Red Mosquito

Hypnosomnia wrote:New review:
http://beachsloth.blogspot.com/2013/07/ ... -bolt.html

Lol

Man,Gleason's questions are a doozy, I really enjoyed his and Richards the most. I sensed he hit a nerve with Stone when he asked about what it feels like to not have the attention a lead singer gets. His facial reaction to that told me a couple things by itself.

Taken as a whole, I think the interviews work great as a full piece. I think for a certain set of fans, the super in depth questions from Richards and Gleason might be a bit much or maybe even bore them, so the Apatow and Brownstein interviews might be better. But for people like those on this board, the Gleason and Richards pieces are perfect.

I'm really liking how they are rolling the album out, with these interviews and vignettes and videos and such. They seem to be genuine and not contrived ways to promote their work and they are getting to the heart of the artistic intentions and the work behind the album. I'm not sure how many non-fans they're reaching since they're not doing talk shows and all that but I'm not sure how much those things help these days anyway, with how splintered media is in this era.

Tuolumne wrote:Man,Gleason's questions are a doozy, I really enjoyed his and Richards the most. I sensed he hit a nerve with Stone when he asked about what it feels like to not have the attention a lead singer gets. His facial reaction to that told me a couple things by itself.

Taken as a whole, I think the interviews work great as a full piece. I think for a certain set of fans, the super in depth questions from Richards and Gleason might be a bit much or maybe even bore them, so the Apatow and Brownstein interviews might be better. But for people like those on this board, the Gleason and Richards pieces are perfect.

I'm really liking how they are rolling the album out, with these interviews and vignettes and videos and such. They seem to be genuine and not contrived ways to promote their work and they are getting to the heart of the artistic intentions and the work behind the album. I'm not sure how many non-fans they're reaching since they're not doing talk shows and all that but I'm not sure how much those things help these days anyway, with how splintered media is in this era.

I wonder if these are in lieu of any print interviews

stupidmop wrote:I skipped backward a few pages on that blog and I still dont understand what it actually is. Psychotic ramblings? Reviews of music ive never heard of? Poetry? Is it poetry? Idk

I don't know, but the reviewer feels the need to tell us that a Post-rock outfit is Post-rock influenced. That's dang good writing.

"A Shelter in the Desert does the best in desolation. Quieter passages work beautifully. The less they include the better. Little moments of theirs rank among the best of recent Post-Rock outfits. Crescendos are explored within these songs as this is quite Post-Rock influenced."

Tuolumne wrote:Man,Gleason's questions are a doozy, I really enjoyed his and Richards the most. I sensed he hit a nerve with Stone when he asked about what it feels like to not have the attention a lead singer gets. His facial reaction to that told me a couple things by itself.

Taken as a whole, I think the interviews work great as a full piece. I think for a certain set of fans, the super in depth questions from Richards and Gleason might be a bit much or maybe even bore them, so the Apatow and Brownstein interviews might be better. But for people like those on this board, the Gleason and Richards pieces are perfect.

I'm really liking how they are rolling the album out, with these interviews and vignettes and videos and such. They seem to be genuine and not contrived ways to promote their work and they are getting to the heart of the artistic intentions and the work behind the album. I'm not sure how many non-fans they're reaching since they're not doing talk shows and all that but I'm not sure how much those things help these days anyway, with how splintered media is in this era.

This is a good point. It's as if these interviews are very fan-focussed really, which is interesting considering their apparent recent efforts to reach a much larger demographic. They seem to be more at home with the "home crowd", at least for this promotion effort.

No tetas?

It's also some bit of control and comfort, having people you know and trust to ask questions, and they're not all soft-ball lobs either, and their personable. I remember reading WAY back about Steven others conducting the interviews, that seems like 6 months ago now, neat to see these now.

PJ = in-house, self governed, and the band have more input than we even realized, apparently.

harmless wrote:No tetas?

Nope. Just ever increasing blue balls.

