Why can't I find any post-rock albums that are as good as these ones? It's bumming me out

Why can't I find any post-rock albums that are as good as these ones? It's bumming me out.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Y8xsQvzFNcE
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

these are really super garbage albums, two is enough

Hex is better than both of them

...

no i am being serious, i have no clue why these are beloved albums. they suck

what don't you like about them user? I mean they are not the most complex albums in the world, but their atmosphere and textures are to die for.

not that guy but the atmosphere is literally all the albums have going for them

You can try Bark Psychosis - Hex, Tortoise -
Millions Now Living Will Never Die & Cul de Sac
- Crashes to Light, Minutes to Its Fall

but those two really are the cream of the crop.

they pretty much created the post-rock genre (if you exclude some krautrock bands that did it first in the 70s), that's why

i find some jazzy harmonies, particularly on Spirit of Eden, really nice. The Rainbow and I Believe in You particularly.

and this album has the nicest sounding non-Leslie speakered organ I've ever heard

like just sounds like a shitty bar band, totally ugly combination of instruments with tracks that go nowhere and seem to just try to throw shit at you but not even melodically interesting. songs are really boring and go on forever. i cannot see how anyone can actually enjoy this music. it's wank.

Because post-rock isn't a genre

...

>shitty bar band
with a whole woodwind section, a lot of percussion and a choir?

WHO FUCKING CARES what they created, it's not interesting music. it's barely musical. it's just a lotta blah. if not for best of lists and sites like this, and if this were released today, no one would like this. it's crappy

yes, like one of those shit moody bands with 8 members and they SEEM like they're making music but it's nothing at all. throwaway trash. not fun or moving. it's like decoration.

(wowe! dubs :-O)
I don't agree, but I'm starting to understand why you feel like that and respect that

thanks. it's just an opinion, i'm not right. i have tried to play it again and again and it's not my thing at all. and i do wonder what the hell people hear that makes them like these albums.

perhaps listen to some classical and jazz and them give talk talk another chance, it may grow on you like it did on me

i listen to tons of classical and jazz and this still really sucks to me. i also don't see why it's a problem that needs fixing that i don't like it. but i am asking, kinda sorta to someone who likes this: what's enjoyable about this music?

Maybe you should be listening to Daft Punk instead

see what i mean? somehow not loving this music = i like shitty music. what's wrong with not liking this? it's music. not everyone likes the beatles. it's just personal taste.

what do you like about this? not trying to argue, i'm genuinely curious.

It's not that you dislike the albums, it's your retarded criticisms that make me think you're a complete pleb who shouldn't even be posting here

>shitty music
Daft Punk, as well as Talk Talk, are good

don't be such a lofty, pretentious dickwad. you take music too seriously

Lush instrumental textures, slowly developing Krautrock grooves, pervasive jazz harmonies, immersive unique atmosphere, religious lyrical themes etc.

daft punk is trash. i don't really know about talk talk but these albums are boring and nobody here is actually able to make a case as to what's good about them other than implication that you're dumb if you don't like them

I'm not that guy but I hate to break it to ya, you'll soon realize after a while posting here that the majority of posters are what you seem to enjoy categorizing as "plebs" so trust me when I say that's not a reason for saying someone shouldn't be posting here

these are reasons to say something is gross for me. so i guess it's just a matter of personal taste. i'll go back to my taylor swift threads on this elite site

what I like about those 2 TT albums:
>some non-trivial jazzy harmonies in woodwind arrangements
>really big acccentuation of various textures (subtle percussion here, choir there, broken, feedback'd organ/guitar somwhere else, distorted bluesy chords elsewhere - a lot of sonic variety is hidden in those 12 songs)
>personally, but it's not as straight-in-your-face as Ween or Frank Zappa)
>catchy melodies (After the Flood, the first three tracks of SoE, Ascension Day)
>a space to breathe and a lot of fun with dynamic range
>against all odds: Hollis' vocals

so it was bait all along! well done user.

I just get triggered by hearing meaningless bullshit non-criticisms like "tracks that go nowhere", "barely musical" and "not fun or moving"

it's not bait and you're making me hate this music even more. is that the goal of mu, to be such insufferable fans of music that is on every 'best of' list for college students studying music and tell everyone they "don't get it" faggot nu-male cuck virgin soyboy

This probably comes the closest

There's a difference between quality/critical thinking and preference/being an idiot.

because you ultimately agree and have no actual argument against this? the drums are dogshit, the mixing is shit, the voice is wank cringe, the instrumentation is lazy, the arrangement is slow and boring, the lyrics are trite

>I mean they are not the most complex albums in the world

They weren't meant to be. Mark Hollis didn't care about technique, his approach was one of subtle profoundity, stripping all but the most suggestive notes from a melody.

