a stitch in time

[Dogfighter28]

Awful

[cardiac]

It's boring, but not insultingly bad. Just really, really mediocre. I agree with Reyngel about the vibrato thing. He's gotta be surrounded by yes-men if no one has called him out on how awful it sounds.

I'm a bit bothered by the lack of proper choruses in these songs as well.

Better than Widow, worse than SFAS. Nothing special from the Teargarden project so far.

[Order 66]

I listened to it with good headphones and it was pretty good. but I was always into 70s folksy stuff. I can see why ppl wouldn't like it as an SP song

[Gossamer]

This song is really boring, I hate waiting for over a month and then being bored when I actually listen to the song.

I just made myself listen to the 3 released songs in a row to see how I'd rate them and how they sound one after another and I think I'd go with:

Song For A Son = 7.5/10 (awesome guitar solos, epic feel throughout, and billy's faggy zeitgeist vocals don't really make an appearance til the last vocal line)
Widow Wake My Mind = 2.5/10 (would've given this a 1/10 but I actually really like the end of the song for some weird reason)
A Stitch In Time = 2.5/10 (bores me to tears but at least it doesn't make me cringe like most of WWMM, still no highs at all, nothing that makes me actually want to listen to this in a standalone fashion, which is kind of the problem with this whole releasing one song at a time business in the first place)

If he's going to release a really boring track like this, it blows when people have to wait a month to hear another attempt. ASIT could be a decent filler track on a decent album but as a standalone single it's lame.

Billy's 1/3 so far imo.

[vbshlofbvgos]

I like it. Nowhere to go but up after WWMM however.

[brendo_91]

Originally Posted by cardiac

I'm a bit bothered by the lack of proper choruses in these songs as well.

And I am one of many/many more to come/many more to come/You daughters of the revolution/carry them back home/carry them back home

Shines/it shines/A love that shines/To be mine/Yes all mine/A love that's mine/Oh


There's somewhere I just gotta be/Ooh, yeah/There's somewhere I just gotta be


No choruses? Are you on drugs?

[Gossamer]

I think what he meant by a lack of proper choruses is that the choruses for the most part really suck dick.

[Dogfighter28]

GOSSAMER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! \m/

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by EyesOfAJackal

What exactly do you mean by this? Does a song like Medellia "go somewhere"? Does Stumbleine? Soothe? I guess I'm not quite sure what you're saying, to me SFAS "goes somewhere" more than any of the aforementioned to (which is not to say it is better at all, but that it is more dynamic, has more sonic changes and variety).

To me a song can be great without dynamism (like the above), just kind of floating in one vibe, emotion, sound, whatever. Obviously if all of your music was that way it would suck, but as part of an album where there are songs that shift and move, I think the quality of a kind of static sound or vibe for a song or two can be fine.

I agree with this. Dynamism never really has been as big a part of what makes an SP song an SP song as people want to always say it is. SP did dynamic songs very well, but not every song they did (hell, maybe not even most of them) was marked by dynamic shifts all over the place. But you'd never know that to hear some people talk.

And really, I'm not sure why people were expecting dynamics from this song anyway. What was it about the live version that gave anyone that expectation?

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by Dogfighter28

GOSSAMER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! \m/

sup barnsey, what are your thoughts on the new song?

[Dogfighter28]

Sucks as expected

[samuel redman]

what does \m/ mean

[tweedyburd]

Originally Posted by EyesOfAJackal

Does a song like Medellia "go somewhere"? Does Stumbleine? Soothe?

Two of those were B-sides, whereas these tunes (in particular ASIT) are supposed to set the tone and be representative of the entire album, which is not exactly a good sign.

