>listens to bob dylan once
I hadn't really thought about it, but seeing The Beatles albums on Spotify really made me realize how fucking weird it feels to me today to have a 14 track album where the longest track is 3:20 and it's actually the only track over 3 minutes on the album
does anyone do albums any more where tracks are like 2:30 on average? I think the short tracks combined with most songs being memorable and catchy make the early Beatles albums really listenable.
>>61248352
>does anyone do albums any more where tracks are like 2:30 on average?
mac demarco
>>61248228
jesus christ almighty this album is shit
>>61248407
EXPLAIN YOURSELF, WOMAN!
>>61248352
Madvillainy. The songs are even less if you discount the intros, outros and skits
>>61248228
>takes drugs with bob dylan once*
>>61248499
They copied Count Bass D
>>61248499
ah, right you are. Flying Lotus' You're Dead also has only 2 tracks longer than 3 minutes
a lot of concise, short tracks still seems like an underused form today and for some reason I hadn't really thought about it.
>>61248555
oh right forgot all about this masterpiece, nice digits btw.
Their bowl-shaped haircuts bother me so much
>listens to rubber soul once
>>61248746
>listens to pet sounds once
>>61248228
What do you mean once? They were practically chums. Dylan was the one who got them high on pot on their first U.S. visit. (And if you're comparing this album to Dylan, then you must be listening to the U.S. version)
>>61248407
You mean this album is THE shit, don't you, because The Beatles NEVER put out a bad album. And Rubber Soul is a GREAT album. Not as good as Revolver, mind you, but still pat level.
>>61248781
>listens to Sgt Peppers once
>>61248352
Lots and lots of punk albums. Pic related is one of many examples.
Why is it so underrated brehs?
