What do you think of this?

it's okay

good talk

>>68205708
AOTYSF

>>68205708

I think he bought an OP-1 and discovered ableton, but didn't try to write his songs differently.

He just swapped out his instruments. Which is a shame, I think he's very talented.

>>68205708

The art's nice anyway.

>>68205708
the more minimalist pieces far outshine the others
creeks, moonwater, 8 circle, and 45 are the clear standouts

>>68206346
This is not a bad thing, but you're right it's not a movement beyond structures worked on s/t

>>68206456

I mean, it's just in no way impressive. Almost all composers I know that aren't shit can just compose on a different instrument if they want, but the instrument doesnt make the song, and I feel bad for the people who get fooled by it.

Gotta evolve your style.

Ahead of its time

needs more experimentation and craziness, far too tame

>>68205708
Boring like everything Bon Iver has ever done

>>68206956

how? please explain.

File: honhonhon.jpg (38KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 400x400px

>>68205708
I think Zenyatta is a great hero

>>68207534
It's being shat on because the song titles and music are weird when this will likely become the norm for indie folk in the next 10-15 years

>>68207649

Really? Everyone I've talked to hasn't mentioned the song titles, just how bland and boring the music itself is.

I think if someone doesn't listen to that much "experimental" (especially electronic) music this seems like some sort of achievement, but it really it's really just a blander version of his last album.

>>68207713
hey, someone who listens to a lot of noise and other weird shit here
I really like this album. It's nothing groundbreaking but it's new territory for the band and I think they pulled it off well. I agree with >>68206412 this post a lot. It's best when it's not trying to be this super ambitious, glitchy, experimental work and rather trying to just use these elements to replicate the intimacy of his earlier work. The effect this produces is really unlike anything else I've ever heard, super gorgeous stuff. I just wish the whole album lived up to this potential.

File: lolz.png (33KB, 566x93px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 566x93px

JUST

>>68206346
actually a good explanation, anon.

I've been trying to think of words to describe it, since there is clearly talent and technical effort behind it, but so many tracks fall flat since it's so one dimensional.

I think it's genuinely great and my AOTY. I think its as good as or maybe better than For Emma and I couldnt be happier with it right now.

>>68205708
When's this cunt gonna bic his hair?

>listens to yeezus once

AOTY. Gotta evolve, fuckers.

>>68208891

but that's just what i'm saying, it's not an evolution...

Kid a for example:
Kid A was an evolution because Radiohead drastically changed their approach to composition, style, lyricism, song structure, etc. all these changes yielded a vastly different aesthetic, which is the arguably the most important aspect of musical evolution.

With 22, Vernon just changed the instruments he used, but didn't change how he wrote lyrics, composed songs, or structured them. The aesthetic remains totally the same...

If anything he regressed in a lot of areas.

Now, from his first to his second album I would definitely say he managed to evolve aesthetics, and the results were nice.

Good album. Took lots of inspiration from James Blake as far as vocals went.

>>68205708
AOTY and I'm not even memeing.

Can someone share a download link?

>>68208611
Wow, that there's a bold claim. I like it, I'd place it just about equal to his self titled, but For Emma is a damn masterpiece, which I just didn't feel this measured up to. Still great though, an easy 7/10.

The three lead singles had me pumped but now that I've actually heard the whole thing...meh...

>>68205708
It's good ear candy

>>68207649
I don't think so. Witch house has pretty much already been littered with song titles (and band names) that are kind of similar if not more extreme.