____twoism

drillkicker wrote:Geogaddi was where it all started going downhill for them.

Yeah I don't think Boards of Canada are for you.

I have to say, drillkicker makes a good point here, though I'd never put it that strongly.

Campfire though guyss )-:

What have some people got against that album? It fits in perfectly. Music has the right, Geogaddi and Campfire are like an interconnected trillogy.

TH is wildly different and it sounds like it comes from a polluted place out in the city so I understand some of the fans feeling separated from their music on that front but, in my opinion, by no means was it 'downhill since geogaddi'.

Valotonin wrote:What have some people got against that album?

Campfire is my favorite album. However, some find it too organic. Thing is, I've always found Geo to be too inorganic for me. Go figure.

drillkicker wrote:Needlessly messianic wall of text.

Yeah, I don't know. I suppose you could look at it that way, or you could just not read anything into it if you don't want to. Plausible deniability? Cognitive dissonance? Something like that. Just enjoy the music and let the obsessives do what they do.

Wildfire wrote:

drillkicker wrote:Geogaddi was where it all started going downhill for them.

Yeah I don't think Boards of Canada are for you.

Then why do I enjoy their tunes so much ? The Old Tunes are some of my favorite tracks ever.

zeoevil wrote:Yeah, I don't know. I suppose you could look at it that way, or you could just not read anything into it if you don't want to. Plausible deniability? Cognitive dissonance? Something like that. Just enjoy the music and let the obsessives do what they do.

I do, but I just think it's a shame that they feel the need to discard the majority of their tracks because of the concepts that they aim for. Even if they want to have their densely packed, concise albums they could still do that and then release big outtakes albums similar to Quaristice.Quadrange.ep.ae (which ended up being far superior to the album that the tracks were originally intended for). Obviously that isn't something they'll ever do, but one can dream.

Wildfire wrote:

drillkicker wrote:Geogaddi was where it all started going downhill for them.

Yeah I don't think Boards of Canada are for you.

A bit sad that you would spend (a lot) of time on a Boards of Canada forum then? A lot of your posts Drillkicker just seem like somebody quite desperate for attention.

Which says to me you have no friends lol.

Mr Drillkicker is entitled to his opinion guys. Let's not turn someone expressing their personal opinion into mild bullying here. If it has a rectangular box with rounded edges around it, one can generally assume that it represents someone's opinion.

drillkicker wrote:I just think it's a shame that they feel the need to discard the majority of their tracks because of the concepts that they aim for. Even if they want to have their densely packed, concise albums they could still do that and then release big outtakes albums similar to Quaristice.Quadrange.ep.ae (which ended up being far superior to the album that the tracks were originally intended for). Obviously that isn't something they'll ever do, but one can dream.

I am inclined to agree with you on that front. There are a lot of hidden treasures that we aren't being exposed to, but we can trust that from their perspective we are getting the 'cream of the crop'. I think albums in a way can be like a personal 'best of the past few years' compilation for them in a way, but also if that happens to stick to the stylistic direction of the idea predominantly.

Well sure, but there's a reason why I don't listen to "Best Of" anthologies : the compiler is always biased. I often find the recordings less admired by the artist(s) to be my favorites, and Boards of Canada is no exception. I don't think Mike and Marcus would consider my favorite of their tracks to be their favorites at all, especially since most of my favorites are from their unreleased demos. That's why I think it's best for artists to share as much of their material as they can. If the musicians have fans, then there will always be people who are interested in listening to the many outtakes from the albums, and there will certainly be people who end up getting more enjoyment out of those tracks than they got from the ones that actually made it on the album. Having a big collection of orphaned tracks is more enjoyable to listen to than a fully cohesive album. While the latter can be more powerful as a whole, the former has a higher potential for having individual tracks that are stronger than some of the parts that make up the album. For example, Gemini from Tomorrow's Harvest is good as an opening track for the album, but it probably isn't as good as an independent track as some of the preterite recordings. I understand that Mike and Marcus want their albums to be a polished and cohesive thing, but I don't get why they don't want to share more of the things that came from the creation of them. It's almost as if they don't care about the music itself and only about how the music forms something greater than the sum of its parts. That's an ambitious outlook and all, but it may not be the best attitude for a professional musician to have 100% of the time.

Boards of Canada has made some of best albums in the electronic music, so maybe they should keep it going in that format?

drillkicker wrote:Well sure, but there's a reason why I don't listen to "Best Of" anthologies : the compiler is always biased. I often find the recordings less admired by the artist(s) to be my favorites, and Boards of Canada is no exception. I don't think Mike and Marcus would consider my favorite of their tracks to be their favorites at all, especially since most of my favorites are from their unreleased demos. That's why I think it's best for artists to share as much of their material as they can. If the musicians have fans, then there will always be people who are interested in listening to the many outtakes from the albums, and there will certainly be people who end up getting more enjoyment out of those tracks than they got from the ones that actually made it on the album. Having a big collection of orphaned tracks is more enjoyable to listen to than a fully cohesive album. While the latter can be more powerful as a whole, the former has a higher potential for having individual tracks that are stronger than some of the parts that make up the album. For example, Gemini from Tomorrow's Harvest is good as an opening track for the album, but it probably isn't as good as an independent track as some of the preterite recordings. I understand that Mike and Marcus want their albums to be a polished and cohesive thing, but I don't get why they don't want to share more of the things that came from the creation of them. It's almost as if they don't care about the music itself and only about how the music forms something greater than the sum of its parts. That's an ambitious outlook and all, but it may not be the best attitude for a professional musician to have 100% of the time.

