that shadow track is major nagl. as his missteps increase they will have to be taken into context within his whole oeuvre. i will wait to hear the whole album but if its as bad as that track it will lessen the achievements of entroducing and pp. actually i havent heard those albums in 10+ years. do they still even hold up ?
if its as bad as that track it will lessen the achievements of entroducing and pp.
That logic doesn't really hold. Almost any artist will make bad albums but that doesn't mean their previous efforts are diminished by it. If that was the case, James Brown's disco years would have impacted what we thinking, say, the "Popcorn" album.
The next album will only be Shadow's fourth. If a quarter to half of James Brown's career output was bad disco, I think that would risk tarnishing his whole career.
if its as bad as that track it will lessen the achievements of entroducing and pp.
That logic doesn't really hold. Almost any artist will make bad albums but that doesn't mean their previous efforts are diminished by it. If that was the case, James Brown's disco years would have impacted what we thinking, say, the "Popcorn" album.
I knew someone would call me out on this logic fart right after I typed it. Let me clarify. Endtroducing and PP were (are) considered to be good to great albums. Now that we have some historical distance behind us and Josh continues to be an artist of vastly diminishing returns, it does force one to look back on Entroducing and PP with a more critical eye. I mean it isn't like he went from a a good record (Private Press) to a middling record. The Outsider is a straight turd, no rocks.
I guess what I'm trying to get at is that Josh's value as an artist after Entroducing was at its highest peak. Most critics and listeners hyped him to the 9th degree. After PP, there was still some adulation but there was increasing skepticism amongst many. After the Outsider it was like WTF. And now after hearing this track it makes you consider the arguments of those skeptics in a new light. I went further and said it may force you to consider whether the value of Entroducing and PP were not inflated when they came out. Hence, why I asked if anyone had listened to those 2 records lately with an objective eye and whether they still held up.
Also, James Brown as an analogy rings false because he is indisputably classic. My view is that Josh was still an artist whole "classic status" was still up for critical re-assessment.
The next album will only be Shadow's fourth. If a quarter to half of James Brown's career output was bad disco, I think that would risk tarnishing his whole career.
Also this ^^^^^^ ties into what I say below.
"James Brown as an analogy rings false because he is indisputably classic. My view is that Josh was still an artist whose whole ???classic status??? was still up for critical re-assessment. "
It still doesn't hold that one's better material is necessarily diminished in light of poor, later material. Seriously, for whom has this logic actually held - just give some examples.
And note: I'm not talking about his CAREER. That's not what was being mentioned before. I'm saying: if an artist puts out something considered "pretty good" and then follows that up with stuff "not so good" we don't reassess our first opinion. Hell, in some cases, wack later work just makes you appreciate the good early work even more.
"The Sixth Sense" = still pretty good even if everything else M. Night has done has been shitty. Or hell, look at authors who had ONE good novel. We still consider those novels good even if we question the author's other work. If you think otherwise, you didn't think that highly of the "good" work to begin with.
The next album will only be Shadow's fourth. If a quarter to half of James Brown's career output was bad disco, I think that would risk tarnishing his whole career.
Naw. Look at Aretha Franklin. Half her career (if not more) were albums no one gives a fuck about today. But her all-time classique albums = still classique.
It still doesn't hold that one's better material is necessarily diminished in light of poor, later material. Seriously, for whom has this logic actually held - just give some examples.
And note: I'm not talking about his CAREER. That's not what was being mentioned before. I'm saying: if an artist puts out something considered "pretty good" and then follows that up with stuff "not so good" we don't reassess our first opinion. Hell, in some cases, wack later work just makes you appreciate the good early work even more.
"The Sixth Sense" = still pretty good even if everything else M. Night has done has been shitty. Or hell, look at authors who had ONE good novel. We still consider those novels good even if we question the author's other work. If you think otherwise, you didn't think that highly of the "good" work to begin with.
I agree that when speaking about individual albums if one is wack and the other is not, thats what they are taken at face value. However, I find that that sharp distinction rarely happens in real life conversations about music or art. If you continue to make wack albums people will start to re-assess whether your classic work stands the test of time. Doubts creep into the discourse. And yes I was referring moreso to an assessment of his career as opposed to singular albums. The problem is that those first records are part of his career so they do get re-assessed for better or for worse. It's a fine line.
