Yeah one of those perfect classics that's actually... just not.

Still a perfect classic though.

Endtroducing could do without some of the vocals and old school flashbacks. Goddamn it has great moments. I can understand why the critics gush but it's not quite unassailable. Over time, as those elements become more exotic to new listeners they might actually work better on future listeners.

Listen to The Caretaker to discover what this could've been and more.

He reworks some of the tracks to amazing effect in his live shows. Much more bass heavy and electronic.

I voted for TVUAN. The reality is that it's a better sounding record.

Vox published a feature today on TMR:



And here is the interviewee's 30-minute critical analysis of "Frownland" referenced in the feature:



You can guess where my allegiance lies. :)

Dig this, Frown!

I listened to Trout Mask Replica for the first time recently and I found it hilariously awful.
Never heard the other one, but it wins by default.

That earworm video makes me want to punch someone.

Science!

I think Captain Beefheart is an acquired taste really. I actually think Safe as Milk is a better album than Trout Mask Replica.

The Velvet Underground and Nico is definitely a listen if you're into minimalist rock. It was the antithesis to the happy psychedelic sounds of the day. Waiting for the Man is classic Lou Reed and the lyrics no doubt had a few ears raised in 1967.

I've said that he's an acquired taste so much on this forum that sometimes I forget that people don't always know the connection. Safe As Milk is definitely a good entry record to Beefism.

TMR is a hilarious bundle of joy, and I only like the Nico tracks on TVU&N. Additionally there's like two or three songs on it I find unbearably monotonous and boring.

Not really. My world doesn't revolve around old rock music, so it hardly seems like a huge mistake that I have this hole in my musical knowledge.

It might not seem that way to you, but it is a huge mistake actually.

It's as likely to be a mistake for me, as missing some deep-end Tori Amos album would count as a mistake to you.

I wouldn't sweat it too much, Mic. I honestly have the opposite problem as I don't really know a lot about more recent music as I tend to be more of a twentieth century guy. And unless you're reviewing every album like Trollheart, I can't imagine anyone knowing everything about every genre in music. I can go deep into the sixties in general with the possible exception of jazz, which I like, but not really that into. But if you ask me about the electropop sensation that came out in 2013, I'm going to draw a blank.

If I listened to it and enjoyed it, it would be a mistake to have avoided it for so long imo. I guess I just don't see the harm in listening to a 48 minute (or less if you bail) cultural touchstone.

I did look into a lot of rock classics several years ago. I even went through large portions of Rollingstone magazine's best 500 albums list. Plus lots of music documentaries and random exploration. I just don't connect with most 60's and 70's music, at least from the rock genre in general. There's still lots and lots I don't know about it, but why bother when you mostly find nothing to latch on to?
It's only recently that I've returned to the 60's and 70's. This time to go more in-depth with folk music and singer-songwriters.

A large percentage of the music I check out every year is from that very year, and the year before it. So yeah, I'm staying pretty current, and since time is a finite thing, that means less old music. I'm finding lots of good and great music, so I don't feel like I'm suffering from this approach :laughing:

Basically... whatever works...

I see what you mean and don't think it's a bad argument, really, but here's my problem with it:

Depending on who you ask, there's literally thousands and thousands of cultural touchstone/must listen/unmissable/important/unique/innovative/challenging/interesting/genre defining albums to listen to, each ranging from 30 to 79 minutes in length. I've already got well over a hundred links/thumbnails and scribbled notes referring to albums I find I have a reason to check out. I simply have to make some editorial decisions and cut some stuff out, otherwise I'll have 100.000 hours of "must-listen" material on my plate.

It literally isn't humanly possible to give everything a fair shake.

I mean, even now, as I'm typing this, I'm in the middle of giving this album here a chance:

Add it to the list I guess? There really isn't any reason not to check it out tbh. I'm 100% certain that it is not what you're imaging it to be. It has a lot of folk and modern classical influences.

I think you'd like the Nico tracks.

Now that does a least somewhat more to reel me in than any other argument likely could. I'm curious by nature.

But this is like the chillest **** ever. It's the anti-rock album opener.

Beatdown metalcore.

You're breaking my heart.
How about some old rock music?

You probably know those opinions better than I do. I can't remember what I have said about them before.

Elph looks pretty butthurt at a guy who said he doesn't care about listening to a band he's never heard before. I think Christian should give this weirdo death metal album a shot even though he's not been able to connect with the genre in the past as it's widely held as one of the best and most creative DM albums of all-time.

I would listen to a band like Teenage Jesus & the Jerks, but The Ramones are too poppy you see so it wouldn't be worth my time.

I did hear most of White Light/White Heat a while ago. Something to do with MB, even, I think. Didn't like it, so why the hell bother with their debut? That's a rhetorical question by the way. I could spend all my time giving second, third and tenth chances to the least promising things I've brushed up against, or I could do something that makes sense instead.

