PDA

View Full Version : Adrian Orange & Her Band



BigBlackSmoke
09-16-2007, 09:01 PM
the new adrian orange is excellent. love the incorporation of horns into his music. highly recommended. anybody else been listening to the new album?

greenroots
09-17-2007, 09:49 PM
the new album is fucking awesome.

it's like adrian orange walking into a room with fela kuti and king jammy.

dude's words are becoming more powerful everyday too.

i think he's going to take over the world in the future.. seriously.

Mutineer
09-18-2007, 10:01 AM
I listened to one of his albums once. Think it was called Bitches Is Lord or some shit. It was pretty cool, didn't like his voice a whole lot though.

Is it any better on the new album?

Also, is the Thanksgiving album Elvrum produced any good?

1993
09-18-2007, 10:06 AM
I'm bummed I missed him when he played in the living room of one of the houses at school. Lame.

I've only heard one song by Thanksgiving but I recall liking it a lot. Where should I start?

greenroots
09-18-2007, 11:51 AM
the voice thing is i guess something subjective, i don't think you're going to like it on the new album if you didn't before.

his voice is awesome to me, totally haunted, totally deep.

if i were to start on thanksgiving, i'd get bitches is lord first. it's under the name adrian orange though.

the older thanksgiving albums are bomb aswell, but i think bitches is a good introduction and a good sign of where he's heading while still keeping alot of the past recordings feels.

just start digging in is what i would suggest.

don't worry about which one elvrum produced, the production is transparent to adrian's music to me. but maybe that's just me.

ted_pressure
09-18-2007, 10:52 PM
cave days and moments.

BigBlackSmoke
09-19-2007, 08:57 PM
the weird thing about his voice is that because he started making albums so young, it has changed a lot over the last few albums. I have "nothing" which is from 2003 I think, and he sounds totally different. If I were new to thanksgiving, I'd get "the river". it seems to be the most accessable of them

greenroots
10-21-2007, 01:21 PM
http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/45932-adrian-orange-her-band

ouchhhhh. wtf?

i like how they finally reviewed him after being put out on k records also... ughhhh...

i have nothing against pitchfork really, but that was terrible.

greenroots
10-21-2007, 01:27 PM
i just realized that they rereviewed the old time relijun album 2012 i think, and gave it a higher score. although the date still says 2002.

what the hell is going on?

i thought i remembered them ripping otr to shreds..

willyum
10-21-2007, 08:43 PM
i am in love with the new record. we are in negotiations with Adrian right now to bring him to Athens for a fest. www.nexttolastfest.com

some of those bitchfork reviewers, on top of not being insightful or informed, are completely unaware of the far-reaching effect of their poorly chosen words. it's a shame how much that will impact popularity of this fantastic release.

patman?
10-21-2007, 10:02 PM
some of those bitchfork reviewers ... are completely unaware of the far-reaching effect of their poorly chosen words. it's a shame how much that will impact popularity of this fantastic release.

God, that's fucking stupid. So they shouldn't honestly review something so as to not impact its popularity in a negative way? Wow.

greenroots
10-21-2007, 11:33 PM
i don't really think you should be jumping to that conclusion and assuming that people shouldn't be able to review albums honestly..

this album is great, and i believe in it, and so does willyum. it's pretty much a bummer that alot of people are just going to ignore it because someone who was maybe not familiar with adrian's work or doesn't feel it's jam or whatever, has a much big responsibility of weighing that album down, whether he cares about having that responsibility or not.

he gave an honest review, and the dude shouldn't feel bad about it i guess. but in our perspective, i think we both feel that it sucks that it's not going to be able to get the kind of praise that it deserves because of the way that the whole internet and "indiestry" is working right now.

willyum
10-23-2007, 12:24 PM
no, no. i just mean that i think there is a fine line between shitting on something for the sake of appearing like a better or cooler writer and genuinely thinking something is "bad" music and feeling compelled to tell others not to experience it. perhaps this is not the duty or responsibility of pitchfork, but i think it should be considered by the author that this is what ends up happening on a larger scale. to me, it seems that in reviewing, and basically presenting for approval or dis-, a record to an audience, that it should be part of your duty to at least give the shit you're going to talk about it against a wider range. to take into account why the music might be good outside of your own life and context.

dwightp
10-23-2007, 02:04 PM
Previewed some of the tracks on amazon... I have to say that it's some really noxious junk. Pitchfork actually hit the nail on the head, I think... the "band" just plays far too much better then he sings. For a voice like that to have 'character,' the rest of the music would have to be more informal.

Edit:


he gave an honest review, and the dude shouldn't feel bad about it i guess. but in our perspective, i think we both feel that it sucks that it's not going to be able to get the kind of praise that it deserves because of the way that the whole internet and "indiestry" is working right now.