Anyway, I'd argue that yes a song like Medellia definitely "goes somewhere," thematically and lyrically. The consistent theme for me of the Teargarden songs is that they state one mediocre idea and repeat it ad nauseum until Billy drags it across the 3-4 minute mark. Probably the main reason the songs you mentioned have more of a dynamic to me is that they seem effortless, whereas these new songs seem totally contrived and grating. In the past, even Billy's simple songs seemed like they stemmed from a creative center that consistently steered down multiple lyrical or thematic paths. These Teargarden songs are dreadfully repetitive in a way that suggests Billy's days of intelligent songwriting are behind him. You may think SFAS is dynamic, but really think about it: what is he saying lyrically, musically, thematically that couldn't be summed up in half the time? You can't say that about Hummer. Or Porcelina. Or For Martha. And before you go saying that was 10 years ago and artists evolve, I know they do. Artists also decline in the amount of talent on hand, as well.

And SFAS is supposed to be epic? Epically dull and repetitive if you ask me.

When a song is as overbearing and specific as the last two, especially, have been but don't offer anything more than one simple idea incessantly restated over and over again, it gets old quick. It comes off like lazy songwriting, especially when the sentiments expressed are so generic and lazy. Perhaps the better question to ask is, does Medellia or Stumbleine come across as lazy songwriting? I don't think many fans would answer "yes" to that.

Originally Posted by EyesOfAJackal

Obviously if all of your music was that way it would suck, but as part of an album where there are songs that shift and move, I think the quality of a kind of static sound or vibe for a song or two can be fine.

But wasn't the point of this album to get away from that sort of thinking? The sort of decisions that led to The Crying Tree of Mercury being included on Machina, but a song like Slow Dawn being left off? Billy stated as much in that latest interview, about how this process is supposed to afford each song the time and quality it deserves, and not worry so much about the greater context of the album.

[pinballzero]

Originally Posted by Reyngel

Are you all fucking kidding me?


Look, the song's not as bad as Widow Wake My Mind, but how is that a compliment?


It's like telling an ugly girl she's not as ugly as a pile of horse shit, and expecting her to take it as a compliment.


Give me a fucking break.


The song is boring. It's not terrible, but it is in fact boring. Like others have said, I totally zone out halfway through due to the repetition. Where are the dynamics that helped shaped the name of the Pumpkins? I really miss those.


The sitar is used so uselessly. If there was more of it, or it was more prominent in the mix, the song would be much more interesting. The way it is, it's just a hard-to-hear novelty.


And whoever it was that said his vocals are closer to Billy 1.0... lol. I congratulate him for officially proving that he's done with the dropping-the-consonants shit, because it was ridiculous. But his contrived vibrato in this song, and in others, really waters down the power of his voice. He just doesn't understand the basic mechanics of voice vibrato, and so it comes off as ugly. If he were to drop that, all of his shit since Machina would sounds unbelievably better.


I give the song a 3/10. Keep in mind, though, that to me, Song for a Son is 4/10, and Widow Wake My Mind is -1/10. This song is a 3/10, simply because there so much he's done in his career that has turned me on more than what I just downloaded.

Widow 1/10 , SFS 2/10, This 3.5/10. I think JC automatically adds +4 to each of these if present

TFE sounds alot better these days

[Baffler_Meal]

Originally Posted by pinballzero

Widow 1/10 , SFS 2/10, This 3.5/10. I think JC automatically adds +4 to each of these if present

TFE sounds alot better these days

The scariest thing about BC in general since, lets say 1998, is that whatever he puts out NEXT always makes the last release sound that much better. Just think, in 2-3 years we might be remembering this album fondly.

Terrifying.

[pinballzero]

Originally Posted by Reyngel

I also want to add that why the FUCK does all of his shit have to be named something straight from the lyrics of the song?

Remember when the majority of his shit had a creative title, or at least something that wasn't word-for-word a piece of the chorus or verse? Geek USA, Thru the Eyes of Ruby, XYU, Crestfallen, Ava Adore, Daphne Descends, Pug, Rocket, Cherub Rock, Soma, Silverfuck, Muzzle, Jellybelly... interesting titles. Even songs like To Sheila and Porcelina of the Vast Oceans are better, simply because they slightly tweak what's already in the lyrics.

You know, if he had written Disarm yesterday and released it today, I bet he'd have named it "Disarm You With a Smile."

Bleah.

Clearly this is one of the greater half assed efforts ever by a respectable rock band

[paranoid]

well said tweedyburd.

