ago)

Guilty, and unashamed. Tuff titty.

― Drew Daniel (Drew Daniel), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 21:56 (twenty years ago)

yeah, but do you talk that way in the bar too? if so, do people mistake you for a robot and refuse to give you beer in case you rust?

"about halfway in" or "toward the end" has always worked fine, trust me.

― composer of outlaw music for 40 years, Wednesday, 23 March 2005 21:58 (twenty years ago)

I think I'll spend the rest of my day trying to find a song where the most wonderful part happens at around the 7:43 point. I can't think of a promising candidate right now.

Maybe a mid-90's live version of The Orb's "Towers of Dub"?

― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 21:58 (twenty years ago)

Are you Pauline Oliveros?

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:00 (twenty years ago)

I noticed Mojo did this quite a bit in their 100 greatest guitar solos of all time list.

― Silky Sensor (sexyDancer), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:00 (twenty years ago)

> I think I'll spend the rest of my day trying to find a song where the most wonderful part happens at around the 7:43 point. I can't think of a promising candidate right now.

This just might happen in Marvin Gaye's "Funky Space Reincarnation."

And the most wonderful part of Grace Slick's "Manhole" doesn't happen until about 11:30 in.

― Joseph McCombs (Joseph McCombs), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:00 (twenty years ago)

This thread should have been locked after Eppy's reply. His is the best possible answer. What a douchey question.

― Matthew C Perpetua (inca), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:01 (twenty years ago)

"OMG can you believe the cowbell on HOJL?" to thread

― jsoulja (jsoulja), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:03 (twenty years ago)

If you go to Cynthia's on Tooley Street in London they have the world's only functioning robot bartender who will make and serve you a cocktail. It's really fun. The robot bartenders love it when I wax lyrical about the moment 1:12 seconds into Totally Radd!!!'s song "Shark Attack Day Camp" when it all cuts loose.

― Drew Daniel (Drew Daniel), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:04 (twenty years ago)

I think I'll spend the rest of my day trying to find a song where the most wonderful part happens at around the 7:43 point. I can't think of a promising candidate right now.

That "Kiss Me Again and Again" song by Polmo Polpo, maybe.

― deej., Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:04 (twenty years ago)

I don't even see the point of specifying the song. "The one that sounds like, you know, that other one they had" is good enough. Whoever 'they' are - even naming the record or artist is a waste of time

― dave q (listerine), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:05 (twenty years ago)

xpost

People were saying that on the Polmo Polpo and gmail threads, but I still maintain that the best moment is the guitar part that comes in at about the twelve minute mark.

If the Chameleons "Soul In Isolation" was about a minute longer, then it would defintely count, because all its best moments happen near the end.

― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:08 (twenty years ago)

It may be helpful but it's still geeky.

― steve-k, Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:12 (twenty years ago)

I really like what "L.A. Woman" by the Doors does at 7:43. Makes me feel real good.

― Pleasant Plains /// (Pleasant Plains ///), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:13 (twenty years ago)

I find it really odd that people would have a problem with music writers trying to be clear and useful to their readers.

― Matthew C Perpetua (inca), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:13 (twenty years ago)

because it is the only aspect of rock criticism that is geeky.

― s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:14 (twenty years ago)

Yeah, exactly!

― Matthew C Perpetua (inca), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:16 (twenty years ago)

(why did i start that quip with "because"? makes no sense)

― s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:17 (twenty years ago)

Dude, it's only geeky in the particular instance. Go tell all musicologists ever that they're geeky.

Saying that it's geeky IN GENERAL is geeky.

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:18 (twenty years ago)

nah. problem is it ain't geeky enough. it was funny at first, before it started to turn into such an irritating cliche, but at least if you're gonna reduce music fandom into a boring clinical math problem, toss in some cosines or logarhythms or set theory for gods sake.

― composer of outlaw music for 40 years, Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:21 (twenty years ago)

I would never have done it until iTunes, as I am too lazy, and rarely wear a watch. Now, it's easy. And helpful.

― David A. (Davant), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:22 (twenty years ago)

or even better, 'logarithms'

― geeta (geeta), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:22 (twenty years ago)

(ducks)

― geeta (geeta), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:22 (twenty years ago)

Rhythm is geeky, it reduces music to a boring clinical math problem.

― Jordan (Jordan), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:23 (twenty years ago)

Hi dere geeta!

― Dr. Eldon Tyrell (ex machina), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:24 (twenty years ago)

More engaged-with-the-topic-answer: If this was the entire review, I'd concur, but how many reviews go like: "At 00:32, the drum pattern changes nicely, until around 1:04, after which a synth wash establishes the ethereal aspects before, at precisely 3:21, collapsing in a logarithmic heap, panting, exhausted"?

I mean, I do it, and I've seen it done, whereby the reviewer (or in my case, me) generally wants to highlight one very specific moment. It's never the whole thing, right?

― David A. (Davant), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:26 (twenty years ago)

"logarhythms" was a great Freudian slip, though!

― David A. (Davant), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:27 (twenty years ago)

It all depends on whether you're making an interesting point or not. To make some blanket statement implying that it's crap or geeky or WHATEVER to ever say anything specifically related to particular notes or chords or structural moments in music is just dumbass.

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:29 (twenty years ago)

blah blah blah, you are all ignoring my question.

which was: when did it start? i really would like to know.

david a. hinted at an answer maybe.

point is: music criticsm seemed to have gotten along fine for decades if not centuries without it. now it's all over the place. why?

― composer of outlaw music for 40 years, Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:30 (twenty years ago)

READ ONE MUSICOLOGY BOOK

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:31 (twenty years ago)

OR ONE CD DISPLAY

― Silky Sensor (sexyDancer), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:32 (twenty years ago)

read 40 years of rock criticism.

my theory about why it's all over the place now: lack of imagination

― composer of outlaw music for 40 years, Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:32 (twenty years ago)

You'd have to give some examples.

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:33 (twenty years ago)

Music is basically time anyway, you know. (insert 4'33" reference)

― I got the job because I was so mean, while somehow appearing so kind. (AaronHz), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:33 (twenty years ago)

now it's all over the place. why?

that should be obvious: because it's easy to determine time with digital devices.

and to answer the other question, I don't see how it's harmful to give a specific time. What does it matter?

― Vestigal Appendages, Esq. (King Kobra), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:33 (twenty years ago)

I guess it annoys her. :(

― Silky Sensor (sexyDancer), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:34 (twenty years ago)

This is so fucking stupid.
IT STARTED WITH DIGITAL MUSIC. IT WILL CONTINUE. THERE'S NO REASON NOT TO DO IT.

