"Electioneering" is a controversial track. How do

Other way round. One of my least favourites of theirs, but it's he perfect addition to the record. Musically it brings a more fun, typical cock-rock vibe but it sounds so drenched in sarcasm that it just adds a deeper layer of cynicism to album. It's not easy to do that so effectively.

It's like Money on DSOTM

I don't like it

>>68419743
As a track it's fine, pretty energetic and exciting.
On the album as an investment it's fine. It's a stadium rock song, serves the fans, something to bring up the energy and has views Thom wanted to be heard.
But in how it affects the album as a listening experience, it's distracting and like Lucky adds on time that wasn't necessary to begin with.

i think,. it fucking sucks lol

>>68419836
this. it really actually seriously fucking sucks

>>68419798
>>68419828
So would you think that someone who skips from Fitter Happier straight to CUTW or even from Karma Police is "not listening to the album the right way" or do you think people are allowed to play around with how they listen to the album and still get the full gist of what the artist was trying to convey?

It's a good cynical "fun" sounding song steeped in slightly more political heavy messages than anything else they were putting out at the time.

I dunno if it's in the right place at the album but I'm not sure where else it would go. It's a nice break from Fitter Happier leading into CUTW.

Used to be my fav song on the album, still one of my favs although it's a good change in pace for the album. Remove Lucky.

I think it was important after fitter happier to not make the album too depressive

>>68419896
That's hard to answer. On one hand it goes against the album's intentions and the other it makes it a more comfortable experience. There's no correct way of doing it imo. The album was honestly released in the same way as Pablo Honey or The Bends in that it's a raw collection of songs but I would just leave it as is and accept the tracks you don't like. It's flawed and there are clearly ways of getting around it but just think of it as what makes it unique or what was really in the heads of the people behind it and how it's not a perfect album.

>>68419995
But it wasn't released that way, it had a clear and well though out order with the only thing out of place is Lucky

>>68419896
Personally I prefer to listen to albums in full. The fact that somebody else even thinks about whether or not they're getting the 'full gist of what the artist is trying to say' means they're thinking about the album on a deeper level than most plebs I know, so I guess you do you f a m

(interestingly, now I have Kid A on vinyl I'm often tempted to skip side 3, which has Optimistic and In Limbo on, and go straight to Idioteque. Depends how dedicated I'm feeling.)

>>68420031
Of course there's an intended order on how the tracks go but like you said with Lucky, there are imperfections. There's more to the album than a single mood or message. Even the band has repeatedly dismissed it as a concept album. There are ideas that come out but they aren't the motive behind the experience. The experience is it's a rock album made by them in 1997 that has some life-changing tracks. They didn't want universal appeal or timeless appreciation, they wanted to make an album with everything they liked and felt at the time. Changing it is fine for the listener but it's not what the album really is.