SWANS ARE FINISHED

SWANS ARE FINISHED

Cool

really makes you think...

Darn

>iny Mix Tapes was thrown into something of a behind-the-scenes tizzy last month when it emerged that Beyoncé, that unimpeachable icon of feminine empowerment and liberation, was making more than a few bucks out of female sweatshop labor in Sri Lanka.
>re-confronting us with the age-old question of whether we can or should divorce ourselves from the political and ethical ramifications of an artist’s life when appreciating their art.
>accusation he faced in February of raping fellow musician Larkin Grimm
>since any attempt to form a conception of Swans’ 14th album in terms of his concrete existence is confounded by the uncertainty and equivocation surrounding the moral worth of this existence.

at least they're owning up to the fact that an accusation of sexual assault is informing their decision, so props to them for that. personally a musician's personal life typically doesn't inform my enjoyment of their music but you can't expect this of all people, clearly. either way it seems that some of the mainstream publications (TinyMixTapes, Consequence of Sound) are giving middle-of-the-road or slightly above average scores rather than actually taking a stand either way. it's an interesting thing to see unfold IMO, it seems sort of cowardly.

It was obvious since the day Grimm posted her accusation, but its still quite bizarre to see. Looking forward to the P4K pan.

The fuck is "no-wave"

The fuck is "google"

what was obvious, bad reviews?

anyway I don't think pitchfork will pan it, they'll give it a 6.8 probably.

A bad time to be a surfer.

Listen to pic related, it'll give you a good idea

that's basically panning it

>Pitchfork thinks Gira is a rapist
>Still gives him a higher score than Mark Kozelek
kek

Reviews that explicitly lower score because of the accusations.
6.8 is a pan btw. The record is 7.5+ at the least.

reminder if you let this affect your thoughts on the album you're an idiot

you god damn retards are going to scream "LARKIN!!!" everytime this mediocre piece of trash gets a sub par score

the albums just shit, faggots. stop trying to turn this into le musicgate and fuck off back to Sup Forums.

but the review outright said that the accusations put a question on the album's moral worth mate

Can you fucking read? The next god paragraph begins with:

>Still, at the risk of sounding far too glib, there is something about post-reformation Swans that removes the need to analyze personalities, identities, and histories when interpreting the band’s increasingly monolithic noise.

Are you just a retard or do you need to intentionally misrepresent the writers opinion to push your shitty political agenda.

Kill yourself faggot.

Pitchfork will pan the shit out of this record. Fucking hypocrites.

Why even mention it if it's not even subconsciously affecting your perception of the work?

WAR ON DRUGS

6.8 is very much a pan when it comes to Swans. They gave The Seer 9.0 and TBK 9.2

>the album's just shit
It could be, but if The Seer and To Be Kind are both critically acclaimed, then The Glowing Man being bashed would reveal a bias: it does much of what those two albums did, and does it just as well if not better. Either you hate all three, or like all three.

The reviewer seemed to go out of his way to distance the review from the allegations. It's almost as if he sensed retards like you would get offended and immediately accuse him of being le SJW. He should've taken into account that the average gator/trumpfag can't read and would just cherry pick lines to prove le ethics in music journalism. Now you retards are outraged over something you can barely even understand.

>does it just as well if not better. Either you
hate all three, or like all three.
Stop acting like your fanboy opinions are fact.

hi simon

underrated

I don't like how the first thing the reviewer talked about was the rape allegations HOWEVER a 3/5 really isn't that bad of a score so you can tell they weren't letting the allegations affect their view of the music TOO much.

You think this is bad, I guarantee you P4K is gonna pan the SHIT out of it and go on and on about how Gira embodies everything that is wrong with le evil white men and all that, and then they will probably remove the 9/10 BNM reviews for Swans' last two albums...

at least the TMT guy was honest and said "hey, in this case it is difficult for me/us to separate art and artist, even though we don't know if it actually happened".

I'm not gonna bother. I'm a Hillary supporter who finds this stuff just as obnoxious as you do. You put me into an ideological box based off the simple observation that someone who claims that their perception of an artist's work isn't affected by that artist's personal life can still be wrong. Self-observations typically aren't a 100% accurate representation of somebody.

