From: owner-support-system-digest@smoe.org (support-system-digest) To: support-system-digest@smoe.org Subject: support-system-digest V8 #67 Reply-To: support-system@smoe.org Sender: owner-support-system-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-support-system-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk support-system-digest Friday, July 1 2005 Volume 08 : Number 067 Today's Subjects: ----------------- [support-system] RE: SLEATER-KINNEY ["Jeremy Rea" ] Re: [support-system] RE: SLEATER-KINNEY [Scott Hamilton Subject: [support-system] RE: SLEATER-KINNEY From The Onion: " Most striking of all, The Woods is loud. Instruments and vocals bury the needle in the red, crackling and popping with a distortion that's not a studio effectit occasionally sounds as if something's wrong with the recording. " jeremy >Does anyone out there have the new Sleater Kinney, and does it sound like >krap? I don't mean >the songs themselves I mean the sound. When I first listened to it at work >I thought my >speakers where going. Then I listened to it in my car and it sounded even >worse. The only >discription I can give is a blaring sound. I just seen them in Chicago >and that also was blaring. Is >my cd f't up or is this there new sound? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 08:30:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Scott Hamilton Subject: Re: [support-system] RE: SLEATER-KINNEY Agreed. I haven't been able to digest the songs, because I can't get past the crappy sound. Lo-fi is lo-fi, but this is no-fi. Yuck. Jeremy Rea wrote: From The Onion: " Most striking of all, The Woods is loud. Instruments and vocals bury the needle in the red, crackling and popping with a distortion that's not a studio effectit occasionally sounds as if something's wrong with the recording. " jeremy >Does anyone out there have the new Sleater Kinney, and does it sound like >krap? I don't mean >the songs themselves I mean the sound. When I first listened to it at work >I thought my >speakers where going. Then I listened to it in my car and it sounded even >worse. The only >discription I can give is a blaring sound. I just seen them in Chicago >and that also was blaring. Is >my cd f't up or is this there new sound? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 09:23:08 -0700 (PDT) From: daniel ryder Subject: Re: [support-system] RE: SLEATER-KINNEY i listened to the album a lot... and i still never got it. and i love all their stuff i just didn't get the new one. i too thought the CD was popping too loud and something was wrong. i shelved it for a while and theeeeeen i saw them live and it was fucking amazing. it all made total sense after the first song blared past me. now i wait to *feel* the loud parts. the first song means it's time to rock and it just rocks on through and i listen to the full album often now. i even find it hard to listen to their old albums now because this one is just so beyond it. so give it a chance... play it eveb louder and pleeease see them live if you can. let loose and raw rock and roll... yes! - -dcr - --- Scott Hamilton wrote: > Agreed. I haven't been able to digest the songs, > because I can't get past the crappy sound. > > Lo-fi is lo-fi, but this is no-fi. Yuck. > > Jeremy Rea wrote: > From The Onion: > " > Most striking of all, The Woods is loud. Instruments > and vocals bury the > needle in the red, crackling and popping with a > distortion that's not a > studio effectit occasionally sounds as if > something's wrong with the > recording. > " > > jeremy > > >Does anyone out there have the new Sleater Kinney, > and does it sound like > >krap? I don't mean > >the songs themselves I mean the sound. When I first > listened to it at work > >I thought my > >speakers where going. Then I listened to it in my > car and it sounded even > >worse. The only > >discription I can give is a blaring sound. I just > seen them in Chicago > >and that also was blaring. Is > >my cd f't up or is this there new sound? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2005 03:52:42 +0000 From: "over pavema" Subject: [support-system] RE: support-system-digest V8 #66 someone wrote (i can't tell your name, sorry) >> Does anyone out there have the new Sleater Kinney, and does it sound >>like krap? I don't mean the songs themselves I mean the sound. When I >>first listened to it at work I thought my speakers where going. Then I >>listened to it in my car and it sounded even worse. The only discription >>I can give is a blaring sound. I just seen them in Chicago and that >>also was blaring. Is my cd f't up or is this there new sound?<< can't say if you got an effd-up copy of the cd, but it has a dirty, very beautiful sound perfectly suited to the raw, raucous, loud songs and arrangements. you may want to listen to the clips on the itunes store, and see if they sound like your cd. if you saw them in chicago you know they're pushing themselves hard. personally, i think they are the best band in the world right now, and they want to run on ahead of the pack. in some ways i listen to this as sleater-kinney's version of 'crooked rain crooked rain', but that is not a good analogy. 