Tortoise
- Thread starter dubplatestyle
- Start date
Just got to mention that the 'horns' section of "Cliff Dweller Society" on the "Gamera" 12" is my personal Tortoise highlight!
They were more or less my favourite live band throughout the 90s even though they all look like grumpy buggers! In fact I was supposed to interview them on their "Millions Now Living" tour but I bottled it after seeing them give the answer 'somewhat' to every question on an MTV interview...
They were more or less my favourite live band throughout the 90s even though they all look like grumpy buggers! In fact I was supposed to interview them on their "Millions Now Living" tour but I bottled it after seeing them give the answer 'somewhat' to every question on an MTV interview...
cortempond
Active member
Here in Chicago, Tortoise falls into the too hip to like category
Tortoise, being in definition a Chicago-based band has fallen into that phase here of being too popular to be liked by the scenesters (see Smashing Pumpkins). Every little sneeze they do is covered by the local major papers and zines, so the people in the know has disowned them in a public sense (though they still might listen to them, but would never tell friends). What has happened is the battle, like with most bands, is that once they reach the mainstream and move from under to overground, of being hip or not-hip. Here in Chicago, we like our bands to starve because in that way, we can say we discovered them first. Hey, once they make it, its time to move onto the next unknown, and etc., ad nauseum.
TNT was a great album because it mixed in different world sources within a jazz context. Standards was pretty not so good. I see Tortoise as being more of an extension of modern jazz than rock (or post-rock) or even Can-style Krautrock due to the looseness and improvisational nature of the players. Their early stuff (Millions of people) bring in such elements as gamelan textures, Afro-beat and even Brazilian influences. Medeski and crew also seem to drawing from this same pool but more from the period of soul jazz such as Jimmy Smith. In addition, some of the stuff Matthew Shipp with his Thirsty Ear series (especially the one with Spring Heel Jack) are exploring this territory. I see Tortoise as part of the vanguard of re-defining the world of jazz than rock, as each of these groups (which some members of Tortoise participate) take their unique sound and apply it to this format.
Tortoise, being in definition a Chicago-based band has fallen into that phase here of being too popular to be liked by the scenesters (see Smashing Pumpkins). Every little sneeze they do is covered by the local major papers and zines, so the people in the know has disowned them in a public sense (though they still might listen to them, but would never tell friends). What has happened is the battle, like with most bands, is that once they reach the mainstream and move from under to overground, of being hip or not-hip. Here in Chicago, we like our bands to starve because in that way, we can say we discovered them first. Hey, once they make it, its time to move onto the next unknown, and etc., ad nauseum.
TNT was a great album because it mixed in different world sources within a jazz context. Standards was pretty not so good. I see Tortoise as being more of an extension of modern jazz than rock (or post-rock) or even Can-style Krautrock due to the looseness and improvisational nature of the players. Their early stuff (Millions of people) bring in such elements as gamelan textures, Afro-beat and even Brazilian influences. Medeski and crew also seem to drawing from this same pool but more from the period of soul jazz such as Jimmy Smith. In addition, some of the stuff Matthew Shipp with his Thirsty Ear series (especially the one with Spring Heel Jack) are exploring this territory. I see Tortoise as part of the vanguard of re-defining the world of jazz than rock, as each of these groups (which some members of Tortoise participate) take their unique sound and apply it to this format.
blissblogger
Well-known member
sl-ow-ly st-ea-d-i-ly, he moves at his own pace
Tortoise-- too much studium, not enough punctum, innit
i've been listening to Soft Machine and Hatfield & the North in the last few days and it occurred that's where Tortoise fit. Sorta jazzy but not really "jazz"; trying to avoid the obvious things that "work", while still grooving. Sometimes you listen and think "amazing" (for me the 12 inch with cliff dweller and gamara, and the thing on Macro Dub Infection, maybe still "DJed") but mostly it's closer to "why would anyone go to the bother of learning their instruments to do this?". and Tortoise don't even have the charm factor of those Canterbury-style mopy english vocals.
i remember back in 95, a certain post-rock scene-traveller musician type who shall remain nameless turned to me at some gig, where tortoise were attendant or possibly later playing on the same bill, i forget, anyway he said very earnestly "John McEntire is one of the fifty most important people in America right now". Even then, i had to stifle a guffaw.
Tortoise-- too much studium, not enough punctum, innit
i've been listening to Soft Machine and Hatfield & the North in the last few days and it occurred that's where Tortoise fit. Sorta jazzy but not really "jazz"; trying to avoid the obvious things that "work", while still grooving. Sometimes you listen and think "amazing" (for me the 12 inch with cliff dweller and gamara, and the thing on Macro Dub Infection, maybe still "DJed") but mostly it's closer to "why would anyone go to the bother of learning their instruments to do this?". and Tortoise don't even have the charm factor of those Canterbury-style mopy english vocals.
i remember back in 95, a certain post-rock scene-traveller musician type who shall remain nameless turned to me at some gig, where tortoise were attendant or possibly later playing on the same bill, i forget, anyway he said very earnestly "John McEntire is one of the fifty most important people in America right now". Even then, i had to stifle a guffaw.
Matos_W.K.
