well that sucked

thankfully they dropped it in the absolute dead zone of the year where it'll be a distant memory come feb and forgotten by march

>>70409929
already forgotten

>>70409917
You expected anything different? This is the xx we're talking about. They have always been awful.

File: xx.png (953KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

953KB, 1000x1000px

>posting the wrong cover

>>70410233
>donald trump says "wong"

File: IMG_1214.jpg (45KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 300x300px

>>70410281
I feel like I've seen this gimmick before, except it was well executed by a band that actually made original music.

Agreed. What a snoozefest

>>70409929
I don't know. Albums in Jan+Feb are the ones I remember the most.

You should have known this from the beginning, they have always sucked

I like it.

xx - 9/10
Coexist - 8.5/10
I See You - 8/10

>>70410233
agreed

I like it. It's rather uncomplicated, but quite pleasant.

>>70412346
Eh it's more
The XX - 8/10
Coexist - 5/10
This - 6/10

>>70413641
>what is an opinion

it's alright. anything else get released or is going to be released anytime soon?

>>70413670
>what is objective quality in music

File: file.png (73KB, 620x620px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 620x620px

>>70413793

>>70410233

I always thought they had the potential to make a classic album, but apart from the first four songs on their first album, the rest of their output is quite underwhelming. The Jamie xx album was decent, however.

>>70413641
>>70412346

eh its more

xx - 6/10

Coexist - 3/10

I See You - 4/10

>>70413843
nice. xiu xiu is great

>>70413832
>official judge of objective quality in music

Like it or not, they started the whole minimalistic dream pop/electronic wank of the 10's (stuff like London Grammar), so I'd say their sound is at least fairly unique. Jamie's production is on point as always. I'd rate it above In Colour and Coexist but under the s/t tbqh

anyone got a link?

>>70409917
Yeah, it did. I'm glad /mu/ is being sensible.