― I got the job because I was so mean, while somehow appearing so kind. (AaronHz), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:35 (twenty years ago)

it makes for bloodless writing.

it fosters the anal-compulsive delusion that precision is exciting.

it is even more boring that beats per minute!

― composer of outlaw music for 40 years, Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:36 (twenty years ago)

Would you rather we all count measures? I'm sure that's helpful to the general listener.

― I got the job because I was so mean, while somehow appearing so kind. (AaronHz), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:36 (twenty years ago)

i'm sure you have your outlaw music to console you

― Silky Sensor (sexyDancer), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:37 (twenty years ago)

Yes, especially when the time signature is ambigous! :D

― Dr. Eldon Tyrell (ex machina), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:38 (twenty years ago)

Sure, it's annoying if the reviewer isn't making much of a point about anything. If he or she is making a point that you think is interesting, then you'd probably think it's fine.

But how prevalent are annoying instances of this, really? (And again, examples plz.)

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:38 (twenty years ago)

I'm going to release all my music as tracker files and midi files so you guys can find the parts i mean ever easier!

― Dr. Eldon Tyrell (ex machina), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:38 (twenty years ago)

my theory about why it's all over the place now: lack of imagination

-- composer of outlaw music for 40 years (paulin...), March 23rd, 2005.

Oh, stop projecting.

― Matthew C Perpetua (inca), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:38 (twenty years ago)

Before CDs did you see more of "on the 65th groove, perpendicular with the serial number on the sleeve, Flora takes a decidedly sharp turn on her husband's wet road, replete with squealing and shattering." I don't know, I don't trust any medium that I can't discretize into integers (that's just me tho)

― caspar (caspar), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:40 (twenty years ago)

music criticism was much better when it stuck to the ole "sounds like X doing Y on Z" paradigm.

― Silky Sensor (sexyDancer), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:41 (twenty years ago)

It's fair to say that if you do it all or most of the time it's annoying, but there are legitimate stylistic reasons to do it, just as there are legitimate stylistic reasons to say "around the middle." Like when you're referring to where I wrap my arms whilst I'm doing your moms. (Sorry, this post was so reasonable I thought it might not be allowed onto ILM, so I added a little "snark" as you kids call it.)

― Eppy (Eppy), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:42 (twenty years ago)

"Eleven and 3/4 inches into the cassette, Markus finds that his band has broken up and all the members turned wavering gypsy."

― caspar (caspar), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:42 (twenty years ago)

Actually, if everyone did release their music as tracker files, that would make me happy...

― Eppy (Eppy), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:42 (twenty years ago)

all of music is built on measures, time signatures, quarter notes, eighth notes, sixteenth notes...don't fight it, feel it! if someone said "in the 8th bar this and this happens" i would be cool with that. if someone said "at 7:43 this-and-this happens" i'm fine with that too. it doesn't reduce the musical experience for me to know a few cold facts.

― geeta (geeta), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:44 (twenty years ago)

I mentioned iTunes, sure, and laziness (just my own laziness!), but I also said it would be dud if reviewers did nothing but record those key or significant times in a piece of music that grab them. But no-one does that. They will also describe those moments, not merely catalogue them, so I'm not sure at which point it becomes bloodless.

― David A. (Davant), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:44 (twenty years ago)

Would you say a book review lacks imagination because it says "on page 154, paragraph 3" instead of "halfway down the page, somewhere in the middle of the book"? This is asinine.

― I got the job because I was so mean, while somehow appearing so kind. (AaronHz), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:44 (twenty years ago)

But can't you see, Eppy? You desire for precision and your willingness to be helpful and specific for the benefit of your readers makes you such an unimanitive SQUARE! Time to take a nap, gran'pa!

― Matthew C Perpetua (inca), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:45 (twenty years ago)

I don't get why some people think that criticism has to be all about emoting, and that loudmouth bullshitting is somehow the only good way to do it.

― Matthew C Perpetua (inca), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:46 (twenty years ago)

I mean, for real, FUCK YOU LEGACY OF LESTER BANGS!

― Matthew C Perpetua (inca), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:47 (twenty years ago)

They're under the impression that Lester Bangs had it all figured out.
x-post!

― I got the job because I was so mean, while somehow appearing so kind. (AaronHz), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:48 (twenty years ago)

i mean do those people just stand there with stopwatches or what?

No, they just have more sophisticated sound systems than you. And I think it's great.

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:48 (twenty years ago)

It's silly because who is really going to read such a description, go put on the CD and fast forward to that point just to find out what the writer is talking about? A good writer would find a way to make the point so that anyone who had heard the song would instantly know the part under discussion. And if it's such a tiny, subtle detail that the only way to talk about it is to reference the running time (rather than describing the sound or using a particular lyric as a point of reference) then why bother even mentioning it? To the people who defend this practice, I'd really like to see an example where you think it works in a piece of popular, non-academic writing.

― walter kranz (walterkranz), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:48 (twenty years ago)

I'm so sick of hearing about VU and the Stooges. James Taylor is more radical at this point.

― I got the job because I was so mean, while somehow appearing so kind. (AaronHz), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:50 (twenty years ago)

I haven't read half of the thread, but this requires an immediate response.

blah blah blah, you are all ignoring my question.
which was: when did it start? i really would like to know.

I'll try to spell this out a little more explicitly for you:

When I listened to vinyl or cassette, there was never any part of my stereo/boombox/whatever that provided this information. With CDs and mp3s (and similar media) the players display this information. So I would guess that pinpointing a specific time on a recording became common after that technology was starting to be used. (Ironically, you're question is essentially asking for the type of information you are complaining about: "When exactly did this happen? . . .")

― RS £aRue (rockist_scientist), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:50 (twenty years ago)

It's silly because who is really going to read such a description, go put on the CD and fast forward to that point just to find out what the writer is talking about?

Me. I have done this. Often with songs I am already familiar with. I definitely did this a lot with Eppy's "Blueberry Boat" analysis.

― Matthew C Perpetua (inca), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:50 (twenty years ago)

I think most of the time it's useless information. I mean, who really cares whether something happens 7:43 into the song, or 7:33, or even 6:43? Does it really matter? It seems to presume that people are going to sit there watching the time elapsed while listening to the music, which I don't think many people do. And if you don't do that, how are you going to make any use of the supposed information that the reviewer is supposedly helpfully providing you?

xpost- well I guess some people, or at least Perpetua, actually do this. Color me surprised.

― o. nate (onate), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:52 (twenty years ago)

Would you say a book review lacks imagination because it says "on page 154, paragraph 3"

Yes. Isn't the page reference pretty useless to me as the reader of your book review? Am I supposed to have a copy of the book beside me for reference?

But can't you see, Eppy? You desire for precision and your willingness to be helpful and specific for the benefit of your readers makes you such an unimanitive SQUARE!

