>>65293438
>If you cut out some of the basic indie pop filler, it reveals an album with a lot more conviction than anything else they've released post-M&A.
You could say the same thing for GNFPWLBN.

>>65294893
not OP but i actually like a lot of Good News. I'm one of the people who likes old Modest Mouse more, but I dont think GP is all that bad. It's just stylistically a little cleaner, but it has good ideas and enjoyable songs.

>>65295252
Agreed, I like all of Modest Mouse's discography.

I like spitting venom and steam engenius

>>65295307
Also I like singing Invisible and People as places as people. So yeah I like the album pretty gud

>>65293438
Yeah I think this album is pretty great

very underrated album imho
even the indie pop is pleasant at best, there are few genuinely bad tracks

Great album, but I felt like very few tracks were memorable.

I don;t understand why /mu/ suddenly hates Modest Mouse. I like them.
This exact same thing happened with Arcade Fire and The Antlers.

>>65297569
It seemed to be after the release of Strangers to Ourselves which was a rather average LP when it first came out, also this LP is the kinda one that grows on your after time and gets better with more listens.

why did they feel the need to make their indie pop album an hour long tho

>>65297569
/mu/ tends to hate anything that reminds them of how bad their musical taste was six months ago
>>65297603
I feel like Strangers to Ourselves is kind of a grower, but I don't like We Were Dead. I dunno. It feels like Isaac saw the success of Good News and then took the core concepts of their earlier stuff and replaced the cars with boats, which is kind of weird. It also has that kind of vaguely steampunk-ey sound that really turned me off of Good News.

If you wanna talk about growers, No One's First and You're Next has to be one of the most underrated Modest Mouse albums.

>>65298846
No One's First is an EP and all the songs were recorded/written for either Good News or We Were Dead so that doesn't really make sense