From James Sent Wed, Dec 10th 1997, 20:21
From James Sent Wed, Dec 10th 1997, 20:21
> track 12 'seph' on _not for threes_ could have ranked up with any
>classic black dog track. instead though it fades out at 1:30 and we're
>left with bjork singing. what kind of shit is this. what the hell is
>wrong with those two guys?
Heh heh, this reminds me of those brief Phils on Bytes that many people felt
were better than the actual tracks.
I really like Not for Threes now. The first few times I listened to it made
me
complain about how jumbled and patchworky it was. Nowadays I appreciate the
differences in mood/style/vocals a lot more. In one of the interviews they
did
recently, Andy or Ed talked about how travelling around the world with Bjork
affected them, and it seems to make sense to appreciate the album partly as
a
kind of a travelogue - a collection of various musical postcards.
And does anyone else think the duo seems to be trying to make up for lost
time
doing interviews? I see their faces in every other UK music/fashion mag
now... Can Q or Vox be far behind? Or Spin and Rolling Stone? If Luke Vibert
can make it into Details...
Cheers,
James Jung-Hoon Seo // Oracle Tools Fundamental Technology Group
(650) 506-3829 // 2op873 // xxxx@xx.xxxxxx.xxx
The technology of today is the cheese of tomorrow. // Anti:Rom