let's start with a 35 minute film for one of the songs

prog rock x fellini

10.0 on Pitchfork
http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/148 ... d-fantasy/

haha. moving product. thanks, Pitchfork.

I'm still digesting the whole record.

It's ballsy as hell.
To be one of the biggest names in mainstream hip-hop and be this adventurous with a record...that's why the phrase instant classic keeps getting thrown around. Though, I suppose if it was edgy, different and sucked...nobody would have said that.

Progressive is the first word that comes to mind, for a lot of reasons. He's obviously digging in the prog-rock crates for some inspiration and samples (see King Crimson's "21st Century Schizoid Man") but he's still rooted in pop sensibilities. I'd say it's out there in spots for a hip-hop album, but in the pop world it's no more progressive than anything off of Genesis' "Invisible Touch" record in '86. You know...when they were at their least progressive, where Phil Collins wrote these big poppy hooks, but still had some darkenss to it, but then the band had like two extra minutes on each song, for keyboardy vamps and dancability.

The extended piano intro on "Runaway" is unheard of...and is almost too long to where I thought my iPod was fucked up, until that beat comes in and it just KILLS! Fucking brilliant. The outro of the same song gets to be a bit much, but I understand why he did it, and it's cool. Of course, it's going to spawn all kinda of meandering bullshit copycats who think they're good enough to play distorted orchestra melodies with their mouth over somebody else's track. No thanks.

The production overall is a bit gritty. He's not clear and upfront like the College Dropout days. He's either back in the mix a bit, or if he is upfront, he's got some filtering on him. It's not anything new, considering "Ill Communication" was made 15 years ago, but it's still kind of refreshing to hear it come back just a little bit.

This is one of those records that is different and progressive, but has just enough of a foothold in classic hip-hop that the hip-hop audience might actually be ready to accept it. They definitely need it, and Kanye's maybe the only artist who could deliver it to them who has enough sway to make it matter.

yeah, totally agree. can't stop listening to it...

How does Pitchfork evaluate his lip syncing performance on SNL? Has the public softened since the days of Milli Vanilli? In 1989 that brand of mediocrity ruined careers. It's still the best $$$ going though and lip-syncing is acceptable, now. We don't care about that, anymore: just don't sound like Milli Vanilli and when you fu#$ up don't run off stage. The biggest problem was that Milli Vanilli sucked whether they were faking it or not, right?

Everyone fakes it, now. The big production effort to distract viewers from noticing that Kanye may lack the confidence or ability to sing his songs in front of a live television audience may even be seen as ballsy or respectable by 2010's standards (or 2008, when he did it the first time). Who knows?

American Idol proved Warhol was right. Famous karaoke singers get big record contracts. So, who gives a fu#$ who lip-syncs?

The real question is: What is the advantage to lip-syncing vs. live performance?

In his defense in 2008 his supporters said that his autotune was out of sync. So, maybe autotune is seen as advantageous vs. live performance. I don't know if the same explanation was provided for his more recent SNL performance or if anyone even cares in 2010.

Have famous karaoke singers made us afraid to sing out of tune? What's next? Autofuck? The "live" performance is like watching Sparkle Motion in Donnie Darko: equal parts of disturbing and lame. Coincidentally, the worst parts of the Runaway video would fit right into Southland Tales.

The opportunities that technology is creating are kind of exciting, though. In the future artists can pre-set their entire performance and watch their holograms own the stage as members of their own audience.

Selita Ebanks is great eye candy in the video. She's no actress but probably the main reason I kept watching. The bird suit get-up (she's Phoenix!), the jerky modern dance stabs and the scenes where she is crawling across the lawn with the bunny and the deer are the kind of half-a$$ed attempts at being artsy that were parodied in Tapeheads ("I'm talking production! I'm talking tits and ass!", "Everybody loves Menudo!") and work well as parody but I think they might be trying to be serious, here. I hope not. Regardless, the video is at least more than just a medium to bring you the music ( I'd much rather watch this than "Thriller", for sure) and even if that was its only job, it's forgivable. West delivers. The scope of the music is ambitious and infectious to say the least and it similarly works great as parody and ear-candy. I can see why people are listening to this over and over.