>You think this is bad, I guarantee you P4K is gonna pan the SHIT out of it and go on and on about how Gira embodies everything that is wrong with le evil white men and all that, and then they will probably remove the 9/10 BNM reviews for Swans' last two albums..
Agreed, they do this just like they did to Modest Mouse, David Bowie, Ariel Pink and DIIV

kek

no one seems outraged except you to be honest

Sure, it can be wrong. It also doesn't have to be wrong. People like you have to operate on evidence that is not falsifiable because it's the only way you can push your political agenda. The reviewer mentions the allegations, dismisses them for the review and doesn't bring it up at a single moment for the music. To you, this is clear proof that the rape allegations effected his opinion despite him writing the contrary. If he didn't even mention the allegations, you'd find a way to blame it on the allegations too. You exist in a world where everyone has to like this album, especially because the lead singer was accused of rape, or else they're le evil SJWs!!!

this is VERY nice reply

literally no one but you has used the word sjw

Yeah man, the people who I replied to who complained that the review was effected by Larkin are totally not upset about the idea. u mad bro is what people say when they've run out of things to say.

hmmm, the same people who think pitchfork is going to complain about "le evil white man," but nah they'd never use a term like SJW. don't be dense kid, you know what people are talking about

nobody used sjw but you. you have an issue

>they didn't use a specific word even though it's been heavily implied several times so you have the issue here!

trips confirm you're satan trying to cause trouble
fuck off nobody implied the usage of SJW

you are experiencing paranoid delusions not everyone is out to get you

This obviously isn’t provable, but it’s coming from a fan of Swans' previous two albums (who isn’t a fan of their entire oeuvre) and someone who’s been reading internet discussion surrounding the album. I don’t think that someone who likes The Seer would consider The Glowing Man to be mediocre if they listened to it in a vacuum. It’s like giving Newsom’s Have One On Me a 9/10, then giving the nearly as impressive Divers a 5/10. It would force you to question the circumstances surrounding the review and how the reviewer’s perception of her work has changed since they reviewed Have One On Me. In other words, I think the album is of comparable quality to The Seer and To Be Kind, with the one major variable being the rape allegations.

>You exist in a world where everyone has to like this album
No I don't. No one has to like Swans. My point is that given the condition that you enjoy their previous two albums, chances are you are going to enjoy this one also. The albums are almost companions to one another both sonically and thematically. No one who loves Kid A despises Amnesiac.

>People like you have to operate on evidence that is not falsifiable
This fallacy applies to questions of philosophical importance, not arguments involving human subjectivity, like whether or not an artist's personal life influences how his work is perceived.

>I don’t think that someone who likes The Seer would consider The Glowing Man to be mediocre
Funny, cause that's my opinion. But I suppose I'm actually subconsciously hating on this record because of the allegations. It's literally impossible for someone to have a different opinion than you, because this album did everything "BETTER" (but let's not ask you to provide any actual reasoning behind this objective fact). Funny too how you can say "it's pretty much the same so you have to like them both" as if that's not a possible criticism. Either the album is so "identical" to the Seer that that's a very serious problem with the album, or it's different enough that someone could perceivably not enjoy this as much. So which is it?

>No one who loves Kid A despises Amnesiac.
You would be wrong. Plenty of people think Amnesiac is an album of "Kid A b-sides." Could have picked a better example.

>This fallacy applies to questions of philosophical importance
Not necessarily, no.

Your "proof" that this review was influenced by the rape allegations falls on your own opinions of how the album should be score and how it's theoretically possible for the allegations to subconsciously effect the review without considering the hundreds of other theoretical possibilities. But, I mean, I guess that fits your argument.

This is seriously too stupid of an argument to have. Have a nice day.

You could have at least gone with 'SWANS ARE DEAD' and given us a mild kek before the shitstorm hits, user.

KILL THE PC NAZI

>Swans thread
>someone asking what no wave is

I'm ready for summer to end.

Swans haven't been no-wave since the early 80s.