I hope they do some written press too...some interview with Rolling Stone for example. I like those.

VinylGuy wrote:I hope they do some written press too...some interview with Rolling Stone for example. I like those.

There was an Ed Rolling Stone interview.

Cleverman wrote:

Tuolumne wrote:Man,Gleason's questions are a doozy, I really enjoyed his and Richards the most. I sensed he hit a nerve with Stone when he asked about what it feels like to not have the attention a lead singer gets. His facial reaction to that told me a couple things by itself.

Taken as a whole, I think the interviews work great as a full piece. I think for a certain set of fans, the super in depth questions from Richards and Gleason might be a bit much or maybe even bore them, so the Apatow and Brownstein interviews might be better. But for people like those on this board, the Gleason and Richards pieces are perfect.

I'm really liking how they are rolling the album out, with these interviews and vignettes and videos and such. They seem to be genuine and not contrived ways to promote their work and they are getting to the heart of the artistic intentions and the work behind the album. I'm not sure how many non-fans they're reaching since they're not doing talk shows and all that but I'm not sure how much those things help these days anyway, with how splintered media is in this era.

I wonder if these are in lieu of any print interviews

I've always wondered, from a promotional standpoint, what do print interviews really do? Do they sell any albums? I can't think they do that much. A successful youtube video reaches alot more people than a print copy of a magazine at a book store. How many people really open up a non-cover feature interview? How many of those actually end up buying an album? And of those that would, wouldn't they already be on the web searching for stuff on the band anyway? Why make them go all the way to a bookstore somewhere, just get it straight into those fans' hands instead of doing the whole rigamarole and do a crappy interview w/ a "pro" journalist who doesn't know much about the band and would write a cliched review?. It seems w/ social media and website these days why not just do videos or stuff that circulates amongst fans in the net? It seems to be a better way to spend time and energy, I'm glad it seems like they've figured it out.

Yeah it seems like a very "pearl jam" way of doing things, which is cool.

VinylGuy wrote:I hope they do some written press too...some interview with Rolling Stone for example. I like those.

Eddie did a rolling stone, and stone did an Italian rolling stone. And im sure I read a huffington post article saying theres an eddie interview coming soon, but I may have been hallucinating.

Tuolumne wrote:

Cleverman wrote:

Tuolumne wrote:Man,Gleason's questions are a doozy, I really enjoyed his and Richards the most. I sensed he hit a nerve with Stone when he asked about what it feels like to not have the attention a lead singer gets. His facial reaction to that told me a couple things by itself.

Taken as a whole, I think the interviews work great as a full piece. I think for a certain set of fans, the super in depth questions from Richards and Gleason might be a bit much or maybe even bore them, so the Apatow and Brownstein interviews might be better. But for people like those on this board, the Gleason and Richards pieces are perfect.

I'm really liking how they are rolling the album out, with these interviews and vignettes and videos and such. They seem to be genuine and not contrived ways to promote their work and they are getting to the heart of the artistic intentions and the work behind the album. I'm not sure how many non-fans they're reaching since they're not doing talk shows and all that but I'm not sure how much those things help these days anyway, with how splintered media is in this era.

I wonder if these are in lieu of any print interviews

I've always wondered, from a promotional standpoint, what do print interviews really do? Do they sell any albums? I can't think they do that much. A successful youtube video reaches alot more people than a print copy of a magazine at a book store. How many people really open up a non-cover feature interview? How many of those actually end up buying an album? And of those that would, wouldn't they already be on the web searching for stuff on the band anyway? Why make them go all the way to a bookstore somewhere, just get it straight into those fans' hands instead of doing the whole rigamarole and do a crappy interview w/ a "pro" journalist who doesn't know much about the band and would write a cliched review?. It seems w/ social media and website these days why not just do videos or stuff that circulates amongst fans in the net? It seems to be a better way to spend time and energy, I'm glad it seems like they've figured it out.