But it's not precise or specific unless the reader does a lot of work to find out what you're talking about. Wouldn't using precise and specific language be a lot more relevant in the context of a written review? The alternative is not, as you suggest, "loudmouth bullshitting" but rather more creative, precise use of descriptive language.

― walter kranz (walterkranz), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:53 (twenty years ago)

some mojo article mentioned a strange chord in a Birthday Party song at some exact time index, and was pleased to agree with the writer after checking out the song and time. The chord was "beyond description" so a bit of clinicism (word?) was most effacacious (sp?).

― Silky Sensor (sexyDancer), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:53 (twenty years ago)

walter kranz and o.nate ot fucking m
(thanx, you guys made my point better than i did)

that people are reading stooges vs. james taylor into this is bizarre

― composer of outlaw music for 40 years, Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:54 (twenty years ago)

READ ONE LESTER BANGS, GET ONE CONTEXT

― I got the job because I was so mean, while somehow appearing so kind. (AaronHz), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:55 (twenty years ago)

Me. I have done this. Often with songs I am already familiar with. I definitely did this a lot with Eppy's "Blueberry Boat" analysis.

I'm not familiar with Eppy's "Blueberry Boat" analysis but the term analysis makes it sound vaguely musicological. Of course this practice is fine in the context of a critical essay or academic work. It's the use in a popular review that seems ridiculous to me.

― walter kranz (walterkranz), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:56 (twenty years ago)

CONTEXT MARKED FOR DEATH!

― walter kranz (walterkranz), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:56 (twenty years ago)

Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures which ye made to worship them: and I will carry you away beyond Babylon.

― Dr. Eldon Tyrell (ex machina), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:56 (twenty years ago)

A good writer would find a way to make the point so that anyone who had heard the song would instantly know the part under discussion.
___________
Isn't the page reference pretty useless to me as the reader of your book review? Am I supposed to have a copy of the book beside me for reference?

AHEM

― I got the job because I was so mean, while somehow appearing so kind. (AaronHz), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:57 (twenty years ago)

Though I guess the (few) people who still buy new releases on vinyl are out of luck, unless they are going to pull out a stopwatch.

― o. nate (onate), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:57 (twenty years ago)

Simon replied, “I suppose the one who had the bigger debt canceled.”
“You have judged correctly,” Jesus said.

― Dr. Eldon Tyrell (ex machina), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:58 (twenty years ago)

Yeah, I did it with Eppy's Blueberry Boat articles, too. But to be fair, his pieces were by design more of an in-depth examination and exegesis of the album for those who had presumably already heard it. (xpost)

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:58 (twenty years ago)

I think the best way is to try to make it obvious from the writing like "after the bridge where X says Y" and then provide a timeref as well.

― Dr. Eldon Tyrell (ex machina), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:58 (twenty years ago)

I guess nobody should refer specifically to any part of a creative work. It's just not hip, maaaaaan.

― I got the job because I was so mean, while somehow appearing so kind. (AaronHz), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:59 (twenty years ago)

The "loudmouth bullshitting" is a reference to this implication that music criticism should never be precise/academic/scientific, that lively emoting is somehow always the best option.

Listen, doesn't this all depend on context? In normal reviews overusing that trick is kinda ridiculous, but it's really not very common outside of detailed close readings of records, a la that Blueberry Boat thing that Eppy did. In those cases, referring to specific times to discuss specific things going on in the music can be very helpful. What's the fucking problem?

― Matthew C Perpetua (inca), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:59 (twenty years ago)

http://www.devon-trichology-practice.co.uk/images/mmhair4.jpg

― Silky Sensor (sexyDancer), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 23:01 (twenty years ago)

AHEM

Why ahem?

― walter kranz (walterkranz), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 23:01 (twenty years ago)

right. i did this in a review the other week. (of an album that's been discussed at great length on ILM, but which i'm not going to name. there's a prize if you can work out what it is.)

my point was that at 3'18" in a particular song - the title track, just to make it easier - there is one broken chord that's slightly out of time; one example of humanity in what is otherwise an overly precise, machine-tooled album. the juxtaposition here is what's important: using the precision of digital timing to highlight the one moment of perfect frailty.

is that a good enough example? sheesh. some people have far, far too little to worry about.

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 23:01 (twenty years ago)

I'm still waiting for some links to normal album reviews published in publications of any size using this specific time thing. I know that I've done it maybe once or twice on my site, but I can't say I've seen it used elsewhere enough to make it a cliche.

― Matthew C Perpetua (inca), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 23:02 (twenty years ago)

Grimly, that sounds like a pretty well thought out use of a time marker. Thanks.

― walter kranz (walterkranz), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 23:04 (twenty years ago)

grimly, I'd have guessed Daft Punk, but I don't hear anything at 3'18" of "Human After All."

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 23:06 (twenty years ago)

not daft punk. clue: it's out in the UK next week.

walter: thank you!

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 23:07 (twenty years ago)

and it's not an electronic album per se; it's heavy on the electronics, yes, but what really irritates me about it is that much of the "conventional" instrumentation is so lacking in life and sounds like it's been buffed to within an inch of its life by a variety of producers ... oh, that's a giveaway.

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 23:09 (twenty years ago)

i can see what's going to happen now, of course. someone will guess, then argue that it's actually at 3'17". or 3'19". or they can't hear it at all ;)

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 23:11 (twenty years ago)

Walter, Pauline etc. how is including the reference parenthetically in any way useless? I don't think anyone is advocating writing reviews that only contain the time codes, page numbers etc. If someone writes a good detailed description of a piece of music or a passage in a novel WHAT GODDAMN REASON IN THE WORLD is there not to include that information as well? It doesn't detract from the piece if the writing is there in the first place, does it?

― I got the job because I was so mean, while somehow appearing so kind. (AaronHz), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 23:12 (twenty years ago)

A good writer would find a way to make the point so that anyone who had heard the song would instantly know the part under discussion. And if it's such a tiny, subtle detail that the only way to talk about it is to reference the running time (rather than describing the sound or using a particular lyric as a point of reference) then why bother even mentioning it?

The whole point of the excercise is to highlight something in the music that you believe warrants mentioning. Words like "tiny" and "subtle" are completely subjective here -- sometimes, I've heard a song dozens of times and wasn't aware of certain sonic details until they were explicitly pointed out for me. That's happened to all of us, I'm sure. If your ears haven't recognized the moment that is being referred to in writing, then the writer's talents won't matter much at all.

But seriously, I'm dumbfounded that people can actually argue against precision. Next time I'm watching the news, I hope they'll be less precise. If something happens in NYC, then I don't want them to tell me that it's happening in NYC. A talented journalist should be able to communicate the locale without specifically mentioning the city, particularly if the cameraman does his job and frames the shot correctly.

― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 23:12 (twenty years ago)

If you're not hearing things in music small enough that they need to be identified by a time marker, you're not listening closely enough.

― Eppy (Eppy), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 23:13 (twenty years ago)

Oh give us a break.

― I got the job because I was so mean, while somehow appearing so kind. (AaronHz), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 23:14 (twenty years ago)

horseshit, eppy.

pretending music criticism is "objective journalism": dud or dud?

― composer of outlaw music for 40 years, Wednesday, 23 March 2005 23:16 (twenty years ago)

If something happens in NYC, then I don't want them to tell me that it's happening in NYC. A talented journalist should be able to communicate the locale without specifically mentioning the city, particularly if the cameraman does his job and frames the shot correctly.

Kind of like how Grimly has pinpointed a precise moment in a song without mentioning the title, artist or album?

― walter kranz (walterkranz), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 23:16 (twenty years ago)

much as i'd like to stay and watch this thread develop, i have to go to bed. answer tomorrow, if anyone still cares :)

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 23:17 (twenty years ago)

I know what the album is grimly, it's New Order and I got your email.

― Bimble... (Bimble...), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 23:31 (twenty years ago)

I could only read halfway through this thread before i felt my skull starting to explode. I know this might be ironic coming from me but people! stop saying stupid things, k? Thanks. (not all of you obviously)

― deej., Wednesday, 23 March 2005 23:42 (twenty years ago)

you know, if its pointless to pinpoint specific times in songs for reference and discussion, im going to stop spelling words properly and stuff. cause i mean, they dont matter either.

completely fucking anarchy, yeah!

― maria tessa sciarrino (theoreticalgirl), Thursday, 24 March 2005 00:00 (twenty years ago)

Noting the time of a certain moment in a song came in handy during this thread: Punch-ins/edits that ruin your day

― Pleasant Plains /// (Pleasant Plains ///), Thursday, 24 March 2005 00:08 (twenty years ago)

so maria, your point is that you think reviews that don't mention times are inaccurate, then? you people are weirder than i thought.

― composer of outlaw music for 40 years, Thursday, 24 March 2005 00:09 (twenty years ago)

reviewing the record that's named on top of the review is stupid

― dave q (listerine), Thursday, 24 March 2005 00:13 (twenty years ago)

and actually come to think of it i don't see how mentioning the 7:43 would be helpful at all unless you always mentioned the entire the length of the song in conjunction with it. at least "7:43 out of 11:13" would indicate at what point in the course the song the musical event in question occurs. how far it is from the end of the song is at least as important as how far it is from the beginning.

and you should always be required to enumerate in which track number of the album the event occurs as well. because whether it's 7:43 into the first track or the fourth one matters a lot. you are trying to give your reader the most objective information you can, so don't skimp! these rules are extremely important. please remember them.

― composer of outlaw music for 40 years, Thursday, 24 March 2005 00:18 (twenty years ago)

you're a ridiculous person.

― I got the job because I was so mean, while somehow appearing so kind. (AaronHz), Thursday, 24 March 2005 00:23 (twenty years ago)

who gives a shit?

― stephen morris (stephen morris), Thursday, 24 March 2005 00:28 (twenty years ago)

It's a completely illogical complaint/argument/whatever the fuck it is.

― I got the job because I was so mean, while somehow appearing so kind. (AaronHz), Thursday, 24 March 2005 00:30 (twenty years ago)

>It's silly because who is really going to read such a description, go put on the CD and fast forward to that point just to find out what the writer is talking about?

nobody. non-luddites type the name of the song into itunes and then click on the track progress bar (until it says the proper time). it takes 10 sec at most. probably one of my fav things about the future.

― irrigation can save your people (irrigation can save your peopl), Thursday, 24 March 2005 00:44 (twenty years ago)

So if I'm reading a print magazine I have to get off the toilet and go downstairs to the computer and fire up itunes? How is that any easier? And if I'm reading an online review why didn't the writer simply capture the musical snippet in question and link to it right from the article?

― walter kranz (walterkranz), Thursday, 24 March 2005 00:55 (twenty years ago)

shit first

― Silky Sensor (sexyDancer), Thursday, 24 March 2005 00:56 (twenty years ago)

I don't like songs anyway. I only like moments.

― Melissa W (Melissa W), Thursday, 24 March 2005 00:56 (twenty years ago)

If you want to get futuristic, why not have a link in the article that plays a clip of the song at that point? That would save the reader any pain at all. If they did that, I might actually go to the trouble of seeing what the hell they're talking about.

― o. nate (onate), Thursday, 24 March 2005 00:57 (twenty years ago)

(xpost with Walter)

― o. nate (onate), Thursday, 24 March 2005 00:59 (twenty years ago)

why the hell would you want to hear just that part of the song anyway? how does it matter out of the context of the rest of the song? and then what do you do, download the song and delete the first 7:42? suit yourself, but it seems like a weirdassed fucking way to listen to music. which is fine, weirdassedness can be fun. but assuming other people will share your weirdassedness is idiotic.

― composer of outlaw music for 40 years, Thursday, 24 March 2005 01:00 (twenty years ago)

By the way, the 326-345th words in this thread are totally OTM.

― walter kranz (walterkranz), Thursday, 24 March 2005 01:02 (twenty years ago)

Can we just agree that all album reviews should conform to the dramatic unities and have done?

Next week: "What's wrong with just telling us whether the music's angular or not?"

― Ferlin Husky (noodle vague), Thursday, 24 March 2005 01:03 (twenty years ago)

"assuming other people will share your weirdassedness is idiotic."

― I got the job because I was so mean, while somehow appearing so kind. (AaronHz), Thursday, 24 March 2005 01:08 (twenty years ago)

precisely quoted, aaronhz

you've come to the wrong place if you want to poll non-obsessives, but for the record, when listening to CDs at home I _frequently_ turn around to notice the approximate elapsed time of a track whenever I hear something particularly special

― milton parker (Jon L), Thursday, 24 March 2005 01:12 (twenty years ago)

http://www.quicksilvershapeshifter.com/bestmusicalmomentever.mp3

― Melissa W (Melissa W), Thursday, 24 March 2005 01:13 (twenty years ago)

NO. NOBODY IS GOING TO DO THAT. YOU'RE BEING A FUCKING MORON.

― I got the job because I was so mean, while somehow appearing so kind. (AaronHz), Thursday, 24 March 2005 01:13 (twenty years ago)

Mamma we're all fucking morons now.

― Alba (Alba), Thursday, 24 March 2005 01:15 (twenty years ago)

um, because that's the part they're talking about? I'm not saying just clip 1 second, but maybe a 30 second clip would give you enough context to get some idea of what's going on - certainly a lot more context that you'd get by seeing the number "7:32" in reference to a song you've never heard before. Your last question makes no sense to me.

