Krallice Subtly Revealed Source Image for Cover of Ygg Huur

1391
167
Share:

I have been fascinated by Ygg Huur by Krallice ever since the band sneakily released the album without pomp or circumstance on July 30th. It has lingered in my mind like some ignis fatuus drawing me ever closer to some unseen fate. The vague allusions to Giacinto Scelsi. The obtuse cover art. The spectral, mystifying music itself. All of these things have left me utterly spellbound, leading me to christen the album my number 1 release of 2015. There is still much mystery surrounding Ygg Huur, but on December 5th, the band pealed back one of the layers of intrigue, revealing to us the source of the puzzling album cover.

The piece, shown below, is entitled Archangel Gabriel; The Virgin Annunciate. The two panels adorn the exterior of a triptych created by Dutch painter Gerard David circa 1510 in Bruges.

Interior of Triptych: Christ Carrying the Cross, with the Crucifixion; The Resurrection, with the Pilgrims of Emmaus

Exterior of Triptych: Archangel Gabriel; The Virgin Annunciate

Astute readers will note that a triptych is supposed to adjoin three panels rather than two. The Metropolitan Museum of Art provides an answer to this conundrum.

By the late nineteenth century, the fronts and backs of the wings had been sawn apart in a vertical slice, separating each panel in two, and dislodging the wings from the central panel.

The painting of Gabriel, done in oil on oak panel, was created by using a rich grisaille technique of overlapping greys to give the appearance of being sculpted from stone. The techniques is extremely effective in this piece. In fact, I first thought the cover to Ygg Huur depicted a statue rather than a painting. It’s an interesting case of art imitating art. Whether the band intentionally wielded that imitation is unknown, but the fact that Barr and his bandmates appear to be emulating Scelsi’s Ygghuur in more than just name adds credence to the idea.

Every time I dig deeper into this album, I feel that I encounter another puzzle to captivate me and a new riddle to solve. Ygg Huur is the kind of album that will command my attention for years to come, and I look forward to unveiling its many wonders as time unfolds. If you still haven’t heard the album, stream it below.

If you want to know more about the work of Gerard David, you can read about the triptych and more here.

(Photos VIA and VIA)

  • COAL ROLL

    attack hawk

    • Dubs

      WATCH OUT, GABRIEL!

    • CyberneticOrganism

      Shit hawks. They’re comin’ for ya, coal roll.

  • EsusMoose

    Art history. Yo. Cool stuff

  • BLACKBEARD UNFILTERED

    Watch dubya fanboi

    • Dubs

      Maybe y’all can learn something while I do it.

      • BLACKBEARD UNFILTERED

        I didnt recall you being gungho about Years Past Matter, or heard you talk about Diotima (i didnt care for their releases previous to that one)

        • Dubs

          I like both of those albums a lot, but both have a fair amount of fat that was trimmed on Ygg Huur, IMO.

          • BLACKBEARD UNFILTERED

            Dolphinately

        • Litany of Regrets >>>>>>>>>>>>>

          • BLACKBEARD UNFILTERED

            I think Inhume my fav on that one

  • ┼yree

    “Art”. It’s a word.

    • yeah, but it really needs the letter “f” in front of it

      • KJM, Shake Zula

        Arf!

      • ┼yree

        “Art”. A word that you can rhyme with.

        • King Shit of Fuck Mountain

          Shart or get the fuck out.

          • ┼yree

            I can’t top that one.

          • King Shit of Fuck Mountain

            The shart is a majestic, hateful mistress.

          • ┼yree

            Yes. I’ve sharted once before at work. It was a dirty feeling.

        • Maik Beninton™

          Fharc. Another word that rhymes with.

      • Maik Beninton™

        Like this?
        Artf.

      • KJM, Shake Zula
        • Sir Tapir The Based

          #FuckCarbonBasedLifeforms

          • KJM, Shake Zula

            Here’s an extra just in case you haven’t seen it.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViytdVbGafY

          • KJM, Shake Zula

            #CarbonBasedLivesDoNotMatter #GoodbyeMoonmen

          • Sir Tapir The Based

            Shut the fuck up about moonmen!

