[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

This record very much reminds me of the progression that tool made from Lateralus to 10,000 Days.. Not necessarily in the way it sounds so much as the way that it builds on a sound that was discovered on the first record.

With Lateralus Tool discovered a new aspect of their sound and approach. With 10,000 Days they build on this discovery, mastered, embellished, exaggerated it. I like 10,000 Days better..

With The Seer Swans clearly discovered a new, more musical approach to their droning feedback and minimalist repetition. With To Be Kind, it feels like they took the best parts and pieces of The Seer, and built on them. This is then a progression, an evolution. I like it. I like when bands do this. So often bands make these really great records, but then move on to a different sound on the next record. Swans found something better here

[h8kurdt]

I'ma gonna stop you thre. Lateralus is a perfect, 10,000 days is just alright. and as much as I love the album, Bring the Sun is just as ok. HOWEVER, 'Just a little boy' has one of the best riffs EVER. I came.

[louder]

Originally Posted by h8kurdt

HOWEVER, 'Just a little boy' has one of the best riffs EVER. I came.

YES.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by h8kurdt

I'ma gonna stop you thre. Lateralus is a perfect, 10,000 days is just alright. and as much as I love the album, Bring the Sun is just as ok. HOWEVER, 'Just a little boy' has one of the best riffs EVER. I came.

I already anticipated this, most tool fans didn't receive 10,000 Days as well as they did Lateralus and true lyrically there is nothing compared to Lateralus BUT instrumentation and music wise, I think that 10,000 Days is a better record, it is an evolution, progression, and expansion on some of the best sonic moments from Lateralus, like they tapped into it. I feel this same way about To Be Kind, it sounds like best moments on The Seer but dwells on them, expanded them, kind of like zooming in on fractals. The deeper you examine, the more complex and intricate the pattern becomes, but its the same pattern. To Be Kind is like a fractal of The Seer in this regard..

 

[Savage Clone]

Oh man please take your Tool talk out of the Swans thread. brb barfing

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by Savage Clone

Oh man please take your Tool talk out of the Swans thread. brb barfing

I anticipated this too, sorry, I'm not talking about tool to talk about tool, but to compare records that followed a similar kind of progression. Did you notice I spent most of this thread, in fact, probably 98% talking about Swans right?? In fact, I've talked about To Be Kind more than you have chosen to on this thread, and by volume and ratio, you've technically devoted more of your brief post to tool than I did

[Savage Clone]

At least I didn't gloss over their acousticky/goth years...

But OK you win, Tool apologist.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by Savage Clone

At least I didn't gloss over their acousticky/goth years...

But OK you win, Tool apologist.

Hahahaha.... that's why I love you Savage Clone!

 

Yeah, I did sort of gloss over those years, and yeah, I am the resident SYG Tool/radiohead apologist, but why get into polemics here? This is a kick ass Swans thread, about what seems like possibly the best Swans records as a composition.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by h8kurdt

HOWEVER, 'Just a little boy' has one of the best riffs EVER. I came.

Did you make it to the riff on "Kirsten Supine?" I'm honestly not sure a song has so perfectly captured the sounds I hear in my head its almost kind of scary because even my own music that I create always has this certain ambient element missing that gets lost in translation from my brain to my guitar meanwhile Swans seems to have crawled into my brain and found a way..

[Genteel Death]

 

[guest]

I hate saying this but I'm really deterred by all the hyperbolic bullshit surrounding this record that even gira himself seems to be playing into. never wanted to be one of these people but the bandwagon-jumpers who hopped on at the seer are really infuriating me with their 'my they're oh so scary' comments and adjectives ripped directly from pitchfork reviews. really I just don't get how these people listen to sky fucking ferreira and swans. is there not a really distinct disparity between the two? I'm all for diversity and shit or whatever but, to be frank, I'm insulted by shared tastes with these fuckwits.

[guest]

all that said I'm sure the record is LOVELY

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by guest

all that said I'm sure the record is LOVELY

All that bitching and you haven't even listened to record before you condemn folks as being cliched, fake, or relying on hyperbole?? LISTEN TO THE ACTUAL RECORD FIRST BEFORE YOU SHIT TALK, perhaps you'll discover that the comments are justified

[Genteel Death]

Originally Posted by guest

I hate saying this but I'm really deterred by all the hyperbolic bullshit surrounding this record that even gira himself seems to be playing into. never wanted to be one of these people but the bandwagon-jumpers who hopped on at the seer are really infuriating me with their 'my they're oh so scary' comments and adjectives ripped directly from pitchfork reviews. really I just don't get how these people listen to sky fucking ferreira and swans. is there not a really distinct disparity between the two? I'm all for diversity and shit or whatever but, to be frank, I'm insulted by shared tastes with these fuckwits.

I love Swans and I'm really looking forward to seeing them live but I have a problem with some of the ''oh so frightening'' doomy aesthetics which seem to surround their music and charisma. I used to think, stupidly, that this may be because, no matter what, I feel detached and faggy when it comes to addressing some of the issues they do in their songs, but I came to the conclusion it's probably just a way of thinking about them in a different way and being super guarded when it comes to pomposity in rock music. There is definitely a certain element of pomposity in Michael Gira, but then again he seems like a pretty lucid, engaging artist in the way he makes music and talks about it. He could easily end up being a Bob Dylan type of pompous character, but he seems to get it just about right in the new Swans incarnation. One of the things that often grates on this new record is his voice. wtf is that bluesy treatment it seems to get on some songs? White people sound terrible and dishonest when they sing in a bluesy voice.

