Post albums you show to change the mind of people who were "born in le wrong generation"
Or in other words, current albums that can match the classics.
maybe. but there are still some unique features in that album like "free jazz" part of The Shrine/An Argument which you wouldn't see very often in folk albums.
And is it really a revivalist act? I feel like music like this album really gives a 21st century vibe.
Don't get me wrong, I think they're great. But it's nothing far removed from Cat Stevens, Paul Simon or Crosby Stills & Nash.
Their good records for their time but not classics to be remembered forever more IMO.
Well maybe because it's not so removed from cat stevens and paul simon wronggenerationers will like it?
And if Crosy Still & Nash, Paul Simon and Cat Stevens are all rememberd I don't see a reason for fleet foxes to not be.
>to change the mind of people who were "born in le wrong generation"
... into holding their beliefs even more strongly? Because that's the only response I can imagine to hearing Helplessness Memes.
Depends on how you define 'current'. Showed this to a stuck-up Floyd fan and he really dug it though.
Helplesness Blues and BLDW are the only 10/10's release this decade so far. Fleet Foxes will 100% be remembered as a classic band of our generation and they deserve it. That album is incredible and even if it doesn't rise above "modern Crosby Stills and Nash" it's still fucking incredible.
I can't stand it when people on here give Helplessness Blues shit, it's the epitome of contrarianism.
>listening to it now
bretty good actually, thanks dude :D
I don't like the voice very much, maybe I'll get used to it eventually, also, at some times it feels really bloated, but aside from that, there's definitely talent in there, much better than what you'd expect from a band in current times.
/mu/ hating on helplessness blues really makes me want to sink into a deep, deep, clinical depression, that cannot be beaten no matter how many pills I am to be prescribed, until one day I realize there is nothing left for me in this world and I take a rope, hang it from my ceiling fan, make a noose, put my head in the noose, and jump.
I'm with OP, Pecknold has a knack for melody and with poignant, authentic lyrics. Combine that with decently innovative songwriting and the voice of an angel and you've got a classic
I show em this, because I think it's a pretty great album, and also because it takes so much inspiration from the classics they probably like.
I think it's easy for people on /mu/ for a long time to dismiss the music that newcomers / they at one time loved just for the sole reason that that music helped them get into more challenging music. Just because something is used as a stepping stone doesn't take away from it's artistic merit, and that's a trap too many people fall into thinking. Too often I see 'patrician' /mu/tants comparing music based on the wrong things - obscurity wins over renown, mythos behind the music wins over a boring run-of-the-mill production of an album. None of those things actually factor into the music itself but for some reason people value them over musical content - I'm not saying people act like that to be pretentious, but often these opinions come packaged with a superior attitude.
Personally I don't think The Strokes or Interpol or any p4kcore artist really is on the same level as Fleet Foxes. Yes, they achieved acclaim with p4k and Fantano (and many others) and I do not think they deserve to be faulted for that. I think musically Fleet Foxes are on another level from most music we've heard this decade. But this is all just my opinion.
I asked you first didn't I? I'm not going to waste my time on a tryhard contrarian like you so untill you can actually explain bad qualities about them I don't see why I should explain why they're good.
Not to mention that after i'll explain what makes them good you'll just try to disprove everything I say while not actually explaining why they're bad. I've seen this happens why too many times to fall in this trap again. Explain what makes Fleet Foxes bad or i'll just ignore everything you say.
well spoken I agree with everything you said.
It's not their fault they became popular, they became popular because they're good. If they were some obscure band it's clear that all their now haters would like them (unless they just don't like this style of music).
It isn't that complicated. See also: The Lemon of Pink, Era Vulgaris, The Glow Pt. 2, The Lonesome Crowded West, etc. albums that have a definitive sound, respect their influences, but explore new ideas and create their own influence
lmao lyrics are part of music as an artform - the voice is an instrument, and poetry is art. Obviously great music does not have to have lyrics or even have good lyrics but great lyrics only add to the artistic merit of an album
Dude at least respond to me. If you don't want to consider the lyrics, fine. I'm personally usually not that huge on lyrics anyway. But songwriting-wise I challenge you to find more than a few names in the same genre as Fleet Foxes doing what they do. Helplessness Blues features song structures that obviously are influenced by progressive music, as well as a bevy of traditional instrumentation used in ways you won't find in other music. One track even features a free jazz horn solo - it's not great free jazz, but I challenge you to find me another band with the exposure of FF that is even willing to come close to free jazz.
Please explain why you don't think they are innovative.
>One track even features a free jazz horn solo
wow so random and avant
>close to free jazz.
you don't listen to much free jazz do you
What's the next album pitchfork will tell you to like?
I would show them OPN or maybe Sung Tongs
Fun story- I actually showed Sung Tongs and Replica to a guy like this and he seemed to appreciate Replica for just the sonic wash it created, but he told me the vocals on Sung Tongs reminded him "of Crosby stills and Nash. Only nowhere near as good"
Did you even read my post
I said it's not good free jazz, and asked if you could find me an album with the exposure they have that is bold enough to incorporate anything like it
You're not proving your own point at all, you're coming across like a bull-headed 'patrician' and trying to dismiss my point with sarcasm. I'd like to hear a legitimate argument or I'm done here.
depends on the period, I mean I think that music between 64-69 was better than music now overall but I also think that music now is better than 84-89.
It all goes down to taste in the end.
We pretty much love them.
I don't think this is a "modern classic" or anything but I show albums like this to fuccbois that say "waahhh hip hop's dying what happened to the golden age brrooo" fucking hate those people.
Most people that "hate" them just do it out of pure contrarianism sense they're a relatively popular band. Not to say that everybody loves them, but it seems that most reasonable people either like, or are indifferent to them.
>making judgements about an album you didn't even listen to
>calling people out as p4k drones for liking a good album
I hope you get in a car accident
Goddamn. Alright, well I highly recommend it, but I guess only listen when you're feeling open-minded (I'm guessing that doesn't happen too often though)
You're such a hilarious poster of this /mu/ board on 4chan
I like them but they're really not that good
listen to white winter hymnal - ragged wood - blue ridge mountains - drops in the river- mykonos - montezuma - helplessness blues and maybe something else off of helplessness blues only
Normally I'm very strict about listening to complete albums, but theirs really aren't worth it
mm blue ridge mountains is nice