The Fragile deviations is limited to 5000. Already only at around 4000 left now
Stubby Member
The Fragile deviations is limited to 5000. Already only at around 4000 left now
24.24.1.1397
Where are you getting these numbers?Originally Posted by Ribbitman
Stubby Member
NIN reddit. there is a code you can type in to see the number
https://www.reddit.com/r/nin/comment...any_copies_of/
Banned
Absolutely. My disdain for professional criticism of art -- especially on a site like Pitchfork -- has been well-documented on ETS
I never said they were responsible for the fate of NIN. I said they were responsible for embarrassing misinformation (like claiming Not So Pretty Now was a single) and laughable album review revisionism of which they have clearly shown a pattern of throughout their historySure, people are influenced by reviews, and many of Pitchfork's early reviews were crap, but they can hardly be said to be responsible for holding the fate of NIN in their hands.
lol I'm not pissed off about it at all, actually. I don't care if some indie-pandering hipster music site thinks an album sucks or not; just because I'm railing against the obvious in some whimsical post doesn't necessarily mean I'm having a meltdown about onlineThe second point there is even weirder: a site can't change its opinion of an album twenty years later? Initial impressions are all that ever matters? Sure, their general stance towards NIN is friendlier now than it was twenty (well, okay, seventeen) years ago. That's a weird thing to be pissed off about. (Never mind the fact that reviews are invariably colored by the opinions of the people doing the reviews. It's all right for one person to like a band and the other to hate it, and it's also okay to have a music criticism site use both of those people to review the same band.)
You what *is* weird though? The seismic difference in ratings in regards to the album. A 2.0 on the day it came out to an 8.2 or whatever at the time of its reissue is pretty eyebrow-raising, don't you think? Especially when the second reviewer is largely disregarding the TF: Deviations set as inconsequential to the overall experience. So what's changed about the original album that's suddenly made it so much better? The sonic upgrade cannot account for that feat alone, can it?
If Pitchfork had any balls, they would just admit that their initial review was made in haste and that they were jumping on The Fragile bandwagon. Because no matter which reviewer is reviewing the album, it's still speaking for this sizeable name in music criticism sites you're holding it up to be, and it's contradictory. Something Pitchfork should definitely try to avoid if they're going to criticize anything in the first place, don't you think?
Hopefully, like in the past, they simply delete the shitty first review like it never existed, and they'll prove my point for me..
24.24.2.3171
Fair enough, then!
laughable album review revisionism of which they have clearly shown a pattern of throughout their historySee, I still find your frame of mind here just bizarre. Why does a music criticism site have some kind of obligation to pick a single, unwavering and unchangeable opinion on an album, and then refuse to ever even consider that there might be other points of view? Some guy writing reviews for Pitchfork in 1999 hated The Fragile enough to give it one of their shittier reviews, and some guy writing reviews for Pitchfork in 2016 had a different opinion. Do we really want Pitchfork to say, "No, we gave it a 2.0 and we've gotta stick to it?" That's absolutely absurd.You what *is* weird though? The seismic difference in ratings in regards to the album. A 2.0 on the day it came out to an 8.2 or whatever at the time of its reissue is pretty eyebrow-raising, don't you think? Especially when the second reviewer is largely disregarding the TF: Deviations set as inconsequential to the overall experience. So what's changed about the original album that's suddenly made it so much better? The sonic upgrade cannot account for that feat alone, can it?
Banned
How many other sites in the "music criticism business" are guilty of this kind of revisionism though, where they initially trash an album and then later double-down and re-review it with high praise? If that's so harmless, then why is Pitchfork virtually the only site doing that sort of thing? Why do they often-times delete the initial review from their website altogether?
Seriously, who does that?
When your site's review of a certain album comes in at a 2/10 only to be labeled a "magnum opus" and an 8.2/10 with no explanation whatsoever, it becomes a credibility issue. This is also the same alleged top-shelf music critiquing site that just a few weeks ago was calling 'Not So Pretty Now' a single and ATLITW a "disco barnburner"
Clearly this site is clueless when it comes to NIN. They should just consider not saying anything about them because the actual fans who listen to the music on a fairly constant basis are quick to point out just how clueless they are..
24.24.2.3171
It's not revisionism to change your opinion about something. I used to like (shudder) Limp Bizkit, but nowadays I don't. The horror! Likewise, to use an example that Pitchfork would probably approve of, I once thought Neutral Milk Hotel's In the Aeroplane Over the Sea was very "meh," but spun it up on a whim some five years later and suddenly fell in love with it.
I will certainly admit that deleting old reviews approaches something like revisionism, and that's a somewhat shady thing to do, but in this particular case, you don't have that leg to stand on - the first Google hit for "The Fragile Pitchfork" still brings up that 1999 2.0 review. All you seem upset about is that someone at Pitchfork once hated The Fragile, and now someone at Pitchfork doesn't. That's not something I feel I can get especially vitriolic about.
Banned
Hey, according to you, Pitchfork is a major player in the "music criticism business". So they probably have a lot of influence over the people who read their reviews and rely on them to form an opinion for them, right?
So that's 18 years this giant in the music critiquing business has basically shit on an album they now suddenly deem a magnum opus in the modern day, with no clarification or explanation for the change in heart.
