Words, usages, and phrases that annoy the shit out of you...

"self-introduction"

I thought I had already posted "deep cuts" here--must have been on another thread. Just hate it. And it's out there now, it's infecting the general population. A Facebook friend, a local musician my age (a little older even), had a post this morning asking for Monkees deep cuts. The Monkees didn't have deep cuts. They had singles, and they had filler, and some of the filler was better than the singles, but most of it was worse, and that's why those songs weren't singles. They're not deep--not in the sense of being especially profound, and you don't have to look really hard for them, they're right there on the albums. "Album tracks"--that works too.

doesn't deep cuts literally refer to tracks later on the album?

I don't like 'deep cuts' either, sounds wanky.

I always understood "deep cuts" to mean relatively obscure album tracks (and by extension to anything more obscure than that).

I had always interpreted it to mean non-singles. If it does mean later on the album...that's a really weird category. How do you decide where the deep cuts start and the shallow ones end? Is it the third song on side two or the fourth?

clemenza OTM, "Album track" will suffice

it means non-singles, however deep into the tracklist they are placed

If it means obscure, that's a little better I guess, but again, that's a rather subjective call (do the Beatles therefore have no deep cuts?), and why isn't 'obscure' good enough as is?

it seems self-congratulatory, like "Check out this deep cut I discovered on Dark Side of the Moon."

I think deep cuts are tracks that only a true head would pick, through some combination of obscurity and subtle appeal

The Monkees didn't have deep cuts

that's... not true?

sorry to barge in here with an ilm opinion

i have literally no problem with "deep cuts" though

(do the Beatles therefore have no deep cuts?)

idk, the offcuts on the yellow submarine soundtrack kinda qualifies imo

to clarify my original question, i meant "later on the album" with the idea that a lot of albums had the singles at or near the top, which i suppose isn't even often that true

my point is, requiring a song to be non-album to be a "deep cut" doesn't make sense

i could see how the phrase could be annoying or pretentious or wanky if it weren't so... ever-present? depends on who's saying it i guess. i pretty much only hear it metaphorically, like making some kind of obscure pop culture reference and the response being a snort of recognition and "deep cut", or maybe sarcastically to burn someone who thinks they're some kinda cool obscurist, idk

"deep cuts" does imply that there's a set of listeners who are only listening to the singles and there's a set of listeners so devoted that they've discovered key album tracks that rival the singles (which i also think is implied by "deep cuts") which i guess is obnoxious but not particularly objectionable

... and that's just as bad tbh. (xp)

I mainly associate it with classic rock djs who get all brave and throw on ZZ Top album track.

It makes more sense these days when you could be referring to a deleted SoundCloud track or something

My main point is that it adds a layer of pretension to a perfectly good phrase already in use (album tracks). All that's being said here in defense of the phrase, I don't think there's anything there that wasn't already implied by the term album tracks. (Was the problem, initially, that because albums disappeared for a while, "album tracks" would be confusing and "CD tracks" sounded terrible?) And "deep" is, for me, comically lofty when applied to a band like the Monkees. I love the Monkees. But Jesus, it's the Monkees.

idk "album tracks" is kinda dull and "deep cuts" has an enthusiasm to it. i guess it's pretentious but whatev

i am definitely coming to the defense of a phrase i never use

It's evidently going to outlive my whining, so I guess I'll have to make my peace with it. I will make a point of never using it, though.

you can have a deep cut that never was on an album

I always figured that “deep cut” meant not just non-singles but tracks that are not crowd-pleasers.
Like the singles float to the top of the pond, things that aren’t singles but get played on KEXP or whatever float in the middle, and then like the downbeat format-breakers that you really like but lots of people skip are at the bottom of the pond. Also yeah xp bootlegs and demos and Soundcloud tracks and twitter videos.

"Deep cut" has a literal meaning: songs that are cut into the vinyl closer to the label and deeper into the record itself. It may be overused, but I like the term, "album cut" doesn't mean the same thing. I agree with Brad, anybody can have deep cuts. In fact, the Monkees are a perfect example of a band that you could make a case for their "deep cuts" because their non-singles are so obscure and widely considered filler. But a deep cut can also be an obscured song beloved by fans (cf. "Soot and Stars" by Smashing Pumpkins). The Beatles absolutely have deep cuts - "Savoy Truffle" for one.

^meant to say deep cuts don't necessarily have to be on albums, like "Soot and Stars" or "Anything Goes" by Van Dyke Parks.

I'm trying to think of some strategy that will kill it once and for all...I hope it shows up in one of Trump's tweets.

Usually I play the hits, like "Lock her up" or "Drain the swamp" but sometimes I pull out a deep cut like "Get rid of that baby."

Great!

“I moved on her like a...” is the go to Trump deep cut

sad!

deep cuts is a very enjoyable album

If what you mean is "songs that weren't singles" or "songs that weren't hits" or "songs that weren't very popular," then I think "album tracks" is actually worse than "deep cuts."

Because guess what: most popular hit singles are also "album tracks." BECAUSE THEY ARE TRACKS THAT ARE ON ALBUMS.

Not all of them, especially in the 60s. I don't really see how 'album tracks' is worse than 'deep cuts' on the obnoxious oneupmanship front?

hence "most"

which adequately accounts for "not all of them" in the language I speak reasonably fluently

https://www.seriouseats.com/images/2015/04/Anova-Steak-Guide-Sous-Vide-Photos33-cooked-rib-cut.jpg

goddamn that looks good. i've gotta eat dinner now

There’s only two things that bleed I’d shove in my face and that’s one of them

Good lord

It's only just dawned on me that this thread title constitutes one of the few phrases I can think of that annoys the shit out of me

the opening post is part of great moments in stupidity too

Every time I see the “disgusting savages” thread bumped I get annoyed the shit out of, don’t call someone a savage ffs

Also what the fuck would “rational anger” even be, that doesn’t make sense

“your personal brand”

Every time I see the “disgusting savages” thread bumped I get annoyed the shit out of, don’t call someone a savage ffs

― faculty w1fe (silby), Wednesday, August 22, 2018 5:18 AM

This is where I first came across the term:
toilet paper over or under
and to this day, whenever I come across toilet paper that rolls under I mumble "disgusting savage"...

the 'disgusting savages' thing is a long-running ILX in-joke

yes

also savage is a multivalance term in rural ireland long before tiresomely hip advertising pieces took it

The original ilx "disgusting savages" came from a pretty racist place, but it is still in my parlance.

unpack

bury this word, it just shows a lack of imagination

;_;