          • KJM, Shake Zula

            Hi, I’m Krombopulous Michael!! I buy weapons from your grandfather!

          • Sir Tapir The Based

            I’m very discreet, I have no code of ethics. I will kill anyone anywhere. Children, animals, old people, doesn’t matter. I just love killing

      • ME GORAK B.C.™

        UGG UGG!!!!!! GORAK GET IT!!!!!! YOU MAKE SPELL FART!!!!!!!!

  • Salvador Dalí Lama
    • I’d like to punch this dude right in the face-y.

      • Salvador Dalí Lama

        This dude: “fuck her right in the pussy”

        Joe: “You know, you look awfully hungry…”

        This dude: “fuck her right in the pussy?”

        Joe: “You’re in luck, here’s a couple of sandwiches I packed”

        This dude: “fuck her right in the pussy!”

        Joe: “KNUCKLE SANDWICHES”
        *end scene*

        • EsusMoose

          I was expecting spin kicks, but knuckles are cool too.

          • Salvador Dalí Lama

            Spin kicks? You can’t eat that.

          • EsusMoose

            Well you can be force fed them.

  • Guacamole Jim

    “It’s an interesting case of art imitating art.” I know I’m arguing semantics here, since what you’re talking about is a specific medium of art imitating a different medium, but for the sake of discussion: doesn’t all art imitate other art? We can’t possibly pretend that art exists in a vacuum — everything must have been inspired by something, and I don’t believe that there’s art that exists that doesn’t imitate art that has come before it.

    • ┼yree
    • Dubs

      This is a good comment. You know what I meant, but you’re right in that all of the art we have today has been the product of a long chain of progression of inspiration.

    • EsusMoose

      I’d say yes, most if not all art basically imitates other art based off tools or techniques used. At this point in time I can’t really think of an original idea that takes an unused natural inspiration as the be all, end all of it’s design. Maybe field recordings of a person’s insides as a tiny microphone goes through someone’s bodies, but that takes the idea of field recordings to less nature nerd levels.

      • Guacamole Jim

        But even in your hypothetical example you have years and years of avant-garde dictating what the definition of “art” can be. The avant-garde moved art into the realm of concept (ie. anything can be art, so long as there’s a purpose behind it). Without imitating that same thought pattern, recording a microphone through someone’s body can’t be art. I’ll grant that it’s a novel idea, but it’s based on, and as such, imitates, previous forms of art.

        • EsusMoose

          And this just brings us back to the point that at this point in time there really isn’t an original idea, merely adopting and taking ideas from others. Art was birthed from nature and we’ve endlessly been adding bits and pieces to it. I think as most forms of art and entertainment already covered much of what humans can sense, in a way it’s a given that an idea has already existed. In the future we may create ways to sense new things but that’ll be based off what we consider art instead of starting from a blank palette. Made me think why art isn’t considered anything that uses the human senses to experience anything, but with that life is art, and that’s a rather pretentious line.

          • Guacamole Jim

            However, just to be extra nitpicky (because I can), I also take the stance that, even though all art is imitation, it continues to be new – it always evolves. Each individual puts a slightly different spin on their imitation, whether they meant to or not. So I don’t think that “at this point in time there really isn’t an original idea;” I think that’s been the cry of all artists for all generations, but we still manage to produce new and interesting ideas.

            So I guess, since I started with a semantic argument, I’m going to have to retract my original statement, and say that all art is inspired by other art. Imitation is a part of that, but imitation implies mimicry, which doesn’t hold up with the idea of art as fluid and living, changing as we change.

          • Dubs

            To add an extra wrinkle to this, I was talking to Utmu on Facebook the other day, and the question of how you actually define something as innovative arose? What sample size do we need to define something as truly innovative? Is it really very likely that an album that does something that seems brand new is in fact brand new?

