|
Best (electronic) albums of the decade (pg. 13)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| sweetcaroline |
Since all of my choices are taken, I figured I'd mention an album that deserves at least a passing mention... Trifonic-Emergence
Not best of decade, but for me this album surprised me as being remarkably good for a free download...A solid debut album. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by sweetcaroline
Since all of my choices are taken, I figured I'd mention an album that deserves at least a passing mention... Trifonic-Emergence
Not best of decade, but for me this album surprised me as being remarkably good for a free download...A solid debut album. |
I will be nominating this album already, although it's no longer available for free. I gave it a 9/10 and when I took a listen again recently, it was even better than I remembered it.
Although feel free to renominate albums that have already been mentioned. If several people hype the same album I'm much more likely to consider it. |
|
|
| netroM |
| When will this list be published on CMG btw? |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| Early 2010. We like our decades to finish before we list them, unlike some sites. |
|
|
| Domesticated |
| I don't like the general layout of the CMG site. I checked it out a few weeks ago and it has too many elements competing for your attention. There's no tag line or obvious explanation of what the site is actually about. Even clicking into the 'about' section doesn't give the most satisfying information. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
It's a music website. If you need a tagline to explain that then you probably aren't allowed to use knives lest you hurt yourself.
The layout is pretty self-explanatory. As in, each section of the front page has a header explaining what it contains. Record reviews for the main part of the page, with Daily Ops (our blog, essentially), Features and Podcast down the left hand side.
I hope this information allows you to safely navigate the confusing labyrinth that is CMG. |
|
|
| woscar |
| Consider Masomenos - The Third Eye. Definitely one of the best (if not the best) album of 2009, IMO. |
|
|
| Domesticated |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
It's a music website. If you need a tagline to explain that then you probably aren't allowed to use knives lest you hurt yourself.
The layout is pretty self-explanatory. As in, each section of the front page has a header explaining what it contains. Record reviews for the main part of the page, with Daily Ops (our blog, essentially), Features and Podcast down the left hand side.
I hope this information allows you to safely navigate the confusing labyrinth that is CMG. |
Why are you being so defensive? Did you design it or something?
I know it's a music website. However to someone stumbling upon it with no context (i.e. a link in a signature), then this would not be entirely clear. The name of the website gives nothing away, and unless you knew specifically of some of the artists present on the front page, this would not either. The taglines to the articles mention nothing about music.
The 'record reviews' header isn't eye catching. However, even noticing this, it tells you absolutely nothing about what kind of music the site covers. Why would I read a site on indie bands when I despise that kind of music? The main page gives no clues whatsoever in this respect.
I never said the site was confusing, I said I didn't like the layout. A good layout tells you what the site is within the first second of loading so that people will be interested from the outset rather than saying "this is too hard, I'm not interested." |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by Domesticated
Why are you being so defensive? Did you design it or something?
I know it's a music website. However to someone stumbling upon it with no context (i.e. a link in a signature), then this would not be entirely clear. The name of the website gives nothing away, and unless you knew specifically of some of the artists present on the front page, this would not either. The taglines to the articles mention nothing about music. |
I was actually taking the piss out of your baffling struggle with the site's fairly obvious lay out. Granted there's nothing saying "WE REVIEW MUSIC!" but when are you ever going to come across this site utterly blind? Even if you did, say, click on a sig link while managing to utterly ignore the "Music Writing:" header above that link, you'd struggle very hard to read anywhere on the front page for more than about 5 seconds without encountering a phrase like "Record Review", "Concert Review", "Track Review", "EP", "Band" or "Best music of 2009", even if you've never heard of obscure names like Def Jam or Tom Waits.
| quote: | | However, even noticing this, it tells you absolutely nothing about what kind of music the site covers. Why would I read a site on indie bands when I despise that kind of music? The main page gives no clues whatsoever in this respect. |
Again, why the would you be there in the first place? Think about all the music sites you've ever encountered. You find them through Google searches, through article links and through recommendations. Please enlighten me on how exactly you'd end up on the front page of our site without having any interest in any of our content? As for why we don't clearly pigeonhole what music we cover, that's because we cover all contemporary music. Pretty simple.
To be honest, anyone who comes to the site and needs a giant banner to tell them what it means within the first second or they navigate away is not the kind of reader we give the remotest about. 35,000 different people read us every single week, so we're hardly struggling to keep people's attention. |
|
|
| Domesticated |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Granted there's nothing saying "WE REVIEW MUSIC!" but when are you ever going to come across this site utterly blind? |
Google. There are plenty of search terms that are unrelated to music which will bring up a site like that with lots of content.
