ITT

>>72104507
Well at least it gave us the song "Ran"

>>72104507
Yeah, their hearts really don't seem to be in it this time around.

But then again, indie rock is deader than dead and you could make a compelling case that Singles was part of the swan song.

Their 2nd and 3rd albums were fantastic though

>>72104880
The B-sides from 2014-2015 were better though.

Ran was super disappointing to me the first time around, and it hasn't gotten better. It isn't as well-written as something like Seasons, and it doesn't have the raw edge that their older, rougher stuff had. Sort of the worst of both worlds desu familia.

Every song sounds the same for the most part but they're catchy and fun so I don't mind, Way better than Singles which only had one good song.

But yeah, this is mostly a dead genre which really is too bad. Mayybe a band like Modest Mouse can pull an Unwound and release a great swan song album to infuse some originality.

I like it, it'll be a good summer album.

>>72104993
Modest Mouse hasn't had it in them for at least a decade.

I agree though, I hope we see a good swan song album for indie. I have no clue who's actually going to make it, though.

>>72104993
what genre is this though?

indie pop? indie rock? synth pop?

>>72105886
A little bit of all of them.

Post-punk revival is probably the most accurate thing I would call them. Maybe "new new romantics" if you want to get really picky.

>>72104880
Am I the only one who doesn't like this song? Aladdin and Cave are the only decent ones in my opinion.

I maintain that the only truly great bands to come out of indie rock are Built to Spill and Spoon

80s indie rock was really good
90s indie rock was mostly really good

so what if its bad now

>>72105864
Slint will regroup for a swan song.

>>72107198
See below

>>72104964