Active member
dubplatestyle said:
That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about people who aren't now and never will be hipster intellectuals, or hipsters, or intellectuals, which isn't to say they don't know what's happening around them or they're not intelligent. But (and I'm thinking of a couple friends in particular) they wouldn't think of putting someone down for not getting a reference or whatever, and they don't see why everyone shouldn't be in on the fun train because, you know, it's so easy--just go have fun!
hint
party record with a siren
that's gotta be about 90-95% of the world then... most people look to music as a source of simple pleasure, and know what they like. they don't give a second thought to the stuff they don't like.
it's when you start trying to break down the reasons why you don't like certain bands, or styles, or songs that you take a step beyond the "fun fun fun"... cos like / dislike is a gut thing (99% of the time)... people who claim to be all about the fun who spend time moaning about more "serious" stuff are already crossing the boundaries of the "fun fun fun" state of mind. if you're trying to prove you're more fun than someone else, you're spending valuable funtime doing something dull.
for most people, it's enough to just say "I don't like it" and spend time thinking / talking about the stuff you do like. cos that's the stuff that matters, innit. the only people who can really justify the time and effort spent breaking down why something might be considered bad are those whose careers rely on predicting the popularity and therefore commercial value of a piece of music. and even then it's not necessarily about definiing why they might personally dislike something - it's about predicitng other peoples' reactions.
it's when you start trying to break down the reasons why you don't like certain bands, or styles, or songs that you take a step beyond the "fun fun fun"... cos like / dislike is a gut thing (99% of the time)... people who claim to be all about the fun who spend time moaning about more "serious" stuff are already crossing the boundaries of the "fun fun fun" state of mind. if you're trying to prove you're more fun than someone else, you're spending valuable funtime doing something dull.
for most people, it's enough to just say "I don't like it" and spend time thinking / talking about the stuff you do like. cos that's the stuff that matters, innit. the only people who can really justify the time and effort spent breaking down why something might be considered bad are those whose careers rely on predicting the popularity and therefore commercial value of a piece of music. and even then it's not necessarily about definiing why they might personally dislike something - it's about predicitng other peoples' reactions.
Last edited:
Matos_W.K.
Active member
hint said:
this isn't true at all. criticism isn't a function of the marketplace; it goes deeper than that. when I or most everyone else here talks about records, sometimes for print but even just on here, we're not doing it in a predictive or money-led fashion. we do it because we care about this stuff, and we're talking about how we particularly feel, not how we think other people are going to. in some trade magazines like Billboard you see that kind of writing, but not really anywhere else, even in big-money pubs like Q or Blender, the writeups are "this is good or bad," not "this will be successful or won't."
hint
party record with a siren
sure - don't get me wrong matos... I'm not having a go or anything. I enjoy reading forums like this, as well as blogs and mags, and I understand the "I write about music because I care about it" attitude, of course.
I'm just curious - what's the motivation behind writing a bad review of something? are journos often forced to review a specific release, whether they like it or not? is it cos people simply like a good old fashioned moan?
I was reading plan B mag last night. most of the reviews in there are pretty short - space must be tight, I guess. so every review telling me about something that the reviewer thinks is shit is surely taking away space from those who want to wax lyrical about the good stuff, right?
I'm just curious - what's the motivation behind writing a bad review of something? are journos often forced to review a specific release, whether they like it or not? is it cos people simply like a good old fashioned moan?
I was reading plan B mag last night. most of the reviews in there are pretty short - space must be tight, I guess. so every review telling me about something that the reviewer thinks is shit is surely taking away space from those who want to wax lyrical about the good stuff, right?
Diggedy Derek
Stray Dog
I think bad reviews can be very enlightening, and don't always put me off buying the album in question. They can be informative facts-wise, they can give perspectives on the music, trace influences etc, even if they end up hating it. It's like if someone revewing the Wiley album this year had said "it's too egotistical, too contrived" that would actually be confirm exactly what I like about Wiley. Just because a reviewer finds an album not to their taste doesn't mean that it they don't inadvertently wet my palette for it.
Matos_W.K.
Active member
hint said:
I can't imagine it's all that different from writing a good or an indifferent review; this stuff's out there, here's how it is, don't bother or do. and it's not a matter of being "forced," it's a matter of whether there's something interesting to say about something--that's a best-case scenario, at least. with larger mags where there's a mandate to cover everything, you're gonna get negative reviews. in places like the section I edit, negative reviews tend to run if
(a) the editor (me!) thinks a record is interesting/important enough to warrant coverage and the reviewer doesn't happen to like it
(b) similar to above, but sub "someone is coming to town" instead of (just) "here's a record"
(c) the writer has something interesting to say about a bad record
Post-rock now seems to be used to talk about dirgey, OMG SO EMOTIVE LOL bands like Mogwai, Godspeed You Black Emperor and Explosions In The Sky. Even Iceland's Coldplay come under the banner, for whatever reason. The initial Fat Cat release?
I feel a bit lame getting shitting over the use of genre banners, but I actually liked a lot of the music that Reynolds / blissblogger first suggested could be lumped in as post-rock, things that took electronics into a vaguely rock context in strange combinations. Meanwhile, the above bands, IMO, are much more just rock bands, at least wrt incorporating any electronics etc. Not much "post-" about them.
As for Tortoise, yeah, I don't find them deserving of hate, but think the reasons for their lack of popularity are pretty well covered. 'Standards' and the next one have horrible brickwalling too, from memory. I just remember them being really loud in a way that made my ears tired almost instantly.
Nice to see Blissblogger mention that track on Macro Dub Infection, I pulled that comp out yesterday just to listen to that one track. I reckon it's great.