This is pretty genius stuff but it doesn't come without some fluff. I can live with that but I'm hoping Ebanks can sub for West on any future live performances.

A toast for the douchebags!

I guess I'll give it a try. Have to be honest, what I've heard so far (two songs he played on SNL and one of those songs studio version a few times) just seems like over-hyped garbage. He is selling the same thing Lady Ga Ga is selling. "I'm on the edge, I am new and I am a ground breaking artist..."

I'm just not buying it.

But I will listen to the whole album and try to figure this shit out because I know it took me years to "get" many things I enjoy so much now. Kanye has made some stuff that I really enjoy here and there. I know he has some talent. I just think that so far the hype outweighs the music by leaps and bounds. It is so hard to look past the hype and listen. I will try.

I understand why everyone is getting up in arms over lip-syncing and whatnot, but I saw Kanye headline on one of Lollapalooza's mainstages a couple years ago, and he was amazing.

No lip-syncing there.
No confounding posse of 10 of his closest friends-as-entourage-of-backup-rappers clogging up the stage. Just his backing band in the shadows, and him out front. Alone. He held it down, and was every bit a performer as any pop-star prior, minus dancing. I mean, if you take dancing out of the equation from any of the biggest pop-stars ever, and what's left?

I think that's where his strengths are. It's in the music. He's smarter and more clever than Gaga. He's not wearing a see-through bubble suit, but he's still edgier, too. I don't love everything he's done musically, and he can certainly come across as a douchebag, but I'll stand by that I think he's truly an 'artist' when it comes to his craft.

He'll never be the greatest rapper of all time like he wants, because that's not his greatest strength, but everytime his songs get airplay, he makes the Gucci Manes and Soulja Boys of the world look that much dumber.

+1

but..

part of me thinks Kanye is the biggest douche ever.
the other part of me thinks that his music is awesome.

this article changed the game 6 years ago.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/31/arts/ ... wanted=all

i think i post it here every year.

this article changed the game 6 years ago.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/31/arts/ ... wanted=all

i think i post it here every year.

Rock purism is absurd. It took until 2004 for someone at the NY Times to come up with a term for it? This had to be a backlash at their own staff who apparently had been napping since at least 1969, right?

To be fair, some guy who was loading freight planes with me at the Dayton International airport had already been experimenting with "autofuck" (creepy fella) as far back as 1989. Similarly, many of us couldn't decide if he was a strapping, self-starting, misunderstood genius or "the biggest douche ever".

pussy and religion is all i need.

I read it every year and come to same conclusion: That article changed two things: Jack and Shit.

I think I read it every year.

There's a fine line between musical relativism and rockism (using that term very loosely), and that article is the best I've read at treading it. I think some unfortunate person posted on this board a little while ago about some local band hearkening back to the days when bands would "drink whiskey and bang broads." Why is consuming bourbon and fucking girls conjuring up 70's rock and roll for them? Why are those actions exclusive to that era and genre? My personal opinion is that someone like that really can't hold their whiskey and has never really had sex with anyone without embarrassment being involved.

Annnyway. I like 808 better.

This thread is developing nicely..

Thanks, 'ye

well...it changed how rap records were reviewed...
waka flocka...anyway

well...autotune is dead anyway



Give the new Ye record is so heavy on classic rock...
is he the new Jim Morrison?

The real game-changer was Oscar Wilde's criticism of the ludicrous sentimentality found in Dicken's A Christmas Carol.

These debates have been going on for years.

To complicate matters, Dickens also had other people ink his text for him (and still had the nerve to call himself a "writer").

Wait a minute- so did Milton (but he was blind!). It goes back even futher!

It gets more confusing, because Dickens was arguably the rock snob being criticized by Wilde who thought he was the rocker.

So, this goes way, way back.

Being egocentric, or seeing all existence as being made up of little parts of yourself rather than seeing yourself as a little part of the whole seems to be essential in order to make GREAT art. Also makes you a douche. I wrote a review of MBDTF for the upcoming issue of Melt. Will post later.

i've never heard of those bands.

Pitchfork gave Literature a 2.1.

Could you get back to us after you've heard the record?

I'm willing to give literature a chance; a quick read to see what all the hype is about.