The Fragile: Deviations 1 - Limited Edition 4xLP (Spring 2017)

[joplinpicasso]

http://www.nin.wiki/Untitled_(from_t...lingapart.com)

Untitled (from thingsfallingapart.com)[edit]

This is the only known version. It is built primarily from a single guitar riff, made up of several bends. It appears to be looped in reverse and processed. The opening and closing are high pass filtered into a quiet, washed out layer, while a distorted bass note enters at various points during the main layer. Interestingly, the opening milliseconds contain the very tail end of "The Great Below," hinting that this piece was originally intended to end the first disc of The Fragile.




^ Does this appear on Deviations anywhere given the above (that I only just read for the first time)?

Wait, is this not the alt version of "TNF" with TR's sample of "This is how it alllll begins"? EDIT: Oh wow, this is altogether different. I haven't heard this yet!

[r_z]

Good to know a remastering job can raise the points p4k is giving your release by at least 6.7!!

[seasonsinthesky]

So, I have attempted to isolate what I think/feel is the motif in 10 Miles High (with an attempt to isolate The Downward Spiral guitar, panned hard right) here: https://soundcloud.com/noiseball/10-...late-tds-motif

I'm starting to worry for my sanity, because to me the motif is very clearly there.

In 10MH(instrumental), at 3:16, the bridge starts, with a bass note fading out.
There is a metronomic two-note tick-tock part happening, but alongside/"under" this, there is a distorted/flanged noisy synth which - to my ears - plays TDS motif where each note is sustained and continuous (as opposed to discrete plucks of guitar strings or piano keys). The start of each note lines up with the guitar notes in a tempo-adjusted The Downward Spiral.
Each iteration lasts about 25 seconds:
1st starts at - 3:16, 2nd - 3:41; 3rd - 4:06 (but then the guitar comes in).
(I previously said it did almost four full loops - it appears cannot count/really have lost it...)

I don't suppose anyone has 10MH multitracks just lying about... :/

Definitely isn't there. I think you're hearing the "wind" drone chorusing over time. The mellotron flute is there with a bass electric piano pulse and the drone, those are the only elements in the "lilacs under a sheet of ice" part.

[Prettybrokenspiral]

Fuck Pitchfork and their hipsterocity tastemaker revisionist bullshit.

They furnished The Fragile with a meager 2.0 rating back when it came out. Oh, now you finally get it 20 years later just because everyone has been into it forever? GTFOOH with that noise..

[noiseball]

Well, I can't for the life of me hear the motif in 10MH, I even listened to noiseball's isolation and still didn't hear it.

Definitely isn't there. I think you're hearing the "wind" drone chorusing over time.

Aw, man.
At this point I am 100% certain it's in there.
I will try to do a better job of isolating it over the weekend.
I can see this becoming an obsession. If it is not one already.

[Kulerage]

Aw, man.
At this point I am 100% certain it's in there.
I will try to do a better job of isolating it over the weekend.
I can see this becoming an obsession. If it is not one already.

If it IS there, I wish you luck. If it isn't I wish you luck in recovering your sanity.

[fillow]

You do realize that they probably have fewer employees now who were there in both 1999 and 2017 than you have fingers, right?

Will I be able to count all the people who still reads music reviews with whatever fingers I have?

[Prettybrokenspiral]

You do realize that they probably have fewer employees now who were there in both 1999 and 2017 than you have fingers, right?

That's not the point.

The point is that it's still the same shitty hipster news site that it was the first time they reviewed it, probably influencing thousands of indie kids who have never even heard the damn thing and can't form their own assessment.

"Oh, well, Pitchfork said that album sucked, so it must really suck then."

20 years later, Pitchfork realizes their initial review was practically baseless, regardless of the initial douchewad's opinion of it, and wants to walk it back with a glowing review from someone else.

Umm, no. Same website. They do this revisionist shit with albums all the time. So much so that their own Wikipedia page calls them out on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitchf...ite)#Criticism

[richardp]

I don't understand why anyone cares what number Pitchfork attached to their release. Why does it matter? If The Fragile is more than a 7.2 or whatever to you personally, then why does it matter if a website that you don't read gave it a lesser score. Music journalism does not have to match your individual tastes.

[xolotl]

The point is that it's still the same shitty hipster news site that it was the first time they reviewed it, probably influencing thousands of indie kids who have never even heard the damn thing and can't form their own assessment.

20 years later, Pitchfork realizes their initial review was practically baseless, regardless of the initial douchewad's opinion of it, and wants to walk it back with a glowing review from someone else.

