Talk:Exai

Stop it

This isn't minimal techno, this isn't near minimal techno, nothing Autechre has ever made has ever been minimal techno, do not tag it as such — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.138.8 (talk) 18:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Exai/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Rambley (talk · contribs) 13:25, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: LastJabberwocky (talk · contribs) 14:36, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I was looking forward to pick up your nomination and finally did it. I performed minor/moderate edits myself, and we can discuss them here. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 14:36, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your work, closing my review! —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 18:38, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Composition

Frame also discussed "bladelores", calling it a highlight of the album and described the structure of the track's gradually slowing beats, until it changes into a track adjacent to ambient music. → I think the second half can be clarified (and described the structure of..), and I think its meaning is closer to reception. Frame picks his highlight song and describes how ephyric was its "chorale bliss". He also added a mixed feeling: closer to the end they "pull it all back under and it’s back into the boggy marsh before repeating the whole trick again, ending in an extended outro of washy evangelic organ." —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 14:36, 19 May 2025 (UTC)  Done

I re-wrote this entire section to "Frame also discussed "bladelores", calling it a highlight of the album. The track is made up of gradually slowing beats, trance-like chords and "gritty little acid squiggles", after which it becomes more ambient before it gets "[pulled] back under" and put "back into the boggy marsh"."; hopefully that suits better. Rambley (talk) 15:59, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Also this feels like a good description of the album in general: "started out quite ugly and disjointed before slowly forming into a cohesive..." —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 14:36, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• Frame uses this to describe "bladelores" itself, not the entirety of Exai. I wouldn't mind writing something like "Frame also compared the track to "Cichli" and "Garbagemx36" in terms of its structure." if you think it's needed. Rambley (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

  • Just checking if this description of the song connects with you and if it's feels important to add. It's up to you! —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 17:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

    I added the line I mentioned into the article. Rambley (talk) 17:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

  • Also if you have energy, you can check these sources for anything that clicks with your feeling of the album (, , ). —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 17:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

    Added a review from The Line of Best Fit to the Reception section, will hopefully write some prose in a minute about the reviewer's notes on its Composition. Unsure of the reliability of the other two sources. Rambley (talk) 18:01, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

     Done Rambley (talk) 18:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

    Other two sources are reliable per WP:A/S. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 18:21, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

    Okay, I agree with The Skinny, but WP:A/S states that only staff reviews should be used from Drowned in Sound; I cannot verify that "alex_snax" is a staff reviewer. Rambley (talk) 18:24, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

    Yeah, it would be safer to ignore Drowned in Sound (I don't remember if I ever saw a user-generated review by them; but this review may be the first time). —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 18:30, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

     Done Rambley (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Release

Just to check every boxes, I think we should cite this: It was released on 11 October 2013 on digital... —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 14:36, 19 May 2025 (UTC)  Done

Cited. I've used Warp + Bleep sources which come from AE's record label, if unsuitable then abbreviating it to "released later in 2013" could work too. Rambley (talk) 15:49, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Reception

"criticising both the tracks selected and their length" Can you clarify what the words "tracks selected" mean? Do you mean album is inconsistent in quality; some of the tracks shouldn't been selected for the album? —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 16:23, 19 May 2025 (UTC)  Done

Changed to Both Grayson Haver Currin (Pitchfork) and Andy Kellman (AllMusic) criticised Exai's tracklist, noting some songs should be shortened or cut out entirely. Rambley (talk) 16:39, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

"Chris Power called Exai "often abrasive and fidgety" and commented on the easiness in seeing the album as the "first chapter of late-period Autechre" due to the duo revisiting past sounds." → Chris Power described Exai as "often abrasive and fidgety" and the moment where the duo started to revisit their past sounds, signifying the "first chapter of late-period Autechre". —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 16:23, 19 May 2025 (UTC)  Done

Changed to Chris Power called Exai "often abrasive and fidgety" and said it was easy to see it as the "first chapter of late-period Autechre" due to the duo revisiting past sounds with new focus. I think that communicates the idea quite well. Rambley (talk) 16:44, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Lead

Prior to the release of NTS Sessions 1–4, Exai was Autechre's longest album to date. "to date" means to the present time, which doesn't seem to be the case here. I would change it into something like this: Exai had been Autechre's longest album before the release of NTS Sessions 1–4. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 17:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done Rambley (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Critics responded positively to the album... → Exai received generally favorable reviews from music critics, who praised its... Reason: More straightforward to use Metacritic phrasing + tweaked the flow. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 17:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done Rambley (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

and the tracks selected for inclusion. → and the inconsistent tracklist, suggesting some of the songs should be shortened or cut out entirely. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 17:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done, changed to Some criticised the selection of tracks on the album and their length. Rambley (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Other things

• All sources seemed to be perfect! Y
• Copyright violations are well below the threshold. Y
• Spotchecked a couple of sources; all good. Y

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Album cover

Can the album cover currently used in this article be eligible for transfer to Wikimedia Commons? It appears to consist only of simple geometric shapes, which may not meet the threshold of originality for copyright protection. Cattos^💭 00:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)