The influence of Claude Debussy's musical philosophy on those albums is notable, they're basically an updated form of impressionist music.

haughty bullshit

why don't you respond to people giving you their reasons for liking them and then proceed to criticise that no one wills to discuss them with you?

Their colorful timbres is all they have going for them. And that's not even that unique, most orchestral pieces are that large if not even larger. The constant droning of the two albums causes them to lack an engaging aspect to them. Even the atmosphere excuse is tiring here as it doesn't contain the minute details of repetition based music that makes such atmosphere work. What's the fucking point of having such a large group of people playing something when they are all playing the same damn thing? Even Phil Spector, the guy who did that to create new sounds, didn't meander this much. Occasionally though there's some cool guitar bits that come in between the boring ass drones, but then it's back to the boring ass drones. But you know, I do like stuff done in a similar style. Indian classical music for example, is also very simple in harmonic terms where yeah the chords used might sound exotic, but there isn't much progression. But that style of music makes up for it with very talented well controlled soloists and polyrhythmic percussion instruments. Hollis has no range, no vocal control, no unique aspect to his vocals, making him utterly useless, and like a lot of first wave post-rock not named Slint, when percussion makes an appearance it's the most boring, straightforward thing imaginable.

what planet are you living on where this music is catchy? even the worst elitist dickhead worshipper has to admit this is like anti-catchy.

Except neither of those two Talk Talk albums ever have negative space because too many instruments are droning at the same time, you fucking idiot.

those are reasons to ENJOY music? all i read is a list of a description of the sound or what makes up the band. does anyone like this music or is just purely music appreciation 101 for students of sound and then you write some haughty crap to show off how intellectual you are

i have The Rainbow's chorus stuck in my had non-stop some days

yes, that's the goal
I mean you are in fucking Sup Forums of all places, you should know that already

yes

and here's another one: they just make my heart feel very warm :3

t. soyboy

this is what i am too dumb or lazy to write out, but i agree wholeheartedly. not engaging music and holy shit it drones on and to me it's decoration but doesn't evoke any emotion whatsoever, nor is there anything i get in my head that would e like agreeable music. it's just has nothing to it, at all. total mystery to me why it's praised other than novelty. it's like trout mask replica for me.

>no unique aspect to his vocals
this is just not true

There isn't any post rock albums as good as these two

Literally the opposite.

>Except neither of those two Talk Talk albums ever have negative space because too many instruments are droning at the same time, you fucking idiot.

Did you even listen to them? Runeii has various moments where it's just silence.

If you really want to hear that approach taken to its logical conclusion, listen to this.

youtube.com/watch?v=Y8xsQvzFNcE

lol this is minecraft music XD

Meant to quote .

this is the worst take of 2018

i want to read its opposite in praise form to see the reason why a true fan enjoys this music.

>Lush instrumental textures, slowly developing Krautrock grooves, pervasive jazz harmonies, immersive unique atmosphere, religious lyrical themes etc.

He's not the first, nor the last, nor the most expressive when it comes to lame whispery "muh emotional" vocals.
That sounds like ass, though. And I like stuff like Debussy or the music that truly takes it to the logical conculsion, lowercase music. This isn't really all that expressive, and really just took those kinds of ideas on negative space on a surface level.

i mean like several paragraphs, not a list of shit but rather an actual thought-out explanation

Ok, I'll bite user. Disclaimer; Laughing Stock is probably my favourite album, never had the same love for Spirit of Eden (that fucking harmonica gets on my tits) but I listen to it from time to time.

First off, I like the way the album is mixed. It's as if you're stood in the room as the song is playing. New Grass is a good example of this, the drums sound as if they're at the back of the room. Personally I like this kind of mix, compared with how most drums sit on top of a track and feel intrusive to give it 'punch' (let's say for example, The National - 'Day I Die' - boring drums, front and centre of the track)

I like the tones of each instrument on the album, the guitar in particular. As for the structure of the tracks, I don't understand why a track 'meandering' is a criticism. The instruments are constantly doing something different throughout each song (which seems to equate to 'droning' for some people, but I think you could throw that accusation at any music preformed at a lower bpm), which to me is more interesting than the instruments repeating the same musical phrases in a verse-chorus-verse structure (although I've nothing against this). The unpredictability is a draw and I think it sounds natural, not forced. Lyrics/Vocals - do the job, the themes are interesting, the vocals sit nicely with the instruments, I don't always want to hear someone singing expressly about how emotional they are.

