i dont get it

its just so "okay" especially when you compare it to other post rock artists like Slint. I like the jazz inspired elements but I feel that vocally there is much to be desired

>>72664101
>>72664421
Plebs. This is the greatest album of all time. Vocally it is incredible, the amount of emotion in marks voice. The lyrics are beautiful, the instrumentation is insane, a mixture of jazz, krautrock and post rock. I love this so much.

>>72664531
/thread

>>72664531
its the mumblecore of post rock

>>72664583
What? Just how? And what's Spiderland then?

>>72664712
there is more emotion in McMahan and Walford's voices in Spiderland I feel, Hollis just makes me want to fall asleep.

>>72664101
Listen to it louder

It's 10/10 but you need to either have it blaring from the speakers or creeping along at a whisper

>>72664857
>Listen to it louder

That's the objectively WRONG way to listen to it.

Mark said so.

>>72664421
>its just so "okay" especially when you compare it to other post rock artists like Slint.

not an emo thread

try Bark Psychosis, who actually featured Talk Talk members on their last record.

i get it. it's not worth your time, trust me

>>72664101
DUDE jazzy music with rock instruments

It's all about the vocals desu

>>72665680
Ok Mark

>>72664421
Dude Mark Hollis' vocals are the highlight of the album what are you talking about?

>>72664101
Listen to it more than once. Try reading the lyrics while you listen, they're captivating. Don't give up on it, the beauty takes a little while to reveal itself. This album is perfect.

>>72664421
Anyone who dismisses this album is a pleb, period. You may not love it, but respect it for the incredible art that it is.

Spirit of Eden is much better. I think critics got confused by the covers and shilled the wrong album.

>>72668859
Eh. It's a very nice album but it's not as great as Laughing Stock.

>>72664421
Honestly I'm not really into post-rock, and I think it's great. Then again, I think Spiderland is pretty bland vocally and lyrically.

It's one of the most boring albums that I have ever heard

>>72666893
What a terrible post. Even if you don't like it, for a lot of people here it's their favorite album.

>>72664101
go on a night walk with it

>>72664817
no.

i just listened to mark hollis s/t and i

>>72668859
Laughing stock is just a more refined version of spirit of eden

>>72670926
They definitely perfected the production style on Laughing Stock that started with Spirt of Eden. But that's like, the essence of the music with those.

>>72664101
It's cheesy new age music, but people think it's amazing because of either:

-muh so many instruments! (even if they are almost always hitting the same chords)

-muh vocalist (even though Hollis' vocal/emotional range doesn't really go that far through the record)

-b-but the guitar solos/fills man! see they aren't as boringly drony as the other instruments! (no, instead they are shitty Loren Connors ripoff solos, being just as lacking in ideas and progression as Loren Connors)

Another way to kinda look at the record is if you take a jazz fusion record like Bitches Brew or Inner Mounting Flame, and then water everything down so much that a beginner instrumentalist can play it.

>>72671861
outside of generally having elements that fall under the "jazz" umbrella i couldn't think of more dissimilar albums than inner mounting flame and laughing stock

>>72671925
I meant as in slow things down and make everything so simple that even a kid can play it. If all the tracks on Inner Mounting Flame are 1/10th of their length, and the remaining bit is made much easier to play (all half notes and whole notes at easier to grasp tempos); basically like a super baby easy mode version, it would sound like Laughing Stock.

>>72671861
>muh complexity!!!

Your opinion is worthless.

>>72672001
>music shouldn't have depth
Shit, it's not like Talk Talk uses a very large variety of timbres to create interesting, organic atmospheres like ambient music does. Nor are they visceral like punk or metal. Nothing really like the music they play a watered down slow version of in its complexity either. Emotionally stiffled due to new age style cliches with the laidback long notes playing and because of Hollis' mediocre voice.

Irredeemable in every way.

>>72671861
It's easy to know Laughing Stock is an amazing album because whenever anyone criticizes it on here the points they make are completely retarded.

>>72671973
and as the whole internet knows, if you slow down justin bieber songs enough it sounds like william basinski

what you seem to be failing to grasp is that silence and the space between notes can be just as (if not more) important that the notes themselves. just because you fit 20x more notes into a given song doesn't make it inherently better or more profound/artistic/accomplished - i'm looking at you john mclaughlin

>>72672149
>thinks everybody playing like their first month on the instrument is good music

>>72672259
...have you listened to John McLaughlin outside the like two Mahavishnu tracks everybody cites where he just plays really fast? Hell everybody here knows Miles Davis, dude's not even showing off on Davis records like Bitches Brew and In A Silent Way. He understands negative space between notes FAR better than a band like Talk Talk that just instead has this blocky blob of drony notes in their post-rock/"jazz inspired" works.

>>72672343
>He understands negative space between notes FAR better than a band like Talk Talk
whats a davis track that uses it better?

>>72672440
more to the point whats a mahavishnu track that does it better

>>72672440
With McLaughlin? The tracks John McLaughlin and Miles Runs The Voodoo Down.

Without him? Literally all of Kind Of Blue.

>>72672343
Yeah you're a moron. To criticize it for it's lack of complexity is beyond dumb. Do you think a producer in their first month could have blended a song like 'After the Flood'?

Maybe you should be listening to Yngwie Malmsteen.

>>72664101
I've only listened to Spirit and that took me a good 5 listens to really digest. Not sure if this is the same way but just keep trying and formulate an opinion for yourself, bud.

>>72672532
What about Kind of Blue makes you think that it uses negative space better? I am only trying to understand.

>>72672532
whoa 'bitches brew' AND 'kind of blue'? i'm sure the list goes on too

>>72664817
this is objectively wrong

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>72672639
its not though, he really makes the same snoozefest mumble vocals for 43 minutes. Hardly any variation in his vocals throughout the entire album.

why do you fucking nerds have to intellectualize everything in order to "validate" it and yourselves as good

fuck you, you get it

>>72673167
*tips fedora*

>>72673193
>>>/reddit/

>>72673118

The vocals are exactly as they should be. The guy's not trying to be Freddie Mercury.

>>72673209
epic

>>72673232
id argue that while they did have consistency, im not really sure if the post-rock instrumentation was really complimented well by it. It felt distracting trying to understand what he was even saying since the lyricism is borderline incomprehensible without a lyric sheet. Even despite that, there are other contemporaries that do the same thing but even better such as Sigur Ros

>>72673353
You need the read the lyrics to know all of what's being said, but that's the case with a ton of music. As an instrument the vocals work incredibly well. I don't think Sigur Ros put out anything that touches Laughing Stock's creativity.

I have no idea why some people on this board are so headstrong in being anti-laughing stock, as if it has zero redeeming qualities. It's so ridiculous. The concept is great, the lyrics are perfectly done, the compositions are creative and beautiful.

>>72673441
def could argue that Ágætis byrjun is atleast on the level, i think the instrumentation is creative but i feel it just lacks on a seriously interesting melody combination with the vocals. I always prefer melodic value over anything so thats just my personal preference.

>>72673510
Ágætis byrjun is excellent.

What about Laughing Stock's lyrics? More though went into those than you can say for 99.99% of music out there.

the quality of this album is so clear and yet people challenge it because of it's acclaim and popularity

>>72673712
It's weird, you don't see the same hardheadedness in arguments against other albums. I don't know if it's the religious lyrics putting people off or what. This should be considered the greatest album ever IMO.

>>72673768
>you dont see the hardheadedness in arguments against other albums

merriweather post pavilion

kek this even reminds me of Fishmans

>>72673818
Yeah you're right. Personally I've never understood MPP.