I can understand not liking Pitchfork, but these statements seem weird to me. Your first argument can be levelled at any piece of art criticism, yes? Sure, people are influenced by reviews, and many of Pitchfork's early reviews were crap, but they can hardly be said to be responsible for holding the fate of NIN in their hands.

The second point there is even weirder: a site can't change its opinion of an album twenty years later? Initial impressions are all that ever matters? Sure, their general stance towards NIN is friendlier now than it was twenty (well, okay, seventeen) years ago. That's a weird thing to be pissed off about. (Never mind the fact that reviews are invariably colored by the opinions of the people doing the reviews. It's all right for one person to like a band and the other to hate it, and it's also okay to have a music criticism site use both of those people to review the same band.)

I don't understand why anyone cares what number Pitchfork attached to their release. Why does it matter? If The Fragile is more than a 7.2 or whatever to you personally, then why does it matter if a website that you don't read gave it a lesser score. Music journalism does not have to match your individual tastes.

To be fair, Pitchfork is a pretty big name in the music criticism business, and as music is a pretty personal thing for most people, it's both enjoyable when something you love gets appreciation from very public places, and frustrating when it's dumped on. To one of @NYRexall 's points, above, there certainly are people out there who'll see a review from a site they trust and discount an album out-of-hand that they may have checked out had the review been better. But yeah, in the end it's pretty meaningless.

[Prettybrokenspiral]

I don't understand why anyone cares what number Pitchfork attached to their release. Why does it matter? If The Fragile is more than a 7.2 or whatever to you personally, then why does it matter if a website that you don't read gave it a lesser score. Music journalism does not have to match your individual tastes.

That's probably because few, if anyone, here actually do care what Pitchfork thinks

They're notorious for shitting on anything NIN does. In turn, it's fun to point out the inaccuracies and shit on them.

[neorev]

I can't really for the life of me remember reading or caring about anything Pitchfork has to say.

[Your Name Here]

I think its funny when an album is reviewed and shit on by some reviewer then nearly 18 years later after the album and the artist have more then proved themselves the same media outlet wants to take another stab at reviewing the album. The thing is if the media outlet had any insight they would have got it right the first time, the media outlet now has egg on their face and has lost credibility.
When it comes to music that I like, love or is the soundtrack to my life, I really don't give a fuck what some reviewer or some media outlet says. I bought it, in fact I bought it several times the initial cd in 1999, the vinyl in 2016 and Deviations 1. It only matters what I think about it, I bought it, I paid for it and I listen to it in the car all the time. So the critics can go fuck themselves!

[Prettybrokenspiral]

Your first argument can be levelled at any piece of art criticism, yes?

Absolutely. My disdain for professional criticism of art -- especially on a site like Pitchfork -- has been well-documented on ETS

Sure, people are influenced by reviews, and many of Pitchfork's early reviews were crap, but they can hardly be said to be responsible for holding the fate of NIN in their hands.

I never said they were responsible for the fate of NIN. I said they were responsible for embarrassing misinformation (like claiming Not So Pretty Now was a single) and laughable album review revisionism of which they have clearly shown a pattern of throughout their history

The second point there is even weirder: a site can't change its opinion of an album twenty years later? Initial impressions are all that ever matters? Sure, their general stance towards NIN is friendlier now than it was twenty (well, okay, seventeen) years ago. That's a weird thing to be pissed off about. (Never mind the fact that reviews are invariably colored by the opinions of the people doing the reviews. It's all right for one person to like a band and the other to hate it, and it's also okay to have a music criticism site use both of those people to review the same band.)

lol I'm not pissed off about it at all, actually. I don't care if some indie-pandering hipster music site thinks an album sucks or not; just because I'm railing against the obvious in some whimsical post doesn't necessarily mean I'm having a meltdown about online

You what *is* weird though? The seismic difference in ratings in regards to the album. A 2.0 on the day it came out to an 8.2 or whatever at the time of its reissue is pretty eyebrow-raising, don't you think? Especially when the second reviewer is largely disregarding the TF: Deviations set as inconsequential to the overall experience. So what's changed about the original album that's suddenly made it so much better? The sonic upgrade cannot account for that feat alone, can it?

If Pitchfork had any balls, they would just admit that their initial review was made in haste and that they were jumping on The Fragile bandwagon. Because no matter which reviewer is reviewing the album, it's still speaking for this sizeable name in music criticism sites you're holding it up to be, and it's contradictory. Something Pitchfork should definitely try to avoid if they're going to criticize anything in the first place, don't you think?

