Thejambi wrote:I don't see the step down. They may be a bit more obvious in imagery but that's ok considering how complicated iconic and symbolic art can be. Gives a little grounding. The content of the song still plays a big part.
They're not at all bad, but the first four images had a place or two with more detail. The "Getaway" one particularly was very big block shapes without much finer work. It's no big deal. Maybe the final reveal of this one will have some details that are revealing. The change from the two big faces on FD to the figures was really something.
OK, now I have some context for the perceived drop in quality. Fair point.
For your notes: if none of the images are intended to work with each other (montage, layers, overlapping, etc.) this will all be a massive disappointment . I've have unintentionally and probably unfairly raised my expectations.
I can't imagine they did a conceptual record and we've yet to hear anybody mention a word of it, if only because it would build a lot of additional hype. If this *is* a concept record and they're just going to let us find out by ourselves, then it's pretty hard to paint them as the corporate whores some people make them out to be.
RisingTides wrote:There is more kindness on the internet than we would care to admit to ourselves. Sometimes we are so afraid of falling victim to a ruse, we miss out on actual opportunities.
PJ has never made an album where every song fits the same overachieving theme, even when the artwork is striving to reach some common theme. Look at Vitalogy, No Code, Yield, etc. There are plenty of songs on those albums that probably had Stip ripping his hair out as he was trying to write his review of each album and its themes.
Not only has PJ not done it yet, but very few bands have managed to pull this off successfully. So I'm not expecting it. But the artwork is much more thematic than the BS artwork, so who knows? Maybe they did make a concerted effort to make it all fit together. Either way, each day this goes on, the less I feel they are just making shit up as they go.
Last edited by WaitingForBluey on Thu August 29, 2013 8:58 pm, edited 3 times in total.
theplatypus wrote:A solo is when the guitar goes twiddly diddly
Thejambi wrote:I don't see the step down. They may be a bit more obvious in imagery but that's ok considering how complicated iconic and symbolic art can be. Gives a little grounding. The content of the song still plays a big part.
They're not at all bad, but the first four images had a place or two with more detail. The "Getaway" one particularly was very big block shapes without much finer work. It's no big deal. Maybe the final reveal of this one will have some details that are revealing. The change from the two big faces on FD to the figures was really something.
OK, now I have some context for the perceived drop in quality. Fair point.
For your notes: if none of the images are intended to work with each other (montage, layers, overlapping, etc.) this will all be a massive disappointment . I've have unintentionally and probably unfairly raised my expectations.
The images absolutely do all of that, for sure. Whether they go any way towards describing the actual songs is another matter. Part of me is still thinking that the songs were such an incoherent mess that the artist worked extra hard to tie them together in some way.
Well the images are cohesive in style and content. I have found compositional similarities that are there either by some grand design or they are just formulaic.
There's the dog. You can't fake that stuff. Confess with your mouth.
Thejambi wrote:I don't see the step down. They may be a bit more obvious in imagery but that's ok considering how complicated iconic and symbolic art can be. Gives a little grounding. The content of the song still plays a big part.
They're not at all bad, but the first four images had a place or two with more detail. The "Getaway" one particularly was very big block shapes without much finer work. It's no big deal. Maybe the final reveal of this one will have some details that are revealing. The change from the two big faces on FD to the figures was really something.
OK, now I have some context for the perceived drop in quality. Fair point.
For your notes: if none of the images are intended to work with each other (montage, layers, overlapping, etc.) this will all be a massive disappointment . I've have unintentionally and probably unfairly raised my expectations.
I can't imagine they did a conceptual record and we've yet to hear anybody mention a word of it, if only because it would build a lot of additional hype. If this *is* a concept record and they're just going to let us find out by ourselves, then it's pretty hard to paint them as the corporate whores some people make them out to be.
I didn't say anything relating to a concept album.
There's the dog. You can't fake that stuff. Confess with your mouth.
Thejambi wrote:I don't see the step down. They may be a bit more obvious in imagery but that's ok considering how complicated iconic and symbolic art can be. Gives a little grounding. The content of the song still plays a big part.
They're not at all bad, but the first four images had a place or two with more detail. The "Getaway" one particularly was very big block shapes without much finer work. It's no big deal. Maybe the final reveal of this one will have some details that are revealing. The change from the two big faces on FD to the figures was really something.
