Why is this album so bad
bcuz youre a newfag LOL summers over LOLOL
>>63195689
long and meandering and pretty one-note because every song has the exact same lo-fi production style and obscure almost-sentimental lyrics and once you get over those things it doesnt really go anywhere or have anything else to offer
a perfect example of an ITAOTS ripoff which doesnt understand any of the things that make ITAOTS so good, and I don't even like NMH that much
it's a lot better than the incredibly pretentious direction Phil took the project, some of that Mount Eerie shit makes me cringe hard
Phil's a cool guy he just should have worked harder at making better albums in the style he obviously had talent in, because really there are some aspects of the Glow pt. 2 that do work very well but as a whole the album is too long and doesn't have anything to say and doesnt go anywhere
i'm sure you guys are gonna disagree and say its a masterpiece but you know that well more than half of it is filler
>>63196639
It doesn't sound anything like ITAOTS, and it's not even lo-fi.
>>63196700
it's obviously incredibly indebted to ITAOTS and I don't know how you could deny this
>the glow pt 2 lo-fi
>About 123,000 results (0.49 seconds)
>>63195689
It's a tad long and could stand to lose a few songs but overall it makes up for the tedious moments.
The adult thing to do here is accept that your taste differs from others.
>>63196749
I can deny it because, again, it sounds absolutely nothing like ITAOTS and likewise i'm confused how you could even think it IS.
And without resorting to greentext; just because google (or probably Trovi in your case) says that it's lo-fi doesn't mean it is. It has elements of lo-fi, but it's not a lo-fi album in the same way that any album with an orchestral piece isn't a Classical album.
>>63196749
lol 10/10 logic there
>the post i'm replying to is fabricated
>About 1,370,000 results (0.23 seconds)
>>63196776
I agree.... but, please, remove your trip. It's just going to weaken your argument. Stay anon, anon.
>>63196894
I'm still 100% anon, nobody on this site knows anything about me, I just like to revisit threads and I forget which posts are mine.
>>63195689
because it just is, this shit has put me to sleep faster than xanax and lunesta. honest to god the only people that love this horseshit album are people who have only listened to music for a week
>mfw the times ive tried giving this album a listen
![034b552c03b65ac993daa1a6b1c71b57[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/U6OoPiv.png "034b552c03b65ac993daa1a6b1c71b57[1].png")
>>63196851
okay, 6,000 results for "the glow pt. 2" "lo-fi" and "the glow pt. 2" "lofi" combined, while none for what you searched for in quotes
>>63196842
can you send me some music that does sound like In the Aeroplane Over the Sea? Because I don't know how you could not think that Holland 1945 and the track Glow pt. 2 don't sound incredibly similar, or at least acknowledge the obvious influence in production
>>63196639
DAE jeff mangum invented the acoustic guitar?
>>63196842
Not him but it does definitely resemble NMH in a lot of ways. The intertwining of fuzz-feedback and acoustic folk, and many of the vocals. It's far from identical and I wouldn't say it's an imitation even but the similarities are still there.
I love this album, though I understand that guys critique. I just happen to really enjoy the sound so I don't mind that it doesn't evolve throughout, I'm happy to follow the narrative through.
>>63196639
>some of that Mount Eerie shit makes me cringe hard
Holy Christ how pleb can one person be
>>63195689
This album, to me, comes off as an album of beautiful poetry by a guy who has no musical bone in his body. None of the "melodies" are good, and his singing sounds like somebody poorly making up a tune as they go along
>>63196639
>ITAOTS rip off
>has nothing else to offer aside from obscure sentimental lyrics
Literally the stupidest thing I've heard all day. You should be ashamed of your own burgeoning retardation, fuccboi.
>>63195689
Because you have shit taste pleb
