Welcome to the new Goldfrapp forum. Enjoy your new home! X
TOU Press Reviews
  • 159 Comments sorted by
  • Vote Up0Vote Down The_CarpathianThe_Carpathian
    Posts: 1,837
    HorseTearz said:

    There are certainly some albums which have so many immediate pleasures that they can be fully appreciated upon your first or second listen.  I don't think Tales of Us is such an album.  It's a cliche, but this album does really reward repeated listening.

    This, and very much so.

    One spin = good.

    Many spins = even better.
    A million fires before your harvest comes. To burn out.
    Wear the mask of a heathen. For the moon's lonely eyes.
  • Vote Up0Vote Down ArchwayArchway
    Posts: 782
    The_Carpathian said:

    HorseTearz said:

    There are certainly some albums which have so many immediate pleasures that they can be fully appreciated upon your first or second listen.  I don't think Tales of Us is such an album.  It's a cliche, but this album does really reward repeated listening.

    This, and very much so.

    One spin = good.

    Many spins = even better.





    Interesting, for me the appeal was instant. Yes, some tracks were more appealing than others, but overall the album was immediately accessible. I do listen to quite a lot of stuff that is supposedly "difficult" (Nico, Diamanda Galas, Scott Walker's last three albums and numerous avant-garde classical composers for example). As with many things, it is so subjective and a case of "each to their own."
    I hope that you die in a decent pair of shoes
    You got a lot more walking to do where you're going to.
  • Vote Up0Vote Down HorseTearzHorseTearz
    Posts: 196
    The_Carpathian said:

    HorseTearz said:

    There are certainly some albums which have so many immediate pleasures that they can be fully appreciated upon your first or second listen.  I don't think Tales of Us is such an album.  It's a cliche, but this album does really reward repeated listening.

    This, and very much so.

    One spin = good.

    Many spins = even better.





    Interesting, for me the appeal was instant. Yes, some tracks were more appealing than others, but overall the album was immediately accessible. I do listen to quite a lot of stuff that is supposedly "difficult" (Nico, Diamanda Galas, Scott Walker's last three albums and numerous avant-garde classical composers for example). As with many things, it is so subjective and a case of "each to their own."


    I won't speak for The_Carpathian, but when I made that remark I did not mean that the album wasn't instantly appealing.  It was.  Alison and Will are magicians in the studio and even if the occasional song of theirs might not be a masterpiece of songcraft, they still can bewitch you with the atmospherics -- the musical arrangements, the vocal delivery, the production etc -- they have such exquisite taste.  Rather what I was saying was that each song's unique and distinguishable characteristics weren't instantly apparent to me. It felt too much of a piece, too "samey".  But, as I said, within a few repeated listens the individual characteristics of each song revealed  themselves  to me.  It's why I thought it would be interesting to know how many times a reviewer has listened to an album, especially since Pitchfork wasn't the only outlet to feature this critique.  
    Post edited by HorseTearz at 2013-09-13 15:01:05
  • Vote Up0Vote Down ArchwayArchway
    Posts: 782
    HorseTearz said:

    The_Carpathian said:

    HorseTearz said:

    There are certainly some albums which have so many immediate pleasures that they can be fully appreciated upon your first or second listen.  I don't think Tales of Us is such an album.  It's a cliche, but this album does really reward repeated listening.

    This, and very much so.

    One spin = good.

    Many spins = even better.





    Interesting, for me the appeal was instant. Yes, some tracks were more appealing than others, but overall the album was immediately accessible. I do listen to quite a lot of stuff that is supposedly "difficult" (Nico, Diamanda Galas, Scott Walker's last three albums and numerous avant-garde classical composers for example). As with many things, it is so subjective and a case of "each to their own."


    I won't speak for The_Carpathian, but when I made that remark I did not mean that the album wasn't instantly appealing.  It was.  Alison and Will are magicians in the studio and even if the occasional song of theirs might not be a masterpiece of songcraft, they still can bewitch you with the atmospherics -- the musical arrangements, the vocal delivery, the production etc -- they have such exquisite taste.  Rather what I was saying was that each song's unique and distinguishable characteristics weren't instantly apparent to me. It felt too much of a piece, too "samey".  But, as I said, within a few repeated listens the individual characteristics of each song revealed  themselves  to me.  It's why I thought it would be interesting to know how many times a reviewer has listened to an album, especially since Pitchfork wasn't the only outlet to feature this critique.  





    I can understand why people think it is a bit "samey". For me each song, with the exception of Ulla and Alvar, was very distinguishable upon first listen. Their individual characteristics didn't show themselves and in some ways, still don't. I tend to tune out when they play. Personally I would have liked the album even more if they had dropped Ulla.
    I hope that you die in a decent pair of shoes
    You got a lot more walking to do where you're going to.
  • Vote Up0Vote Down wild_corgiwild_corgi
    Posts: 227
    Archway said:

    Well Pitchfork review is up now, and while I'm somewhat disappointed, I'm not surprised at all. Pitchfork is such an elitist pretentious site really. 

    http://www.pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/18474-goldfrapp-tales-of-us/



    My favourite bit in the Pitchfork review was the unintentionally self-revealing "Admittedly ... it’s hard to find fault with many of these tracks."  You can just hear the reviewer's bitter dammit.