OK, now I have some context for the perceived drop in quality. Fair point.
For your notes: if none of the images are intended to work with each other (montage, layers, overlapping, etc.) this will all be a massive disappointment . I've have unintentionally and probably unfairly raised my expectations.
The images absolutely do all of that, for sure. Whether they go any way towards describing the actual songs is another matter. Part of me is still thinking that the songs were such an incoherent mess that the artist worked extra hard to tie them together in some way.
Well the images are cohesive in style and content. I have found compositional similarities that are there either by some grand design or they are just formulaic.
'Grand design' or 'formulaic' will depend on the songs. How much evidence do we have from the titles that they pertain to the images? Well, not a lot. But hopefully a little bit.
RisingTides wrote:There is more kindness on the internet than we would care to admit to ourselves. Sometimes we are so afraid of falling victim to a ruse, we miss out on actual opportunities.
bluestate wrote:PJ has never made an album where every song fits the same overachieving theme, even when the artwork is striving to reach some common theme. Look at Vitalogy, No Code, Yield, etc. There are plenty of songs on those albums that probably had Stip ripping his hair out as he was trying to his review of each album and its themes.
Lounge Lizard wrote:No, this has been thought out well
RisingTides wrote:There is more kindness on the internet than we would care to admit to ourselves. Sometimes we are so afraid of falling victim to a ruse, we miss out on actual opportunities.
Thejambi wrote:I don't see the step down. They may be a bit more obvious in imagery but that's ok considering how complicated iconic and symbolic art can be. Gives a little grounding. The content of the song still plays a big part.
They're not at all bad, but the first four images had a place or two with more detail. The "Getaway" one particularly was very big block shapes without much finer work. It's no big deal. Maybe the final reveal of this one will have some details that are revealing. The change from the two big faces on FD to the figures was really something.
OK, now I have some context for the perceived drop in quality. Fair point.
For your notes: if none of the images are intended to work with each other (montage, layers, overlapping, etc.) this will all be a massive disappointment . I've have unintentionally and probably unfairly raised my expectations.
The images absolutely do all of that, for sure. Whether they go any way towards describing the actual songs is another matter. Part of me is still thinking that the songs were such an incoherent mess that the artist worked extra hard to tie them together in some way.
Well the images are cohesive in style and content. I have found compositional similarities that are there either by some grand design or they are just formulaic.
'Grand design' or 'formulaic' will depend on the songs. How much evidence do we have from the titles that they pertain to the images? Well, not a lot. But hopefully a little bit.
Ill clarify that I am talking purely on how the artwork relates to the artwork.
There's the dog. You can't fake that stuff. Confess with your mouth.
Thejambi wrote:I don't see the step down. They may be a bit more obvious in imagery but that's ok considering how complicated iconic and symbolic art can be. Gives a little grounding. The content of the song still plays a big part.
They're not at all bad, but the first four images had a place or two with more detail. The "Getaway" one particularly was very big block shapes without much finer work. It's no big deal. Maybe the final reveal of this one will have some details that are revealing. The change from the two big faces on FD to the figures was really something.
OK, now I have some context for the perceived drop in quality. Fair point.
For your notes: if none of the images are intended to work with each other (montage, layers, overlapping, etc.) this will all be a massive disappointment . I've have unintentionally and probably unfairly raised my expectations.
The images absolutely do all of that, for sure. Whether they go any way towards describing the actual songs is another matter. Part of me is still thinking that the songs were such an incoherent mess that the artist worked extra hard to tie them together in some way.
Well the images are cohesive in style and content. I have found compositional similarities that are there either by some grand design or they are just formulaic.
'Grand design' or 'formulaic' will depend on the songs. How much evidence do we have from the titles that they pertain to the images? Well, not a lot. But hopefully a little bit.
Ill clarify that I am talking purely on how the artwork relates to the artwork.
Well then we're on the same graphics tablet.
RisingTides wrote:There is more kindness on the internet than we would care to admit to ourselves. Sometimes we are so afraid of falling victim to a ruse, we miss out on actual opportunities.
RisingTides wrote:There is more kindness on the internet than we would care to admit to ourselves. Sometimes we are so afraid of falling victim to a ruse, we miss out on actual opportunities.
That seems like a really weird coincidence to me. 
mind blowing