Hopefully, like in the past, they simply delete the shitty first review like it never existed, and they'll prove my point for me..

[xolotl]

Absolutely. My disdain for professional criticism of art -- especially on a site like Pitchfork -- has been well-documented on ETS

Fair enough, then!

laughable album review revisionism of which they have clearly shown a pattern of throughout their history

You what *is* weird though? The seismic difference in ratings in regards to the album. A 2.0 on the day it came out to an 8.2 or whatever at the time of its reissue is pretty eyebrow-raising, don't you think? Especially when the second reviewer is largely disregarding the TF: Deviations set as inconsequential to the overall experience. So what's changed about the original album that's suddenly made it so much better? The sonic upgrade cannot account for that feat alone, can it?

See, I still find your frame of mind here just bizarre. Why does a music criticism site have some kind of obligation to pick a single, unwavering and unchangeable opinion on an album, and then refuse to ever even consider that there might be other points of view? Some guy writing reviews for Pitchfork in 1999 hated The Fragile enough to give it one of their shittier reviews, and some guy writing reviews for Pitchfork in 2016 had a different opinion. Do we really want Pitchfork to say, "No, we gave it a 2.0 and we've gotta stick to it?" That's absolutely absurd.

[neorev]

Honestly, when music sites and blogs and magazines rate an album, it shouldn't be left up to just one person. It should be more like a group of a few people listen to an album from different musical backgrounds and bring those reviews together. If it's down to a single person reviewing, I'd love a top 5 of their highest reviewed albums to accompany their review so we know where this person is coming from and judge their opinion accordingly.

[Prettybrokenspiral]

See, I still find your frame of mind here just bizarre. Why does a music criticism site have some kind of obligation to pick a single, unwavering and unchangeable opinion on an album, and then refuse to ever even consider that there might be other points of view? Some guy writing reviews for Pitchfork in 1999 hated The Fragile enough to give it one of their shittier reviews, and some guy writing reviews for Pitchfork in 2016 had a different opinion. Do we really want Pitchfork to say, "No, we gave it a 2.0 and we've gotta stick to it?" That's absolutely absurd.

How many other sites in the "music criticism business" are guilty of this kind of revisionism though, where they initially trash an album and then later double-down and re-review it with high praise? If that's so harmless, then why is Pitchfork virtually the only site doing that sort of thing? Why do they often-times delete the initial review from their website altogether?

Seriously, who does that?

When your site's review of a certain album comes in at a 2/10 only to be labeled a "magnum opus" and an 8.2/10 with no explanation whatsoever, it becomes a credibility issue. This is also the same alleged top-shelf music critiquing site that just a few weeks ago was calling 'Not So Pretty Now' a single and ATLITW a "disco barnburner"

Clearly this site is clueless when it comes to NIN. They should just consider not saying anything about them because the actual fans who listen to the music on a fairly constant basis are quick to point out just how clueless they are..

[xolotl]

How many other sites in the "music criticism business" are guilty of this kind of revisionism though, where they initially trash an album and then later double-down and re-review it with high praise?

It's not revisionism to change your opinion about something. I used to like (shudder) Limp Bizkit, but nowadays I don't. The horror! Likewise, to use an example that Pitchfork would probably approve of, I once thought Neutral Milk Hotel's In the Aeroplane Over the Sea was very "meh," but spun it up on a whim some five years later and suddenly fell in love with it.

I will certainly admit that deleting old reviews approaches something like revisionism, and that's a somewhat shady thing to do, but in this particular case, you don't have that leg to stand on - the first Google hit for "The Fragile Pitchfork" still brings up that 1999 2.0 review. All you seem upset about is that someone at Pitchfork once hated The Fragile, and now someone at Pitchfork doesn't. That's not something I feel I can get especially vitriolic about.

[Prettybrokenspiral]

It's not revisionism to change your opinion about something. I used to like (shudder) Limp Bizkit, but nowadays I don't. The horror! Likewise, to use an example that Pitchfork would probably approve of, I once thought Neutral Milk Hotel's In the Aeroplane Over the Sea was very "meh," but spun it up on a whim some five years later and suddenly fell in love with it.

I will certainly admit that deleting old reviews approaches something like revisionism, and that's a somewhat shady thing to do, but in this particular case, you don't have that leg to stand on - the first Google hit for "The Fragile Pitchfork" still brings up that 1999 2.0 review. All you seem upset about is that someone at Pitchfork once hated The Fragile, and now someone at Pitchfork doesn't. That's not something I feel I can get especially vitriolic about.

