Monicker

evil got it with his lil sweeping generalizations are always wrong joke. I got it too

TPD's slippin'. Gotta install a new joke detector.

We should totally turn this into the Clusterfuck Part 2 Thread.

Well then, look at that. It would appear you're right, evil. 2005 then. Gosh, you're evil. The baddest, bestest stalker around. Our very own, double e. By the way, i think this reveals a one year gap in my memory. What happened to that year of my life?

That's not true at all, man. What is your basis for making such a claim? You're reducing good photography to the size of a person's pocketbook? Give a shitty photographer all the money in the world and they're still a shitty photographer, albeit with moderately nice-looking shit. A photographer's ability and the quality of their work is not solely or even mostly dependent on their equipment and funds. A good photographer is a good photographer with any equipment, no matter how poor, and any amount of money or lack thereof. It's a developed skill, talent, and a creative sense, not simply being able to operate a gadget. Good photography is entirely in the photographer's eye. And you also think good photography comes down to expensive, artificial lighting? A photographer who can't shoot good pictures in natural light is not a good photographer. This is no different than any other creative/artistic field. Do you think the same thing for cinematographers? You think anyone can shoot a film? I have my suspicions that you wouldn't say "anyone can be a good cinematographer." Perhaps you can see the absurdity in your claim when you think of it in those terms. Cinematography is moving pictures is all. Sorry for the rant, but i can't sit quietly while someone makes that sort of statement, especially considering that photography and cinematography are one of the ways i make money, and i see all the time examples of people who do amazing stuff with nothing and others who do the worst shit in the world with all the money in the world. By the way, i have three old professional cameras. One was $100, one was $65, and one was free Anyway, back to Chuck, right?

I'm pretty sure that circa 2004 i listed those same genres on my MySpace profile.

Anyone can do anything. The question is whether they can do it well or not. What is "pretentious" (extremely so) about the idea of a photographer or a "good" photograph? What's the difference between this and a musician and a "good" song or anything else?

I'm a photographer too. I think Chuck is very hit or miss. I've seen some really nice stuff from her but also some not so nice stuff. It's frustrating to go through her pictures and see photos of a Hasselblad (and i think i've seen a Mamiya too?) and pictures of her using one, but then all we see are pictures from her whatever DSLR she uses. I know she said on her tumblr that she switched entirely over to digital from film (medium format), i imagine to be able to work a bit faster, but i don't really like the results. Not that the medium itself makes the photographer. But it's weird, in general the quality of her work seems to be declining over time.

You know, your posts are written with the same rhythm, meter, and style as your songs. When i read your posts i can totally hear them as one of your songs, haa. Actually, i think you should turn this one into a song, "Friend or Foe/Watch Out Lana" by Love <3 Lana <3 Like <3 Life. Maybe it can tap into the Noir rage a little. Lana dollars

^ Most of the ones in the first link aren't even that bad. Ridiculous though? Yes. Their agenda is palpable. It's sensationalist writing with the aim of tearing someone apart because someone as singular and paradoxical as Lana Del Rey is confusing and threatening to people, and that always attracts these sort of reactions. These publications need to get readers, so they find their angle, fixate on it and overemphasize it, and they create sensation. The empty rhetoric in those blurbs is nauseating. That's all that shit is with online "music" journalism, it's just inflated, flowery bullshit used to gain readership, sway opinion, and seem "relevant." None of those reviews ever talk about music. Because those writers know very little to nothing about music. They're just writers and fans of popular culture, products of the Rolling Stone History of Rock propaganda machine. They write cute and highly stylized, and they're fixated on stupid metaphors, and their shit amounts to nothing. If i had the ability, Pitchfork is the first one i'd bankrupt and put out of business. Yeah, talk to me about human emotion, Pitchfork. Also, if i read that a record was recorded in a massive underwater cathedral, i would run to the store to buy that

I've been saying it forever: A setting that doesn't allow a new member to start new threads until they have, whatever, 20, 25 (insert your number of choice) posts, so that they can't make threads until a) they've gotten a hang of things around here, and b) they take the time to read and see what's already been posted. I think it'll solve a lot of these issues we continually have.

I yearn to live in a world where with this type of photography/editing/fakery/hyperreality/obsession with the unattainable, "perfect" "beauty" doesn't exist. This is the ugliest shit in the world and it's poisonous too. Also, this looks like a telenovela magazine at the checkout aisle of a supermarket, ha.

This is interesting. I've read two opposing theories on this. Some do look at it as an artist competing with themselves when they have two products out at once, meaning that one is taking sales/promotion away from the other. Others say that the two products only help each other out and promote each other. My thinking is that with the way the internet and blogs are, there's probably no way that one source would mention one of the records without mentioning the other, so it's free promo right there. I guess another factor would be how close to each other the release date is. I remember in 2002 Tom Waits releasing two new albums (Blood Money and Alice) on the same day. I've seen other artists release two albums two weeks to about two months from each other. There was a big fuss about Radiohead releasing Kid A and Amnesiac only 8 months apart from each other. I imagine that how far apart the release dates are would affect things differently, if it even affects things at all. But there's also the fact that sometimes an artist can have two albums out at once, yet each has their distinct market/audience, even though it's the same artist. That may be the case with Lana Del Rey and the AKA album. Either way, i think it's moot because if the album were to be rereleased, i can't imagine it would happen in the next few months, by which time it would no longer be competing against TPE in any significant way.