You obviously didn't read the review. It's mostly filled with compliments about their ability to reach that "higher plane" of existence.

>tmt

>My point is that given the condition that you enjoy their previous two albums, chances are you are going to enjoy this one also.
Nah this is boring as shit. It still has intense moments and cool compositions so 3/5 is about right imo

And TBK is my favorite rock album of this decade

Are you capable of typing out a response that doesn't come across as both aggressively defensive and obnoxiously presumptive? Let me keep saying what i've already said: no one has to like this album, my observations aren't objective, and I am making assumptions about the reviewer. I'm wondering out loud, not accusing him of anything in particular; even if he were to come out and say that the rape allegations affected his perception of the album, I wouldn't hold it against him personally (most people's perception of music is at least partially influenced by the artist's personal life). I'm giving my opinion as someone who likes The Seer and To Be Kind, and who isn't a blind Swans fanboy that enjoys every single one of their albums. The HOOM and Divers comparison articulates my view perfectly; they're not similar enough to be derivative, but not qualitatively different enough to receive very different scores.

>Funny too how you can say "it's pretty much the same so you have to like them both" as if that's not a possible criticism.
So they've been cultivating this sound since Soundtracks For the Blind, but suddenly it becomes derivative? Seems inconsistent.

>Your "proof" that this review was influenced by the rape allegations falls on your own opinions of how the album should be score
I'm not accusing him in court; this is a fucking message board. The standards of proof are much lower. We're having a discussion about the process of reviewing an album made by an alleged rapist in an age where rape is the cause du jour, not doxing Simon Chandler.

You're a total fucking retard.

Have a glass of water and stop posting.

I bet you'd like a reply wouldn't you

I'm completely serious, you're out of control. Cache this thread and read it back later and cringe at your little performance ITT.

I think The Seee is great. I loved TBK when it came out but now I really only appreciate about half the tracks from start to finish, a lot of that album now strikes me as kinda cringey and bordering on self-parody in its idiosyncratic extremity. TGM suffers from the opposite problem to me; I've just heard this so many times from them now that it feels boring. The title track definitely grabbed and held my attention once it kicked in and it's a whether addition to the nü-Swans canon but otherwise I think the TMT review is pretty spot-on. They've pushed so far in the "transcending humanity" thing that a lot of their music now just feels featureless despite his grand it is.

tl;dr I don't love all three or hate all three.

Not the same user, but worst posts I've seen in a long time. Do you know where you are? Lmao.

Review by Laura Snapes when?

>same user
Think you responded to the wrong posts.

So did he do it?

Of course they're finished. TGM was their last record you dumbo.

Nope, I responded to the right posts.

>someone who claims that their perception of an artist's work isn't affected by that artist's personal life can still be wrong.

Correct. But you're not inside the reviewer's head. So how did you determine that their claim to an unbiased perception on the artist's work WAS wrong (as opposed to COULD BE wrong)? What's your criteria for determining this?

Hint: if your criteria is "they didn't like album as much as me", that's called begging the question.

How is that hypocritical out of curiosity?

An 'user' is someone not using the name field or a tripcode, like how you took off,!rAl8Mz2mp2 so you could samefag.

Based retard pt. II. Have that glass of water.

this isn't correct

there will be more, the current line up is finished, no more tours with them.

personally i'm hoping Michael gets help from some industrial boys.

>Either you hate all three, or like all three.
What the fuck kind of mentality is this?

Reviewers are human beings as well, and sometimes something just doesn't do it for people even if it's reminiscent of the artist's past work that said reviewer liked.
So if a publication gives something a lower score than an artist's previous work it must mean political bias and not that the new album is bad or just didn't appeal to the reviewer, right? Is that really how you see it?

I mean my own personal definition of a pan would be a complete butchering of a record, something like beneath 5.0 for an established musician would be a "pan" to me, not a 6.8, even if it is significantly lower to their other ratings.

Anyway I don't really care about Pitchfork's opinion, I've heard the album, I like it, so that's pretty much the end of it for me.

Seriously not the same person, now I almost feel bad for the "retard"

I also feel bad for you being convinced I'm the same person and for using the "glass of water" line twice within about five minutes.

anyone who is remotely interested in Swans as a whole knows what no-wave is

Good. They sucked anyway.