[louder]

Originally Posted by Genteel Death

White people sound terrible and dishonest when they sing in a bluesy voice.

not always

[Bytor Peltor]

You Know Nothing - A Conversation With Michael Gira

[Genteel Death]

Originally Posted by louder

not always

Sure. On the song ''She Loves Us'' (surely it's more of a ''track'' that one), they even add some cod-world music vocals for effect. I love it when it turns into notorious Tory Gary Numan, like it's been mentioned on a previous post. It's when I suddenly feel like I can't talk anymore and the Swans experience is complete for me. I am complete. I used to feel but I don't have to anymore. The symbolism is so overwhelming my legs are the arms of Jesus.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by Genteel Death

I love Swans and I'm really looking forward to seeing them live but I have a problem with some of the ''oh so frightening'' doomy aesthetics which seem to surround their music and charisma.

I agree, honestly, the imagery and themes of their music seemed to be more positive than dark? They are deeply introspective, but I don't think they are inherently negative or frightening, if anything quite the opposite, it provides a vehicle through the power of sound and poetry to chase away negativity in a kind of cathartic bliss??

[dead_battery]

Originally Posted by guest

I hate saying this but I'm really deterred by all the hyperbolic bullshit surrounding this record that even gira himself seems to be playing into. never wanted to be one of these people but the bandwagon-jumpers who hopped on at the seer are really infuriating me with their 'my they're oh so scary' comments and adjectives ripped directly from pitchfork reviews. really I just don't get how these people listen to sky fucking ferreira and swans. is there not a really distinct disparity between the two? I'm all for diversity and shit or whatever but, to be frank, I'm insulted by shared tastes with these fuckwits.

they care about music insofar as it makes them money. if you want to a good review, you pay them. the rest of the time they will either trash or hype releases for the sense of credibility it might give them, but fundamentally they don't give a shit.

for pitchfork, its just as important to deliberately shit on artists that (can't afford) to pay them. they like to give mediocre reviews to ACTUALLY good indie/experimental music because giving something a 6 or a 7 is deadly, give it a 0 and people will pay attention, but 6 or 7 just makes people pass it over as bland without even hearing it. all pitchfork really cares about is mainstream american pop music and that side of indie that intermixes with it. they deliberately shit on stuff because its the only way they can make themselves look credible. from their very beginning, their singular goal was to erase any differences between actually alternative and anti commercial stuff and create a seamless harmony between 80's 90's pop and stuff like radiohead and the most bland college rock indie. they are a business and they have been mostly a scourge to actual underground music for a long time now.

i dont give the first fuck about the actual musical merits of mainstream pop music, it might even have a certain quality to it, but i still fucking hate it on a matter of principle and want a space where it can be ignored or destroyed as the mass appeal trash that it is. pitchfork was all about capitalizing on indie and trying to remove any boundaries between underground culture and mainstream culture. a vast amount of the shit it has actually promoted in its best of lists is pure fucking garbage. its a pop magazine for people who are a bit too cool for school. thats it.

i respect what swans is doing now, i dont think its as great as anyone else says it is but it its still good.

swans might have peaked with this

that song is one of the greatest of all time. swans have done some of the best music of the past few decades. they are coming out with great stuff still. they deserve the respect, good for them for getting the hype and hopefully some cash. to be fair to swans, they didn't just go into a decline, they knock out amazing songs or pieces all the time. they're a great band.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by dead_battery

they care about music insofar as it makes them money. if you want to a good review, you pay them. the rest of the time they will either trash or hype releases for the sense of credibility it might give them, but fundamentally they don't give a shit.

for pitchfork, its just as important to deliberately shit on artists that (can't afford) to pay them. they like to give mediocre reviews to ACTUALLY good indie/experimental music because giving something a 6 or a 7 is deadly, give it a 0 and people will pay attention, but 6 or 7 just makes people pass it over as bland without even hearing it. all pitchfork really cares about is mainstream american pop music and that side of indie that intermixes with it. they deliberately shit on stuff because its the only way they can make themselves look credible. from their very beginning, their singular goal was to erase any differences between actually alternative and anti commercial stuff and create a seamless harmony between 80's 90's pop and stuff like radiohead and the most bland college rock indie. they are a business and they have been mostly a scourge to actual underground music for a long time now.

i dont give the first fuck about the actual musical merits of mainstream pop music, it might even have a certain quality to it, but i still fucking hate it on a matter of principle and want a space where it can be ignored or destroyed as the mass appeal trash that it is. pitchfork was all about capitalizing on indie and trying to remove any boundaries between underground culture and mainstream culture. a vast amount of the shit it has actually promoted in its best of lists is pure fucking garbage. its a pop magazine for people who are a bit too cool for school. thats it.

i respect what swans is doing now, i dont think its as great as anyone else says it is but it its still good.

swans might have peaked with this

that song is one of the greatest of all time. swans have done some of the best music of the past few decades. they are coming out with great stuff still. they deserve the respect, good for them for getting the hype and hopefully some cash. to be fair to swans, they didn't just go into a decline, they knock out amazing songs or pieces all the time. they're a great band.

Write stuff like this, you're so much better when not just trolling (and let me clarify, when you're not making purposefully and calculatedly incendiary remarks )

Though you are trolling us with that Swans link, at least, I fucking hope you are!