Shuttlecock! Part VII - Harry Muffin and the Shuttler's Cock

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
And why is "Eternity of Surrender" so eternally long...??? My favorite Velvet Underground song is "Sister Ray," so it's not like I'm opposed to long running times...when a song demands them. I'm not saying that the song is bad, even, but really--does anybody else feel like the mo'fucker could've been, you know, listenable at 3:50, as opposed to interminable at 18:92, or whatever the shit it is?
 
And why is "Eternity of Surrender" so eternally long...??? My favorite Velvet Underground song is "Sister Ray," so it's not like I'm opposed to long running times...when a song demands them. I'm not saying that the song is bad, even, but really--does anybody else feel like the mo'fucker could've been, you know, listenable at 3:50, as opposed to interminable at 18:92, or whatever the shit it is?

So will you include hyperbole in your official review or do you try to maintain integrity?
 
And why is "Eternity of Surrender" so eternally long...??? My favorite Velvet Underground song is "Sister Ray," so it's not like I'm opposed to long running times...when a song demands them. I'm not saying that the song is bad, even, but really--does anybody else feel like the mo'fucker could've been, you know, listenable at 3:50, as opposed to interminable at 18:92, or whatever the shit it is?

I enjoy it for its entire duration, and actually think it feels a lot shorter than it is. Which is a good thing.
 
Reviewer. Sorry. That really does sound vague, doesn't it? I'm talking about historical precedent and, like I said, context.

Totally agree with you, just asking.

RS fascination with U2 and Bruce starts with Jann Wenner and his need to be seen as part of the 'in-crowd' of Rock and Roll. I forget the proper term for it. And I think most of his critics are in that faction of writers that mostly are reactionary to popular culture rather than the music on the actual disc.
 
So will you include hyperbole in your official review or do you try to maintain integrity?

Integrity FTW! I'm not giving this thing a zero, or something. Nor am I giving it a five. Nor is "Lifetime of Surrender" the longest song ever recorded, or something...I just think that it more than overstays its welcome. This thing ain't got shit on John Cage, that's for sure!
 
And why is "Eternity of Surrender" so eternally long...??? My favorite Velvet Underground song is "Sister Ray," so it's not like I'm opposed to long running times...when a song demands them. I'm not saying that the song is bad, even, but really--does anybody else feel like the mo'fucker could've been, you know, listenable at 3:50, as opposed to interminable at 18:92, or whatever the shit it is?

Many of the reviews have said it feels nowhere near its length, so I think you're in the minority here.

Too much Los Camp! has eroded your musical patience, maybe?
 
Totally agree with you, just asking.

RS fascination with U2 and Bruce starts with Jann Wenner and his need to be seen as part of the 'in-crowd' of Rock and Roll. I forget the proper term for it. And I think most of his critics are in that faction of writers that mostly are reactionary to popular culture rather than the music on the actual disc.

The only thing I like about Rolling Stone is that they don't seem to take themselves as seriously as other critics. Critics, IMO, are the mainstream equivalent of fluffers in the porn industry.
 
Integrity FTW! I'm not giving this thing a zero, or something. Nor am I giving it a five. Nor is "Lifetime of Surrender" the longest song ever recorded, or something...I just think that it more than overstays its welcome. This thing ain't got shit on John Cage, that's for sure!

I'm not questioning your review. I was just bustin' your balls.
 
Alright then. I'm glad that's settled.



Boner does like em young:

bonosttropezgirlsku9.jpg
this picture always pisses me off, because i'm hotter than them.

but, no naked pictures on offer anymore.
 
Many of the reviews have said it feels nowhere near its length, so I think you're in the minority here.

Too much Los Camp! has eroded your musical patience, maybe?

You're right, regarding the reviews, and your observation re: patience is in intriguing one. Given my freakish consumption of music (from Belinda Carlisle to pure white noise), patience isn't really an issue. However, certain kinds of musical patience are. For example, the three or so movements of LC!'s "You! Me! Dancing!" actually feel too short, to me; that song is nearly seven minutes, itself. The Fiery Furnaces present another great example.

I'm just trying to crack a few jokes, regarding the length of the song. Why do I have a problem with that length? Well, I think it's because the song in question just sort of exists, to my ears. As in any conventional pop-rock song, there are of course structures in place, but in terms of "movements," there's nothing. Verses, choruses, etc., yes. And that's fine, because the bands I just name-checked do the same thing, in their longer tracks...but they do a bit more, too, and I think that that sort of variety is what I'm missing.

Or I'm overthinking it, and I think the song's too long because I don't think it's all that strong. Probably the latter.
 
The only thing I like about Rolling Stone is that they don't seem to take themselves as seriously as other critics. Critics, IMO, are the mainstream equivalent of fluffers in the porn industry.

Ha!

Yeah but it's like anything else. The extremes are the ones to stay away from.
I don't appreciate the fluffers who are looking to write a piece to gather affection from an artist anymore than I like the lambasting self-important douchebags who spend 2/3 of a review talking about Bono's ego rather than the voice that appears on the record.
 
I'm not questioning your review. I was just bustin' your balls.

Yeah, I know. No worries. I'm just used to other sub-forums, where the other 3420823 people in the thread would start to jump all the fuck over me, if I didn't quickly explain. Old habits die hard.
 
You're right, regarding the reviews, and your observation re: patience is in intriguing one. Given my freakish consumption of music (from Belinda Carlisle to pure white noise), patience isn't really an issue. However, certain kinds of musical patience are. For example, the three or so movements of LC!'s "You! Me! Dancing!" actually feel too short, to me; that song is nearly seven minutes, itself. The Fiery Furnaces present another great example.

I'm just trying to crack a few jokes, regarding the length of the song. Why do I have a problem with that length? Well, I think it's because the song in question just sort of exists, to my ears. As in any conventional pop-rock song, there are of course structures in place, but in terms of "movements," there's nothing. Verses, choruses, etc., yes. And that's fine, because the bands I just name-checked do the same thing, in their longer tracks...but they do a bit more, too, and I think that that sort of variety is what I'm missing.

Or I'm overthinking it, and I think the song's too long because I don't think it's all that strong. Probably the latter.

No. That's a great fuckin' review.

Though it's my favorite song on the album.
 
yup, nloth 1 is better than 2, but 2 is what i will play to rock out at a party

listen count: 4 7 5 5 4 3 4 4 4 4 6.

and about to go through the whole thing for #5 (i skipped boots once)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom