So does anyone actually like this? Or give it a shot? It's really quite good, I had read three reviews that pretty much damned it so I passed on it, but I think they are wrong. They seemed to have damned the album for its slow moments carrying on a little too long and not holding attention consistently, but I'm pretty sure that's just a distaste for the type of music they play. I think Things We Lost in the Fire is quite the exception to the rule, yeah it's a lovely album, but I think this is more in the vein of Low, it has tinges of the things that made that album lovely but I'm pretty sure these reviews just show an intolerance for the 'genre'. Publications like Pitchfork are based in rock whether they like it or not, and so... they overrate what is considered cool that is outside of their usual music taste (Electronic, Hip hop, Rock music with tinges of experimentalism) and underrate stuff that most people don't normally care for.
After eight years of refining and perfecting the essence of that plodding, murky genre known as "slowcore", Low have worked up quite a backstory. With tools provided by Galaxie 500, Red House Painters, and Spacemen 3, their first two albums, 1994's I Could Live in Hope and 1995's Long Division, drew the blueprint for slowcore as we know it today. They are the pioneers of a genre of limited variables-- where innovating artists who drift too far to the left become "drone" or "psychedelic", and those who drift to the right find themselves labeled "dream-pop" or "shoegazer"-- which bloomed in the mid-to-late 90s, but now seems somewhat short on ideas.
I don't really see how this doesn't apply to the electronic albums they review, none of the stuff they give high ratings is truly innovate, you could make a similar argument for that genre peaking...
So I just felt like making this thread to call every bullshiter's bullshit.
My point about Low in particular is that right now Low just want to be Low, they don't want to become the other band that they were becoming, for better or worse. It would be nice to see where that took them, but fuck it, tough shit. I think the panning of this album is just a way of being pissed off at Low for not doing what most people wanted them to do, and that's not professional. You don't write reviews of albums based on what you think an album SHOULD HAVE BEEN (something in the vein of Songs for a Dead Pilot/Things We Lost In the Fire), you judge it as is. Horrible journalism on the part of all these publications.

I have always loved Trust and got shot down by the Pitchfork kids when I argued about it on this forum late last year. The real triumph of the album IMO is that Low is still progressing and changing the music they create without following trends or working outside of their own style. Of course, that's not why I love the album...the songs are as good as anything released last year and it stands with the best of their material.

And I fully agree with your opinion. Expectation is what leads to good albums receiving bad reviews. And it doesn't help that albums get leaked early or downloaded incompletely.

i think that part of what i like about trust so much is that it sounded different than i expected, while still being low. i really don't understand the hate for it at all.

i mean, i never expected something as loud as canada, in particular. i didn't expect to like it. maybe it was seeing it live before hearing the recording, but it amazes me how well they pull it off. maybe the hipsters were just pissed that they could pull it off.

Wait... I thought you were attempting to be a hipster :confused:

Canada is a great song, but the rest of the album totally bores me.

i don't have any other Low albums, so i had no expectation of it. but it's just a very unexciting album in my opinion, and the songs aren't particularly good. of course the only reason i think it sucks is because i read Pitchfork, obviously.

So what, you don't count, you don't like this kind of music. Yall are content to jizz all over a bunch of bullshit Field Recordings Compilations talking about how amazing the fucking hum of the bees is against the wind, but you can't appreciate any Rock that's slow. People train themselves, it isn't that they like specific things, it's that they decided they are going to like something and they train themself to like it. You just decided to train yourself to hate this stuff because it isn't nearly as hip as the other stuff I cited as equally boring.
Canada isn't any better than the majority of any of the tracks, it's just a rocker. Best track on there is Point of Disgust or Time Is the Diamond.
Opinion = Null

low is so 1994.

You got lumped in with the pitchfork haters by rubbersoul, how unfair, you're just old school. Go listen to some Red House Painters with your buddy Shaunna.

Originally posted by Best Looking Boy
So what, you don't count, you don't like this kind of music. Yall are content to jizz all over a bunch of bullshit Field Recordings Compilations talking about how amazing the fucking hum of the bees is against the wind,

I think Mego is releasing that next week. Get your import money ready losers. Ah..(just erased stupid rant about fucking hipsters and Mego, I suck). Whatever. I might be assuming too much, but I find it ironic that the Low album is boring and the Kevin Drumm/Fennesz/Merzbow/O'Rourke/etc. Mego released stuff is just the most interesting stuff being released today. I am sure you guys are big into Shoenberg too.

Hey I like everything Jim O'Rourke does :(

Originally posted by Graveflower
I don't like it, but I love Things We Lost, but I like rock that's slow Yeah but you're brainwashed. :erm

Sorry. I actually like Jim O'Rourke too. I couldn't come up with any more Mego artists off the top of my head. His Drag City stuff (with Gastr Del Sol too) is great.

it has its moments, just not as many as any of their previous records. i would love to see them perform some of the trust songs live, though. they are one of my favorite live bands and i think they would make those songs pretty interesting.

Originally posted by Best Looking Boy
Wait... I thought you were attempting to be a hipster :confused:

how many hipsters or hipster wannabes for that matter would openly admit to liking songs by james iha and jewel. heh. :D

Originally posted by Best Looking Boy
You got lumped in with the pitchfork haters by rubbersoul, how unfair, you're just old school. Go listen to some Red House Painters with your buddy Shaunna.

but. id rather listen to the promise ring with you!

Originally posted by Graveflower


Just look for any of strange_one's cd's i bought posts, he owns their entire catalog.

<font color=33FFFF> not quite sean, but hey I'm getting there.

as for Low, I really think that Trust is an even greater achievement than Things We Lost.... I think at first a couple of tracks had a boring tone, but they grew on me wonderfully. it is hard to keep my eyes dry when I listen to Point Of Disgust late at night</font>

Originally posted by Graveflower
Kevin Drumm and Merzbow are fucking awful, but leave my Jim out of this.
<font color=33FFFF> I hope you're not just disliking Drumm based on his noise music, he does alot of minimal stuff as well y'know</font>

as a low fan since i could live in hope (which is personally one of my favorites), i have to say i don't relate to how any of you feel in this thread. i think what i'm trying to say is, i hated albums before pitchfork started reviewing them. i don't think trust or things we lost.. were bad albums at all, however i do think they are my two least favorite low albums and went in a direction that didn't put a glide in my slide, a dip in my hip, or make me want to step onto the mothership.

and ever since A.P. started to suck, which was pretty much when kurt cobain died, i think i stopped paying attention to reviews of albums. i usually just buy things based on if the cover art and album title are cool. and yeah, pitchforks review is bullshit. i only search it for anything bofus reviewed, because i like his style.

i've never heard any low albums

Originally posted by Samsa
i've never heard any low albums
<font color=33FFFF> fantastic</font>

I don't think I've ever read the PFM review of Trust, but I'm kind of along the same lines as Ryan Patrick: I think Canada and Amazing Grace are really good songs, but the rest bore me.

And it's not because I don't Low. I really like Things We Lost in the Fire, and compared to that album, I think the songs on Trust are lacking. The melodies are less engaging, and the big production, while it works well some of the time, also tends to steal a lot of the intimacy that makes Things We Lost a great album. I realize what they were going for; I just don't think it works as well as they'd hoped. I think a lot of the songs would have benefited from a more live-band type production; I know a lot of people who got the chance to see them when they swung through town last year, and they all said the songs were better live.

I've been trying to tell people that Trust is a great album ever since it came out. It's the BEST album of 2002. They were able to go in a new direction even when a new direction seemed impossible after "Things we lost in the fire" and they were able to make a BETTER album than "Fire". It's really quite amazing.

Actually your assessment of the critical opinion of Trust is kind of wrong. Go to their website for all the reviews: http://www.chairkickers.com/low/articles/

They have the good reviews and the bad reviews (like the Pitchfork one). But almost 80% of the reviewers loved the album. It's just the really hip ones like Pitchfork that didn't like it, and they seem to have more influence over other publications.

I didn't say it was the best of 2002, I said it was better than people said it was. And I didn't say it was the best album by them or on par with their best work, I merely said people are trashing it for no reason. All the people who have trashed it said Canada was their favorite track and that's a very un-Low song, so eh. Like I said short-attention span.
I can see where all the 'i'm an old low fan' kids are coming from, all two of you, but I'm not old so I don't know, I was still dedicating my life to Pearl Jam in 1994 while yall were off doing your cool goth thing.
Also, just because you show me one positive review doesn't mean its going to shift the tide. I saw plenty of positive reviews, but they were by people who fucking like everything.
Thanks to sawdust restaurants for stringing some words together in an attempt to pretend to know what he was talking about, 'yeah they should have given it a more live feel', great critical assessment there. And yeah, the songs are better live, but I think the majority of Low songs are better live... so... out the window with that little bit of worthless input.
Yall should probably put me back on ignore because I don't like anything you post and I have this crazy urge to let you know every time.

Originally posted by Best Looking Boy

I can see where all the 'i'm an old low fan' kids are coming from, all two of you, but I'm not old so I don't know, I was still dedicating my life to Pearl Jam in 1994 while yall were off doing your cool goth thing.


aw im just a cranky old bat :love:

http://www.somethingawful.com/cliff/ihateyou/page-152-01.jpg

WE WENT TO LOW SHOWS ON THE BEHALF OF THE IAN CURTIS MEMORIAL FOUNDATION, OKAY?

Perhaps the reason you don't like anything we say is because you never actually READ it!!!

I didn't say it was the best of 2002, I said it was better than people said it was. And I didn't say it was the best album by them or on par with their best work, I merely said people are trashing it for no reason.

I didn't say YOU said it was the best album of 2002. I (ME, MYSELF) declared it the best album of 2002 according to ME MY MYSELF taste! Next time read things more carefully. My statement had nothing to do with whether you thought it was the best or not. I was simply stating my opinion.

Also, just because you show me one positive review doesn't mean its going to shift the tide. I saw plenty of positive reviews, but they were by people who fucking like everything.

That wasn't ONE positive review. That was like 20 positive revews.. did you even go to that page and scroll down to the "Trust" section? I read every single one of those reviews one day (I was bored at work) and I think only 2 of them were negative (1 of them being pitchfork).