SFAS is the same chord progression over and over again for 6 minutes. he attempts to use dynamics by switching up the instrumentation, but the song writing itself does nothing to support those dynamics. Compare that to soma, where he literally wrote some sort of variation, or completely different part all together to complement the changes and dynamics in instrumentation. He's lost that touch.

[tweedyburd]

Originally Posted by Corganist

Dynamism never really has been as big a part of what makes an SP an SP song as people want to always say it is

Are you kidding me? Let's go down the list of generally agreed upon fan favorites, songs that would generally be considered examples of "what makes an SP song an SP song":

I Am One, Siva, Rhinocerous, Cherub Rock, Hummer, Today, Rocket, Disarm, Soma, Geek USA, Mayonaise, Silverfuck, Tonight, Bullet, Muzzle, Porcelina, WBFTT, 33, 1979, Ruby, Ava Adore, Perfect, For Martha, SIYL, I of the Mourning, This Time, Slow Dawn, etc etc etc etc etc.

Now, you might argue that calling something "dynamic" may be subjective, but I wish you luck on finding anyone who wouldn't agree the songs on that list have dynamic song structures, or at least 95% of them do.

[paranoid]

and good fucking lord there's PLENTY more you could put on that list.

[tweedyburd]

Yeah, it's a bit absurd to state that all of the songs fans have loved the most over the years haven't relied on dynamic song structures as one of their most identifiable traits.

[Banana]

People bitching about the song just for the sake of bitching and because it's part of their little mental persona to continually follow this band yet bad mouth it.

The song is good. Best of the 3 released so far. Song for a Son was alright, nothing special. WWMM was not so good, a bit toe tapping but not a really quality song. But this song, this song is a very solid and good song. Any hate directed towards it is undeserved. It's the kind of good song you would expect to be throughout a 44 song album.

[Dogfighter28]

Bottoming out

[Ugly]

Song for a Son still wins, this is way better than Widow, it's just kind of monotonous. Sounds like every other SP2/3 jingle-jangle quick strumming acoustic tune Billy has written. Neat riff, but it isn't very inspiring. But kinda catchy at least.

5.5 out 10

[brendo_91]

Wait. "Dynamic song structures" or "Dynamics"?

Dynamics means soft/loud. Nothing else.

[hnibos]

Originally Posted by Banana

But this song, this song is a very solid and good song. Any hate directed towards it is undeserved. It's the kind of good song you would expect to be throughout a 44 song album.

[Corganist]

You guys are just proving my point. I never said that SP songs weren't dynamic (by whatever definition) or that most people didn't prefer the more dynamic songs to less dynamic songs. I just think that leveling a criticism about a song having no dynamic really doesn't say anything about how good or bad or how "SP" it is, because while SP has a lot of great songs one could arguably call "dynamic," they also have more than a few that are anything but.

I just don't see why there's always such a desire to force SP's work into such a small box. It just seems like every time something new comes out there's some completely arbitrary new requirement invented to exclude it from being considered on its merits, whatever they may or may not be.

[applepwnz]

eh, it was not bad. Not good, but not bad either. Mostly just repetitive and boring, I could picture them playing this song in the morning at mcdonalds because it wouldn't upset the oldsters.

[Catherine Wheel]

best thing he's done since The Future Embrace. A solid B.

[SpFission]

SFAS - 5/10
WWMM - 5.5/10
ASIT - 7.5 / 10

[tweedyburd]

Originally Posted by Corganist

not every song they did (hell, maybe not even most of them) was marked by dynamic shifts all over the place.

Originally Posted by Corganist

while SP has a lot of great songs one could arguably call "dynamic," they also have more than a few that are anything but.

It's hard to pinpoint your argument when you level such intellectual inconsistencies like these.

Originally Posted by Corganist

I just don't see why there's always such a desire to force SP's work into such a small box. It just seems like every time something new comes out there's some completely arbitrary new requirement invented to exclude it from being considered on its merits, whatever they may or may not be.

No one has to "force the work into a box," seeing as how Billy is doing a pretty good job of it himself with such limited song structures and ideas. A lot of us are simply reacting to that "boxed" sound.