That's about it. I think it's an interesting album, don't listen to it to be a pseudo-intellectual, don't give a shit about what time-signature it's in, or whether it has complex poly-rhythms. Listen to plenty of mainstream pop too. I just think Laughing Stock is uniquely enjoyable. Totally get how people don't like it, took me a few listens to get it.

Second

>Day I Die
>boring drums

wew lad

aside from that I agree

because the process of making them was fucking amazing and takes a lot of money and dedication, and nobody could do that other than this guy whos birthday was yesterday and nobody gave a shit

thanks a lot, man. i am going to listen to it again. i like how you framed this. i never understood stevie wonder and had this 'fuck him' attitude but someone finally gave me a thought-out explanation of what was so fun about a specific album and i heard it anew and now i really like it. i came into this thread like a prick looking for someone to tell me how great one of these talk talk albums is rather than just call me names for not getting it etc. what you said is a good argument *for* the criticisms i have against it and this is important for me, because oftentimes albums i end up really loving are things i, at first- don't like or strongly dislike. but sometimes i try and try and then don't like it anyway and other times it ends up FINALLY clicking because of seeing it in a new way.

No problem, glad you found it helpful. Props for going and giving it another listen with a fresh perspective, sometimes things click, sometimes they don't - but those are the main reasons I think most fans find those two albums enjoyable.

Sorry Mark.

There it is, catchy. The worst thing to happen to music. Solely a creation of monetary motivations. Don't feel, don't think, don't get lost in those great musical moments that true artists strive for for years. Nope, just get some dumbass 3 note run from a goddamn imagine dragons song stuck in your head. You viscerally disgust me. I'm one that was reading this thread with neutral interest, too. I'm not defending Talk Talk, I'm just going through the trouble to post for the first time in weeks to tell you that you objectively are unable to fully appreciate music. And the music you like because it's catchy is cancer. And I'm not even going to tell you if I even like Talk Talk at all.

love you mark

the funny thing is if you read what i said, it was merely to point out this music wasn't catchy. not to say "i only like catchy music"

basically you read something in what i said that wasn't there. i enjoy all types of music but when the previous poster said talk talk is catchy, i disagreed. chill.

You can't hide your love for catchy music from me.

well yeah i like catchy music but i am an opera singer so not much really catchy goin on there. you're a psycho and have no friends and can't hide it from me.

>not being able to enjoy catchy music
Your pleb is showing. Quit listening to music for internet credibility.

what music do you like?

I'm one that was reading this thread with neutral interest, too. I'm not defending Imagine Dragons, I'm just going through the trouble to post for the first time in weeks to tell you that you objectively are unable to fully appreciate music. And the music you like because it's catchy is cancer. And I'm not even going to tell you if I even like Imagine Dragons at all.

never enough for you is it faggot

Nope, just get some dumbass 30 note run from a goddamn talk talk song stuck in your head. You viscerally disgust me. I'm one that was reading this thread with neutral interest, too. I'm not defending Brockhampton, I'm just going through the trouble to post for the first time in weeks to tell you that you objectively are unable to fully appreciate music. And the music you like because it's catchy is cancer. And I'm not even going to tell you if I even like Brockhampton at all.

this better be bait

Guys, for a pasta to catch on it has to be autistically funny. This is just spergy in a dry, unengaging way.

You viscerally butt fuck me. I'm one that was reading this thread with neutral interest, too. I'm not defending Weezer, I'm just going through the trouble to post for the first time in weeks to tell you that you objectively are unable to fully appreciate my butthole. And the music you like because it's catchy is cancer.

quit trying to force it and go outside for once

To me, its a spiritual journey. The music does not always have direction(which makes it so intangable and spiritual) but when it does, its monumental. The silence amplifies the rare presence of melody. Other than that, Hollis voice is beautiful but modest. Each instrument is alive, talking to each other, conversing like birds in the garden of Eden.

>take music too seriously
Lmao, who the fuck are to say how you should and should not listen to music