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Even if you did, say, click on a sig link while managing to utterly ignore the "Music Writing:" header above that link, you'd struggle very hard to read anywhere on the front page for more than about 5 seconds without encountering a phrase like "Record Review", "Concert Review", "Track Review", "EP", "Band" or "Best music of 2009", even if you've never heard of obscure names like Def Jam or Tom Waits. |
Actually, the current page only contains two mentions of music. You've completely ignored my statement that even knowing the site is about music, it gives you no idea of what kind.
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
As for why we don't clearly pigeonhole what music we cover, that's because we cover all contemporary music. Pretty simple. |
How are the uninitiated supposed to know that?
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
To be honest, anyone who comes to the site and needs a giant banner to tell them what it means within the first second or they navigate away is not the kind of reader we give the remotest about. 35,000 different people read us every single week, so we're hardly struggling to keep people's attention. |
There's a difference between keeping the attention of bored, easily distracted surfers and clearly stating what your site is about. 35,000 readers is very impressive, but a better layout could attract more. To be perfectly honest, the thing that irritates me the most is the colours. White, teal, yellow, maroon and wheat (if that's a colour) are all there. It's too busy. However, I probably just think that because I'm stupid and can't comprehend anything that's not patently obvious.
That's the last I have to say on that. I'm entirely certain that you're going to continue with your condescending frippery rather than accepting my original post for what it was: constructive criticism. Not that anyone could ever change your mind through discussion anyway; you never concede even the most well-made and rational points, just because you like to be contrary. I'm not implying that my own ideas in this thread should be construed as such, only that there have been numerous examples of your ridiculous stubbornness in the past. |
|
|
| sljiva |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Although feel free to renominate albums that have already been mentioned. If several people hype the same album I'm much more likely to consider it. |
So you're after popularity (but on the smaller scale), not quality? JK, no need for a type of response Domesticated got.
One more rec: Amon Tobin - Out From Out Where. Your badly designed and confusing site has just one review of Amon Tobin, so I guess he can't be assigned to that hipster crowd together with BoC, Ae and Prefuse 73. I was listening to this album today again after a long time, and I'm still amazed with the spectrum of sounds, samples and sound snippets used, and how well everything is arranged and composed. No one deserves a 'studio magician' title when it comes to electronic music more than he does. Forget everything I've previously recommended (if you were even considering it), this album is from now on my only suggestion.
Now was that convincing enough or what? |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by Domesticated
Google. There are plenty of search terms that are unrelated to music which will bring up a site like that with lots of content.
Actually, the current page only contains two mentions of music. You've completely ignored my statement that even knowing the site is about music, it gives you no idea of what kind.
How are the uninitiated supposed to know that? |
All our content is music based. Albums, tracks, live shows, interviews. So we're not going to offer much to these people searching for non-music-related things in the first place. Even assuming we did, such a search would take you into the body of an article/review/feature rather than the main page anyway, where you would rapidly discover that we do indeed cover music that interests/doesn't interest you, upon which note you'd probably look through the site to see if we cover other music that interests you, and then you'd decide if you like our perspective on said music.
Although, it: you can see the main page in all its badly designed glory. I openly invite you, knowing in advance what content is on the main page, to reach it via a Google search not related to music. Do that and I'll take you seriously.
By the way, every phrase I quoted was taken from the top half of the main page. Two mentions, my arse.
| quote: | | That's the last I have to say on that. I'm entirely certain that you're going to continue with your condescending frippery rather than accepting my original post for what it was: constructive criticism. Not that anyone could ever change your mind through discussion anyway; you never concede even the most well-made and rational points, just because you like to be contrary. I'm not implying that my own ideas in this thread should be construed as such, only that there have been numerous examples of your ridiculous stubbornness in the past. |
Actually I've just laid out a challenge that would change my mind, which torpedoed that particular argument before I'd even read it. Although a quick glance at the staff page would confirm that I'm a lowly staff writer and so your "constructive criticism" is wasted because I have no real say on large technical issues such as design and layout anyway. Email Scott, the owner, if you want to be constructive.
| quote: | Originally posted by sljiva
So you're after popularity (but on the smaller scale), not quality? JK, no need for a type of response Domesticated got.
One more rec: Amon Tobin - Out From Out Where... Forget everything I've previously recommended (if you were even considering it), this album is from now on my only suggestion.
Now was that convincing enough or what? |
I know who is reliable on TA and who isn't, so 50 clowns voting for Armin wouldn't make me buy it. I had previously shortlisted a couple of your recommendations because I respect your knowledge and tastes, but in my eyes Sand Leaper out-argued you regarding the albums in question so I scratched them off the list. I'll check out Amon Tobin |
|
|
|
|