― o. nate (onate), Thursday, 24 March 2005 01:18 (twenty years ago)

http://www.quicksilvershapeshifter.com/bestmusicalmomentever.mp3

Now that's what I'm talking about.

― o. nate (onate), Thursday, 24 March 2005 01:20 (twenty years ago)

Since we're getting into strawman territory here, how's this:
Some writers talk about a band's influences in reviews. Some people will check them out, some won't. Some people will seek out original version of a cover tune, some won't. Some people will check out a band's previous recordings before the current hype/hit, some won't. SOME PEOPLE WILL CHECK OUT THE PART OF THE SONG THAT OCCURS AT A TIME CODE MENTIONED BY A REVIEWER, AND SOME WON'T.
Should we not talk about any of these things, because not everyone will take it upon themselves to check them out?

― I got the job because I was so mean, while somehow appearing so kind. (AaronHz), Thursday, 24 March 2005 01:23 (twenty years ago)

i like justus kohncke's timecode.

― irrigation can save your people (irrigation can save your peopl), Thursday, 24 March 2005 02:38 (twenty years ago)

Call me crazy but this thread cracks me up. The discussion here seems to have gotten much more hostile and contentious than many of the threads that revolve around a musical disagreement. Still, I think that some of the ideas under discussion are interesting and I want to tackle a few points:

Next time I'm watching the news, I hope they'll be less precise. If something happens in NYC, then I don't want them to tell me that it's happening in NYC.

Even in journalism the degree of precision which can be conveyed is limited. At some point detail must give way to clarity and editing. A better analogy might go like this: the city that the news story takes place in is the album title, the part of the city is the song title, but referring to a moment in minutes and seconds is akin to the TV news reporter explaining that the crime took place on the 1300 block of E street, 12 feet to the east of the mailbox in front of Kinkos.

On second thought, the news analogy is somewhat relevant. Every time I'm forced to watch a TV newscast, I'm always amazed at the amount of utterly useless information that is conveyed. I suppose there isn't much of a difference between analyzing the minutiae of one particular celebrity crime in a world full of war and corruption or waxing poetical over 2:43 on a particular tune in a world full of millions of brilliant tunes.

It's not that the obsession over minute details is wrong per se but that as a reader it is a bit annoying and presumptuous when a writer assumes that his personal thought about 2:43 is so relevatory that I should follow along at home.

Some writers talk about a band's influences in reviews. Some people will check them out, some won't. Some people will seek out original version of a cover tune, some won't. Some people will check out a band's previous recordings before the current hype/hit, some won't. SOME PEOPLE WILL CHECK OUT THE PART OF THE SONG THAT OCCURS AT A TIME CODE MENTIONED BY A REVIEWER, AND SOME WON'T.

The knowledge that a certain song is a cover is interesting whether or not I ever hear the cover. The knowledge that band X ripped off their entire sound from bands Y & Z is a useful tidbit to file away in my brain. It colors my perception of band X and it means I might check out bands Y & Z at some future date when I run across their records. On the other hand, the knowledge that there's a life-affirming shimmer of arpeggiated guitar at 5:35 is not something I'm bound to remember nor is it something I'm likely to confirm or deny for myself in the middle of reading an article. But then, I'm an idiot, a waste of human life, an anarchist, ridiculous person, etc.

― walter kranz (walterkranz), Thursday, 24 March 2005 02:52 (twenty years ago)

I should also disclose that I'm a failed music writer so my criticisms of music writing are mere sour grapes.

― walter kranz (walterkranz), Thursday, 24 March 2005 02:56 (twenty years ago)

so maria, your point is that you think reviews that don't mention times are inaccurate, then? you people are weirder than i thought.

Yes, and if you hang around here you'll be tainted, SO FUCK OFF, AND DIE, AND THEN FUCK OFF SOME MORE.

― Curious George Finds the Ether Bottle (Rock Hardy), Thursday, 24 March 2005 03:46 (twenty years ago)

And lots of people (casual music listeners) are going to going to find all of that information useless. You either missed the point or are being purposefully difficult.

― AaronHz (AaronHz), Thursday, 24 March 2005 03:52 (twenty years ago)

Walter, I just don't understand why you keep pushing the argument. Haven't we already made the distinction that this could potentially be good or bad, depending on the reviewer's point? If someone's doing a longer review, I don't see why there couldn't conceivably be a point in the review where they might want to talk about a particular moment in a given song and cite the time that it occurs.

Again, let's see some good examples and some bad examples and not argue about nothing.

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Thursday, 24 March 2005 04:03 (twenty years ago)

You know one place where I find it undeniably useful? Guitar magazines with transcriptions.

― AaronHz (AaronHz), Thursday, 24 March 2005 04:15 (twenty years ago)

Sometimes the transcriptions are wrong, and then you have to put up with people insisting they're playing it properly when they're not, just because 'their way' came out of a guitar tab book

― dave q (listerine), Thursday, 24 March 2005 04:21 (twenty years ago)

Haha, that's true. The best ones are when they have the actual guitarist there and take pictures of his hands while interviewing him and transcribing with timecodes, the whole nine yards.

― AaronHz (AaronHz), Thursday, 24 March 2005 04:23 (twenty years ago)

Review of Luomo's Present Lover in allmusic refers to a spot in "What Good" that I ran to hear.

― deej., Thursday, 24 March 2005 04:35 (twenty years ago)

Here's a good example: A woman is *not* being murdered at X:XX of the Ohio Players' "Love Rollercoaster," even if it does sound like it. (The uninitiated listener would surely FF to this moment instead of listening to the whole song, if inclined at all.)

― Joseph McCombs (Joseph McCombs), Thursday, 24 March 2005 05:01 (twenty years ago)

you heard WHAT? you're sick, dood

― dave q (listerine), Thursday, 24 March 2005 05:07 (twenty years ago)

The part with the scream? Wouldn't it be more fun to listen to the whole song and find it for yourself? Yes Aaron, I'm being purposely difficult because I find it really funny that people can't accept that some readers might be annoyed by this. It's not that big of a deal.

― walter kranz (walterkranz), Thursday, 24 March 2005 05:07 (twenty years ago)

OK, I'll bite. Here's a review of mine in which I had to cite the approximate point at which a song gets good, in my opinion of course. The passage is in the last paragraph [i.e. the four unnecessary minutes of "Broadway (So Many People)"]. I don't say 3:58 or 4:06 because the transition is far less delineated than that, so I round it up/down to four minutes. I mean, you can take my writing to task on many levels, but I don't get how this is necessarily bloodless or unimaginative.