All I know is that Cut Chemist's cameo made "Up in the Air" a great movie.
He must be buddies with Reitman because he was in Juno, up in the air, and jennifers body which I think he produced.
I agree with O. Newer works don't change the quality of a previous one. They stand alone. I also agree that biases and perceptions can be changed by subsequent works, but logically that previous album is still exactly the same.
This track kind of reminds me of Life Sucks Die's review of Pete Rock's album. I laughed out loud when I read it and I still think it's funny. Paraphrasing, but still close to the actual words:
"Pete Rock has a special house in Mt Vernon where he stores all of his records. Apparently he hasn't been there in years."
This is a great mix, really enjoyable even if I hadn't known about the technique used to make it.
As for Shadow, I haven't really been actively interested in anything he's done since Endtroducing apart from 3 Freaks maybe. I think this song is a mess but can see what he's trying to do and, if he actually got in some help in, it might come together but at the moment it sounds like a pastiche of nineties breakbeat by way of something I would make back in the day on the music programme on my PS2.
This is a great mix, really enjoyable even if I hadn't known about the technique used to make it.
Which is really impressive. A really classy way to progress, since the whole "turntablism"-concept has gone the way of the backpacked dodo.
And I'll just add (re: Shadow) that I like the early Zappa stuff, but I've yet to hear anything listenable by the man from mid to late 70s onward. Also, there's always one or more bad tracks on (basically) every Zappa-related album. Still consider myself a Zappa fan though.
Picked it up at my local independent store this weekend. It's fantastic.
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,917 Posts
Junior said:
As for Shadow...if he actually got in some help in
I think I may have said something like this when The Outsider was released. Some of those beats with the Federation, E-40, Keak and them would have benefitted from, say, a bit of E-A-Ski or Rick Rock post-production. This is why I respected Kanye for getting Jon Brion in on Late Registration. In a medium where the producer's role is almost on the same level as the featured artist, it took some stones to give up so much control, and to someone from outside the hip-hop idiom as well. Clearly, Shadow doesn't have the confidence to do that yet.
Funny thing is, I thought his real area of strength on the first two albums was in his ear. Cutting and pasting samples and layering drumbreaks isn't especially difficult in and of itself, but what made those records good was the flair for composition, song structure and arrangement he displayed. That was evident as long ago as In/Flux, but sustaining it over an album isn't all that easy. He managed it (with reservations) on Endtroducing and The Private Press. Since then, he seems hung up on wanting to be "different" and "innovative", and the pursuit of innovation as an end in itself is a mug's game. You risk ending up with something that just isn't very good. While Shadow's bending over backwards trying to put as much distance between himself and his so-called copyists, as if that alone will improve the quality of his work, Cut Chemist is just saying, "What if I did this..?" As a result, he's come up with something that's original without being self-satisfied about it, and which can sit comfortably within the broader hip-hop ethos.
Comments
That logic doesn't really hold. Almost any artist will make bad albums but that doesn't mean their previous efforts are diminished by it. If that was the case, James Brown's disco years would have impacted what we thinking, say, the "Popcorn" album.
I knew someone would call me out on this logic fart right after I typed it. Let me clarify. Endtroducing and PP were (are) considered to be good to great albums. Now that we have some historical distance behind us and Josh continues to be an artist of vastly diminishing returns, it does force one to look back on Entroducing and PP with a more critical eye. I mean it isn't like he went from a a good record (Private Press) to a middling record. The Outsider is a straight turd, no rocks.
I guess what I'm trying to get at is that Josh's value as an artist after Entroducing was at its highest peak. Most critics and listeners hyped him to the 9th degree. After PP, there was still some adulation but there was increasing skepticism amongst many. After the Outsider it was like WTF. And now after hearing this track it makes you consider the arguments of those skeptics in a new light. I went further and said it may force you to consider whether the value of Entroducing and PP were not inflated when they came out. Hence, why I asked if anyone had listened to those 2 records lately with an objective eye and whether they still held up.
