Forgotten /mu/core

>>70766613
this album was only talked about for the month it got Best New Music

it's garbage

File: Tallest-Man-On-Earth-The-Wild-Hunt-album.jpg (1MB, 1425x1425px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1425x1425px

it's always fun to look at these:

http://muawards.blogspot.com/2011/10/2010-winners.html
http://muawards.blogspot.com/2012/01/final-results.html
http://muawards.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-mu-awards-2012-full-winners-list.html
http://muawards.blogspot.com/2014/12/late-delivery-2013-awards.html

rip rustie

>>70766613
this album has aged dreadfully. I loved this shit as a high schooler but a more recent listen and I couldn't get through it, and it's only like 35 min long.

Sleigh Bells were always just bad pop music with noisy production. the first album was at least semi-novel and their rip of the p-funk riff is still kind of charming. but boy their formula ran out of steam quickly and their music is downright embarrassing now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YD2gG0NJi-s

File: 4a4f018c.jpg (1MB, 921x926px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 921x926px

this and SILY by avalanches

>>70767260
This still gets circlejerked over in emo threads every now and then.

>>70767242
Wow

the fact that I remember that album being spammed here back in 2009...Jesus.

Oh well, at least this board improved my taste in music, which has to count for something

>>70766916
wow i wasn't even considered for any of the tripcode categories for 2010. rude

>>70766674
>>70766943
>>70767186
>this contrarianism
Say what you want about their post-Treats album and I'll probably agree (although Reign of Terror is a bit underrated here, but definitely not as good as Treats) but Treats is an objectively great album.

If you think it "aged dreadfully" (it hasn't, you'll note that movie trailers still feature songs from this album) then that's on you, you've probably grown up and turned into an old man who doesn't like fun, good sounding music, in which case, leave and marathon a Swans album and come back in 3 hours when it's over.

>>70767511
are you really using movie trailers as an argument? topkek