Comments on: LWE’s Top 20 Singles of 2008 (Part 2)

By: Little White Earbuds » LWE’s Top 20 Singles of 2008 (Part 4)

Little White Earbuds » LWE’s Top 20 Singles of 2008 (Part 4) — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 19:40:09 +0000

[...] 15-11 [...]

By: tom/pipecock

tom/pipecock — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 19:55:08 +0000

whats funny about the osborne is that when i bought it, i liked all the tracks on it equally. and then when i started playing it out, it was “fresh” that was so minimal and dirty that caught my ear in the headphones. and now i’m regretting not hammering “Ruling” all summer long. i’ll make up for it next year, i never heard anyone play it out.

By: Shawn Khan

Shawn Khan — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 16:52:37 +0000

i totally missed that osborne track. nice picks

By: sma

sma — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 23:22:27 +0000

but then again, you already wrote about osborne in detail, for example, steve, so maybe this was just a place to make a distinction using a little rant for the end of the year wrap up.

By: sma

sma — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 23:15:19 +0000

think i get you point now, steve. elevating something that seems to be above the average, i’m totally fine with that. it’s just the way it happens, that with elevating something, people nowadays always seem to be mentioning how “blurred”, “average” or just mainstream something has become. i’m just asking myself why you couldn’t just say “stands out” or is “above the average” and leave it there and talk about the track itself, how it sounds, how it feels, what it reminds you of (in case it reminds you of something), stuff like that, which would be more interesting for me. but then, that’s just me.

ra’s review of the new 2562 is a good example for this attitude towards writing in my opinion: http://www.residentadvisor.net/review-view.aspx?id=5760 . tryggvason just describes the tracks and their sound without opening with the usual rant about the current state of techno, where nothing seems to catch anybodys interest any more or that the world is lacking forward thinking producers or something like that.

sorry about the lengthy posts here, guys.

By: eric cloutier

eric cloutier — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 20:24:24 +0000

secondly…

i don’t condone using anything on that ishkurs site for anything more than entertainment purposes. hell, a good portion of the track names are wrong in his examples, and some of the genre’s he downright rips apart (though some deserve it).

By: eric cloutier

eric cloutier — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 20:19:20 +0000

http://techno.org/electronic-music-guide/music.swf

call me stupid, but as kitschy and retarded as this thing is, its still got better definitions and descriptions than most websites out there. and “deep house” sure as fuck doesn’t sound anything like what’s being labeled that lately.

regardless, i’m of the “play / listen to what you like regardless of its label” ilk – thus why i kinda gave up on telling people anything more than “techno and house” when they ask what i play.

By: struggle

struggle — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 19:17:31 +0000

thanks for part 2. hadn’t really given most of these a real listen yet.

as for what’s real/not..let time be the judge.

By: littlewhiteearbuds

littlewhiteearbuds — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 18:10:48 +0000

Thanks for the head’s up, Will. Should be fixed now.

By: Will C.

Will C. — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 18:00:21 +0000

Great list, but #12 doesn’t play.