12.07.2010, 06:04 AM
|
#11
|
expwy. to yr skull
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,019
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicfit
Well, it's not like all those who don't listen to their "more modern" output go around saying the newer records are bad, I just meant that some won't talk about theese records coz they'd rather talk about something else music-wise.
For what it's worth, I don't think RR is a "bad" album (I do love some of the songs, rats for example), but it sure doesn't strike me as deep as other ones (nurse or eternal, to name a couple "recent" ones). I liked the live versions of songs off RR quite a lot, though, which is a definite plus.
I think it overall feels like a "half step" in a direction, it's not that radical of a change nor too close to what came first, but it's being in the middle of the road doesn't win consensus. I know some will want to crucifix me for saying this, but it sounds to me like a sort of "son of murray street" (which incidentally gets praised quite a lot on here).
I can't express better what I mean, uff, weird morning.
|
I donīt think it is not very far away to compare Rather ripped and Murray Street. Maybe the main difference is caused by Jim is on Murray and not in Rather. I think Murray is a little bit experimental and maybe a little darker and also quieter than Rather ripped that is lighter and also stronger. But they both have a lots of melodic stuff.
|
|
|QUOTE AND REPLY|
|