Most music magazines have a website now, and the big interviews will be on those as well.

harmless wrote:

Tuolumne wrote:

Cleverman wrote:

Tuolumne wrote:Man,Gleason's questions are a doozy, I really enjoyed his and Richards the most. I sensed he hit a nerve with Stone when he asked about what it feels like to not have the attention a lead singer gets. His facial reaction to that told me a couple things by itself.

Taken as a whole, I think the interviews work great as a full piece. I think for a certain set of fans, the super in depth questions from Richards and Gleason might be a bit much or maybe even bore them, so the Apatow and Brownstein interviews might be better. But for people like those on this board, the Gleason and Richards pieces are perfect.

I'm really liking how they are rolling the album out, with these interviews and vignettes and videos and such. They seem to be genuine and not contrived ways to promote their work and they are getting to the heart of the artistic intentions and the work behind the album. I'm not sure how many non-fans they're reaching since they're not doing talk shows and all that but I'm not sure how much those things help these days anyway, with how splintered media is in this era.

I wonder if these are in lieu of any print interviews

I've always wondered, from a promotional standpoint, what do print interviews really do? Do they sell any albums? I can't think they do that much. A successful youtube video reaches alot more people than a print copy of a magazine at a book store. How many people really open up a non-cover feature interview? How many of those actually end up buying an album? And of those that would, wouldn't they already be on the web searching for stuff on the band anyway? Why make them go all the way to a bookstore somewhere, just get it straight into those fans' hands instead of doing the whole rigamarole and do a crappy interview w/ a "pro" journalist who doesn't know much about the band and would write a cliched review?. It seems w/ social media and website these days why not just do videos or stuff that circulates amongst fans in the net? It seems to be a better way to spend time and energy, I'm glad it seems like they've figured it out.

Most music magazines have a website now, and the big interviews will be on those as well.

Very true, but these interviews are just as available as any one that's online from rolling stone and spin, and I think they're reaching the same people that would be interested in them anyway.

Tuolumne wrote:

harmless wrote:

Tuolumne wrote:

Cleverman wrote:

Tuolumne wrote:Man,Gleason's questions are a doozy, I really enjoyed his and Richards the most. I sensed he hit a nerve with Stone when he asked about what it feels like to not have the attention a lead singer gets. His facial reaction to that told me a couple things by itself.

Taken as a whole, I think the interviews work great as a full piece. I think for a certain set of fans, the super in depth questions from Richards and Gleason might be a bit much or maybe even bore them, so the Apatow and Brownstein interviews might be better. But for people like those on this board, the Gleason and Richards pieces are perfect.

I'm really liking how they are rolling the album out, with these interviews and vignettes and videos and such. They seem to be genuine and not contrived ways to promote their work and they are getting to the heart of the artistic intentions and the work behind the album. I'm not sure how many non-fans they're reaching since they're not doing talk shows and all that but I'm not sure how much those things help these days anyway, with how splintered media is in this era.

I wonder if these are in lieu of any print interviews

I've always wondered, from a promotional standpoint, what do print interviews really do? Do they sell any albums? I can't think they do that much. A successful youtube video reaches alot more people than a print copy of a magazine at a book store. How many people really open up a non-cover feature interview? How many of those actually end up buying an album? And of those that would, wouldn't they already be on the web searching for stuff on the band anyway? Why make them go all the way to a bookstore somewhere, just get it straight into those fans' hands instead of doing the whole rigamarole and do a crappy interview w/ a "pro" journalist who doesn't know much about the band and would write a cliched review?. It seems w/ social media and website these days why not just do videos or stuff that circulates amongst fans in the net? It seems to be a better way to spend time and energy, I'm glad it seems like they've figured it out.

Most music magazines have a website now, and the big interviews will be on those as well.

Very true, but these interviews are just as available as any one that's online from rolling stone and spin, and I think they're reaching the same people that would be interested in them anyway.

