Austinist: The Morning After: Animal Collective's Merriweather Post Pavilion

lukequinton

Tue, 27 Jan 2009 20:53:33 -0600

cram, I totally agree about Feels! I still like what they're doing nowadays, but that record was gold.

cram

Tue, 27 Jan 2009 10:57:24 -0600

As someone who reads all these blogs that consistently cream all over Animal Collective, I'm wondering who is going to bring up the fact that they use synths if/when this album becomes album of the year? No one at the Grammys is going to notice this album even exists, so wherever this album is mentioned as a "Best Of" contender, those writers and readers are already accepting that there's no wailing guitars or a discernible Bruce Springsteen influence. On a personal note: Whenever Strawberry Jam came out, everyone said it was the album of the year and it seemed to be somewhere between "shit" and "worst fucking thing to be foisted upon my unsuspecting ears in my life time". Quite predictably, this review of MPP certainly isn't enough to make me fork over some $$$ to hear it given my visceral hatred of the previous record. (On the other hand, I really liked Feels, so go figure)

planman

Tue, 27 Jan 2009 08:56:28 -0600

Waaa. On an album as hyped as this, I think it's important for a non-music outlet like this to give some of the media coverage for those who don't know. I know I appreciated it. Also, did you not see the words "college tries" and "someone had to do it"? I think he knows what he's doing. Or maybe you should be a music writer? Whatever, I thought it was a good review and you have too much time on your hands.

sitstageleft

Mon, 26 Jan 2009 23:29:33 -0600

sorry, im not completely familiar with the style of this particular column, nor am I claiming any opinion on MPP, being as though I listened to it one time, and was also pretty stoned. I was however presuming a baseline that, being as though it listed a "grade" for the record, this column was supposed to be something like a review. I maintain that it is a disservice (to musicians) that this thing exists where as information is disseminated through the music blogosphere, it has less and less to do with the music. Literally, the entire first half of this review is about the author's reaction to media perceptions of this album. To me, to spend so much space addressing this issue, its as if the author finds this more important than what is actually on the record, and I don't understand the assertion that these other reviews make it more difficult to him to review it. Its an unnecessary filter of post-modern relativism, or whatever, I'm not exactly sure what you would call that. But its not really music journalism anymore than copying a one-sheet and calling that a review. Furthermore, I didn't read the pitchfork review and I don't read stereogum, but if I had, I don't understand how that would affect my ability to talk about the music. as far as the individual bullet points are concerned, without having familiarized myself with the record, I still take issue with them... Maybe the record is "too long," i dont know, but usually when I think of records that are too long, I think of long records with 5 shitty tracks in the middle that if you got rid of would leave you with a record of only awesome tracks and regular album length. I think its weird that the author would remove a track he thinks is awesome. Still maybe he's right... The instruments thing on the other hand---I don't understand bringing up that they don't play "instruments" in this review. This to me is just absurdly irrelevant, ignores basically the last 70 years of music history, and is sort of ignorant (at least I would consider anything that makes noise an instrument, but especially oscillators and noise generators and whatever they are using). Also, I find it quite absurd to suggest a record's theme must be based around the title. Is he trying to say that he would understand the record better if it were named something else, even if the music was entirely the same? I don't get it. I think its presumptuous to assume that a record needs a theme in the first place, but especially presumptuous to suggest that the title has to be about the theme. That's like saying Abbey Road would be better if the title was more thematic. I do understand if that is the author's personal preference, and if that's what the style of this column is about, than forgive my ignorance, but I think given that it appears in a review format it should at least be qualified as such. And I see the little disclaimer at the top, but this is the disservice I am talking about...its basically replacing "content" for "journalism" which wouldn't be a big deal, except it has real affects on musicians. Basically I would say, I think just talking about music can be a fun celebration, but once you assign critical grades to works of art that take an incredible amount of energy to produce (for a media outlet read by the public), its simple courtesy for the author to hold himself to a standard higher than that of a "quick tryst with a just-released album. No regrets." I just don't agree with that philosophy.

planman

Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:42:39 -0600

Um...I think the whole point is that this review is looking at the big picture, not just individual tracks. It's important to get that, too, especially for people who haven't been obsessing over this "band" for the past five years. I think this is a more valuable commentary than just another track by track review of how amazing the album is, because pitchfork knows there are already 600 of those on the internet. And MPP is too long.

Circumlocution

Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:07:30 -0600

"Summertime Clothes" might be the best song on the album. There are four or five songs that could have made my Best Songs of 2008 list. All in all, a historic album from a band who used to annoy me 50 percent of the time.

sitstageleft

Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:01:55 -0600

i dont understand how you can review an album, but have the entire first half of the review be about the media reaction to the record, and your reaction to the media reaction (this would be the famed "indie blogosphere feedback loop" at work.) Then your review of the record consists of the following bullet points: -its one song too long (how is this the most relevant point that you make it the first thing you bring up?) -i consider the album title to be 'half-assed' (what does this have to do with anything? No shit you're nitpicking...you're also projecting) -its accessible (hardly a profound point to make...especially given their last 2 records) -they don't play "instruments" (wow...i dont know where to begin with this counting as I'm sorry, but this is not a review, this is a disservice. You don't talk about the music. You at no point talk about specific track. Does this not seem weird to you? That you would review an album and instead of writing about the tracks, you write that "the media is all over this one, its one too long, they dont use "instruments", its accessible, and I don't like the album title"?? And you take however many hundreds of words to do it? Oh and by the way, you give it an "A". On what grounds? You don't mention anything great about it in your whole review... my 2 cents....and it has nothing to do with how I feel about the album...just how I feel about the review...so this isn't really an issue of "well, that's how you feel about the record" because it's apart from my feelings about the record.

JohnM

Mon, 26 Jan 2009 14:44:15 -0600

I really like the concept of "the morning after" - great job, great review. I like it because you purposefully reject the "it's awesome just because it's Animal Collective" bullshit.