(xpost, I can certainly accept that some readers might be annoyed. I just have to read this thread to know that!)

― David A. (Davant), Thursday, 24 March 2005 05:13 (twenty years ago)

Hey, I actually LIKE when a reviewer does a "best bit" thing for a song.
In fact, I'm going to do one right now.
There's a bit in the Midnight Oil song "Beds are Burning" where the horn section sounds like the doppler shift of a truck driving by. It's from 1:44 to 1:47. I love that. Just love it.
So there. How you like them apples, mr outlaw composter? eh?

― Lord Custos Omicron (Lord Custos Omicron), Thursday, 24 March 2005 05:21 (twenty years ago)

All day I'm P-I-M-P
I am simply attached to tha track like SMPTE

― milton parker (Jon L), Thursday, 24 March 2005 05:30 (twenty years ago)

wow, i'm glad i went to bed and didn't stay up to watch these ever-decreasing circles.

and bimble ... you cheater! no prize for you, sonny jim :)

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Thursday, 24 March 2005 11:08 (twenty years ago)

why are you all so suddenly eager to feed obvious trolls?

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Thursday, 24 March 2005 11:53 (twenty years ago)

er, shits and giggles?

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Thursday, 24 March 2005 12:01 (twenty years ago)

Historically, Q and Select were doing this kind of thing on a bite-sized basis from the late '80s onwards, but the trend really started with IMac's Revolution In The Head.

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Thursday, 24 March 2005 12:04 (twenty years ago)

where did this crap start where things become more precise, fuck that, in my day you didn't know one song from the other, but you liked them, you'd listen to whatever was playing and you'd like it because you didn't know when you'd get the next record. but kids today it's all grab this and document that.

― Ronan (Ronan), Thursday, 24 March 2005 12:05 (twenty years ago)

ronan exactly how old are you getting to be starting using phrases like "in my day"?

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Thursday, 24 March 2005 12:07 (twenty years ago)

i think ronan's joking etc? dunno. i have never read a review, got up, ffwd the track to 7.43, and pressed play. it's a good q tho, because no-one ever gives precise times for events in films ever ever ever. you don't look at your watch in the cinema. but with dvds you DO skip. so maybe this will start happening, more.

― N_RQ, Thursday, 24 March 2005 12:11 (twenty years ago)

too young to use them, young enough to still get jokes

― Ronan (Ronan), Thursday, 24 March 2005 12:18 (twenty years ago)

the trend really started with IMac's Revolution In The Head

see, i absolutely loved the precision in that; the way he'd talk about being able to hear edits etc. it made me listen to the beatles in a whole new way ... i'd think, right, there's a fluffed vocal coming up in a couple of seconds, and then feel all smug for noticing it.

maybe i'm just deeply, deeply sad. i dunno.

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Thursday, 24 March 2005 12:23 (twenty years ago)

x-post people are already doing that in DVD reviews, I've seen it.

― AaronHz (AaronHz), Thursday, 24 March 2005 12:25 (twenty years ago)

i think that stuff is the weakest in imac's book. the best stuff is surely the stuff that links the beatles to wider stuff that was happenin, eg the bits on 'revolution' and may '68.

Aaron -- on the real? where?

― N_RQ, Thursday, 24 March 2005 12:26 (twenty years ago)

it was some review of the back to the future trilogy somewhere.

― AaronHz (AaronHz), Thursday, 24 March 2005 12:27 (twenty years ago)

Maybe it was a reaction to college radio DJs saying: "Uhm. . . The second song I played was from some compilation of Austr--New Zealand bands and it was. . . I forget the name but one of the songs there from the first side of this compilation we just got--it's back on the shelf now. . . I forget the name. . . I think the label is White Cloud Samba or People's Cuts or something. . ."

― RS £aRue (rockist_scientist), Thursday, 24 March 2005 12:44 (twenty years ago)

I only read half of this thread , but the question doesn't seem all that stupid to me...

If you're reading a review, you may or may not be listening to the song at the time - so you have to go get it out, if you own it and if you have it nearby, in order to know what the fuck the reviewer is talking about. Whereas saying, "two measures before the second chorus" or "right after the line 'spent like a fur knee'" is descriptive enough if you have heard the song before (or if you're going to listen to it later), it's easier to remember the point of reference than a number..

< rockism >
..unless the song is just beats/sounds and can't be described by verse/chorus/lyric, in which case nothing interesting is happening anyway.
< /rockism >

..And I would be bored shitless by a book review that referred to the book by page numbers.

― dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 24 March 2005 13:18 (twenty years ago)

.. oh, but lighten up.. who cares if time is used?

― dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 24 March 2005 13:21 (twenty years ago)

I’ll stand up for Pauline, because while this is very rarely done (in my experience) when it is done – and the only place I can recall seeing it is in those Blender Magazine sidebars to cover stories where the writer picks 10 songs by cover-story artist and zeroes in on the best bit at 1:37 or whatever – it sorta makes me wanna smack people.

― Raymond Cummings (Raymond Cummings), Thursday, 24 March 2005 13:22 (twenty years ago)

Everyone seems to agree that this question was about reviews, although that never appears in the earliest formulation of the question.

― RS £aRue (rockist_scientist), Thursday, 24 March 2005 13:22 (twenty years ago)

Whether it's published or not, talking about music that way is a "review" ...

Choose a different word if you like .. it'll mean the same thing.

― dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 24 March 2005 13:25 (twenty years ago)

No way. I don't think all criticism is a review. But for example: what if it occurs here on ILM about something that isn't particularly new? What if I am writing primarily for someone who has already heard the song in question? Is that necessarily a review too? I wouldn't say so.

― RS £aRue (rockist_scientist), Thursday, 24 March 2005 13:29 (twenty years ago)

I think "review" has to be linked to some sort of time limit. If someone publishes an essay now about The Catcher in the Rye, it wouldn't be considered a review. In fact, it would seem like a joke to write a review of it now.

― RS £aRue (rockist_scientist), Thursday, 24 March 2005 13:30 (twenty years ago)

Fine. You're still talking about it. And the person you're telling it to still has to get a copy of the track to know what you're talking about if you're using time to describe something in it.

"Review" "Analysis" "EggCup" .. call it whatever...

― dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 24 March 2005 13:34 (twenty years ago)

Ever notice how at 1:28 of the Beatles' "What Goes On", you can hear in the left speaker John saying "we told you why!" after Ringo sings "Tell me why"? Good stuff.

― Pleasant Plains /// (Pleasant Plains ///), Thursday, 24 March 2005 16:46 (twenty years ago)

skipping over a good part of this thread, I would LOVE to see more reviews where the writer pinpoints exact moments of the song to talk about.

