>>64407200
How is that more cohesive? I mean, sure it had less sounds, but in its feel it was all over the place.

Anyways can't agree.

>>64407200
Agreed

>>64407200
I agree

Mount Eerie is the best anyway

true

>>64407200
the high points on the glow are much higher though

I can understand where you're coming from, but I disagree. Glow might have a few tracks that seem to lack substance on the surface, but they contribute to the overall mood and offer some interesting sounds that fit perfectly into the album's context. I dunno. It Was Hot never grabbed me the same way that the Glow or Mt. Eerie did.

I haven't heard that first album but when I did listen to the Glow Pt 2, the middle of the album was pretty much forgettable

>>64407227
this, all the "filler" tracks were there to add to the cohesiveness of the album

>>64407312
montie, you were all over omegle last night

It Was Hot doesn't really have as much cohesiveness mostly because The Glow, pt.2 had a theme and in many ways had a more cohesive sound, It Was Hot goes from soft guitar strings being plucked to noisy guitar rock too many times. Both great albums though.

I've really come to like all the filler tracks and (something)s in the middle of the Glow Pt. 2. They make the album feel like a whole experience. Mount Eerie is the most cohesive and best anyways

>>64407200
Mount Eerie is just better in every way compared to The Glow Pt. 2 and It Was Hot. And that's because Phil put the fillers where they belonged. Instead of making a fuck ton of songs that really are just 1 song in the middle of The Glow Pt. 2.

The first few listens I overlooked the fillers, sometimes just skipping them. One day I lay down and listened to the whole thing through. Truly, it wasn't really filler, it was just parts of the album. Sure, maybe one does just want to hear music, but good albums tell stories through their sounds, and that's achieved by both the songs and the filler tracks.