Come Clean About Your Arty Pieces Of Sh*t

Holerbot6000 · 08-11-2012, 11:39 AM

I don't know who I would impress by buying something 'arty' that I don't like - that would presume 1) I've got people pawing through my record collection that I want to impress and 2) they've got the musical breadth of knowledge to appreciate the 'artiness' of whatever it is I'm trying to impress them with.

Much more common is having people wonder why the hell I've got Carmen Miranda or Elton Britt records and thinking I'm a frickin' weirdo because of it.

I will say this - I have bought records that are supposedly essential and then struggled to find a way in with them, but I do tend to keep those records because I know that they may take more than a few listens to really 'get' them. I remember the first few times I heard 'The Modern Dance' by Pere Ubu, I just didn't get it, then one day I had a hangover and put that record on and it suddenly made perfect sense. I have been a huge Ubu fan ever since. I can think of several instances like that.

Maybe those arty records that you have but you don't like are just waiting for the right moment to latch on to your brain. Everything happens for a reason.

Zyrada · 08-11-2012, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duraddict

I wouldn't call Manners crap, either. Artsy and pretentious? Definitely.

That said, despite the fact the I liked it just fine, it wasn't worth owning. I like the new single, though.

Are we talking about the album itself, or the people who generally tend to like it? I mean, as far as I'm concerned, Manners is just another indie pop album. The whole nature of the genre falls a little to the pretentious side because of its fans (although that's a generalization if I ever saw one), but it doesn't stand out to me as being any more or less up in itself about its "craft" than any of its contemporaries.

For the record, I'm also not trying to be a "too deep for you" contrarian. I just feel like Manners had too many hooks and palatable melodies to really be considered genuine "arty sh*t".

YorkeDaddy · 08-11-2012, 12:03 PM

The only right answer is Beefheart.

Duraddict · 08-11-2012, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zyrada

but it doesn't stand out to me as being any more or less up in itself about its "craft" than any of its contemporaries.

Right, but I don't own any of those contemporaries, and the thread was just asking about the records we happened to have owned.

Quote:

For the record, I'm also not trying to be a "too deep for you" contrarian. I just feel like Manners had too many hooks and palatable melodies to really be considered genuine "arty sh*t".

That's fine. I consider myself to be an expert in terrible pop music, and Passion Pit's music stands in its own way. I can't say it's fully enjoyable, because it's trying VERY hard to not be typical pop music while... just being simple pop music. It just has a glossy, sleek production that throws it into the "artsy" subgroup. Again, I don't hate the album. I enjoyed quite a few songs. But generally speaking, they're just dressed up pop songs, and that to me makes them pretentious.

Zyrada · 08-11-2012, 01:06 PM

Essentially, it boils down to the differences between our definitions of "arty sh*t", which is really the entire point of this thread and makes our whole dialogue kind of redundant. Or demonstrative. I'm not sure which. But yeah, I totally agree with you about the production, it's very over-consciously engineered. People eat that stuff right up, but it makes you feel kind of dirty when you're listening to it if you know the game right from the get-go.

Trollheart · 08-11-2012, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zyrada

this one musique concrète album consisting entirely of recordings of various models of copying machines,

Seriously?? Someone actually put that on an album???

Zyrada · 08-11-2012, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trollheart

Seriously?? Someone actually put that on an album???

It's like Rule 34 applied to music. No matter how weird it sounds, someone's probably done it.

It's actually surprisingly interesting, too, if you have an ear and the interest for that sort of thing. Each model has a distinct sound that's easier to pick up on if you know how to separate yourself from the whole "I'm listening to copying machines" deal. Very reminiscent of Étude aux chemins de fer, which kind of comes with the territory.

**Frownland** · 08-11-2012, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zyrada

I'll freely admit that finding "arty pieces of ****" is one of the drives behind my desire to find new music. Out of everything in my library, there are two things that immediately jump to mind: this one musique concrète album consisting entirely of recordings of various models of copying machines, and... well, any zeuhl. Although I guess any of the musique concrète I have counts as well. But I genuinely like all of it, otherwise I wouldn't have it.

What's this album called? I might want to...check it out.

Duraddict · 08-11-2012, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zyrada

It's like Rule 34 applied to music. No matter how weird it sounds, someone's probably done it.

It's actually surprisingly interesting, too, if you have an ear and the interest for that sort of thing. Each model has a distinct sound that's easier to pick up on if you know how to separate yourself from the whole "I'm listening to copying machines" deal. Very reminiscent of Étude aux chemins de fer, which kind of comes with the territory.

Was it released before Björk's Vespertine?

Zyrada · 08-11-2012, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

What's this album called? I might want to...check it out.

"Copying Machine Music" by Xerophonics (YouTube'd for convenience's sake)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duraddict

Was it released before Björk's Vespertine?

About four years after it.

08-11-2012, 11:39 AM	#11 (permalink)
Holerbot6000 Music Mutant Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: near a record store Posts: 327	I don't know who I would impress by buying something 'arty' that I don't like - that would presume 1) I've got people pawing through my record collection that I want to impress and 2) they've got the musical breadth of knowledge to appreciate the 'artiness' of whatever it is I'm trying to impress them with. Much more common is having people wonder why the hell I've got Carmen Miranda or Elton Britt records and thinking I'm a frickin' weirdo because of it. I will say this - I have bought records that are supposedly essential and then struggled to find a way in with them, but I do tend to keep those records because I know that they may take more than a few listens to really 'get' them. I remember the first few times I heard 'The Modern Dance' by Pere Ubu, I just didn't get it, then one day I had a hangover and put that record on and it suddenly made perfect sense. I have been a huge Ubu fan ever since. I can think of several instances like that. Maybe those arty records that you have but you don't like are just waiting for the right moment to latch on to your brain. Everything happens for a reason.

08-11-2012, 12:03 PM	#13 (permalink)
YorkeDaddy silky smooth Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Pangaea Posts: 4,079	The only right answer is Beefheart.

08-11-2012, 01:06 PM	#15 (permalink)
Zyrada Avant-Gardener Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Inside your navel gazing back at you Posts: 163	Essentially, it boils down to the differences between our definitions of "arty sh*t", which is really the entire point of this thread and makes our whole dialogue kind of redundant. Or demonstrative. I'm not sure which. But yeah, I totally agree with you about the production, it's very over-consciously engineered. People eat that stuff right up, but it makes you feel kind of dirty when you're listening to it if you know the game right from the get-go.