― AaronK (AaronK), Thursday, 24 March 2005 16:52 (twenty years ago)

"Some writers talk about a band's influences in reviews. Some people will check them out, some won't. Some people will seek out original version of a cover tune, some won't. Some people will check out a band's previous recordings before the current hype/hit, some won't. SOME PEOPLE WILL CHECK OUT THE PART OF THE SONG THAT OCCURS AT A TIME CODE MENTIONED BY A REVIEWER, AND SOME WON'T."

yeah so i think as walter kinda suggested above, this is totally comparing apples and oranges. the three examples in lower case above can be interesting and potentially useful whether they are acted upon or not, where the example in upper case can be interesting and useful ONLY if the reader acts upon it. so its inclusion in the review presupposes that the review will be used in a particular way. it's like the writer wants to control what I DO with his review. if the review is not used in that way, the piece of information in question is by definition completely useless and meaningless.

― composer of outlaw music for 40 years, Thursday, 24 March 2005 17:14 (twenty years ago)

"the example in upper case can be interesting and useful ONLY if the reader acts upon it."

Not necessarily true. If the writer also explains what he/she is talking about, you might not feel the need to go listen to it immediately, might listen for it the next time you play the thing, etc.

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Thursday, 24 March 2005 17:24 (twenty years ago)

Are you by any chance wearing a tinfoil hat to block the rays the FBI is using to scan the brains of American citizens?

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 24 March 2005 17:32 (twenty years ago)

Ever notice how at 1:28 of the Beatles' "What Goes On", you can hear in the left speaker John saying "we told you why!" after Ringo sings "Tell me why"? Good stuff.
...
If the writer also explains what he/she is talking about, you might not feel the need to go listen to it immediately, might listen for it the next time you play the thing, etc.

So what's the point of the time reference if it anyway needs to be explained with words?

― dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 24 March 2005 17:40 (twenty years ago)

"the example in upper case can be interesting and useful ONLY if the reader acts upon it."
Not necessarily true. If the writer also explains what he/she is talking about, you might not feel the need to go listen to it immediately, might listen for it the next time you play the thing, "

Tim, that IS acting upon it. Exactly what I said. And you could listen for it whether the writer gave you precise time coordinates or not; they add nothing you wouldn't already have, except that they dictate HOW you should listen for it. They serve no other purpose.

― composer of outlaw music for 40 years, Thursday, 24 March 2005 17:45 (twenty years ago)

Society's arms of control...
RISE ABOVE WE'RE GONNA RISE ABOVE

― Silky Sensor (sexyDancer), Thursday, 24 March 2005 17:46 (twenty years ago)

What I was getting it is that if the reviewer also described whatever it is that they want to say about the section and used the time coordinates to identify it, at least you'd have the description also. You could go listen to it if you felt like it, but if the description was good enough, that would also suffice.

I don't know if I've seen it done in reviews, personally, but I'm open to the idea that it can be have a purpose. As far as academic writing, Allan Moore (if I remember correctly) does this a lot in his Sgt. Pepper book and it seemed useful.

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Thursday, 24 March 2005 17:59 (twenty years ago)

Jesus.

1: "Hey everyone, here's a brick wall, try to destroy it using nothing but your forehead!"
2: "OK!"
3: *thud* *thud* *thud* *thud* *thud*

― sleep (sleep), Thursday, 24 March 2005 21:23 (twenty years ago)

sorry

― sleep (sleep), Thursday, 24 March 2005 21:26 (twenty years ago)

..And I would be bored shitless by a book review that referred to the book by page numbers.

I don't see how you possibly could be more or less bored by that.
If someone quotes a passage from the Crying of Lot 49 for instance and goes:
Meanwhile, back in the torture room, the cardinal is now being forced to bleed into a chalice and consecrate his own blood, not to God, but to Satan. They also cut off his big toe, and he is made to hold it up like a Host and say, "This is my body," the keen-witted Angelo observing that it's the first time he's told anything like the truth in fifty years of systematic lying. Altogether, a most anti-clerical scene, perhaps intended as a sop to the Puritans of the time (a useless gesture since none of them ever went to plays, regarding them for some reason as immoral). (peng.cl.ed. p. 53, para.1), if you have the book you can either look it up in context, or not. I would rather have the option of doing so.

The argument here seems to be nothing more than OH GOD TOO MUCH INFORMATION MAKE IT STOP

― AaronHz (AaronHz), Thursday, 24 March 2005 21:42 (twenty years ago)

WE ARE TIRED
OF YOUR ABUSE
TRY TO STOP US
IT'S NO USE
RISE ABOVE
RISE ABOVE
RISE ABOVE
WE'RE GONNA RISE ABOVE

― Silky Sensor (sexyDancer), Thursday, 24 March 2005 21:45 (twenty years ago)

What is going on! Are you all MAD!?

― deej., Thursday, 24 March 2005 21:45 (twenty years ago)

Let's go back to searching for tracks where the best part happens at 7:43 +/- 0:02

― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Thursday, 24 March 2005 21:50 (twenty years ago)

Pink Floyd "Echoes"!

― AaronHz (AaronHz), Thursday, 24 March 2005 21:54 (twenty years ago)

j/k
hmm there's a cool little piano part that comes in Beatles "Revolution 9" at 7:43

― AaronHz (AaronHz), Thursday, 24 March 2005 22:00 (twenty years ago)

OH GOD TOO MUCH INFORMATION MAKE IT STOP

Yes, exactly! Thank you. U HURT MY BRANE, PLS MAKE IT STOP!

― walter kranz (walterkranz), Thursday, 24 March 2005 22:04 (twenty years ago)

http://orbita.starmedia.com/~necrose/Sci-Fi/Filmes/scanners.jpg

― Silky Sensor (sexyDancer), Thursday, 24 March 2005 22:22 (twenty years ago)

At the 7:43 point of "Epitaph" you have just heard the end of the first timpani roll without Greg Lake singing over it.

To answer the original question- I don't know, but I guess it must have happened when all the math-geek fiction hataz took over.

― Ken L (Ken L), Thursday, 24 March 2005 22:35 (twenty years ago)

& ppl who can't tell boring information from entertaining information

― olde english henrod, Thursday, 24 March 2005 22:50 (twenty years ago)

So what's the point of the time reference if it anyway needs to be explained with words?

5:51; 9:01

― RS £aRue (rockist_scientist), Thursday, 24 March 2005 22:51 (twenty years ago)

What's the point of saying "Rest Stop 10 miles ahead" if you need to use words to say it?

― RS £aRue (rockist_scientist), Thursday, 24 March 2005 22:56 (twenty years ago)

I hate being told how many aspirin to take on the label, I think I'll swallow the whole bottle.

