What am I missing about this album?
 

From time to time, we've all bought or listened to albums that for some reason or another we assumed would be great. Maybe it was our favourite band, we were recommended it, everyone seemed to like it or whatever, but for some reason it just did not click.

I'd like to propose that anyone who is in that situation with an album they just can't get into, and would like to, could ask for help here. Just drop in the album and if necessary a link, and someone can take it up, listen to it and explain what they got out of it, perhaps show you something you missed or give you a better idea of how good, or bad, the album is.

Few rules: no generally dismissive comments, such as "piece of crap, wouldn't bother" etc.

Only those who have an interest in the artiste or genre should really get involved, in other words, there's little point in Batty telling me why Marillion's new album sucks, or me trying to explain why 50 Cent's latest blows.

Be constructive. Don't do people down. Help if you can.

If you also don't like the album, you can say so but don't enter into a discussion about why it sucks. That's not really what this is about.

Either one or a group of people can take each album on, but anyone who does should either listen to it or have listened to it (no pre-judging please) and anyone willing to take one on should say so in the thread, so the person looking for help knows someone is going to try.

Probably be a lot harder than most other threads, as this really requires some time and work. But it would be nice if it got some interest.

Anyway, with that in mind, here's one I have trouble with.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ntlookaway.jpg
Can't Look Away --- Trevor Rabin

It's odd, because I like later Yes, but I just can't see much in this. I like the title track, "Hold on to love" and "Sorrow (Your heart)" to a degree, but the rest, no. Possibly a guitarist might have a better view of it? Anyway, if anyone wants to listen to it and tell me what they think, perhaps you can change my mind about it, perhaps not.

Thanks.

Oh, anyone else who wants to post an album can do so at the same time; you don't have to wait till this one is sorted. If you care.

I think you probably just don't like it that much mate.

I skimmed through it, and from what I can tell, this is just Trevor Rabin in his comfort zone, with little or no influence from the sources that were around him at that time, save for any lingering effects of the songwriting process from being in Yes, which are prevalent throughout. Big, bombastic soundscapes, and overly saturated guitar were at the forefront in 1989, and he was cashing in. He was a big name in the industry, and probably had some pressure from his backing people to do a solo effort. A lot of times, a guitar player will take certain familiar practice riffs, and generate a motif from them, which they then string a few of these together to form a complete song. No real purpose, or cognitive effort to create something that stirs any emotion other than the writers sense of accomplishment. This, to me, seems to be the approach here, and although it sounds good to the creators ear, will mostly fall flat at the end-user experience. I don't know if I could persuade you to like it anymore than you already do, or don't as is the case, but there's a little bit of perspective from another guitar player.

Thanks for that Plank. I was hoping to get a guitar player's perspective as I said. So maybe it isn't that good. Mind you, I'm told the title track was a song about his native South Africa and the injustices practiced there, so there was some thought put into it. Just maybe, not enough.

I did only skim through it, so that's just my knee jerk assessment of it. I'd need a few attentive listens to really get to the heart of it. I'm not a fan of the 80's arena rock stuff so, it'd take a small miracle for that to happen.

It was a good assessment.

For me Trevor's shining hour was on Big Generator.

I would definitely agree with that. Excellent album. Solo on "Shoot high, aim low"?

Why is my negative opinion of this album wrong and how can I have the right opinion about it?

http://cdn2.pitchfork.com/albums/655...e.9690a606.jpg

Cheekiness aside, I never got the big whoop about this one.

As someone who just discovered he loves In Rainbows and may be a Radiohead, um, head, I'll give it a listen and see what I think, if you like. Fresh ears, you know?

I thought you weren't into "doing the same artiste twice" huh? Sucking on that Frown cock I see :pimp:

For "Love or Hate?" dumbo. Not all my life! :D

Damn you Troll. Always fucking right.

Ah, the addition of just one comma and a question mark could make my life seem so fulfilled! Sadly, it's just a fantasy....

For me it's a very haunting album. It manages to make the electronic elements at play emotional and powerful, but never artificial. Just listen to the disparate lullaby of the title track, sort of beautifully unsettling.

At the end of the day, it's a pop rock album. It sold over a million copies, and yet we have elements of free jazz as we get a trumpet explosion at the end of The National Anthem, we have odd time signatures, we have glitch-inspired IDM fused with rock that samples Paul Lanksy and which speaks of the end of the world in Idioteque, we have an affecting and powerful ballad in How to Disappear Completely and we have a subtle ambient piece in Tree Fingers.

It's got to be one of the most expansive, weird, divergent yet cohesive pop albums ever created. But more than all of that, it simply works as a whole on some level, the electronic features always enhancing the rock music it is founded upon. It might not be post-rock per se, but it certainly laid a groundwork for a very welcome change in mainstream rock.

LOL Trolldalf's at it again

http://i.imgur.com/V3xPBm8.jpg

All right, this is my first experience of it as I said, but to quote one of the guys out of "Father Ted", it bored the arse off me. After In Rainbows, and considering this is supposed to be one of their crowning achievements, I pretty much hated it.