>dreary and dull
>repetitive as fuck
>20 minute songs

This is not good music.

See

Not a genre.

That's post-rock.

proven false by the very post you replied to

it's sort of like saying anyone with even the most remote interest in pink floyd knows all about piper at the gates of dawn

oh thanks for letting me know they sucked! I wouldn't have known without your input.

Is he really a rapist?

can't know for sure

hopefully, it make his music more legit

TinyMixtapes is literally trash. Unless they rate my mixtape with 5/5 eureka and praise me as a god, while i fuck Zoe Camp from Pitchfork.


Edit;

PS:

Disclaimer:
Atenttion, Tiny Mixtapes representants claimmed for a response:

Our veridict is that Swans are NOT meme enough, thank you all.

- C MONSTER/ANTICHRISTIAN GAY RANDOM

Alright, that's cool. A generalized statement like that doesn't apply to literally every single person; we all have our particular inclinations. But you have to know that exceptions don't really account for much.

>So how did you determine that their claim to an unbiased perception on the artist's work WAS wrong
Where did I claim this?

It's a factor that can't be discussed because it isn't objectively provable? And I said that the qualitative differences between the last two albums and this one are minor to both me and many of the fans of the band. It's not an objective argument, but I never claimed to be able to make one. It's a possibility is what i'm saying.

Only braindead idiots think No Wave is a genre, and you would have to be extremely stupid something made outside NYC in 2016 could be part of the scene.

This review can be safely discarded.

>And I said that the qualitative differences between the last two albums and this one are minor to both me and many of the fans of the band
And many people don't see the differences as "minor" (and would feel even worse about the album if it was a carbon-copy), just like some of us don't like Amnesiac as much as Kid A.

I know this is really hard to believe for you because it's not your opinion.

no it doesn't because a lot of the time his music was based around themes of being explicitly against abuse of power

This is easily the best Swans album since they have reformed, it channels everything the band has done so far except early swans, which is understandably a sound Michael has grown out of. If I was going to compare it to anything they have done I would compare it to Soundtracks for the Blind. I was completely blown away by how good it is. I honestly was not expecting it to be this good. Easily a 9.5/10 for me. And anyone who was following the "rape" accusation saga would know it's all bullshit, some user compiled all of the people who came out and basically said that Larkin was full of shit. People including his ex wife, current wife, norman, normans wife, a member of heroes as gang leaders (another band she accused a member of assaulting her) and to top it off someone larkin worked with she bragged to about blackmailing michael with a falsehood.

>Where did I claim this?
You asked a lot of dumb leading questions. Like this one: Then you made this statement: implying that you must either like or dislike all three albums and anything else would "reveal a bias."

You know what you're doing, but I guess you were vague enough that you can now claim you were just "thinking out loud."

Dude, when like 5 different people are calling you out for your shitty opinions, it's time to reevaluate what you've said.

Now you're just watering down all the arguments you've made the whole thread to make them seem incontestable. Whatever, dude. You seen like a pretty reasonable person in general but I think at this point you're so fixated on reframing and defending the points you've made that you've lost sight of what you were originally trying to say.

Nobody thinks your opinions are stupid, just that a lot of the claims and implications you've made (regarding the homogenous quality of Swans' recent output, regarding the lack of objectivity in TMT's review, etc.) are totally baseless, and when anyone points that out you just recoil with "well sure, but that's not what I meant and most people agree with me" or something to that effect.

You like the new Swans album. That's cool. Not everyone does, even including people who loved The Seer or To Be Kind. That does not mean they are secretly, subconsciously biased against Gira because of rape allegations. And the number of people in this position, no matter how big or how small, does not grant this perspective any more or any less credibility than your own. OK? OK. Have a nice day, then.

this is completely idiotic

>I know this is really hard to believe for you because it's not your opinion.
eat a fucking dick man

>You asked a lot of dumb leading questions. Like this one: (You)
It's perfectly reasonable to argue that the mere mentioning of a controversy implies that you've thought about it long enough to allow it to seep into your perception. Did TMT talk about Bowie's sexual misconduct when reveiwing Blackstar?