― AaronHz (AaronHz), Thursday, 24 March 2005 23:07 (twenty years ago)

no, i have an idea! let's make every record review as exciting as a road sign or aspirin label instead. that'd be great!

― olde english henrod, Thursday, 24 March 2005 23:42 (twenty years ago)

pill bottle labels are exciting, if not taken strictly literally

― dave q (listerine), Thursday, 24 March 2005 23:46 (twenty years ago)

Well I see you've reviewed your brand-new leopardskin pill-bottle label.

― Ken L (Ken L), Thursday, 24 March 2005 23:52 (twenty years ago)

olde english retard, It's surely not possible to make a review exciting and informative is it?

― AaronHz (AaronHz), Friday, 25 March 2005 00:02 (twenty years ago)

never implied it wasn't, dimwit.

nor did anybody else on this thread

though some of the best record reviews are all lies.

― olde english henrod, Friday, 25 March 2005 00:23 (twenty years ago)

give me example, o wise olde english hentai asshole.

― AaronHz (AaronHz), Friday, 25 March 2005 00:39 (twenty years ago)

BESIDES Lester Bangs' "Psychotic Reactions and Carburetor Dung: A Tale of These Times".

― AaronHz (AaronHz), Friday, 25 March 2005 00:42 (twenty years ago)

You know the thread is in trouble when Aaron has put his name in the name field to reveal his true self to do battle with the trolls.

― Ken L (Ken L), Friday, 25 March 2005 01:04 (twenty years ago)

VAN HALEN
Best of Both Worlds
(Rhino)
Van Halen are known for their legendary trademark and a long train runnin’ of numbers for titles instead of words, for instance calling their thirteenth release 3. This compilation doesn’t include anything from that 1998 collaboration with Robbie "Jesus is Just Alright" Robertson (from Extreme, whose ode to mute bitches was the "Isn’t it Time" to "Under the Bridge"’s "Roxanne") which consolidated Robertson’s 1987 and 1991 Compact Discs except with a less consistent vocal approach ("The Greatest American Hero theme" even featured Eddie singing) and more instrumental solo expression. In the meantime somebody at Rolling Stone heard a copy of Diver Down, glanced at the cover, and consequently thinking it was the White Stripes placed Jack White at #17 in their Greatest Guitarists Ever poll. After contemplating their futures and considering Don Ho and Magnum McGarret as lead singers, the band reunited with Jason Scheff, who sang such hits as "I Don’t Wanna Live Without Your Love" and "Look Away" during the band’s 80s resurgence. He wrote some new songs here but unfortunately "VOA ("raise the flag/let it wave/ shoot them down/ to their graves") 2"isn’t one of them. That would’ve been interesting in this exciting times but instead "Up for Breakfast" sounds a little too obviously pre-designed for the forthcoming Crank Waffles halftime-show spot, however resigned yet unnerving coming from the one-time Dean Martin of the guitar. Imagine waking up sober and realizing that’s how good you’re going to sound for the rest of your career. (One day at a time!) And then collaborating with a professional tequila drinker.
This 2-for-1 of Abacab and Happy Mondays’ Raunch’n’Roll Live is misleadingly led off by "Eruption". Now than anyone alive can play the second half, it’s best heard as a field recording and would’ve better a fit a compilation including "Spanish Fly", "Tora Tora", "Cathedral", "Strung Out", "Marin Muezzin" from Sammy Hagar Having Fun on Stage, "Sunday Afternoon in the Park", "Saturday in the Park", "Free Form Guitar", "Watermelon in Easter Hay" and the Deer Hunter theme. However dedicated to the people of the revolution a direct challenge to Derek Bailey might be, it bears remembering that many who prefer the Scheff shift to the Cetera era can at least prove they live their lives like they know there’s a tomorrow and without love where would they be right now.

# posted by dave @ 6:44 AM

― olde english henrod, Friday, 25 March 2005 01:07 (twenty years ago)

Ken, wouldn't it be great if one of these fules was the Questionizer?

― AaronHz (AaronHz), Friday, 25 March 2005 01:13 (twenty years ago)

x-post
I've made up funnier rock trivia confusion bullshit just hanging out with friends.

― AaronHz (AaronHz), Friday, 25 March 2005 01:16 (twenty years ago)

Seriously, if reviews like that are your idea of great criticism, get yourself a lobotomy. It goes great with a markprindle.com t-shirt.

― AaronHz (AaronHz), Friday, 25 March 2005 01:19 (twenty years ago)

1:38-2:09 of Frank Zappa's "Catholic Girls" is the funkiest break I have ever heard in my life. I rewind it and listen to it over and over.

― @@r0n h. z@nd3r$ (AaronHz), Thursday, 7 April 2005 21:57 (twenty years ago)

Hahahaha... all hail Vinnie Coliauta.

― Curious George (1/6 Scale Model) (Rock Hardy), Thursday, 7 April 2005 22:10 (twenty years ago)

I want to play a show where we just do that for 45 minutes.

― @@r0n h. z@nd3r$ (AaronHz), Thursday, 7 April 2005 23:12 (twenty years ago)

VINNIE!

― cutty (mcutt), Friday, 8 April 2005 01:26 (twenty years ago)

I want to play a show where we just do that for 45 minutes.

I'd pay to see that. Bill yourself as "The New Boredoms." Speaking of which.... SIX WEEKS TO VICTO!!!

― Curious George (1/6 Scale Model) (Rock Hardy), Friday, 8 April 2005 02:06 (twenty years ago)

My fusion project Deus Inchoatus is currently uh, inchoate.
But it might be a fun encore idea or something someday. Catholic Girls with a 45 minute break. (haha, 15 minutes seems a bit more reasonable).
What the fuck are you supposed to call that time signature anyway?
I just go 1-2-3-4,1-2-3-4,1-2-3-1-2-3 (x3); 1-2-3-1-2, 1-2-3-1-2. That works.
Is there a better way to be counting that? I'm not a drummer.

― @@r0n h. z@nd3r$ (AaronHz), Friday, 8 April 2005 04:56 (twenty years ago)

I used to know the exact hour minute and second on The Gift DVD when Katie Holmes shows her tits, but I forgot it.

― billstevejim, Friday, 8 April 2005 05:10 (twenty years ago)

(I never owned that DVD by the way, in case anyone thinks I have shite taste in film.)

― billstevejim, Friday, 8 April 2005 05:10 (twenty years ago)

I'm listening to that Grupo Niche song that jumps into another dimension at 3:17 ("Cielo de Tambores").

― RS £aRue (rockist_scientist), Friday, 8 April 2005 10:19 (twenty years ago)

(I never owned that DVD by the way, in case anyone thinks I have shite taste in film.)

Haha.

― RS £aRue (rockist_scientist), Friday, 8 April 2005 10:20 (twenty years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.