So I'm afraid I'm no use to you, Frown, it just did nothing for me. Whiny singing, synth and electronic drumming, no interest till the fourth track and then only barely, and free effing jazz? Not for me.

I really like Kid A, but regardless I think everyone would've predicted you wouldn't like that one and you probably wouldn't be huge on Hail to the Thief, Amnesiac, or King of Limbs either. The Bends and OK Computer are definitely albums you could and likely will enjoy though

Never got Kid A either. Would take In Rainbows over it any day. Great example of What am I missing"?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...eatles68LP.jpg
The White Album

• I'm not really sure why out of all the Beatles albums, this one is considered "the classic". I've found more enjyoment out of Sgt. Pepper than I did with this one.
• I feel like this being a double album really took away from my enjoyment. Way too long of an album for a comfortable listen.

If anyone feels like they can enlighten me with why this album is "so good", i'd love to know. I've actually talked about this before in one of my journals about albums that I don't really find that great, so i'm glad I can bring it up again.

Because of this song alone

^Listening to a song on an album that i've tried to listen to and enjoy doesn't help me enjoy it any more.

It was a joke, it's fucking Revolution 9 for God sakes.

I had assumed. I never really understood that song.

whoa what this is sort of the opposite of what I feel about it. it sounds super artificial. in a good way. its by far my favorite radiohead album (the only one I still listen to really), but I think its because it kinda sounds like the worlds firsts steps into the internet. its not emotional imo its more well lets play around on this computer thing. its like what vaporwave now is trying to do, but kid a does it by just being there. I didn't know this album in 2000 but it still reminds me of number crunchers or Oregon trail or addictinggames or just my first instances of being on a computer.

Me neither, Seems like Lennon and McCartney were just jerking off.

It definitely has some duds (well, filler might be an appropriate word), but it has some of The Beatles' best tracks on it like Happiness Is a Warm Gun, Revolution, While My Guitar Gently Weeps, Back In The U.S.S.R., Blackbird, and Helter Skelter. I would probably put Revolver, Abbey Road, Magical Mystery Tour, and Sgt. Pepper's above it as "the classic", since a lot of it plays like a collection of b-sides. I even find a lot of the tracks like Rocky Raccoon that someone can see as filler to be pretty entertaining though.

IMO, great Beatles album, but I would never call it THE Beatles album. As phenomenal as some of the tracks are, there are too many low points in comparison to their other albums.

Revolution 9 though

Pretty meh track, even as a lover of experimental music. Musique concrete had been around way before that was released, and a good load of it was much more than that "innovative" piece.

That certainly makes sense. I don't doubt that there are a handful of classics on the album. I'm more into albums that have a large collection of great songs, sort of how Sgt Pepper is for me. That album has 99% good songs on it, take away maybe 1 or 2. It makes sense that the filler would take away the appeal for me. Since I basically feel the same way about Floyd's The Wall. Again, some great songs on it, but as a whole, not that great.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...gyStardust.jpg

Love Bowie but I've never understood why this album is regarded more highly than his other output when in my mind it is definitely inferior to Station to Station, Low, Heroes, and Hunky Dory. I'd even place Lodger, Young Americans, Scary Monsters (And Super Creeps), Diamond Dogs, and Let's Dance above it probably.

However, Rock N Roll Suicide is one of his best ever songs. I just think the whole musical direction of the album is lightweight and uninspired compared to his later work, which is infinitely more interesting. Maybe it's the slightly ridiculous concept and lyrics that turn me off?

All right, thanks to those who helped me see Rabin's album actually is not really that good, and it's not just me. Here's another.
I've loved everything Peter Gabriel did with Genesis and solo, but there is no way I can get into this album. I've tried about five times; every time it just depresses me and leaves me shrugging my shoulders as to how an artiste of his calibre and undoubted talent could end up dropping a piece of crap (metaphor carefully chosen) like this?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...er_Gabriel.jpg
Peter Gabriel --- Up

Note: prog haters stay away; I want to hear from people who know this album or know Gabriel's work, and appreciate it, or who are willing to listen to it with an open mind.

Although his last two efforts, Scratch My Back and New Blood really annoyed me, they are collections of orchestral versions of his songs so I don't quite count them as failed albums, and I wonder what new material he will come up with, but so far this is the only studio album of his that I cannot get into no matter how I try.

I don't understand the love for Massive Attack - Mezzanine. I always get like three tracks in and then I'm just bored and don't want to finish the thing. Why does that album get all the praise over Blue Lines which I find to be vastly superior and really awesome in general?

More like Lennon, Ono, and Heroin. Macca didn't have much to do with it. White album has some filler but there are way too many good songs to get it down to one disc (no need to do it for me as I'm sure some of you are willing). I like that there are classics like "I will" that are kind of deep tracks, as much as a Beatles track can be.

Hate to say it, but I think Ziggy is my fave Bowie, I have never dug deep but need to because I do love his stuff.