I have to say, that's a really obnoxious sentiment. You guess he shouldn't feel bad for giving an honest review? Establishments like Pitchfork review records that have pull as well as music that's good. They reviewed the Black Kids EP ("released" via myspace) because they thought it was great. They reviewed Adrian's because it's a well known musician on a well known label. To an extent, it's what's expected of them.

I think you would be better suggesting that, from your perspectives, it will prevent it from getting the attention that you think it deserves. There isn't some established physical property that all good records share, and Pitchfork is hiding that quality in Adrian's record from people - they're just saying that they think it sucks.

greenroots
10-23-2007, 04:25 PM
eh.. i don't really think previewing the tracks on amazon really give a good idea at all of the entire album, the words that are said, or anything, but i mean whatever.. we all don't have time to check out albums that we don't really care about so i understand where you're coming from.

but fuck it, forget what i said.

i'm just sad that the album is getting this bad rep, but at least i'll enjoy it and hopefully other people will too.

dwightp
10-23-2007, 04:42 PM
eh.. i don't really think previewing the tracks on amazon really give a good idea at all of the entire album, the words that are said, or anything, but i mean whatever.. we all don't have time to check out albums that we don't really care about so i understand where you're coming from.

Unless his vocals made a swing in the Neil Young direction after the 30-second preview (which has served me exceptionally well in the past) ended, I can't imagine my opinion being shifted. In any case, my opinion is strictly that his vocals (being terrible) grate more for being on top of great instrumentation, then they might otherwise. I don't think I'd like his vocals on any album at any time of the year, but I'm not really interested enough by what I heard to explore the matter further.

uncle eggma
10-23-2007, 04:50 PM
the main problem that i've had with his stuff (i haven't heard this new one) is that the vocal track is WAY up front in the mix. so much so that the bitches is lord album sounds like he's taping himself singing over previously recorded instrumental tracks that are being played through a seperate stereo.

uncle eggma
10-23-2007, 04:51 PM
that being said, i don't mind his vocals that much and i have friends who swear by the guy.

willyum
10-24-2007, 08:10 AM
Previewed some of the tracks on amazon...
herein lies the problem. the idea of listening to music for the purpose of immediate judgment, especially in the "ranking against others" format. i don't really feel like the bitchfork writer spent any more time with the art than you did. but i guess that's all it deserves to make its case for a black and white "yes or no."



They reviewed Adrian's because it's a well known musician
false. first public review (presentation) of any of his work.



They reviewed the Black Kids EP ("released" via myspace) because they thought it was great.
in some way, this whole black kids shit feels like an example of some of what's wrong. it's not [good]. they're a buzz band that sounds exactly like completely un-unique parts of other once-buzz-bands. the comparisions to things like Arcade Fire would be well and good if by that they meant "this band has a powerful and inventive presence in this style like the Arcade Fire," but what's really going on is, "this band sounds exactly like all these other bands! in fact, it sounds like a bunch of high school kids covering their songs!! we get to keep hearing more of this exact same shit! yeah! indie!"



There isn't some established physical property that all good records share, and Pitchfork is[n't] hiding that quality in Adrian's record from people - they're just saying that they think it sucks.
true, however, i think that the function that their "reviews" have taken to the general public should be acknowledged. people like you, who can read this shit BEFORE ever hearing a note, and then go to a place like amazon.com just for the point of CONFIRMING the exact shit that you read on that website. you're not going to make any new opinions, you're just going to look for things to support what you already read because it's easier to have someone make that decision for you. in a sense, they are making a decision for a lot of people and their "opinion" can end up "hiding" the record from lots and lots and lots of people.


it's a fine line and i don't mean to sound like a hypocrite damning free speech or something. it's a really specific and hard thing to talk about when the circumstances and tiny characteristics of the company at hand matter so much.

patman?
10-24-2007, 08:29 AM
You're pretty obnoxious, dude. You disagree with the reviewer. There's nothing more to it than that. Let it fucking go. I disagree with plenty of reviews, too. Big deal.

dwightp
10-24-2007, 10:14 AM
herein lies the problem. the idea of listening to music for the purpose of immediate judgment, especially in the "ranking against others" format. i don't really feel like the bitchfork writer spent any more time with the art than you did. but i guess that's all it deserves to make its case for a black and white "yes or no."


How so? Quantify that statement. Based on my stated opinion, that the vocals and instrumentals aren't properly put together, I need not hear the entire album or even a small fraction of it. Unless each song was mixed and mastered by a different person, no reasoning person could expect to encounter anything different.


in some way, this whole black kids shit feels like an example of some of what's wrong. it's not [good]. they're a buzz band that sounds exactly like completely un-unique parts of other once-buzz-bands. the comparisions to things like Arcade Fire would be well and good if by that they meant "this band has a powerful and inventive presence in this style like the Arcade Fire," but what's really going on is, "this band sounds exactly like all these other bands! in fact, it sounds like a bunch of high school kids covering their songs!! we get to keep hearing more of this exact same shit! yeah! indie!"

