Album Rating: 3.0

Gonna stay at a 2.5 on this after a few listens but I think I will go back to it again at some point

"but FYI I wasn’t trolling. (?)"

That's extremely unfortunate

“SMFH artists already getting fucking rawdogged out of profits on their own music and u want them to give up ownership of their own art entirely”

That’s why what I described is a utopian fantasy and not a realistic ideal.

if I build a cabinet I’m using my labour to provide a product, despite working with materials that already existed. wanting to be fairly compensated for my labour and make a living wage isn’t necessarily capitalistic. most musicians don’t even make a living on their art as is

the music industry could probably be vastly improved if it were ... well, not an industry, maybe, but why shouldn’t bands exist? it’s helpful to categorize sounds and choose who you would like to hear more from.

and yeah I mean, the core emotions therein might not be totally new but if that’s all that mattered then ppl would have stopped making music decades ago once all the core emotions/feelings/etc were covered (or whatever year that might have happened lol I really don’t know the timeline on musical emotions). what is new is arrangements, specific lyrical references, singers with somewhat distinct voices, different combinations of sounds, cultural subtext, etc

but, I mean, the idea of music being communally shared is... nice, but, like, doesn’t that sorta kinda happen in musical communities? the overwhelming majority of musicians aren’t getting rich doing what they do, and often are content to simply share what they make. I feel like there are cultural pockets where your “utopian fantasy” is actually very much reality.

inb4 Nolton drops a Lenny face on me

“the music industry could probably be vastly improved if it were ... well, not an industry, maybe, but why shouldn’t bands exist? it’s helpful to categorize sounds and choose who you would like to hear more from.”

That’s why it’s just a fantasy and not something I really wish upon the state of the music industry. the romantic idea of leaving arbitrary labels on art behind seems beneficial, but really just ends up holding you back from connecting with your audience. Phil asks on this record “what really is the point of giving my work a “creative” title? The answer is recognizability. Positioning. Giving people an idea of what they are about to listen to before they listen to it. Because, speaking from experience, if you don’t give people a strong reason to consume your art, they won’t.

And, to be clear, one of the prerequisites to my musical utopia is that the pursuit of capital is no longer necessary. Again, totally unrealistic, but we’re talking about utopias here.

I have about 3 paragraphs left in me before I return to 3 word responses again for the next 6 months.

Ok I get you, somewhat

I got some tomatoes for your trouble.

I think we can agree that band names, genre tags, album titles... things like that aren’t only helpful but completely essential. Without anything refer back to, it becomes impossible to consume a piece of art that you’ve moved on from.

If you create a piece of art, but no one is there to hear it, is it still art? *tree falling noises*

Album Rating: 4.5

Sigur Ros's ( ) had no effective title nor any track names and that album has no problem topping post-rock charts because it's goddamned incredible no matter how you refer to it.

That’s a pretty memorable album “title” honestly haha.

Album Rating: 4.5

in my head there are and ( ) is near the top

what's a phil

Album Rating: 4.5

PHIL CONNER



NED



RYERSON



NEEDLE NOSE NED NED THE HEAD

Album Rating: 3.0

Top of the post rock charts lol

worst. chart. ever.

second only to the sput all-time chart

Album Rating: 4.0

( ) is kinda fascinating in the scheme of the very important debate over whether abstraction can be cheesy as hell

Album Rating: 3.0

I really don’t dig ( ) at all Id rather listen to Bark Psychosis or something in that vein