With all the glowing five-star reviews I've read, and with so many people telling me this album was the new barometer of musical genius, I had to buy it. I have listened to this album many, many times, and it always leaves me perplexed. "In the Aeroplane Over the Sea," to me, is hopelessly mediocre, infantile, poorly recorded, poorly performed, and not at all worth the hype it has received on this website. Anyone who believes this album is "genius," or "innovative" should pick up Webster's dictionary, look up the meaning of those words, and ask themselves if they really describe this album accurately. Many have pointed out the significance of the album's recurring theme of Anne Frank as if it were some brilliant stroke of lyrical mastery. I'm sorry, but most of us read the Diary of Anne Frank in the sixth grade, and the fact that Jeff Mangum is obsessed with it now only proves his childish intellect. His voice is, in a word, abysmal. His supporting players are likewise out-of-tune, out-of-time, grasping for ideas from their limited palette. As for Ms. Frank, nothing new is learned; Mangum leaves only fragmented questions, and no new insight. Of course, fans of the band tell me I just don't get it, that it's so emotional, that it makes them cry. Yet they can't say why it affects them so. As for Neutral Milk Hotel (and the majority of the Elephant Six Collective), I can only say that they've broken no new ground, have no talent, and seem quite content to fool you with the dubious aesthetics of their lo-fi world. With approval from the potheads at CMJ, and the Michael Stipe Seal Of Approval, Neutral Milk Hotel and bands of their ilk, will continue to pump out what is the most overrated dross I think I've ever heard.
what's your favourite recipe, /mu/?
Pssss, that's like, your opinion man.
>>65409387
You're correct
>>65409387
New copypasta?
>>65409485
Nah, copypastas have to be cringeworthingly wrong or tryhard
The fact that so many books still name the Beatles as "the greatest or most significant or most influential" rock band ever only tells you how far rock music still is from becoming a serious art. Jazz critics have long recognized that the greatest jazz musicians of all times are Duke Ellington and John Coltrane, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all times. Classical critics rank the highly controversial Beethoven over classical musicians who were highly popular in courts around Europe. Rock critics are still blinded by commercial success. The Beatles sold more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore they must have been the greatest. Jazz critics grow up listening to a lot of jazz music of the past, classical critics grow up listening to a lot of classical music of the past. Rock critics are often totally ignorant of the rock music of the past, they barely know the best sellers. No wonder they will think that the Beatles did anything worthy of being saved.
In a sense, the Beatles are emblematic of the status of rock criticism as a whole: too much attention paid to commercial phenomena (be it grunge or U2) and too little to the merits of real musicians. If somebody composes the most divine music but no major label picks him up and sells him around the world, a lot of rock critics will ignore him. If a major label picks up a musician who is as stereotyped as can be but launches her or him worldwide, your average critic will waste rivers of ink on her or him. This is the sad status of rock criticism: rock critics are basically publicists working for major labels, distributors and record stores. They simply highlight what product the music business wants to make money from.
>>65409594
Yeah this is just bad.
>>65409387
You're mostly right. However, experience is subjective and the enjoyment one derives from a piece of sonic art has ultimately no direct relationship to the skill or lyrical brilliance of the authors.
>>65409637
check mate atheists
>>65409387
>I can only say that they've broken no new ground
What is with you millennials and your obsession with "breaking new ground"?
>>65409685
We use it as a substitute for quality. Something doesn't have to be good if it's the first in its category.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R3TAXUVORWK7AW/
nice one OP
>>65409387
Honestly man there's not a single thing that I can tell you to change your mind about why people enjoy the album besides this:
For one reason or another, it manages to touch people on a deeply emotional level, and it has a certain staying power not a whole lot of other albums have.
Just
>>65409387
>As for Ms. Frank, nothing new is learned; Mangum leaves only fragmented questions, and no new insight.
Did you expect that there was some lost secret about Anne Frank hidden in this album?
>>65409387
>an album can only be good if it lives up to the arbitrary criteria I've pulled out of my ass
People enjoy it because Mangum's emotive vocal delivery and surreal lyrics elicit an emotional response from them. Folk isn't intended to be musically complex.