Now that really jerks my burgers, because your saying these scurrilous lies about the Black Kids is going to prevent people from giving them the attention they deserve! :D Your judgement is typical of people incapable of organizing a systematic rebuke to something they disagree with... having said that, it might be gratuitous of me to add that you're a hypocrite, but consider it added. the mainstream is obsessed with toting the mainstream, and the underground is obsessed with toting the underground. Shazbot!


false. first public review (presentation) of any of his work.

Haha, so they're a buzz band like the Black Kids? Just pulled out of someone's ass, eh?


true, however, i think that the function that their "reviews" have taken to the general public should be acknowledged. people like you, who can read this shit BEFORE ever hearing a note, and then go to a place like amazon.com just for the point of CONFIRMING the exact shit that you read on that website. you're not going to make any new opinions, you're just going to look for things to support what you already read because it's easier to have someone make that decision for you. in a sense, they are making a decision for a lot of people and their "opinion" can end up "hiding" the record from lots and lots and lots of people.

That presumes that I'm a mindless idiot, and that generally others are as well. I can't speak at length on the latter sentiment, but I know for certain that I'm a very strong-minded person. The pitchfork reviewer was, even if you don't comment on the quality, approaching the nature of the album entirely correctly. For someone that doesn't like it, the first thing that stands out is how outrageously badly his vocals are suited to their instrumentation - I don't even need to say how god-awful they sounded in any case. God bless amazon.com for saving me the time and computer memory of downloading an entire album that I would hate in any case. Listening to that slew of 30 second previews, I was confirmed in my sentiment. What you express is absurd. Should you walk completely around the corner of a hallway to make sure that the barrel you saw peaking around it is connected to a gun? No, you know before seeing the entirety of it that you wont like it.

patman?
10-24-2007, 12:42 PM
I do disagree about your thing with the Amazon previews, though. While it does give you a taste, you at least have to listen to a whole song before you make a judgement. No thirty-second preview will give you an idea what the final product is like.

dwightp
10-24-2007, 02:06 PM
Christ, what is so hdeous about a flipping 30 second preview that people have to hang on it like this? Even the press that's given the stupid album good reviews make coy comments about how he doesn't have a great voice and how heart-breakingly sincere it is. I find his vocals diabolical and lacking any evidence that they shape up later in the song or ever, for that matter, I couldn't give any less of a shit what the rest of the album sounds like - even if the back up band started playing sitars and mandolins soaked for a century in ambrosia, that burst out of a boil on Zeus' ass - his vocals would still stink. If it gives me a "taste," as you say, why would I need more? 100 to 1 that an apple pie will persist in tasting like an apple pie no matter how many "tastes" you take. Same with dog poop, I imagine.

patman?
10-24-2007, 02:22 PM
That's a bad comparison because one small taste of apple pie is, by all means, going to taste exactly like the rest of the pie. Unless the song, or album, is one constant tone, a thirty-second preview will not give you any indictation what the whole is like.

DaveKent
10-24-2007, 03:46 PM
If it gives me a "taste," as you say, why would I need more? 100 to 1 that an apple pie will persist in tasting like an apple pie no matter how many "tastes" you take. Same with dog poop, I imagine.

You've never disliked an album and then listened to it again in a month and fallen in love with it? You've never had a lukewarm feeling about an album, and by the fifth or sixth listen, come to love it? You've never loved an album and come to hate it after a few months?

dwightp
10-24-2007, 04:07 PM
How do you get that Dave? I made an apple the other day, and I loved it, but I wont be in an apple mood for weeks/months. There ya go. I used to love spinach souffle, now I hate it.


That's a bad comparison because one small taste of apple pie is, by all means, going to taste exactly like the rest of the pie. Unless the song, or album, is one constant tone, a thirty-second preview will not give you any indictation what the whole is like.

Man, that's just obtuse. An apple pie is never the same tone, but it is the same style - it's a desert. With fruit. So while an album certainly doesn't have the same tone, it generally has the same style; the vocals sound consistent and perhaps the instrumentation as well. Variations in either from song to song can be accounted for by small and large pieces of apple in our pie.

And "no indication of the whole?" Spare me, even you can't make a stretch that wide. The songs aren't going to change into Czech polka or a recording of a guy farting into a megaphone from the song preceeding the 30 second preview and the song after it. That's literally what a preview is, and to my knowledge it is yet to be an obsolete concept. 30 second movie previews these days manage to reveal 90% of the plots from the films they cover for christ's sake.

Beyond that I've already explained myself more thoroughly then necessary.