Yeah, I think that I for one sometimes like reading stuff as opposed to hearing it. People are often more eloquent in writing, and the interviews are subject to more editing, so you don't get so many umms and uuhhs and pauses etc. A lot of these text interviews are conducted by email, most probably, so there's an opportunity to be thorough. But it all depends how you prefer to absorb your media information.

harmless wrote:

Tuolumne wrote:

harmless wrote:

Tuolumne wrote:

Cleverman wrote:

Tuolumne wrote:Man,Gleason's questions are a doozy, I really enjoyed his and Richards the most. I sensed he hit a nerve with Stone when he asked about what it feels like to not have the attention a lead singer gets. His facial reaction to that told me a couple things by itself.

Taken as a whole, I think the interviews work great as a full piece. I think for a certain set of fans, the super in depth questions from Richards and Gleason might be a bit much or maybe even bore them, so the Apatow and Brownstein interviews might be better. But for people like those on this board, the Gleason and Richards pieces are perfect.

I'm really liking how they are rolling the album out, with these interviews and vignettes and videos and such. They seem to be genuine and not contrived ways to promote their work and they are getting to the heart of the artistic intentions and the work behind the album. I'm not sure how many non-fans they're reaching since they're not doing talk shows and all that but I'm not sure how much those things help these days anyway, with how splintered media is in this era.

I wonder if these are in lieu of any print interviews

I've always wondered, from a promotional standpoint, what do print interviews really do? Do they sell any albums? I can't think they do that much. A successful youtube video reaches alot more people than a print copy of a magazine at a book store. How many people really open up a non-cover feature interview? How many of those actually end up buying an album? And of those that would, wouldn't they already be on the web searching for stuff on the band anyway? Why make them go all the way to a bookstore somewhere, just get it straight into those fans' hands instead of doing the whole rigamarole and do a crappy interview w/ a "pro" journalist who doesn't know much about the band and would write a cliched review?. It seems w/ social media and website these days why not just do videos or stuff that circulates amongst fans in the net? It seems to be a better way to spend time and energy, I'm glad it seems like they've figured it out.

Most music magazines have a website now, and the big interviews will be on those as well.

Very true, but these interviews are just as available as any one that's online from rolling stone and spin, and I think they're reaching the same people that would be interested in them anyway.

Yeah, I think that I for one sometimes like reading stuff as opposed to hearing it. People are often more eloquent in writing, and the interviews are subject to more editing, so you don't get so many umms and uuhhs and pauses etc. A lot of these text interviews are conducted by email, most probably, so there's an opportunity to be thorough. But it all depends how you prefer to absorb your media information.

All good points. I guess I meant "print" as including online too. It's weird to say "text" instead of print. Is there a less awkward way to describe it?

I´m starting to believe this album doesn´t exists.

Cleverman wrote:

harmless wrote:

Tuolumne wrote:

harmless wrote:

Tuolumne wrote:

Cleverman wrote:

Tuolumne wrote:Man,Gleason's questions are a doozy, I really enjoyed his and Richards the most. I sensed he hit a nerve with Stone when he asked about what it feels like to not have the attention a lead singer gets. His facial reaction to that told me a couple things by itself.

Taken as a whole, I think the interviews work great as a full piece. I think for a certain set of fans, the super in depth questions from Richards and Gleason might be a bit much or maybe even bore them, so the Apatow and Brownstein interviews might be better. But for people like those on this board, the Gleason and Richards pieces are perfect.

I'm really liking how they are rolling the album out, with these interviews and vignettes and videos and such. They seem to be genuine and not contrived ways to promote their work and they are getting to the heart of the artistic intentions and the work behind the album. I'm not sure how many non-fans they're reaching since they're not doing talk shows and all that but I'm not sure how much those things help these days anyway, with how splintered media is in this era.