>Then you made this statement: (You) implying that you must either like or dislike all three albums and anything else would "reveal a bias."
It's a more nuanced argument than that. I'm talking about the aesthetic qualities of the music, and how if those qualities appealed to you the previous two times, it's likely to appeal to you when done again and just as well.

>You know what you're doing, but I guess you were vague enough that you can now claim you were just "thinking out loud."
In an argument about whether or not to avoid making assumptions concerning someone's beliefs and intentions, you go on to make assumptions about my beliefs and intentions.

>Dude, when like 5 different people are calling you out for your shitty opinions, it's time to reevaluate what you've said.
"shitty opinions" is straight up Salon.com vernacular; of course someone like you would argue that the number of people thinking something is a reasonable argument as to whether or not it's valid. "5 people." Fucking great dude. People also voted for Trump over Marco Rubio, that must make him a better candidate right?

>"shitty opinions" is straight up Salon.com vernacular
hahaha, what the fuck are you talking about?

this is what happens when teenagers try to sound smart

Don't try to affect an air of objectivity when you've made multiple assumptions about my beliefs and the intentions of my arguments. We could have had a discussion about A, how the allegations affect the general perception of the album, and B, whether or not letting it affect your perception is a valid method of reveiwing music. We could have talked about great art by bad people, and why celebrity twitter accounts can sometimes lessen your view of them as artists. But I guess not; you have to contend, in the most knee-jerk manner possible, that talking about it at all is ridiculous and that of course TMT is objective because they claimed that they were. You can also throw buzzwords around about me being a Trump supporter in the process. And it's funny, people all over Sup Forums have been saying this same exact shit, except that they don't get a modicum of the ire people who actually bother to articulate their views do. This is why this board is so shit.

>are totally baseless
No they're not. No reasonable person can argue that there isn't an aesthetic similarity between The Seer, The Glowing Man, and To Be Kind, and no functioning human being will say that finding out that an artist you like might have done something terrible doesn't change your view of his work somewhat.

An art movement in late 70s early 80s NYC. A lot of the music is about timbres and noise rather than actual melodies. Mars, DNA, and Sonic Youth are some examples. Swans, like SY, entered the scene at the end of it. Swans sound different than the other bands though, and Gira doesn't like the association. The scene influenced film and theater as well.

...

Diminishing returns, man. If a band puts out something that is aesthetically the same as the previous two albums it can be a sign of stagnation, poor artistic development and consequently the album will lack the impact of previous work.

I say this as someone who is currently listening to TGM and is enjoying it, by the way, but to say "hey it sounds similar - you have to like it" isn't necessarily the case. Though I would find it odd if someone was a fan of The Seer and TBK and outright hated this.

I don't really like the album

Should I go kill myself?

really meks u thonk.....................................................

>I'm a Hillary supporter
literally why

Wasn't TMT the one who panned Run The Jewels because of some vague shit about patriarchy and "masculinity"?
I mean I hate RTJ but
>taking music reviewers seriously, ever
>especially taking TMT or p4k seriously

They literally only have it that rating because of the rape accusations.

God I can't believe just how terrible al these music publications are, they can't even give good reviews because they have to push there stupid political ideology on everyone.

bet on it, p4k will love it because it will give a much needed summer spike to their traffic

I refuse to listen to this album or any other Swan album anymore because of the allegation. And even if the allegation is untrue, I can just think positive that I at least can use my time that I would spend listening to Swans listening to some other musician. I don't think it's worth sacrificing your time to someone who might have done something bad.

It's a good point which I sort of addressed. Swans has been doing minimalist-inspired noise rock for years. There's variation in their post-SFTB work, but it's variation within a very specific aesthetic permitter. So why is it derivative at this point in particular?

"Supporter" is strong word. More like I don't dislike her as much as I do the rest of my options, so I'm voting for her. She's basically just a less charismatic Obama.

You don't need to know ''all about Pipers at the gates of dawn'', you just need to know that it was no wave that they made, hardly takes any effort