Is there any better combination of GOAT artwork, GOAT music, and GOAT lyrics?
>>61461908
Laughing Stock
>>61461931
Was about to say this
>>61461931
ehhhhh idk about the music and lyrics being better
>>61461953
Are you having a laugh? I like Pink Moon but Laughing Stock is GOAT
>>61462001
why? because le jazzy instruments and overall le patrishun aesthetic?
pink moon is the most cohesive and consistent of all time, not a minute wasted
>>61462038
Your opinion is was completely dropped the moment you used the word 'aesthetic' in relation to Laughing Stock. It's ultimately one of the most sincere and atmospheric albums ever created, it spawned a new genre (along with SoE), and is musically complex but restrained and beautiful at the same time. 'Not a minute wasted' means nothing.
>just some faggot whispering and fiddling with a guitar for 25 minutes
Some 'masterpiece'
>>61462525
weak b8
>>61461908
Not even the best Drake album sorry
>>61462558
wrong
>>61461908
This is the only /mu/core i haven't heard, about to hear it for the first time now. For some reason the album art made me feel like it was going to be really long.
>>61462362
You just explained the other anon's argument perfectly.
Laughing Stock's popularity relies of a sense of "poise", in this case embodied as "sincerity" and "atmosphere", where as Pink Moon richly showcases Nick Drake's technical expertise. Pink Moon's greatness relies on this technical excellence, while being no less enriched with mystery and atmosphere.
Moreso, (and I don't like to take this pedantic tone, but you made me do it by being a flippant shit), you cannot use flippant retorts like "your opinion was completely dropped" when you make an argument so weak as to say the fame of an album does not rely on "aesthetic" and instead relies on "atmosphere". They are synonymous, in there context of a discussion about rock music.
>>61463196
Laughing Stock is a very technically advanced album. Are you telling me that Hollis and co's technical expertise in Laughing Stock are in anyway questionable and not of an outstanding quality? I'm not talking about the 'fame' of the album, purely a quality that I think is especially strong. Aesthetic is not a tern I have ever heard applied to music outside of vaporwave or something, atmosphere is definitely a tangible and valid area in music. We're discussing music, there's no way to look at it from a purely objective, technical standpoint. In the case of Laughing Stock and Pink Moon both, they emanate from deeply personal places; are you seriously suggesting that such a factor should be disregarded when talking about them? Laughing Stock is technically masterful, emotionally powerful, innovative in its approach, and yes, 'atmospheric', even on a technical level due to the way it was recorded. How is any of that disputable? And your comments about 'poise' and 'popularity' are really incredibly misguided.
>>61463196
>Pink Moon's greatness relies on this technical excellence
Nick's playing on Pink Moon is actually a lot less complicated than on his earlier albums. It can be hard to tell because of the orchestration and other instruments, but FLL and BL both have some very complicated guitar parts. Pink Moon does, too, but things are more simple. Nick also makes a number of noticeable mistakes on the record, which was probably the result of most of the album being recorded in one take. There are lots of flubs and missed notes if you listen closely.
I'm not trying to say anything bad about the album. I love the shit out of it, and I actually think those things make it better, but it's not a good representation of perfection or technical excellence.