          • Guacamole Jim

            There would almost be something (Prof. Joe Thrashnkill should get on this) you could graph in that; like a ratio of new ideas vs. time period. It’s easy to look back at things that are groundbreaking and see them as such once history has had its say, but it’s difficult to decide what’s innovative in the present, because art is so subjective to the audience’s perspective.

          • Dubs

            I sometimes wonder how often we get those key points wrong though. Maybe someone in a bathroom somewhere invented heavy metal well before Iommi started playing blues-inspired riffs. Note: I’m aware there were proto-metal bands before metal arose, but then the question becomes how much evolution is necessary in art for something to be considered distinctly new? For a long time, metal was simply a piece of rock and roll, but I think most of us would consider it a distinct entity that evolved from the other.

          • Guacamole Jim

            Maybe somebody did play metal before Iommi, but I guess the lesson of history is that art doesn’t matter unless there’s an audience. So is that another crucial piece of what defines art? Or is it just a crucial piece of what defines cultural art?

            I also don’t think you can pinpoint the place where “metal” became a thing, since so many early “metal” bands (like you said) were just considered rock n roll. It’s also difficult to go back and talk about early metal as if it’s actually metal, since metal now is SO DIFFERENT than it was then. But we can clearly see its path. I guess I’m trying to say categorization is necessary in order to talk about art, but when we look closely at what we categorize, the lines are very difficult to distinguish (this ties into why I think micro-genres are inherently artistically limiting, but that’s another argument).

          • Dubs

            You need to finish that article on categorization. Also, there’s a lot of philosophy behind categorization. if I’m getting Wittgenstein correct, our ability to misunderstand things largely comes down to our misuse of language to describe them. Therefore, if we had the proper words, we’d never mislabel any band, haha.

          • If I just had the proper words, y’all motherfuckers would give me The World’s Best Writering Award

          • Guacamole Jim

            I’m just gonna copy/paste everything we wrote here into an article, make it look like it was all my ideas and that I’m super smart, and reap in the internet glory.

          • Stockhausen

            I nominate Joe for Rill Good Words, Man, award.

          • ME GORAK B.C.™

            SPELINGS, GRAMMAR, SYNTAX = WHEY OVER RATED!!!!!

          • Guacamole Jim

            Also tying into that is Zizek’s concept of the Master-Signifier. We can’t categorize without the proper context in which to categorize (which Wittgenstein would then argue is the reason we can’t agree on categorizations on the internet).

          • Waynecro

            This chain of comments is more interesting, insightful, and thought provoking than the four years’ worth of art-history classes I sat through in college.

          • Stockhausen

            Ooh, that’s an interesting point. The lesson of history may be that art doesn’t matter unless there’s an audience, but what would art on its own tell us? History is also going tell us that (insert any worthless radiopop schmuck) is more important than (insert any genius underground metal artist). I don’t think that art needs an audience to matter or be defined as art, but then I might argue that the creator is also an audience.
            Interesting scenario: let’s say art could be created without human involvement at all. For example, someone programs a machine to randomly combine millions of bits of information into a work of art, but it was instructed to do so at a random time and in seclusion in such a way that no one would ever see it. Does that work of art matter? Could it be a statement, even if no one knows it exists? I’m probably off in a totally different area now, but my garbage wheels are turning.

          • Dubs

            We’ve talked here about art reflecting the artist, the viewer, and the cultural context. If that’s true, then art still has meaning, even divorced of a wider audience.

          • Guacamole Jim

            This is very much a “if a tree falls” type discussion, and I love it. We’re almost talking about two different points: art vs. influence.

            If we’re talking about art as if it necessarily has to have some kind of influence to be art, then no – in your hypothetical situation there is no art. But if we’re talking about art as a concept that is producing something new from a long history of evolving artistic concepts, then I suppose nobody ever has to experience a piece of art for it to be a piece of art.

            However, that begs another question: why bother? Art, to me, is communal. If the purpose of your art is to ensure nobody ever knows you produced the art, then why produce it? Why not not produce it, and then never say you did?