To add to the original discussion: It really isn't uncommon for albums to be rereleased with a different cover than what was originally used. Happens all the time. I can go count how many records i have in my collection where this has happened--same album with alternate covers. So to use the argument that AKA wouldn't or can't be rereleased because she no longer goes by Lana Del Ray or Lizzy Grant, or further, that the album cover is ugly, is not convincing. I also don't see how the fact that it was released three years ago has any bearing on this.

This is interesting. Never knew about that. Yeah, i remember that. We had talked about that on the old forum and we discovered that in order to purchase it, the buyer had to have a French address, and we never found someone from France to buy it, so it was just eventually forgotten. What's really noteworthy about this though is that that site was claiming to have the option to get it in lossless... Anyone remember that site? Because we have a good amount of French people on here now that might be willing to purchase it in (maybe) lossless.

Oh man, really? Maybe that's why she never responded when i recently sent her my cover song... No, really, though, is that weird and awkward? Well, i never expected her to respond anyway...

What do you know about this Napster purchase? I've never heard anything about that. By the way, i downloaded AKA in 256 (encoded with LAME 3.91) from Soulseek sometime in late 2011, and i strongly believe that it was all sourced from the same source, but i don't know what the source is, and jeez, how many times can you say the word source in the same sentence? This is true, but don't tell people here that--they'd rather maintain uniformity of file types in their iTunes than have better sounding files.

^ Bill has been really friendly and helpful in elucidating this matter. Thanx, Bill.

It can get pretty rough around here, but i have a Louisville Slugger you can borrow should you feel in need of protecting yourself.

I guess at a certain point the repetition becomes comforting? To master a recording, the mastering engineer doesn't use the multitracks, just the final mixdown (which is, of course, uncompressed and higher than CD quality). For remixing, however, the multitracks are of course needed. BUT the following should be bolded and emblazoned all over on this forum for i feel it cannot be stated enough: Playing with the EQ is not mastering. Also, using a lossy 256 kbit/s MP3-file and converting it to a lossless WAV-file after butchering and compressing it won't make it sound any better. Playing with the EQ is not mastering. Also, using a lossy 256 kbit/s MP3-file and converting it to a lossless WAV-file after butchering and compressing it won't make it sound any better. Playing with the EQ is not mastering. Also, using a lossy 256 kbit/s MP3-file and converting it to a lossless WAV-file after butchering and compressing it won't make it sound any better. Playing with the EQ is not mastering. Also, using a lossy 256 kbit/s MP3-file and converting it to a lossless WAV-file after butchering and compressing it won't make it sound any better. Playing with the EQ is not mastering. Also, using a lossy 256 kbit/s MP3-file and converting it to a lossless WAV-file after butchering and compressing it won't make it sound any better. Hey, repetition, right?

Gosh, i'd hate to see what artists these people are into that they hold it against someone when their musical style evolves. It's a good thing Madonna has been rehashing Lucky Star for the last 30 years. Oh wait...

It's really weird how many times and for how long now it has been repeated throughout this forum that that wouldn't be a rerelease. I'm really not sure what's so unclear or confusing about the (very big) difference between a work being released again and a work being redone entirely or even partially reworked. When Born to Die was rereleased in November was it rerecorded? When a book gets published in another edition does it get rewritten by the author? Look at your sentence and the parts bolded to see the obvious contradiction: "If she's going to re-release the original version of AKA she won't have to work on it but I feel like she would have to/want to redo the album because she wasn't entirely satisfied by the results." I'm not trying to be an asshole about this, really. I just genuinely do not understand why this point has been so elusive.

Why are you framing it as one or the other though? If it were to be rereleased (actually rereleased, not rerecorded) that wouldn't take away from her time to be working on other stuff. It is totally feasible for the album to be rereleased and get new music from her.

May i borrow your crystal ball? The 256 files have always been around, not just since summer of last year. Most people just didn't notice. In your last sentence you answered yourself what the point would be. For some people it would be great to have the original album uncompressed and as a physical release. What do you think their logic/argument would be? How is AKA "fake" (by their estimation)? That sounds puzzling to me. I could see some of those people thinking it's "weird" and not commercial, but fake? I'd like to hear that reasoning.

She was marred four times in different countries, eh? How do you think it was done? Stoning? Oh man, bad joke. Anyway, moving on. I don't know about Lizzy, but me, if it came to John Mayer, i'd definitely lie. In the other direction. I'd do whatever i could to make sure no one ever found out that i once had the misfortune of sharing a stage with him.