Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Derek
I somewhat agree with you knox. An hour of the same shit (unless you're amazingly diverse) is oversaturation and completely unnecessary. I find myself relistening to shorter albums a lot more than some fuck off 75 minute drone epic (and yeah I've made a 75 minute album but it was necessary to what I was trying to express at that point). I'd rather listen to the 25 minute Earl Sweatshirt album or a short punk album than a 40 minute Sunn O))) song.
|
There's a time and place for a short punk album or 75 minutes of drone. They're both equally valid and I'd be willing to listen to both, depending on my mood. I was just surprised because I think it was the first time I've ever seen anyone complain about the lenght of an album... Actually, no I've had people complaining to me that my songs are too short lol.
When you say 3 years to come up with this, it's like you're assuming they spent 3 years in the studio, and not like, having a life, taking care of their children and doing other things. Why does the album sound like this? Because they felt like it. No one can be new and inventive all the time, and if it didn't sound like Radiohead people would be complaining too. Although there are new and inventive things there, they're just more subtle.
How much time and effort was spent in making something is one of the most irrelevant aspects to discuss. The results are what matter, maybe you like it, maybe you don't, maybe it was recorded in one day or ten years, it doesn't matter to me.