Like checking out that Gorguts album, for example.

1. White Light/White Heat was made in two days with twenty bags of speed and is a very different animal from the debut.
2. Your flaky excuses shan't fly here
3. You've probably spent more time arguing against listening to the album than it would take to just listen to it.

That describes everything I've heard Lou Reed get involved in. Including Lulu.

But they might float on the surface of the sea.

While having more fun doing so.

No...that's not how most of his work sounds. Want me to mail you some speed?

Would my opinions count for more if I was on speed?

Your opinions on speed-influenced music would count for more if you had done it.

Let's not forget that if I do finally cave in and listen to the album, all that would result from it would be you telling me that I've misunderstood the album and should listen to the collected works of bands X and Y to properly contextualize it, while Elphenor will tell me that my opinion on the album is nonsense and that he will henceforth make a point of belittling & disrespecting my musical opinions even harder.

I mean, ja I probably would say that you didn't understand it if you didn't like it, but so far your justification has been pretty baseless given how there's very little that compares to that album. Like my Ramones analogy from earlier. It's like not listening to Black Sabbath because you don't like the synths that Nightwish uses. It's dumb.

Well, I think it's a pretty good argument that I can't be expected to listen to every album that someone tells me is amazing. Just like I don't expect people to listen to whatever I consider the best albums of whatever genre. Literally all the time I've spent logged on to this forum today has been spent listening to new music. Like I said; it's always a tradeoff. Doing one thing means not doing another, because I can't do everything. How is that even a bad argument? I mean come on, do you even listen to anywhere near all the albums various people say are great? I doubt it. There's 24 hours in your days too.

So if I've heard a Velvet Underground album, heard various Lou Reed tracks, heard some Nico tracks a while ago, heard a lot of highly praised 60's and 70's rock - both more radio friendly and more arty material. Is it really any wonder I'm choosing to say "allright, enough is enough" at some point? I really doubt you or anyone would behave differently. I'm pretty sure I can't persuade you to listen to more of whatever I like that you don't like (so uhh, most of it, I guess). Just saying you and everyone else really has the same approach as me.

Cop outs are not good arguments. What you're arguing here is just an empty way for you to write off anything that isn't already on the roster.

Also, I would definitely check out any album that is as important and oft-discussed as the VU & Nico just to have an idea of what everyone's talking about.

I mean sure, I believe that you believe that you have come to a good and informed decision on this. But here's the thing: you are not informed on this album and haven't made a justified decision on this.

Analogy time.

MicShazam: I don't like sushi.
Me: Bummer, where did you try it at?
MicShazam: Nah I haven't tried it because I've had fish sticks and didn't like them.
Me: Sushi is crazy different from fish sticks, you should still try it just to know.
MicShazam: I'm pretty comfortable with eating pizza, I'm just gonna stick to trying out new pizzas instead of eating something that I know I'll hate.
Me: How can you know that you'll hate it if your expectations are way different than what sushi is actually like?
MicShazam: Listen, I only have so much stomach, I can't just eat everything.
Me: *facedesk*

No, because that roster is expanding semi daily and I'm already picking a pretty broad range of material and allowing for surprises plentifully. Every single thing that I've lined up to check out/listen to in full represents 100 things not being put on the list. I fail to see how any other approach is even possible. Unless you just start from the top like Trollheart is doing with the wiki list, which your all telling him is retarded.

This is all general and not specifically about this VU album.

About that specific album, it really isn't too weird that I'm not feeling a great deal of enthusiasm about the idea of listening to it. Pretty damn consistently, over the last 10 years, I've had little except a shrug to offer for all the supposedly important and fantastic 60's, 70's and 80's rock albums (including sub-genres, of course) that I have given a shot. I mean, would Elphenor listen to whatever I have to recommend? Not until hell freezes over. It's the same situation, uh, sort of. Except I have some actual respect for people who enjoy music that I don't tend to care much about :laughing:

I get that, but understand that THE VELVET UNDERGROUND AND NICO IS A SINGULAR ALBUM THAT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE OTHER CLASSIC ROCK ALBUMS OR ANY ALBUMS FOR THAT MATTER SO EVEN COMPARING THE ALBUM TO ALBUMS FROM BAND MEMBERS' DISCOGRAPHIES IS A MISNOMER.

I wouldn't even say that I have. What I'm arguing is more accurately that sometimes making your decisions based likelihood an past experiences is a good approach. Just like I don't tend to go to clubs because I hated it all the previous times I went.

Yeah, well, Night of Hunters is nothing like any previous Tori Amos album, so go listen to that **** now.

It's a good general rule but should be adjusted for contexts like these where basing it on your past experiences doesn't make any sense because it is different from any experience you've ever had.

Should I check out any previous ones first?