Is Loveless the musical equivalent of Memento?

>>73192057
>How differently would you rate them if they removed a big part of what made them good??

>>73192057
Remove all the noise and you'd still have a great pop album featuring interesting tunnings, chord progressions and memorable melodies. I don't see your point.

>>73192057
My fav band since the early 90's. seen them twice. loud as fuck.
I seem to remember interviews in which Kevin and Belinda said they were into hypnogogic mindsates- ie just after waking up. The production style is supposed to reflect this. Waking up in a Bass bin from hell that is.

>>73192116
Yes exactly. great melodies -pop songs. Gods.

>>73192057
1)
I don't believe your comparison is as one-to-one as you would like it to be. A non-linear plot can be vaguely related to a production style which obscures vocals as counter commercial techniques, as you have demonstrated, however your parenthetical summation and second question redirects the connection made in the first and distorts your connection.

Firstly, to abandon the production of Loveless in favor of a more typical production abandons layers of information and art which would obviously impact the quality of the art. When you remove these layers, you change your art. With Memento, the alinear presentation of ideas is a manifestation of the film's motifs of memory and forgetting, to remove this layer changes the art.

The presentation of your second question has implications about your apparent position. This position seems to be one which overstates the importance of lyrics and plot to the quality of art against other aspects of the art, before you even make your connection between the non-commercial presentation. I think your connection is fair, but for this reason it not as significant, relevant, or impactful as you would hope.

>>73192057
2)
Sure.
3)
Okay.

I should add that the mixing/production really emulates some kind of dark psychedelia esp when on the bong, but curiously sounds thin and weird when tripping.

>>73192057
>comparing masterpiece as Loveless to a shit film like Memento
I bet you're 17-20 yo who still watches films for the """"""""plot twist"""""""
>fight club, moon, 2001 space odyssey, inception, mullholland dr. eraserhead, enemy, shutter island list goes on and on

Take a step back and think about for each of those art pieces stand for, ideologically, sonically and visually.

>>73192350
Right. Art is Art when it is unique. The modern-ish urge to over classify is the embalming of future work in the minds of aspiring, inexperienced artists

>>73192384
>Art is Art when it is unique
Is this statement meant as a metaphor or a metaphysical declaration? If the former I see your meaning, if the latter I have more to say.

>>73192446
As soon as a definition is cast it's obsolete i guess ;)
for me, Art is taking something abstract and making it tangible. This can involve copying someone elses idea/form but imbuing it with something uniquely yours or universal. The way the elements combine, or don't is the Artistry. Ymmv

>>73192384
well a big part of modern art is pushing boundaries, whether aesthetically or ideologically. also post-modernism includes questioning art itself in a metaphysical sense. it's not like Loveless was made in 1949. Abstraction (noise) can be applied to add experiential consumption of art, instead of just the actual presence and organization of the notes.

>>73192903
I agree these definitions exist. whether i'd want to experience and re-experience them just because they push boundaries is moot. It does help an artist if they are first to do x
I guess there's no way to avoid metaphysics- but as an end in itself its a dark journey which has no destination. Context and Texture is my thing. Also- this elusive quality is timeless.