Can someone give a proper explanation why this album is this acclaimed and liked...

Can someone give a proper explanation why this album is this acclaimed and liked? I get that it's experimental and ""innovatie"" but just being that doesn't make it good, there should be something I'm missing

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/dBa8bS_vZkM?t=28m26s
youtube.com/watch?v=cA2fHS_Yf3k
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

it sounds good and i like the lyrics

It's ok, not everyone can be patrician

INB4 People call you montie.

It's seen as influential in the avant scene, but you are right-it's not very good IMO.
Innovative does not always equal good

It's fun. I like dancing to it.

It doesn't matter how shitty the album is and if you don't like it. It's all about impressing your hipster pals on Sup Forums

This.
It's catchy too. I like singing along.

if you don't like it, it means you're not autistic. Congratulations OP

youtu.be/dBa8bS_vZkM?t=28m26s

Matt Groening talks about his evolution with the album and why (for him) is the best record ever made, maybe it can help you.

starts in 28:26

It applied rock to free jazz
or it applied free jazz to rock, one or the other
I don't think this had been done before

Was the inspiration for New Wave artists like Talking Heads and Devo

The melodies often have a confused or worried mood to them, which I think is what puts most people off, but there are very happy moments like the second half of Pachuco Cadaver and the opening track

It's very disorienting and makes me feel a bit isolated when I listen to it, but sometimes I find it very groovy
your identity is not relevant to discussion

this

It's hilarious

>there should be something I'm missing
a soul.

i don't know men, it sounds good to me, like taking a bath in caño cristales

It's a long album with basically no filler tracks and idiosyncratic music throughout.

Its okay OP, you will grow out of your stage one day.

the true answer is that it is expressive of a certain "form" of creativity while lacking another.

to put it in an easier way, its possible for one art form to split into various modes, such as visual art encompassing painting, sculpture, etc.

so then, in music we have something similar, people often make the mistake of taking it as a whole when it really is as distinct as the "painting vs sculpture" of visual art.

beefhart was good at making the chaotic and calamitous unified, the instruments have a certain organic depth and playfullness, spontaneous character and energy, and yet, his vocals are more often than not an excessive layer on top of an already busy structure.

if he held back a bit more, took his growl further back, didn't feel it necessary to add words, and vocal sounds,I may like the album more.

however, to say this is equal to something like melodic or concrete harmonic structure is ultimately at the will of the listener.......

i agree. there are early instrumental demos of some of the tracks available and they sound way better

ex:
youtube.com/watch?v=cA2fHS_Yf3k

fuck off montie

Alright I get they tried to make it that way and such, but what was his motivation behind it?
Creating the most avant-garde album ever or something?

...

>the most avant-garde album ever
K e K

>the most avant-garde album ever

L

I'm asking if that was what he was aiming for, I'm not saying this is the most avant-garde album ever

It's totalizing.