With all the glowing five-star reviews I've read, and with so many people telling me this album was the new barometer of musical genius, I had to buy it. I have listened to this album many, many times, and it always leaves me perplexed. "The Velvet Underground & Nico," to me, is hopelessly mediocre, infantile, poorly recorded, poorly performed, and not at all worth the hype it has received on this website. Anyone who believes this album is "genius," or "innovative" should pick up Webster's dictionary, look up the meaning of those words, and ask themselves if they really describe this album accurately. Many have pointed out the significance of the album's recurring theme of drugs as if it were some brilliant stroke of lyrical mastery. I'm sorry, but most of us read about drugs in the sixth grade, and the fact that Lou Reed is obsessed with them now only proves his childish intellect. His voice is, in a word, abysmal. His supporting players are likewise out-of-tune, out-of-time, grasping for ideas from their limited palette. As for the theme of drugs, nothing new is learned; Reed leaves only fragmented questions, and no new insight. Of course, fans of the band tell me I just don't get it, that it's so emotional, that it makes them cry. Yet they can't say why it affects them so. As for The Velvet Underground (and Nico), I can only say that they've broken no new ground, have no talent, and seem quite content to fool you with the dubious aesthetics of their lo-fi world. With approval from the potheads at CMJ, and the Michael Stipe Seal Of Approval, The Velvet Underground and bands of their ilk, will continue to pump out what is the most overrated dross I think I've ever heard.
With all the glowing five-star reviews I've read, and with so many people telling me this album was the new barometer of musical genius, I had to buy it. I have listened to this album many, many times, and it always leaves me perplexed. "The Dark Side of the Moon," to me, is hopelessly mediocre, infantile, poorly recorded, poorly performed, and not at all worth the hype it has received on this website. Anyone who believes this album is "genius," or "innovative" should pick up Webster's dictionary, look up the meaning of those words, and ask themselves if they really describe this album accurately. Many have pointed out the significance of the album's recurring theme of everyday life as if. I'm sorry, but most of us read about the life in the sixth grade, and the fact that Roger Waters is obsessed with it now only proves his childish intellect. Gilmour's voice is, in a word, abysmal. His supporting players are likewise out-of-tune, out-of-time, grasping for ideas from their limited palette. As for life nothing new is learned; Waters leaves only fragmented questions, and no new insight. Of course, fans of the band tell me I just don't get it, that it's so emotional, that it makes them cry. Yet they can't say why it affects them so. As for Pink Floyd (and the majority of the Elephant Six Collective), I can only say that they've broken no new ground, have no talent, and seem quite content to fool you with the dubious aesthetics of their lo-fi world. With approval from the potheads at CMJ, and the Michael Stipe Seal Of Approval, Pink Floyd and bands of their ilk, will continue to pump out what is the most overrated dross I think I've ever heard.
With all the glowing five-star reviews I've read, and with so many people telling me this film was the new barometer of cinematic genius, I had to buy it. I have watched to this film many, many times, and it always leaves me perplexed. "After Earth," to me, is hopelessly mediocre, infantile, poorly recorded, poorly performed, and not at all worth the hype it has received on this website. Anyone who believes this album is "genius," or "innovative" should pick up Webster's dictionary, look up the meaning of those words, and ask themselves if they really describe this film accurately. Many have pointed out the significance of the film's recurring theme of everyday life as if. I'm sorry, but most of us read about the life in the sixth grade, and the fact that Will Smith is obsessed with it now only proves his childish intellect. Jaden's voice is, in a word, abysmal. His supporting players are likewise out-of-tune, out-of-time, grasping for ideas from their limited palette. As for life nothing new is learned; Waters leaves only fragmented questions, and no new insight. Of course, fans of the film tell me I just don't get it, that it's so emotional, that it makes them cry. Yet they can't say why it affects them so. As for After Earth (and the majority of the Elephant Six Collective), I can only say that they've broken no new ground, have no talent, and seem quite content to fool you with the dubious aesthetics of their lo-fi world. With approval from the potheads at CMJ, and the Michael Stipe Seal Of Approval, Will Smith and actors of his ilk, will continue to pump out what is the most overrated dross I think I've ever seen.
>>65411139