    It could be me, but over time IME Pitchfork reviews are always about Pitchfork's and their reviewers' positioning as arbiters of cool and taste, only ever incidentally about the music they're reviewing. Prolly why the magazine is so predictably contrarian. Its reviewers may from time to time say something revealing about the record or the gig: equally they may not. The signal : noise ratio at Pitchfork isn't exactly low.

  • Vote Up0Vote Down ArchwayArchway
    Posts: 782
    wild_corgi said:

    Archway said:

    Well Pitchfork review is up now, and while I'm somewhat disappointed, I'm not surprised at all. Pitchfork is such an elitist pretentious site really. 

    http://www.pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/18474-goldfrapp-tales-of-us/



    My favourite bit in the Pitchfork review was the unintentionally self-revealing "Admittedly ... it’s hard to find fault with many of these tracks."  You can just hear the reviewer's bitter dammit.

    It could be me, but over time IME Pitchfork reviews are always about Pitchfork's and their reviewers' positioning as arbiters of cool and taste, only ever incidentally about the music they're reviewing. Prolly why the magazine is so predictably contrarian. Its reviewers may from time to time say something revealing about the record or the gig: equally they may not. The signal : noise ratio at Pitchfork isn't exactly low.






    No, it's not just you. Pitchfork prides itself on its coolness and they will do anything to protect it.

    Incidentally, what ever happened to the Rolling Stone review. It is suppose to be a glorious 4 and a 1/2 star review, but it has never appeared, as far as I can tell. I've been looking at the site daily, but nothing has appeared. And today they have a review for the new Elton John album, which is only out in October!
    I hope that you die in a decent pair of shoes
    You got a lot more walking to do where you're going to.
  • Vote Up0Vote Down wild_corgiwild_corgi
    Posts: 227
    Good question about Rolling Stone's review ..

    Pitchfork. There's prolly a conclusion to be drawn from the precious little darlings on how restrictive, limited and conformist coolness is, but it's Friday and I would quite like another glass of wine so moral philosophy can go take a hike.
  • Vote Up0Vote Down The_CarpathianThe_Carpathian
    Posts: 1,837
    Not a press review but it's interesting to see where other recommendations for it find their way out into the world. A good mention from some well known people can really get a group of their fans curious.

    This time it's RuPaul tweeting:-

    Love new album 'Tales Of Us' hauntingly beautiful, moody cinematic

    That's 400,000 more people hearing about TOU!
    Post edited by The_Carpathian at 2013-09-13 18:12:19
    A million fires before your harvest comes. To burn out.
    Wear the mask of a heathen. For the moon's lonely eyes.
  • Vote Up0Vote Down stevilstevil
    Posts: 899
    yes celebrity tweets are so influential...much more so than any old mag
  • Vote Up0Vote Down The_CarpathianThe_Carpathian
    Posts: 1,837
    stevil said:

    yes celebrity tweets are so influential...much more so than any old mag



    In this day and age probably a higher 'circulation' than the paper copies of some too!
    A million fires before your harvest comes. To burn out.
    Wear the mask of a heathen. For the moon's lonely eyes.
  • Vote Up0Vote Down HorseTearzHorseTearz
    Posts: 196
    Nice one on the Rupaul tweet.  I wonder which other celebs have tweeted about the album.  Has Kylie done so?  She's a big fan. 

    Re: The Rolling Stone review.  Is it possible that what we saw was a mocked up tv ad which got scrapped?  Perhaps they were filling it with made up reviews in preparation for adding the real ones?  Hopefully that's not right and we're just awaiting publication.   I know there were 1 or 2 other reviews referenced in the ad, but I don't recall what they were from. 
    Post edited by HorseTearz at 2013-09-13 22:19:56
  • Vote Up0Vote Down pingping
    Posts: 1,248
    not a bad review here..
  • Vote Up0Vote Down pingping
    Posts: 1,248
    Consequence of sound...
    http://consequenceofsound.net/2013/09/album-review-goldfrapp-tales-of-us/
  • Vote Up0Vote Down SartoriSartori
    Posts: 2,138
    Archway said:

    wild_corgi said:

    Archway said:




    No, it's not just you. Pitchfork prides itself on its coolness and they will do anything to protect it.

    Incidentally, what ever happened to the Rolling Stone review. It is suppose to be a glorious 4 and a 1/2 star review, but it has never appeared, as far as I can tell. I've been looking at the site daily, but nothing has appeared. And today they have a review for the new Elton John album, which is only out in October!


    I`ve never read Pitchfork ....and now I never will . That description is exactly why I detest Q - "The Magazine for the Discerning Pretentious Wanker about town" .
    Post edited by Sartori at 2013-09-18 04:25:47
    "Read my posts and see why we`re not allowed nice things anymore"
    photo 5a6eb769-bc12-4596-bbe8-709fc2bb0d5e.jpg
    "Brought to you straight from the People`s Republic of There`s Something Wrong With You . The Hoi Polloi Capital of the World"
  • Vote Up0Vote Down JoeyJoey
    Posts: 197
    Well, it seems the fabled Rolling Stone review was a hoax. They have yet to post a review of the album.
    I had a king in a tenement castle, lately he's taken to painting the pastel walls brown. He's taken the curtains down. He's swept with the broom of contempt, and the rooms have an empty ring. He's cleaned with the tears of an actor who fears for the laughter's sting...
Add a Comment

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Apply for Membership

Categories