Low - Drums and Guns (March 20th) tracklist revealed

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

http://angryape.com/news/2006/12/low-new-drums-and-guns-album-details-revealed

― StanM (StanM), Thursday, 7 December 2006 11:13 (nineteen years ago)

I am very excited by this.

― tissp! (tissp!), Thursday, 7 December 2006 12:08 (nineteen years ago)

What happened to Violent Past? Dropped or just renamed?

― toby (tsg20), Thursday, 7 December 2006 23:48 (nineteen years ago)

http://angryape.com/news/2006/12/low-new-drums-and-guns-album-details-revealed

"The LP includes 12 new recordings and the track listing is:"

http://webapp.pitchforkmedia.com:9010/article/news/40031/Low_Unveil_Drums_and_Guns_Tracklist

13 Violent Past

― StanM (StanM), Friday, 8 December 2006 03:30 (nineteen years ago)

Phew!

― toby (tsg20), Friday, 8 December 2006 08:39 (nineteen years ago)

two weeks pass...

http://www.herbal-treatments.com.au/images/leek.jpg

― StanM (StanM), Friday, 22 December 2006 19:28 (nineteen years ago)

gah, just when i'm stuck in france on dialup! want want want.

― toby (tsg20), Friday, 22 December 2006 22:14 (nineteen years ago)

Newsflash: Mimi isn't locked in a basement anymore! You can actually hear her harmonizing now, unlike on Great Destroyer.

This is quite good.

― Salvador (Turangalila), Saturday, 23 December 2006 02:30 (nineteen years ago)

StanM, you're a clever one!

― hm (modestmickey), Saturday, 23 December 2006 05:24 (nineteen years ago)

I don't know what you're all seeing in there, but it was a visual joke for dutch speaking people. (in dutch, the vegetable you see there is called prei and that sounds exactly like pray in english! Low are religious, geddit?)

― StanM (StanM), Saturday, 23 December 2006 09:17 (nineteen years ago)

Oh, it's leaked. Nothing to do with the vegetable. :-)

― Salvador (Turangalila), Saturday, 23 December 2006 10:09 (nineteen years ago)

Hmmm ... it feels like they're going far out of their way to be completely different from how they've sounded in the past, and not for the better. It can't be a coincidence that the most conventionally "Low-sounding" track, "Your Poison", is only one minute long. Plus, something isn't right about a Low album without a couple of 7-8 minute epics.

On the plus side, "Violent Past" is fucking incredible.

― No Time Before Time (Barry Barry), Saturday, 23 December 2006 11:29 (nineteen years ago)

I think this is going to be another polarizing album -- those who disliked "The Great Destroyer" and loved the moodiness of "Trust" are going to really like the new one.

― No Time Before Time (Barry Barry), Saturday, 23 December 2006 11:34 (nineteen years ago)

not sure what to make of this... after being fairly comfortable with material like "dragonfly", "sandinista" and "breaker" from live shows and the retribution gospel choir ep - it is actually very jarring to hear them in such different, and emptier arrangements. will take some time to get used to, but i still have the nagging feeling that for the first time in their career that they choose to experiment on record a bit (which seemingly started with the two versions of 'cue the strings' from the last lp), they might have chosen completely the wrong material to do it on - denying the songs the raw power that they have gained live seems like a bit of a loss...

a good quality live album however would redress the balance well enough though...

― mark h (mark h), Saturday, 23 December 2006 13:21 (nineteen years ago)

soooo much better than the last two

― akm (akmonday), Saturday, 23 December 2006 14:13 (nineteen years ago)

fuck this is AWESOME.

― sean gramophone (sean gramophone), Tuesday, 26 December 2006 15:53 (nineteen years ago)

the version I obtained is pretty obviously not the final mix of this, unless they really intend to keep all of alan's vocals panned far, far right and all the instruments in the left. must be a reference mix; but it's almost there. I'm glad Murderer is on this, it's probably my favorite Low song ever.

― akm (akmonday), Tuesday, 26 December 2006 16:28 (nineteen years ago)

is there any point to publically revealing the tracklist to an indie rock album months before its release date other than making it even easier for people to download it?

― Al (Alex In Baltimore), Wednesday, 27 December 2006 16:52 (nineteen years ago)

If it weren't for the obsessive interest of fans, most indie rock albums wouldn't sell in the first place. You takes the rough with the smooch.

― adam beales (pye poudre), Wednesday, 27 December 2006 17:00 (nineteen years ago)

There is a point to revealing the track names if you play a number of them during your live shows almost a year before people even know about the album, yes. Now the fans know that those songs will be on there.

In this case, we already heard the live versions of Dragonfly, Sandinista, Murderer, Violent Past, Breaker, Pretty People (and others too, probably).

― StanM (StanM), Wednesday, 27 December 2006 17:05 (nineteen years ago)

In other cases: title protection? (as soon as you've registered your track titles, you reveal them publicly, so bands who might have songs with identical titles coming up have to change them?) (just guessing, don't know if that's the way it works at all)

― StanM (StanM), Wednesday, 27 December 2006 17:07 (nineteen years ago)

By the way, fans of Low: on February 22nd 2005, they played at the Paradiso in Amsterdam, and the show can be watched online for free here: http://www.fabchannel.com/low/ .

