That's probably the perspective of 27 years gone by. Some will still love it, others will recognise that they saw something in it at the time that now no longer appeals.Indeed. I'm finding it quite dreary in places with small moments of uplift. I haven't listened to it in years and I'm beginning to doubt myself now, did I actually like this album? Did I buy it, listen and put it away never to be heard again?
Another listen this afternoon with tea and a book might help.
These are great. Thanks for taking the time to write them. Just in regard to 17, it was someone else who suggested 97 was thin; I don’t agree really BUT in comparison to the very early 80s and 90s when bigger musical transitions were taking place, not as much radical change was ongoing the year this came out (or OKC WAS the radical change point compared to Britpop, a point I didn’t appreciate, per 18).I'll respond to a couple of these just now, most that are imo worthwhile to general music discussions and exchanges.
1. Any and every Beatles album begs to differ. Not that they are bad (not that this one is either), but fuck me are they overrated and over pedestal-ed. They can still be, and are, loved by many.
17. Disagree that 1997 was 'thin', or a couple years around it were bad for music releases. There were some amazing and notable albums then. The same year, we had quite a few really good sophmore albums. Deftones, Around the Fur, Blink's Dude Ranch, Wu- Tang Forever, Foo's Colour and Shape etc. We had longer running artists release strong albums like Nick Cave, Blur and Oasis (neither of the two my thing, but big successful albums non-the-less). And we had some really incredible debuts. Placebo, Queens of the stone age, Jimmy Eat World, Muse, death cab for cutie, Mogwai! I'd argue it was a great year for music, as I said previously, and possibly one of the reasons I at the time was a bit ambivalent about this album, with so much else wowing me.
16. Think most recognised the influence of the pixies. Don't think there is any irony in liking something at the time, and then 30+ years later not liking the prior influence as much. That would be like arguing it is ironic I don't/didn't like Radiohead, given the many indie bands I like today. Incidentally, 'pasty-faced young adults who didn’t cotton to Nirvana’s sonics but needed an anthem to underscore their biological age-based malaise' is a very entitled and derivative comment.
12. At first listen at least, that was the song that caught my attention most readily. In a good way. There you go.
5. A comment on production, or in my case the delivery, is just that. I don't think it matters whether it hides or not melodies, themes or 'integrity'. It is either good or bad. Just like guitars can be good but vocals bad etc, a bass can cover dor the drums etc, production and everything else can exist separately.
6, 7, 15. I really think this is a weird philosophical qualm you have. Is a vegetarian incapable or prohibited from making a good meat dish? You have found an argument for hypocrisy, but true or not, I don't think it matters to the output. Did Paul's troubles really seem so far away the day before he wrote the song? Is a dolled up pretty as hell wall-poster pop-star diva out of line when singing about inner beauty to a huge audience of teenage girls? Do we judge the true extent of heartbreak of someone singing about it. Or whether their heart actually broke, and if so how the fuck they are still alive, etc. I get the point on honesty and integrity being important particularly in how it is recieved, but I don't think it is immediately that dismissible based on a few background articles or perception of someone's life.
4. Can anyone really be 'too busy' for a pretty funfamental core emotion that is part of what makes us as a race who we are. I find that remark a little bit almost inhumane.
He's talking about my post. Again. I used too many big words.
Every year in the 90’s was pretty thin, and most thereafter.That's probably the perspective of 27 years gone by. Some will still love it, others will recognise that they saw something in it at the time that now no longer appeals.
On the 1997 discussion, it was a thin year for me musically, sandwiched between two years that had some spectacular releases. Best of '97 for me: INXS's final album, Tellin' Stories by the Charlatans and El Corazon by Steve Earle.
Ultra for me...oh and Spice...That's probably the perspective of 27 years gone by. Some will still love it, others will recognise that they saw something in it at the time that now no longer appeals.
On the 1997 discussion, it was a thin year for me musically, sandwiched between two years that had some spectacular releases. Best of '97 for me: INXS's final album, Tellin' Stories by the Charlatans and El Corazon by Steve Earle.
My 2nd listens are always in a comfy chair in the garden room with a crap book and a mug of tea. The idea being, concentrate on the book a bit and if something musically jumps out then I'll pick up on it.I'm jealous that you can read a book and have music on at the same time.lol.
Not when hands down the best music critic in the business panned it.
Critics are snidey little gobshites, picking apart other peoples work when they wouldn't know one end of a guitar, camera or paintbrush from the other.Yes. Otherwise there would be no marketplace for literary, art, film, theatre, dance or music criticism. But there are marketplaces for such things.
Ffs. You've come out with some guff on this album.I will 100 percent will come back to this post because this is my central problem with this band: getting super-rich while feeding the masses the hopeless cynicism you know will sell records while blissfully recording the fucking thing in a mansion owned by a B-actress whilst totting up your millions is the ULTIMATE in true cynicism and reckless selfishness. It’s nearly Trumpian.
So, nothing to do with the album then?Haven't played this for quite a while until today and in the words of Celine the poetess, it's all coming back to me now.
Some time in the naughties, the company I was working for sent me on a how to handle the media course. It was run by a woman who spent a lot of her time training senators and congressman but because it was commercial it mostly covered different types of contexts like analyst calls, trade events and publications etc. I was far from a natural and though it was fascinating and enjoyable it was also one of the most cynical and depressing weeks of my working life. One particular aspect I remember was a session about dealing with print journalists, the gist of which was (and I paraphrase) 80% of journalists are lazy bastards and they will happily let you 'write' their copy for them as long as you conform to a few rules and don't take the piss too much about getting your message across.
What's this got to do with this album?
Well I would argue quite strongly that beyond whatever musical (some) and lyrical (little) merit this album has, it's greatest achievement by far is one of salesmanship. If you go back to the interviews and what was written about it at the time, and since, what you see is that not only Yorke but the entire bad talk a really good fight. They don't even particularly oversell it themselves that much, but they feed just the right amount and type of stuff into interviews to create the narrative that ultimately exists around this album.
The guy who wrote the post above . . .Ffs. You've come out with some guff on this album.
Critics are snidey little gobshites, picking apart other peoples work when they wouldn't know one end of a guitar, camera or paintbrush from the other.