Also, James Brown as an analogy rings false because he is indisputably classic. My view is that Josh was still an artist whole "classic status" was still up for critical re-assessment.
Also this ^^^^^^ ties into what I say below.
"James Brown as an analogy rings false because he is indisputably classic. My view is that Josh was still an artist whose whole ???classic status??? was still up for critical re-assessment. "
And note: I'm not talking about his CAREER. That's not what was being mentioned before. I'm saying: if an artist puts out something considered "pretty good" and then follows that up with stuff "not so good" we don't reassess our first opinion. Hell, in some cases, wack later work just makes you appreciate the good early work even more.
"The Sixth Sense" = still pretty good even if everything else M. Night has done has been shitty. Or hell, look at authors who had ONE good novel. We still consider those novels good even if we question the author's other work. If you think otherwise, you didn't think that highly of the "good" work to begin with.
Naw. Look at Aretha Franklin. Half her career (if not more) were albums no one gives a fuck about today. But her all-time classique albums = still classique.
BTW, this convo reminds me of this scene:
I agree that when speaking about individual albums if one is wack and the other is not, thats what they are taken at face value. However, I find that that sharp distinction rarely happens in real life conversations about music or art. If you continue to make wack albums people will start to re-assess whether your classic work stands the test of time. Doubts creep into the discourse. And yes I was referring moreso to an assessment of his career as opposed to singular albums. The problem is that those first records are part of his career so they do get re-assessed for better or for worse. It's a fine line.
He must be buddies with Reitman because he was in Juno, up in the air, and jennifers body which I think he produced.
I agree with O. Newer works don't change the quality of a previous one. They stand alone. I also agree that biases and perceptions can be changed by subsequent works, but logically that previous album is still exactly the same.
This track kind of reminds me of Life Sucks Die's review of Pete Rock's album. I laughed out loud when I read it and I still think it's funny. Paraphrasing, but still close to the actual words:
"Pete Rock has a special house in Mt Vernon where he stores all of his records. Apparently he hasn't been there in years."
Anyways, back to this mix. Yayyyy Cut Chemist.
As for Shadow, I haven't really been actively interested in anything he's done since Endtroducing apart from 3 Freaks maybe. I think this song is a mess but can see what he's trying to do and, if he actually got in some help in, it might come together but at the moment it sounds like a pastiche of nineties breakbeat by way of something I would make back in the day on the music programme on my PS2.
Which is really impressive. A really classy way to progress, since the whole "turntablism"-concept has gone the way of the backpacked dodo.
And I'll just add (re: Shadow) that I like the early Zappa stuff, but I've yet to hear anything listenable by the man from mid to late 70s onward. Also, there's always one or more bad tracks on (basically) every Zappa-related album. Still consider myself a Zappa fan though.
The cd seems to be out but there's a link to a stream of it on the first page of the thread.
I think I may have said something like this when The Outsider was released. Some of those beats with the Federation, E-40, Keak and them would have benefitted from, say, a bit of E-A-Ski or Rick Rock post-production. This is why I respected Kanye for getting Jon Brion in on Late Registration. In a medium where the producer's role is almost on the same level as the featured artist, it took some stones to give up so much control, and to someone from outside the hip-hop idiom as well. Clearly, Shadow doesn't have the confidence to do that yet.
Funny thing is, I thought his real area of strength on the first two albums was in his ear. Cutting and pasting samples and layering drumbreaks isn't especially difficult in and of itself, but what made those records good was the flair for composition, song structure and arrangement he displayed. That was evident as long ago as In/Flux, but sustaining it over an album isn't all that easy. He managed it (with reservations) on Endtroducing and The Private Press. Since then, he seems hung up on wanting to be "different" and "innovative", and the pursuit of innovation as an end in itself is a mug's game. You risk ending up with something that just isn't very good. While Shadow's bending over backwards trying to put as much distance between himself and his so-called copyists, as if that alone will improve the quality of his work, Cut Chemist is just saying, "What if I did this..?" As a result, he's come up with something that's original without being self-satisfied about it, and which can sit comfortably within the broader hip-hop ethos.
So important to keep in mind, so easy to forget.