One year later, on February 22nd 2006, their show in Iowa was recorded from the mixing desk, and it can be downloaded for free here: http://download.owlandbear.com/20060222_low_shnf/ .

(I wonder where they'll be on February 22nd 2007 - I'm seeing them play in Bruges, Belgium on Feb. 16th)

― StanM (StanM), Wednesday, 27 December 2006 22:01 (nineteen years ago)

can someone explain what the fuck happened to this band? after 'trust' and that awesome boxed set of rarities, everything has made me *want* alan to be addicted to painkillers again.

― the table is the table (trees), Thursday, 28 December 2006 04:48 (nineteen years ago)

Intelligent evolution. You're feeling left behind.

― StanM (StanM), Thursday, 28 December 2006 06:37 (nineteen years ago)

'the great destroyer' sucked, dude.

― the table is the table (trees), Thursday, 28 December 2006 23:51 (nineteen years ago)

I didn't think it did - to me, it (and this new one) still sounds like Low (you could put those harmonies and melodies on top of just about anything and it would still be Low, I guess). Different from what they did previously, yes, alienating part of their fanbase who've come to expect some specific sound, perhaps, but trying out new directions, new sounds, new ideas and not falling flat on their faces at all, IMHO.

― StanM (StanM), Friday, 29 December 2006 00:01 (nineteen years ago)

But that's the great thing about music: I don't have to hate it because you do and you don't have to like it because I do! Peace, dude.

― StanM (StanM), Friday, 29 December 2006 00:02 (nineteen years ago)

no, it's totally cool. i really like Low best in their older incarnation: spare, trembling, spine-dissolving. the only song i could get into on 'tgd' was 'Silver Rider,' and that was only because you could actually hear Mimi. the rest of it, especially 'Monkey,' made me wonder why i'd spent money on it. you need to understand, too, that i had just bought the Rarities boxed set at the same time, so comparing the two sort of left 'tgd' in the dust.

― the table is the table (trees), Friday, 29 December 2006 00:15 (nineteen years ago)

I agree with the table is the table about The Great Destroyer sucking and the importance of Mimi's audibility, but I do think the new album is awesome (e.g., "Dragonfly," "Your Poison," "In Silence"). Also, I second the feeling that what we have isn't the final version.

― Salvador (Turangalila), Friday, 29 December 2006 00:29 (nineteen years ago)

hopefully the mix isnt completely final - otherwise i do agree that the desire to experiment has lead to some anemic recordings of some excellent material, which, save for the live shows, has been wasted for the sake of not "sounding like" themselves.

― ichbin (ichbin), Friday, 29 December 2006 00:56 (nineteen years ago)

there is NO WAY this is the final mix, no-one would mix vocals like this. but it's still way better than the great destroyer, i agree that album mostly sucked.

― akm (akmonday), Friday, 29 December 2006 02:32 (nineteen years ago)

The amount of Great Destroyer hate hurts me in my heart.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 29 December 2006 06:58 (nineteen years ago)

Ned, forgive them for they don't know any better.

What I'd like to know, if any recording engineers/studio folks are in the house: this type of mix, is this a regular stage in the recording/mixing process? I hadn't heard anything like it before and I can only imagine it was extremely temporary and meant to check the volume levels of all the recorded parts and nothing more - why else would anyone make something like this? (and why would someone in the studio save it at all?)

― StanM (StanM), Friday, 29 December 2006 07:52 (nineteen years ago)

Yeah, people are crazy, it's still my favourite of their albums (and I've been a fan since 97 or so).

Liking this a lot so far, the production on a couple of tracks aside. Am agreed this seems unlikely to be the final mix - but a lot of people said the same about the leak of The Great Destroyer, and were wrong then...

― toby (tsg20), Friday, 29 December 2006 07:55 (nineteen years ago)

why else would anyone make something like this?

i haven't heard it so i can't say for sure but perhaps it was a dump of the unmixed tracks, perhaps by someone other than the mix engineer, such as a studio assistant..

― electric sound of jim (electric sound of jim), Friday, 29 December 2006 08:31 (nineteen years ago)

i.e. a really scumbaggy, cunty thing to do

― electric sound of jim (electric sound of jim), Friday, 29 December 2006 08:32 (nineteen years ago)

If you want to check, this blog has (very temporary, I assume) links to two tracks. (There's nothing at all from the left channel on the right one and vice versa, it's even stranger than I thought based on the descriptions I had read.)

― StanM (StanM), Friday, 29 December 2006 08:49 (nineteen years ago)

hmm. they don't sound unmixed, but there's definitely something odd going on with the panning, and the sounds are very very dry. these tracks haven't been mastered either. hatchet reminds me of young marble giants in its current state.

― electric sound of jim (electric sound of jim), Friday, 29 December 2006 09:03 (nineteen years ago)

great destroyer is my favorite low album as well, and I've been listening to them since 96..!