Yall should probably put me back on ignore because ...

Okay, I'll be sure to do that from now on.

Originally posted by noyen
http://www.somethingawful.com/cliff/ihateyou/page-152-01.jpg

WE WENT TO LOW SHOWS ON THE BEHALF OF THE IAN CURTIS MEMORIAL FOUNDATION, OKAY?

whats she doing? the Changing the Lightbulb? the Catlike Tread? :D

Originally posted by Best Looking Boy
Thanks to sawdust restaurants for stringing some words together in an attempt to pretend to know what he was talking about, 'yeah they should have given it a more live feel', great critical assessment there.

As opposed to your wonderful critique: "Low just wants to be Low" followed by the insinuation that every negative review of the album must not be because it's a mediocre album but because people had expectations for it! What brilliant, deductive reasoning on your part! I am awed.

Let me explain, somewhat more slowly: the thing about the production on Trust is that, for the most part, everything is based on space. A lot of the songs on Things We Lost have some sort of drone going on, and a lot of the instruments are really close together, softly, in the mix; that creates a sense of intimacy and solitude that is reflected in the music.

On Trust, they tried to get that same production value by different means. Listen to Amazing Grace, which is a great song; there's not much going on at all. Just the echo of the drums, an arpeggiated guitar, two voice highly tracked vocals and I think maybe a bass. There's space in that song. The vocals lilt over the front of everything else going on, and it sounds fucking empty. It's a very NiN-esque thing to do, and it's effective.

My point is that they don't keep that up for the rest of the album. There's usually no one stand-out feature in a song, and so rather than having a big, powerful sound, most of the songs just sort of plod along and become, yes, boring. And it doesn't help that the songwriting isn't that captivating; I could live without most of the melodies on the album. I know Low is about mood first, but most great bands who are about mood first have songs to back it up; I didn't get grabbed by Trust the way I get grabbed by Things We Lost or even a lot of Dirty Three or Trio S stuff.

There. I have now analyzed what I consider to be the major faults of Trust. You, on the other hand, stumble around this thread like a gaping idiot calling everybody out who disagrees with you while sounding something like a 12-year-old *NSync fan girl. Congratulations. pwned, bitch. pwned.

I didn't say YOU said it was the best album of 2002. I (ME, MYSELF) declared it the best album of 2002 according to ME MY MYSELF taste! Next time read things more carefully. My statement had nothing to do with whether you thought it was the best or not. I was simply stating my opinion.
And when I said I didn't think it was the best album of 2002 I was saying that you're wrong. There's no way it was the best album that came out last year.
That wasn't ONE positive review. That was like 20 positive revews.. did you even go to that page and scroll down to the "Trust" section? I read every single one of those reviews one day (I was bored at work) and I think only 2 of them were negative (1 of them being pitchfork).Yeah I didn't check the site because I don't care, anyone can write a review and be nice. What annoys me is specific people and the specific magazines they read and this post is directed at them.

Originally posted by sawdust restaurants

Let me explain, somewhat more slowly: the thing about the production on Trust is that, for the most part, everything is based on space. A lot of the songs on Things We Lost have some sort of drone going on, and a lot of the instruments are really close together, softly, in the mix; that creates a sense of intimacy and solitude that is reflected in the music.

On Trust, they tried to get that same production value by different means. Listen to Amazing Grace, which is a great song; there's not much going on at all. Just the echo of the drums, an arpeggiated guitar, two voice highly tracked vocals and I think maybe a bass. There's space in that song. The vocals lilt over the front of everything else going on, and it sounds fucking empty. It's a very NiN-esque thing to do, and it's effective.

My point is that they don't keep that up for the rest of the album. There's usually no one stand-out feature in a song, and so rather than having a big, powerful sound, most of the songs just sort of plod along and becomecaptivating; I could live without most of the melodies on the album. Yes, writing more makes people's arguments all the more intelligent by default :rolleyes:
I don't think the other songs would benefit from that same style of production because they aren't the same type of songs.

And I'm not saying all people dislike it for the same reasons, I quoted the pitchfork review, I was talking to the pitchfork review.

And yeah using internet slang puts you wayyyyyy above me. Seriously, go back to being depressed, don't try to make yourself feel better at my expense because I won't let you, ya fuck.

Oh yeah and I agree with you though, I like a lot of the other stuff more than this album (In the Fishtank, Things We Lost in the Fire, Songs for a Dead Pilot, I Could Live In Hope, and Long Division).

Originally posted by Best Looking Boy
Oh yeah and I agree with you though, I like a lot of the other stuff more than this album (In the Fishtank, Things We Lost in the Fire, Songs for a Dead Pilot, I Could Live In Hope, and Long Division).

:love:

I'm glad. Still, though, my life would be far less interesting if I couldn't have flamewars with you.

Originally posted by sawdust restaurants


:love:

I'm glad. Still, though, my life would be far less interesting if I couldn't have flamewars with you. Oh yeah, I ain't gonna pretend that I don't get off to this shit.

You are such a fucking pussy, Brian.

Not in the mood. My grandfmother died.