          • Dubs

            To that point, what imitation would the machine be undergoing?

          • Guacamole Jim

            It would have to come from the mind initially. Someone always had to have programmed the machine that programmed the machine that programmed the machine… so there had to be a starting place, and that starting place (the original programmer) is what the programs have imitated.

          • someone’s been playing too much Talos Principle

          • Guacamole Jim

            I’ll see you on Steam, bb <3

          • Dubs

            That’s if we’re not dealing with AI *cue spoopy music*

          • Stockhausen

            And that could be asked of composers working in the electronic music realm. No matter how much input you give, something is going to be left up to the machine itself. That can be embraced by some (like me, Stockhausen) or derided as “unnatural” by others.

          • The same could be said of a paintbrush. Or any tool used to create art.

          • Stockhausen

            Indeed.

          • Stockhausen

            Good points. There are a lot of times you could ask “Why bother?” to art that is shared and communal and does have influence. Why bother rigging an organ to play a John Cage piece for 640 years (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/As_Slow_as_Possible)? Why bother putting a paintbrush in your hoo-ha and squatting on a canvas to paint? I think, in any case of art, there are a million reasons that the artist could have that may or may not matter to the population. So if those reasons are never known, would that be different than the reasons being known, unappreciated, and forgotten? I don’t know either, I’m just jabbering.

          • Dubs

            Now we’re circling back to whether intent affects quality, except now we’re seeking to measure influence.

          • Guacamole Jim

            I agree, and I’ve asked the question myself about a bunch of stupid “art” shit I’ve seen laying about on the lawns at universities. I think, though, that there’s something very integral about those pieces provoking the question “why bother?”

            Here’s the problem with your hypothetical: we can’t actually discuss it, because your hypothetical cannot be hypothesized – it breaks the rules. In the very nature of our discussion, we have invalidated its key component, which is its unknownness. Nothing can be considered if it’s unknown. So by discussing it, we’ve brought it into the theoretical discussion we’re having and therefore have validated it as art, but only in our discussion of it.

            So is another integral aspect of art its provocation? And, if there’s nobody to provoke, if there’s nobody to ask the question “why bother?”… is it art?

          • Dubs

            Perhaps it provokes the artist his or herself.

          • Guacamole Jim

            Possible, but in that case it’s complete and utter self-indulgence. Which isn’t contrary to art, I just despise it.

          • Guacamole Jim

            We actually need to modify Stocky’s hypothetical situation, because this is a really good point. In order to talk about art in a vacuum like this, we have to remove the input of anything with conscious awareness.

            So: I propose that a computer is programmed by someone, then that person dies and his house goes to ruin, but the power stays on. Years later, somehow, the computer turns on, and produces some form of art, but nobody ever sees it, nobody ever knows it exists, nobody who has conscious awareness ever experiences it.

            Is it art?

          • Not unless the computer is sentient. A piece of art needs perspective. Says me. What possible perspective could a non-sentient program or series of programs possess?

          • Stockhausen

            Why does art need perspective?

          • It’s the difference between Arts and Crafts. Art minus perspective equals craft. Here, I painted this bird. Isn’t it artistic? Technically proficient, maybe–but if it SAYS NOTHING about anything except “here, this is a bird”, then it isn’t art. Says me.

          • Excellent. This is a tough thing to verbalize.

          • I think I botched it Meh.

          • Guacamole Jim

            I would argue (and this is getting back to Zizek and Wittgenstein) that when you say “perspective” what you mean is “intent.”

          • I would quibble. The difference is difficult to verbalize, to quote Joe below, but perspective is almost automatic, and can run counter to intent. For instance, an artist can INTEND to say one thing, but betray something else about himself in doing so. Which is where criticism digs its fangs in.

          • Stockhausen

            I definitely get what you say from one point of view, but from another, I disagree. In a lot of cases, it’s impossible to know perspective, so impossible to determine if its art (based on what you’re saying). I have a terrible-sounding bedroom metal solo project where I write music, then write lyrics to put to the music, then intentionally throw the lyrics away so even I don’t know what I’m saying after some time passes. No one will know my perspective (which could say nothing about anything except “here, this is a metal song”), so it has to be taken solely on what it sounds like.