― dar1a g (dar1a g), Friday, 29 December 2006 17:20 (nineteen years ago)

OH I BEEN LISTENING TO THEM FOR SO LONG THEREFORE I IS RIGHT. = bullshit

― the table is the table (trees), Friday, 29 December 2006 19:43 (nineteen years ago)

i listened to that album many many times in many different locations, situations, moods, etc. and i still think it is a crap album. everyone's got an asshole and an opinion.

― the table is the table (trees), Friday, 29 December 2006 19:45 (nineteen years ago)

I've had my asshole since 1972, so there.

― StanM (StanM), Friday, 29 December 2006 19:51 (nineteen years ago)

mine's been around since 84. (my point, stan, is that we should be respectful of each other's opinions. just because a person has been listening to a band for longer doesn't make that person's opinion any more valid than a comparative 'n00b's' though it is perhaps worth mentioning that i've seen Low live a mess of times and own all of their albums)

― the table is the table (trees), Friday, 29 December 2006 19:56 (nineteen years ago)

Hey, I was just kidding. Thank goodness we don't all like the same stuff!

― StanM (StanM), Friday, 29 December 2006 20:31 (nineteen years ago)

(i knew you were kidding)

― the table is the table (trees), Friday, 29 December 2006 20:33 (nineteen years ago)

The amount of Great Destroyer hate hurts me in my heart.
-- Ned Raggett (ne...), December 29th, 2006.

"Death of a Salesman" is a good song, I'll give you that.

― Salvador (Turangalila), Friday, 29 December 2006 22:50 (nineteen years ago)

uh, I just said I liked the album. settle down, beavis. i mean, if somebody is being an asshole here it might be the person who says he thinks it'd be better for alan to be a drug addict again. just sayin

― dar1a g (dar1a g), Saturday, 30 December 2006 00:43 (nineteen years ago)

my point, stan, is that we should be respectful of each other's opinions. just because a person has been listening to a band for longer doesn't make that person's opinion any more valid than a comparative 'n00b's' though it is perhaps worth mentioning that i've seen Low live a mess of times and own all of their albums)

I just thought it worth mentioning, because often I find that when a recent album by a band that's been around for a long time polarises opionion, it's the "new" fans who like it more. I wasn't trying to claim that having been a fan for 10 years made my opinion any more valid.

― toby (tsg20), Saturday, 30 December 2006 10:24 (nineteen years ago)

"Death of a Salesman" is a good song, I'll give you that.

that's the worst song on there

― akm (akmonday), Saturday, 30 December 2006 13:44 (nineteen years ago)

Sure, sure. In that parallel universe where Dave Fridmann's blankets of static are the paragon of beauty.

― Salvador (Turangalila), Saturday, 30 December 2006 14:05 (nineteen years ago)

It is a shit album and painful to listen to. It sounds extremely negligent.

― LynnK (klynn), Saturday, 30 December 2006 16:22 (nineteen years ago)

one month passes...

Just back from seeing them at the Spitz. Fucking incredible. Much quieter than last year's shows, but... yeah.

― toby (tsg20), Thursday, 15 February 2007 23:41 (nineteen years ago)

i don't be getting why white people hate the great destroyer so much

― sir lord baltimore club music (Matt Helgeson), Friday, 16 February 2007 16:31 (nineteen years ago)

We're racist fucks, is why.

― David RER (Frank Fiore), Friday, 16 February 2007 16:33 (nineteen years ago)

the mixes may be too diffuse. i hope this isn't the final version. 'dust on the window' is pretty dope

― barba labyrnth (barba labyrnth), Friday, 16 February 2007 16:51 (nineteen years ago)

the great destroyer sounds terrible

― akm (akmonday), Friday, 16 February 2007 17:23 (nineteen years ago)

In some strange alternate universe.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 16 February 2007 17:25 (nineteen years ago)

it is overcompressed. ask sick mouthy!

― akm (akmonday), Friday, 16 February 2007 22:34 (nineteen years ago)

the mixes may be too diffuse. i hope this isn't the final version. 'dust on the window' is pretty dope

i have a fully mastered physical promo copy of the album, and yes, these are the final mixes of the songs with the vocals mostly to the right channel...anyway, i think they sound *fantastic* on a good stereo system, but it's a bold decision to mix like this...so i'm interested to see where the critical opinions fall on it

as a huge low fan (i have called them my favorite band for a few years running now) who enjoys all their stuff to some degree, i also think this is possibly the best album they've ever done

― Stephen Bush (Stephen Bush), Saturday, 17 February 2007 00:12 (nineteen years ago)

sick mouthy the howie weinberg of ilm.

― sir lord baltimore club music (Matt Helgeson), Saturday, 17 February 2007 00:15 (nineteen years ago)

At times, the compression actually leads to distortion on The Great Destroyer, but I still love a great deal of that album ("Silver Rider", "Pissing", "Monkey", "Just Stand Back", the alternate-universe version of Low in "Cue The Strings", the Neil Young tribute guitar in "On The Edge Of" and "When I Go Deaf", etc.). You know, now that I listen to it again, it reminds me, bizarrely, of Psychocandy.

― Lostandfound (David A.), Sunday, 18 February 2007 21:18 (nineteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.