I wonder if these are in lieu of any print interviews

I've always wondered, from a promotional standpoint, what do print interviews really do? Do they sell any albums? I can't think they do that much. A successful youtube video reaches alot more people than a print copy of a magazine at a book store. How many people really open up a non-cover feature interview? How many of those actually end up buying an album? And of those that would, wouldn't they already be on the web searching for stuff on the band anyway? Why make them go all the way to a bookstore somewhere, just get it straight into those fans' hands instead of doing the whole rigamarole and do a crappy interview w/ a "pro" journalist who doesn't know much about the band and would write a cliched review?. It seems w/ social media and website these days why not just do videos or stuff that circulates amongst fans in the net? It seems to be a better way to spend time and energy, I'm glad it seems like they've figured it out.

Most music magazines have a website now, and the big interviews will be on those as well.

Very true, but these interviews are just as available as any one that's online from rolling stone and spin, and I think they're reaching the same people that would be interested in them anyway.

Yeah, I think that I for one sometimes like reading stuff as opposed to hearing it. People are often more eloquent in writing, and the interviews are subject to more editing, so you don't get so many umms and uuhhs and pauses etc. A lot of these text interviews are conducted by email, most probably, so there's an opportunity to be thorough. But it all depends how you prefer to absorb your media information.

All good points. I guess I meant "print" as including online too. It's weird to say "text" instead of print. Is there a less awkward way to describe it?

Yeah but I used "text" to contrast with the visual / video interviews that had been talked about in the original post.

harmless wrote:

Cleverman wrote:

harmless wrote:

Tuolumne wrote:

harmless wrote:

Tuolumne wrote:

Cleverman wrote:

Tuolumne wrote:Man,Gleason's questions are a doozy, I really enjoyed his and Richards the most. I sensed he hit a nerve with Stone when he asked about what it feels like to not have the attention a lead singer gets. His facial reaction to that told me a couple things by itself.

Taken as a whole, I think the interviews work great as a full piece. I think for a certain set of fans, the super in depth questions from Richards and Gleason might be a bit much or maybe even bore them, so the Apatow and Brownstein interviews might be better. But for people like those on this board, the Gleason and Richards pieces are perfect.

I'm really liking how they are rolling the album out, with these interviews and vignettes and videos and such. They seem to be genuine and not contrived ways to promote their work and they are getting to the heart of the artistic intentions and the work behind the album. I'm not sure how many non-fans they're reaching since they're not doing talk shows and all that but I'm not sure how much those things help these days anyway, with how splintered media is in this era.

I wonder if these are in lieu of any print interviews

I've always wondered, from a promotional standpoint, what do print interviews really do? Do they sell any albums? I can't think they do that much. A successful youtube video reaches alot more people than a print copy of a magazine at a book store. How many people really open up a non-cover feature interview? How many of those actually end up buying an album? And of those that would, wouldn't they already be on the web searching for stuff on the band anyway? Why make them go all the way to a bookstore somewhere, just get it straight into those fans' hands instead of doing the whole rigamarole and do a crappy interview w/ a "pro" journalist who doesn't know much about the band and would write a cliched review?. It seems w/ social media and website these days why not just do videos or stuff that circulates amongst fans in the net? It seems to be a better way to spend time and energy, I'm glad it seems like they've figured it out.

Most music magazines have a website now, and the big interviews will be on those as well.

Very true, but these interviews are just as available as any one that's online from rolling stone and spin, and I think they're reaching the same people that would be interested in them anyway.

Yeah, I think that I for one sometimes like reading stuff as opposed to hearing it. People are often more eloquent in writing, and the interviews are subject to more editing, so you don't get so many umms and uuhhs and pauses etc. A lot of these text interviews are conducted by email, most probably, so there's an opportunity to be thorough. But it all depends how you prefer to absorb your media information.

All good points. I guess I meant "print" as including online too. It's weird to say "text" instead of print. Is there a less awkward way to describe it?

Yeah "print" is a better word than text But I used "text" to contrast with the visual / video interviews that had been talked about in the original post.

Yeah, makes sense.

Hypnosomnia wrote:I´m starting to believe this album doesn´t exists.

I want to buy my copy and it be 12 Rick Rolls