this is fucking amazing what the hell

>>72744747
it really isn't

>>72744762
why? give me some solid arguments

>>72744747
Hardly amazing but a genuinely refreshing album
We're finally going back to little ditties amidst the sea of forced political and social commentary and start-stop beats with slurry auto-tune
This is also comfy as shit so my fellow comfyheads this is a must listen

>>72744762
It's nothing special at all, majority of the songs follow the simplest pop formulas, yet they're not catchy or impressively put together/made, some promising songs but the filler is awful imo

marxist gobbily gook
fascist nu wave when?

File: richard does not compute.jpg (24KB, 454x684px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 454x684px

>>72744772
His production and sound choices are still pretty formulaic and boring. It's good demonstration of his range of his range as a musician. He's progressing. But overall I didn't find his songs/lyrics convincing.

>>72744865

>his

>>72744876
Thanks man. I don't know what the fuck
I was thinking back there.

>>72744747
It was alright.

>>72744747
its not amazing imo
the melody lines are too short and repeat themselves too often
the production is grossly cliched and really deflate whatever mood he tries to build
overall though no regrats

I kept seeing this and thought it was some lame indie release

Harry Styles? Seriously? lol

Fake and gay

>>72744942
it was pretty good

the only reason it's notable is because it's music that's not terrible by harry styles, a member of a god awful boy band. but then you realize that it took SIX writers to make each of these songs and then it's like lol. these are fairly simple pop songs with rock instrumentation and unremarkable lyrics -- hard to believe it took six people to write them. i'll give harry his credit when he writes a song by himself.

>/mu/ talking about this hipster wanna be rockstar
jesus christ this board is fucking shit

>>72745492
>im better than everyone
there is nothing wrong with discussing mediocre music

File: Harry Styles - Harry Styles album rating.png (278KB, 860x349px) Image search: [Google]

278KB, 860x349px

>>72744747

It's meh.
It'd be better if a whole lot of the decent songs didn't sound as *exactly* like older stuff...I mean Beck's "Morning" in "Two Ghosts"?! Holy hell!

>>72744747
Cohen been giving out them big nickels, eh?

>>72746050
seriously whats the deal with people not liking kiwi
it has so many elements of a great, fast-paced rock song

Its meh and generic as hell

>>72744747
It heavily relies on hooks and rudimentary repetition to fill song space, in addition to adding a stale 3rd chorus on a lot of the songs.

It will age poorly unless all of those are selling points.

I personally give it a 4/10 though I might go lower.

>>72746121
It sounds 2003. Like an awful Jet song. Simple lyrics that get repeated as if they're actually bad-ass

It's one of the annoying things about this album - the rockers mostly do *not* rock at all

anyone got a link?