Hey, according to you, Pitchfork is a major player in the "music criticism business". So they probably have a lot of influence over the people who read their reviews and rely on them to form an opinion for them, right?

So that's 18 years this giant in the music critiquing business has basically shit on an album they now suddenly deem a magnum opus in the modern day, with no clarification or explanation for the change in heart.

As a fan who knows bullshit when he smells it, I call bullshit. Pitchfork is nothing more than an indie hipster tastemaker site catering to whatever opinion is popular this month that will get them more clicks. Their reviews are hardly the stuff of objectivity and their assessment of NIN's work is routinely inaccurate, from both a critical and factual standpoint. If that's the hill you want to die on, then be my guest. It doesn't detract from the notion that their revisionist history continues to be the stuff of internet hilarity, all the while detracting from whatever credibility you seem to think they have.

[xolotl]

NIN's work

Let's get this thread back on track, it's clear we're both just spinning in place here.

Looking forward to this vinyl!

[Prettybrokenspiral]

Let's get this thread back on track, it's clear we're both just spinning in place here.

Looking forward to this vinyl!

I really wasn't though.

I made a sweeping statement about something, you wanted me to expound on it, and so I did.

But yea, totally looking forward to this on vinyl..

[GentlemanLoser]

So, we have website metadata that suggests a package on the heavy side, and a price point for a 4x vinyl that is almost double the price of the 3x vinyl release of The Fragile.

I think it is safe to say we are getting a little more than just a standard vinyl package here, however I wonder exactly what we are to expect? And will there be details preceding the release in "spring...?"

Maybe it has some sort of case that allows you to add The Fragile to it as sort of a build-your-own box set (hey, that is kinda what they did with those 10" vinyl boxes for With Teeth and Year Zero)? Will it be kinda a funky package like Radiohead's A Moon Shaped Pool? Will the supposedly-existing-somewhere 5.1 mix of The Fragile for some reason pop up there? Or will it just be a standard 4LP package that's just kind of heavy and costs a disproportionately larger amount (honestly, I guess I would still be happy)?

[EndlessLoveless]

Now that I'm used to these songs "not what it seems like" sounds very early filter (short bus like stuck in here and so cool and the other one offs before title of record, thanks bro, one...or maybe even I'm not the only one from TOR, that's about as far as my filter knowledge goes) especially when the second beat kicks in around 2 minutes in. The best song Richard Patrick never wrote. It must be the beat and the drop d riff. Check it out.

[tony.parente]

I forgot I bought this, after spending hours trying to unzip these files weeks (a month?) ago with no luck I rage quit and forgot about it figuring I would just download an MP3 torrent when it came to mind. After checking today to see if firebrand checked my support request about the physical component I stumbled upon my download link and was pleasantly surprised to find an MP3 link in there! Glad I finally get to listen to this thing!

[theimage13]

I forgot I bought this, after spending hours trying to unzip these files

Just curious: what platform/OS are you using? No offense, but unzipping files should be extremely easy.

[tony.parente]

Just curious: what platform/OS are you using? No offense, but unzipping files should be extremely easy.

I was using windows 10. I think there was a problem with my download they provided me. No amount of winzips, 7zips or any instruction was working. The rollout of these releases were already completely ruined, I didnt want to associate any more rage with them than I already did at that point.

[zecho]

Trouble unzipping these files was a HUGE issue. There used to be a thread stickied here about it. It was such a big issue that Firebrand sent out an email apologizing about it. So, yeah, it should be easy, but it wasn't.

[theimage13]

I was using windows 10. I think there was a problem with my download they provided me. No amount of winzips, 7zips or any instruction was working. The rollout of these releases were already completely ruined, I didnt want to associate any more rage with them than I already did at that point.

Ohhhhhhh, I didn't see any of the threads about this. I only bought the EP, and everything worked smoothly. Didn't realize there was actually a major problem with the files.

[tony.parente]

Ohhhhhhh, I didn't see any of the threads about this. I only bought the EP, and everything worked smoothly. Didn't realize there was actually a major problem with the files.

Oh yeah, not the actual events unzipped perfectly (if you ever got the download link from them). Deviations was a colossal fuck up to the point to where Trent even posted about it here and firebrand actually registered in account as well.

[ninjaw]

Oh yeah, not the actual events unzipped perfectly (if you ever got the download link from them). Deviations was a colossal fuck up to the point to where Trent even posted about it here and firebrand actually registered in account as well.

Not to mention they promoted one of the worst fix ever, they did fix the zip but haven't corrected all of those already sent, you have to ask and wait for 48h (Where the hell are trent posts).