          • But the music also has a perspective. Lyrics don’t hold the monopoly on perspective. So without lyrics your music could still have perspective. Moods, ideas, etc.

          • Stockhausen

            It very well could, but that’s your perspective on the music that you can’t guarantee is mine. For example, you may say for certain that a section of music has mood A, but the composer may say that’s not correct at all, it has mood B. So which perspective matters more for the thing to be perceived as art, the audience or the creator? And, for that matter, many might say that there is no perspective in the music I or anyone else writes.

          • I cannot know your perspective for certain, that’s true. The meaning of any work is always up to interpretation–it doesn’t really matter WHAT it means, just that it MEANS SOMETHING. Or at least attempts to mean something. Other than “bird”.

            (I was just about to ask why anyone would bother to sit down and write music sans perspective–except perhaps for reasons having to do with GREED–but I’m sure it could be done as a mere exercise. In which case it is really only technique, or craft.)

          • Stockhausen

            I see what you’re saying. I guess my problem with using perspective as a defining point for art is that not only can the perspective itself be up for interpretation, but whether or not perspective is there to begin with is up for interpretation. Some may read in a thousand different perspectives, meanings, moods, etc. to a very simple painting that, to others, simply says “bird.” But then again, the very idea of “art” is up for interpretation from a lot of angles, so it’s a never-ending cycle of discussion when you get down to it.

          • You are correct. I cannot refute anything you’ve said. Only reiterate that not everything is art, so there must be some basic criteria for differentiating art from not art. Articulating said criteria is, like, really really hard n’ stuff.

          • Stockhausen

            The weird thing about your statement there (“not everything is art”) is that I would reply with “It depends who you ask.” Which, at the heart of it, is saying “It depends on the perspective.” So in a way, it all confirms and negates both of our positions. It’s almost like this whole topic is, like, really really hard n’ stuff. I propose that nothing is anything but everything is everything, so party on Wayne.

          • Stockhausen

            AAHHHH!

          • Stockhausen

            Yes. Why? Because.

          • Stockhausen

            Yeah, I think then it becomes a difference of the work itself versus the idea. Hypothetically, that could have already happened and there may be a visual/auditory/literary work of art out there right now that no one, even the indirect creator, will ever know about or see/hear. So at best, we can only discuss the worth of the idea, because that’s all it can possibly be if the very concept of the audience is intentionally removed. And, by even discussing the idea, it negates the intention of the original situation, which says that artist wouldn’t tell anyone and wouldn’t know when/if the thing had been created. All that aside, I would still say that it’s art.

          • Guacamole Jim

            So: the worth of the idea is directly proportionate to its artistic merit, even in a purely hypothetical situation? I like that a lot.

          • Stockhausen

            I would think so, but even that’s a lot of murky territory (how to define “merit” and whatnot). But still, I like that statement.

          • KJM, Shake Zula

            Iommi would still be considered unique because of his circumstances unless that guy in the bathroom was also missing the fingertips on his left hand.

          • Dubs

            So the context of the event is what makes it unique? (Note, I’m not disagreeing. I just think this is an interesting topic).

          • KJM, Shake Zula

            I say yes, because that’s why Iommi started playing down tuned in the first place, because he wears wooden fingertips and needs to “feel” what he’s playing.

    • Dubs

      More to your point, though, is that different mediums of art can inspire and imitate one another. What was the point of making Gabriel more statuesque? Was it to adapt classical scultpure into the contemporary context? Are Krallice doing the same with their music?

      • Guacamole Jim

        Hard to say. I don’t know enough about the painting, or the history of art, to really make an educated speculation re. the point the artist was making in his obviously deliberate choice to make Gabriel more statuesque. It could have religious symbolism, it could not. It may have been a completely aesthetic choice on the part of the artist.

