lux

I gave this album a 3, and I would give a 3 to What's The Story as well (despite the last time I voted for it, I gave it a 4, but that was for sentimental value). The issue is quickly resolved: for me, certain albums aren't that great, you can call yourselves Melvins (whom I've never overly admired) or Dinosaur Jr (for whom I have plenty of affection, sympathy, and respect), but if you pretty much play the same album for several years, I start to get annoyed and feel a bit taken for a ride. What purpose does Senile Animal serve? (I haven't listened to the latest one yet, but I got several hints from your review). What is it for? Does it say anything more compared to the past, aside from formalizing and making the Melvins Sound more accessible? Beyond is a 3 for me too; it sounds like the old Dinosaur with the same honesty as before, but it's always the same old soup. It's impossible not to notice. I've taken these two bands as a reference for my argument: it doesn't make sense (to me) to give a 1 to this album and a 5 to other albums by much more respected bands just because they come from much more respected bands, indeed. Just as it doesn’t make sense (for me, especially if you give a 1 to Definitely Maybe) to give 5 stars to a band that very (too) obviously draws from Superchunk, Dinosaur Jr, and Motorpsycho today in 2008. This morbid love for origins (on the part of these bands) is simply sad, just as those bands that still struggle with the legacy of progressive by plagiarizing the soul of Genesis, Rush, and Yes today in 2008 are sad. In short, I have to admit to myself that there’s nothing more to say, and we live in the shadow of monuments? Monuments that continue to thrive in and on their own shadow?

"you talk as if you have to go against massified thoughts at all costs"--- it seems to me that you are the one in this case. It doesn't make much sense to give more than one star to Oasis, you know, so in this situation I would be the more massified one. And then, take it easy, you expressed yourself about Oasis like a typical Anti-Oasis would, it’s not like you enlightened me. The "such artificial production" on this album honestly escapes me, but we probably should talk about it again in front of another album that you consider decent and I consider terrible, to see if you follow a consistent reasoning.

I'll be quick: 1: "Simple, most users say so as you can see"--- this, for me, is not evidence; it's simply the cultural conditioning that hovers over this record(band), which in itself proves nothing. It’s not the masses or a group of 3-4 people that determines the value of an artist just because "they are in a group." It’s the quality of the arguments that matters, not their global spread. 2: Dark Side is not only the most overrated album by the Floyd, but one of the most overrated on planet Earth. It was a milestone for the wallets of Waters & Co, certainly not for psychedelia.

It's not necessarily the case that those who appreciate a little Definitely Maybe are stuck on The Beatles. The point is that 4 or 5 stars are given to yet another ultra-derivative indie band from the 2000s (as long as they’re stuck in the underground, just in case they sell 2 copies too many!) or to yet another release (mostly a photocopy of the previous album(s)) from the current alternative band/monument (Melvins, Dinosaur Jr)... and then when it comes to the debut of Oasis, who are undoubtedly not the Geniuses of rock (that’s for sure), they approach it with such bitterness as if they were the cause of the future world war. As usual, anyone who sells and has success is targeted INDEPENDENTLY OF, if this album had really been indie, the tracks that you now consider trivial would be seen as "genuine," "real," simple in the best sense of the term. Then the plagiarism issue is brought up when it serves one's opinion, so it becomes convenient; plagiarism itself has never negatively determined the value of an album.

I don't consider it presumptuous overall; in fact, that's healthy ambition, even if the overly austere/baroque approach at certain points bothers me. But the psychedelic component saves it from the most annoying formalism. Of course, it's not among my top listens... My point was a general one, regarding the mystical/religious longings that can be double-edged swords.

"I'm not a fan of Popol Vuh and especially try to give judgments based on little or nothing of personal tastes." -- yes Arnold, just like you did with dozens and dozens of alternative rock albums, slapping 1 or 2 stars on total masterpieces :-P "their music, besides being music per se, touches on non-artistic fields such as religion and deep naturalism" -- I agree, these are fields that definitely do not determine the artistic value of an album by themselves; they simply define its ambition (or arrogance, depending on the case).

Girasole, I like talking to those who have an active mind. Please turn it on. "But out of all the groups, why did you have to pull out the Popol Vuh as an example?"— I haven't pulled out anything, I've just noticed how you behaved with the reviewer and expressed my opinion. It's clear that my discourse applies to any group/artist in general. "The album is a 5, if you have issues with the Popol Vuh and don't know that their early albums are all a 5, that's your problem, not ours"— who the hell says it's a 5? You? Let's turn on our brains and learn to argue, please. "And then, those who haven't listened to the album should just be quiet"— no, those who should be quiet are the ones who speak based on hearsay and have no personal ideas about the albums, arbitrarily assigning a 5 to records that pretend to be mystically intellectual (regardless of their actual value).

I love the barbarities

very very cute.

Arnold, do you want me to remind you how many times you've missed the chance to be quiet in so many other reviews and, alas, instead you spoke? Moreover, I'm referring to the fan concept that assumes a 5 for the PVs just because they are the PVs (lynching a poor guy who gives an honest 3 to DIFFERENTIATE qualitatively this album from the subsequent ones), and in response, I'm asked to listen to the album. It's this a priori mythologizing concept that doesn't work (theory), not the fact that I haven't listened to the album in question (simple contingency).