'the woods' is not about slack, it's an assault. 'modern girl' is a particularly rough-sounding song, which starts out clean and sweet ('my baby loves me, i'm so happy') and, like 98% of the relationships in the world, ends up like an exposed nerve that got infected (my baby loves me, i'm so angry, and it makes me a modern girl...). it's a little obvious when i "explain" it, but on the song it's a sonic wake-up call. seeing them at 930 in d.c. last weekend was so great. my fourth time seeing them, and i still cannot believe that voice comes out of corin tucker, it's super-human. especially starting out on the first song, 'the fox', when she just wails 'i'll go, i'll go, and there's NO LOOKING BACK!' it is bone-chilling. i don't understand how she does it at all, much less night after night. and the full-on pop and background wooo-woo's of 'roller coaster' was perfectly offset by the amps turned up to 11 -- on the record, the song begins with janet dropping her drumsticks, which tells you something about what you're about to hear. at 930 some of the old songs suffered a bit from the mix, i thought. 'sympathy' was still what it always has been -- one of the most intense, personal, beautiful songs i've ever heard. but 'one more hour' was a little lost in the sludge. they are so tight, crisp, and good right now, hitting on every goddam cylinder every time, that they simply aren't satisfied taking baby steps. they push themselves and prove themselves every time out. 'get behind me satan' may be a better record, and it may contain a breath-taking set of songs, but it doesn't reach for something entirely new like sleater-kinney do on 'the woods'. this is the exact opposite of the subject of this mail list, btw. that interview about her new album makes me even more skeptical that it will do anything other than suck. well, it may also blow, as bart might say. liz still doesn't understand that the problem with "L/P" wasn't that it was full of incredible songs that were poorly produced. it was a cleanly-produced collection of songs that generally weren't very good. if the songs were good and the production was 'too clean', it would've sold at least 500,000 copies. it didn't. 460,000 isn't a flop, but it's also not much better than her other records i don't think. and it *definitely* didn't live up to capitol's million-seller expectations. so, if the new record has lousy songs with a rawer production, that's even more annoying than if she'd just made a record like debbie gibson would have made. and her 'explanations / justifications' are (and always have been) so lame. like an art student who 'explains' her art to justify the fact that it is not really art: um, okay, well (thinking, thinking) i made this lamp -- well, i'm contextualizing this lamp to show the dilemma of modern man. we invented artificial light, so we could see, but we can't really 'see' because the light, like so many things in our lives, is artificial. so it's not real light, and we don't realize that we have damaged our innate ability to see. "Intriguing, Ms Phair. I particularly like the fact that you are using a yellow light bulb, which is invisible to insects?" yes, that's right (goddamit, who put a fucking bug light in this thing? think! think!), and actually (because art students say 'actually' all the time, so it is clear to others that they are not lying) that is an important element in this work. it illustrates how we want to extend our artificiality into the realm of nature. we want suburban manicured lawns, with unnatural mutations of flowers that look pretty or smell nice, but we don't want wild plants, animals, or even insects, because real nature is inconvenient and we crave the convenient and the artificial, especially people in suburbia. "Yes, and we put lights outside almost like we are aggressively fighting nature in its form as darkness. Nice work, Liz. Very nice. Now, Mr. Malkmus, you have brought us photographs of fish wearing lipstick. Very unsettling, I must say. Can you give us some background on these images?" "Well, actually, that's blood, not lipstick, and..." And now they've pushed the record release back to october 4th? well, at least it won't be on my birthday, for good or ill. it does indicate they think they can move a lot of copies during the holidays, even though there will be a lot of competition for music dollars that time of year. so, it'll be interesting to hear the results of her work and see the results of capitol's promotional efforts. she specifically told us all to fuck off as "L/P" dived off the charts, forgetting that the first 200,000 copies she sells go to people just like us, and not to fans of 'raising helen' or 'win a date with tad hamilton'. she has a lot to prove, and i'll be impressed and surprised if she can do it with the cast of characters she's surrounding herself with these days. o poop ------------------------------ End of support-system-digest V8 #67 ***********************************