        As to whether or not Krallice were doing the same.. I’d think, with an album as thought through as this is, they’re certainly using the painting as some kind of inspiration. I’d be surprised to learn the image (or the very specific part of the image they chose) was decided upon after the rest of the album was finished. It is possible that we’re reading too much into it, but the art strikes me as something that needs to be unpacked.

        • Dubs

          Mick Barr is reading all this and thinking, “I just liked the way the gown looked, dudes.”

          • Dagon

            *goes back to writing siqq riffs

    • RJA

      This has really got me thinking – is there a starting point for art? the cave paintings?

      • I think so. What is the future? I’ve heard argument that Jackson Pollock’s enduring legacy is “ending the tyranny of the brush”. So by abandoning the use of lines and shapes and brushes with his drip
        paintings, he upended the traditions of the entire history of visual
        art, up to crude cave paintings.

        • RJA

          Great example. The first one that came to my mind was Zappa.

        • Guacamole Jim

          Could the same argument be made then for 4’33”? By abandoning the use of instruments to produce aural art, he upended the traditions of the entire history of musical art?

          • It almost seems too simple in this case. The opposite of A Thing is the absence of A Thing.

          • Guacamole Jim

            But 4’33” isn’t lacking, as far as sound waves go. Cage just produced them in a completely different way. So it’s not the opposite, it’s a radical redefinition.

          • Stockhausen

            I don’t think John Cage thought of 4’33” as an opposition. He knew full well what sort of statement he was making, but his definition of music was “sound.” He also thought that anything that can produce a sound is, or can be, an instrument. So he basically took that to the extreme with 4’33”, knowing that there can not possibly be a performance that is truly silent, so there will always be music. It would be like a visual artist who believes that any given visual can be art, so he/she releases a frame as one of their works.

          • I wonder just how indirectly the sentiment of “no performance is truly silent” led to the bizarre musical phenomenon: lowercase.

          • That’s an interesting way of putting it… was musique concrete not firmly established in the art world canon by this point? Regardless, I think we can all agree that music established everything it ever needed to establish with Earth Crisis’ Firestorm EP.

          • RJA

            Just as the Caveman’s ideas were fully realized with Encino Man!

          • Guacamole Jim

            .. he says, as if Deez Nuts don’t exist.

          • KJM, Shake Zula

            Oh believe me, Deez Nutz exist, and I GOT EEEM!

          • Stockhausen

            I think it was, but Cage wasn’t much a part of that. He did a good amount of work in the electronic realm, but it wasn’t through the same lens as musique concrete. However, I (Stockhausen) had an awesome musique concrete etude, and then pretty much all my work had that element to some extent (although he–I MEAN I–wrote a lot in the electronic music realm, which is sounds produced by computers, rather than musique concrete, which is using computer to manipulate recordings of natural sounds). I (Stockhausen) also endorse Earth Crisis.

          • Stockhausen

            Related: I just figured out that Krzysztof Penderecki’s Paradise Lost and my Etude sound fantastic together at any given point. To quote our long-lost brethren zzzzzzzzz, both at full volume.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6zFDumorPg

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Z75cdL2Kv8

          • Guacamole Jim

            Any talk of Penderecki and Stockhausen in the same sentence is worthy of full consideration.

          • Stockhausen

            Seriously, I’ve been looping the Etude while Paradise Lost plays and it always sounds awesome.

          • CyberneticOrganism

            Not necessarily; sometimes it’s just pressing Ctrl + I in photoshop. Then it’s all like negative & shit, dude. Looks heavy.

      • ┼yree
      • Guacamole Jim

        That’s a question that was tugging at my mind too, and I don’t actually have an answer. It’s at this point that we really start getting into some speculative territory (and we’re also dangerously close hitting #2 on the quinque viæ – what’s the first cause?). If you believe in a deity, I suppose you’d argue that the spark of creativity comes from a being who has no finiteness like humans do, and as such, all art has been imitation. If you don’t, the argument would probably have to come from an evolutionary move in humanity to creativity as a survival tactic, something that stayed with us and evolved as an entity with us as we evolved into more complex beings.