As a fan who knows bullshit when he smells it, I call bullshit. Pitchfork is nothing more than an indie hipster tastemaker site catering to whatever opinion is popular this month that will get them more clicks. Their reviews are hardly the stuff of objectivity and their assessment of NIN's work is routinely inaccurate, from both a critical and factual standpoint. If that's the hill you want to die on, then be my guest. It doesn't detract from the notion that their revisionist history continues to be the stuff of internet hilarity, all the while detracting from whatever credibility you seem to think they have.
Banned
Allmusic review of Deviations, in honor of its retail release today. Much more insightful and articulative than that clueless Pitchfork review from earlier in the year..
https://www.allmusic.com/album/the-f...1-mw0003023769
In late 2016, Trent Reznor issued a remaster of nine inch nails' classic 1999 double album The Fragile, as well as its counterpart, The Fragile: Deviations 1, a motherlode for the Fragile faithful and NIN completists. Comprised of 37 instrumentals (split into four LPs for the vinyl release), Deviations strips the originals of vocals, subtly reinterprets on "alternate" versions, and inserts a crop of brand new songs, creating a richer and more expansive journey. Even without Reznor's voice, the original self-loathing, seething rage, and hopeless despair still drip from every surface. The album's original textures, progression, and experimental instrumentation flourish in the spotlight, allowing the dense layers to come to the fore. Fans of Reznor and Atticus Ross' score work, as well as devotees of the Ghosts and Still instrumentals, should find much to appreciate here.
For Fragile diehards -- who may find it difficult to turn off the parts of their memories that will no doubt sing along even without Reznor's voice -- Deviations is a thrill to dissect and examine in obsessive detail. Of the old material, there are plenty of highlights that emerge from the pack of standard instrumental versions. Meanwhile, the newly released tracks inject new life into the entity, allowing it to evolve like a living, breathing creature.
Major changes occur when Reznor cleans the originals of static and dissonance, which allows the guitars to stab with cleaner thrusts, the drum hits to land like slug blasts, and the synths to bubble with even more melody.
On side one, "Somewhat Damaged," "The Wretched," and "Just Like You Imagined" benefit most from this polishing. New additions include the beat-heavy "Missing Pieces," which serves as the new intro to "We're in This Together," and "The March," last heard on Saul Williams' Reznor-produced "Skin of a Drum." Side two kicks off with a reimagined "Even Deeper," a highlight that now includes a string section, and quickly descends into madness with the riff-heavy of "One Way to Get There," a Broken-meets-"The Perfect Drug" cacophony that slides nicely into "No, You Don't." The intensity continues on the skittering "Taken" before the noise falls away to reveal the beating heart of the original Fragile, "La Mer" and "The Great Below." The former is less funky on Deviations and the Creole-French whispers are gone, but the bass, drums, and piano are amplified. "The Great Below" remains devastating, even without Reznor's performance, the de facto end to part one. As a palate cleanser, a trio of new songs provides an interlude, pulling listeners from the abyss with the somewhat hopeful "Not What It Seems Like," the elastic "White Mask," and the paranoid swirling of "The New Flesh," previously heard as a CD B-side and extra track on the original vinyl pressing.
On part two, Deviations wanders further into the hidden corners of the Fragile era. The first half of side three is home to the liveliest material, which follows an explosive "The Way Out Is Through" and extends to the funky "Into the Void" and the throbbing "Where Is Everybody?" "The Mark Has Been Made" is significantly different than the original, its jagged guitar and heavy distortion replaced by disembodied robo-gurgles and synths. The latter half of side three features the most changes on Deviations, from the standout "Was It Worth It?" -- reminiscent of the soundtrack cut, "Deep" -- to the "Please" addition "+Appendage," a drum jam originally found on the Fragile cassette. "Can I Stay Here?" and "10 Miles High" (aka "Hello, Everything Is Not OK") provide another buffer before the atmospheric closing run.
The raw side four begins with the atmospheric "Feeders," an extended version of the noise originally found on the intro to "No, You Don't." Here, it serves as necessary foreplay to the oft-maligned single "Starfuckers, Inc.," which works much better on Deviations without the cringe-worthy lyrics and cartoonish rage of the original. The uncomfortable "Claustrophobia Machine (Raw)" is a percussion-heavy assault that bleeds into the disturbing "Last Heard From," an ugly stretch before the thrilling collapse.
On the aptly titled "The Big Comedown," Reznor inserts more guitars and boosts the synths, adding samples of crowd screams that lift the original to new heights. After a newly extended start, "Underneath It All" ripples to life with the addition of crunchy guitars and more menacing synths, as overwhelming as anything on Broken's instrumental tracks. "Ripe (With Decay)" lays Deviations to rest with a more prominent beat that erases the sonic entropy of the original and persists until the abrupt coda.
With over two hours of instrumental indulgence, this collection is quite the undertaking. Casual fans would be advised to delve into the original first before exploring this treasure trove, which is best appreciated with knowledge of its predecessor. As an expansion of Reznor's creative and emotional state during that period and evidence of how he's evolved since then, The Fragile: Deviations 1 serves as both a sonic time capsule and a reminder of one of NIN's most rewarding and underrated efforts.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