(edited my response 'cause I don't want to get banned)

I just hope brothers create a happy mood album.

warphead wrote:
(edited my response 'cause I don't want to get banned)

Was it that bad ?
Like I say. There is no right and wrong, only opinion. Whoever escalates a situation from someone stating their opinion to personal insult is the more intellectually weak and emotionally immature (I am not saying you x).

I have seen it a lot with some of Drillkicker's more controversial opinions, people take that step and decide to personally insult him and I feel that is unfair and contrary to the kind of people we want to have and the laid back atmosphere we are known for having here on twoism.

drillkicker wrote:Well sure, but there's a reason why I don't listen to "Best Of" anthologies : the compiler is always biased. I often find the recordings less admired by the artist(s) to be my favorites, and Boards of Canada is no exception. I don't think Mike and Marcus would consider my favorite of their tracks to be their favorites at all, especially since most of my favorites are from their unreleased demos. That's why I think it's best for artists to share as much of their material as they can. If the musicians have fans, then there will always be people who are interested in listening to the many outtakes from the albums, and there will certainly be people who end up getting more enjoyment out of those tracks than they got from the ones that actually made it on the album. Having a big collection of orphaned tracks is more enjoyable to listen to than a fully cohesive album. While the latter can be more powerful as a whole, the former has a higher potential for having individual tracks that are stronger than some of the parts that make up the album. For example, Gemini from Tomorrow's Harvest is good as an opening track for the album, but it probably isn't as good as an independent track as some of the preterite recordings. I understand that Mike and Marcus want their albums to be a polished and cohesive thing, but I don't get why they don't want to share more of the things that came from the creation of them. It's almost as if they don't care about the music itself and only about how the music forms something greater than the sum of its parts. That's an ambitious outlook and all, but it may not be the best attitude for a professional musician to have 100% of the time.

Couldn't agree more.

arvy wrote:Boards of Canada has made some of best albums in the electronic music, so maybe they should keep it going in that format?

Of course that's true, but I don't think the format is that makes the albums good. They're good because of the music. And I think the more they share, the better. The worst that could happen is some of the stuff not being up to par, but being a fan of bands like Current 93 and the Legendary Pink Dots, that definitely is not a problem for me.

drillkicker wrote:

arvy wrote:Boards of Canada has made some of best albums in the electronic music, so maybe they should keep it going in that format?

Of course that's true, but I don't think the format is that makes the albums good. They're good because of the music. And I think the more they share, the better. The worst that could happen is some of the stuff not being up to par, but being a fan of bands like Current 93 and the Legendary Pink Dots, that definitely is not a problem for me.

The format doesn not make the album, the album it self is the format. But Probably the music makes the album good, right?:)
What about those band you mentioned?
yeah RA put Geogaddi 11/100 best electronic albums of teh past decade
https://www.residentadvisor.net/features/1144

The bands I mentioned are two of my favorites, but they have a lot of releases that are horribly recorded and produced and just sound awful, but the composition and performance of the music itself is good enough to make it enjoyable despite the tremendous shortcomings. Swastikas for Noddy is a perfect example of this, especially the original vinyl pressing of the album, which was not professionally mastered. And Current 93 has a constantly rotating lineup, making the discography very stylistically inconsistent, and even some hardcore fans would agree that this is also reflected in the quality of a few of the recordings (namely those from 2005-2010, though I personally like them all).

Is it me or has the whole vibe surrounding boards changed in recent years?

Does anyone think they have changed as people or that TH was always a road they where mentally prepared to go down. does this make sense idk?

Valotonin wrote:Is it me or has the whole vibe surrounding boards changed in recent years?

Does anyone think they have changed as people or that TH was always a road they where mentally prepared to go down. does this make sense idk?

Sure, I don't think anyone can look at themselves 20 years in the past and see the same person that they are today. I felt like the vibe changed in 2005, and that's okay. Everyone evolves even if they believe they are staying true to themselves. It's just part of human nature.

You can infer based on interviews that they enjoyed psychedelics at the peak of their highest and most recognized musical output. Who knows if that's where their heads are at anymore? Sobriety and intelligence in this world that we live in can very well lead to the type of music that you hear on TH. I think it's also a deliberate nod to the music and themes of the types of movies they grew up on before discovering psychedelics...

drillkicker wrote:The bands I mentioned are two of my favorites, but they have a lot of releases that are horribly recorded and produced and just sound awful, but the composition and performance of the music itself is good enough to make it enjoyable despite the tremendous shortcomings. Swastikas for Noddy is a perfect example of this, especially the original vinyl pressing of the album, which was not professionally mastered. And Current 93 has a constantly rotating lineup, making the discography very stylistically inconsistent, and even some hardcore fans would agree that this is also reflected in the quality of a few of the recordings (namely those from 2005-2010, though I personally like them all).

Ok, or maybe they don't release the old tapes not because those are bad quality recordings, but because they are reusing them in making of new music? I also wish that Boards of Canada would release more any of their music, remixes, demo, live tapes, anything, but it seems that it's doesnt work this way.