        • Dubs

          Sort of ties into the discussion of whether knowledge has an a priori or if it really is all chemical reaction as naturalism would ultimately argue.

          • Guacamole Jim

            Which, to be totally honest, is a discussion that’s over my head. But it’s fascinating to ponder!

          • EsusMoose

            To throw my empty and ignorant of the arguments of discussion hat into that ring, I’d argue that knowledge was there to increase survival, and now days that survival skill leads people to both only grab enough to survive and others to devour any bit of info as it could be of use. But that seems like that’d fit into a naturalistic approach. So eh.

        • RJA

          “If you believe in a deity, I suppose you’d argue that the spark of creativity comes from a being who has no finiteness like humans do, and as such, all art has been imitation.”

          that is where I was heading!

        • RJA

          GORAK START ART!!

          • ME GORAK B.C.™

            THEN SMASH ART!!!!!!!!!

      • CyberneticOrganism

        The big bang was the greatest performance art piece in all of existence.

        Edit: the ACTUAL big bang, the fucking explosion.

      • Most comprehensive art history books start with cave paintings, so I would probably say yes, with the caveat that cave paintings may have just been the first semi-permanent art to last until recorded history.

  • At the end of the day, the skeptic in me tells me Krallice probably chose an abstraction for their cover just for abstraction’s sake. That said, it is a fine looking cover–classy as hell.

    • RJA

      oh yea, sometimes “it looks cool” is definitely the answer.

      • a perfectly acceptable one too, see Mad Max Fury Road

        • Sir Tapir The Based

          That movie is not a good.

          • i’d downvote that, if you weren’t my best friend

          • Dubs

            I haven’t seen it, but downvote him anyway.

          • Sir Tapir The Based

            I’m offended that you would use the term “him”, implying I am a man. I am a nonexistent dickwad.

          • You’re not IN the Matrix–you ARE the Matrix

      • Stockhausen

        I’ve written some music where I’ve pored over all of the theoretical answers to the given situation, and then I accidentally do something that sounds neat and it’s immediately the best option.

        • CyberneticOrganism

          Same here *drops guitar on floor* HOLY SHIT that sounded badass! That’s it!

      • Not saying there was no thought process behind the choice; just speculating that there was a conversation about “how can we make our mysterious album even more mysterious?”

    • BLACKBEARD UNFILTERED

      On second thought, i donno

      • Far out, dude.

      • Dubs

        Also lots of I’s.

        • BLACKBEARD UNFILTERED

          IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

    • CyberneticOrganism

      Simplicity in album art is the best kind of -icity

  • ┼yree
  • ┼yree
  • Max

    This is a record I have to give more time to before the year is out. Not sure I’ll warm to it, but you never know with the skronkentariat.

    • Dubs

      After you’ve sufficiently meditated on it, let me know what you think.

      • Max

        Well, I don’t know if I’m taking TovH’s publishing schedule a little for granted here; but before the year is out, I’d like to submit a “Max’s 2015 Greatest Picks”-type article, which I’ve already been working on for a few months.

        It focuses only on records I really liked. So if Ygg Huur is included in that, you’ll know what I think; because each record is going to get it’s own capsule review.

        This year’s been a bit unusual for me in that I’ve made a concerted effort to listen to almost every release listed in Toilet Tuesday, every week. I know that’s par for the course with some people around here, but with me it’s uncharted territory and quite an endurance test – because when it comes to discovering new music, I’m usually just a “wait for the gatekeepers to pronounce”-type consumer.

        But the advantage of it is that I think my list has turned out to be quite different to the others I’ve seen around here.

  • Waynecro

    Fantastic and fascinating article, W! Thanks!

    • Dubs

      You always brighten my day.

      • Waynecro

        And you mine. Thanks, bro.

  • Warheart

    And I thought it was just some blanket hanging there.

    • Dubs

      Like a spooky ghost?