Sister gets full page 'Classic Albums' article in this week's NME. - Page 3

Alan ciccone · 03.02.2007, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

if you really listen to EVOL and BMR and CIS there are NO standard song structures. songs build with no verses, songs have no choruses, songs meander and stop, songs fade away like feedback squalor

SISTER is the one where they grafted their pop sensibilities full on onto their music.

I agree with you about bad moon rising and confusion is sex but not evol. there are of course songs that have no definable structure but something like starpower or expressway have far more definable structures than anything they had done previously. as a whole sister is more "convetnional" but not the marked contrast the writer makes it out to be

Alan ciccone · 03.02.2007, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by demonrail666

Or could it simply be that you don't like the idea of 'a magazine like NME' writing about them at all?

No, I don't carry that sort of bias.

Bal · 03.02.2007, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

if you really listen to EVOL and BMR and CIS there are NO standard song structures. songs build with no verses, songs have no choruses, songs meander and stop, songs fade away like feedback squalor

SISTER is the one where they grafted their pop sensibilities full on onto their music.

if you really listen to SISTER you realise there are NO standart strong structures. songs have no choruses (schizophrenia, chatolic block...)
sonsgs meander and stop (PCH) and songs fade away like feedback squalor (pipeline...) ....

evol is much more melodic imo.
both albums are great btw. probably my all time sy favs alongside bmr.

habibtheantiamericanbitch · 03.04.2007, 06:04 AM

i think NME was going down the list of make-our-rag-more-credible-and-intelligent bands and SY came up. so Hamish, or whoever was assigned to write this under his name, did a crash course on pre-Geffen SY. DDN would be too obvious of an album, considering its press over the past year. almost everyone, upon listening to their first few records for the first time would think it's directionless noise. but 'Hamish' makes it obvious he just simply glazed over the records, thought Schiz was a nice ditty and decided to run with this record. didn't bother to note the progressions the band made from record to record; instead he just lumps all pre-Sister albums into one category of garbage, and essentially insults readers who liked the band before Sister. Nevermind that SY was part of an important artistic movement in the early 80s with a strong following or that SY were touring Europe since 1983. this was just a sloppy, one dimentional, Cliff note researched piece.......

EvdWee · 03.04.2007, 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raging_nelly

Here you go:

thanks

Bal · 03.04.2007, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by habibtheantiamericanbitch

i think NME was going down the list of make-our-rag-more-credible-and-intelligent bands and SY came up. so Hamish, or whoever was assigned to write this under his name, did a crash course on pre-Geffen SY. DDN would be too obvious of an album, considering its press over the past year. almost everyone, upon listening to their first few records for the first time would think it's directionless noise. but 'Hamish' makes it obvious he just simply glazed over the records, thought Schiz was a nice ditty and decided to run with this record. didn't bother to note the progressions the band made from record to record; instead he just lumps all pre-Sister albums into one category of garbage, and essentially insults readers who liked the band before Sister. Nevermind that SY was part of an important artistic movement in the early 80s with a strong following or that SY were touring Europe since 1983. this was just a sloppy, one dimentional, Cliff note researched piece.......

couldnt agree more!

k-krack · 03.04.2007, 04:00 PM

That article is one of the worst things I've ever read... holy shit... "Thurston's vocals on Pipeline/Kill Time"

...

riiighht.....

k-krack · 03.04.2007, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diesel

he knows his stuff. kind of

...I think that's pushing it a bit.

demonrail666 · 03.07.2007, 11:26 AM

My god. I first got into 'noise' by reading an article about it in the Record Mirror, of all things. Articles like that aren't meant to be definitive; they're meant to introduce you to something. I'll bet everyone who's read or commented on the Sister article already owns the album. I really do believe that 99% of people here would secretly rather nobody mentioned Sonic Youth outside of the hallowed confines of this site.

demonrail666 · 03.07.2007, 11:36 AM

That's why the most interesting parts of this site are the non-sonic sections.

sonicl · 03.07.2007, 11:37 AM

Not quite. If NME did a decent (current) interview with and article about Sonic Youth, I'd be more than ecstatic. And likewise if they did a retrospective glossy special on 1980s alt-rock and printed some "vintage" interviews. But the article they did just seemed lazy and unlikely to entice anyone to give "Sister" a listen.

03.04.2007, 06:04 AM	#44
habibtheantiamericanbitch bad moon rising Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 108	i think NME was going down the list of make-our-rag-more-credible-and-intelligent bands and SY came up. so Hamish, or whoever was assigned to write this under his name, did a crash course on pre-Geffen SY. DDN would be too obvious of an album, considering its press over the past year. almost everyone, upon listening to their first few records for the first time would think it's directionless noise. but 'Hamish' makes it obvious he just simply glazed over the records, thought Schiz was a nice ditty and decided to run with this record. didn't bother to note the progressions the band made from record to record; instead he just lumps all pre-Sister albums into one category of garbage, and essentially insults readers who liked the band before Sister. Nevermind that SY was part of an important artistic movement in the early 80s with a strong following or that SY were touring Europe since 1983. this was just a sloppy, one dimentional, Cliff note researched piece.......
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

03.04.2007, 04:00 PM	#47
k-krack invito al cielo Join Date: May 2006 Location: On Posts: 7,380	That article is one of the worst things I've ever read... holy shit... "Thurston's vocals on Pipeline/Kill Time" ... riiighht..... __________________ sandwich klub 4 men. Danny is a C.H.U.D.
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

03.07.2007, 11:26 AM	#49
demonrail666 invito al cielo Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 18,510	My god. I first got into 'noise' by reading an article about it in the Record Mirror, of all things. Articles like that aren't meant to be definitive; they're meant to introduce you to something. I'll bet everyone who's read or commented on the Sister article already owns the album. I really do believe that 99% of people here would secretly rather nobody mentioned Sonic Youth outside of the hallowed confines of this site.
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

03.07.2007, 11:36 AM	#50
demonrail666 invito al cielo Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 18,510	That's why the most interesting parts of this site are the non-sonic sections.
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

03.07.2007, 11:37 AM	#51
sonicl invito al cielo Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 9,527	Not quite. If NME did a decent (current) interview with and article about Sonic Youth, I'd be more than ecstatic. And likewise if they did a retrospective glossy special on 1980s alt-rock and printed some "vintage" interviews. But the article they did just seemed lazy and unlikely to entice anyone to give "Sister" a listen.
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|