Tame Impala - Lonerism

[PoorOldPo]

Originally Posted by joy_circumcision

another insufferably stupid album from an insufferably stupid band

Please elaborate on your insufferably negative and short comment. Explain why you do not like it or the band.

Originally Posted by eric generic

All I'm saying is Nothing That Has Happened So Far Has Been Anything We Could Control =/= Nothing Ever Happened

I messed up with the name! sorry.

Originally Posted by Forward To Death

Took me multiple trips to local record stores/best buys to find it, but it was worth it.

I love this album. It's proggy, psychedelic pop with Beatle melodies. I'd give it a 4.5/5, but since that wasn't an option I just went with 5.

What was your favourite song?

[joy_circumcision]

Originally Posted by PoorOldPo

Please elaborate on your insufferably negative and short comment. Explain why you do not like it or the band.

This silly nostalgia trend that's been going on in underground music since the mid-2000s is insipid at best. Even in the eighties there wasn't such an active regression in music. When the "mainstream" is doing a better job of pushing forward three-chord musicality (via exploration of new technologies, instrumentation styles, syntheses with dub music and moving beyond dubstep even, creating new trends even if they're short lived as long as they are vaguely original, etc.) there is a major problem. Tame Impala continue this weird rockist bent where underground rock "strips down" and goes back to archaic forms for a certain aesthetic. The aesthetic is insufferable in its lack of real ideals beyond venerating "masters" (read: bands that give boomers hard-ons quicker than six viagra and welfare cuts) and continuing this dumb feedback loop rock music has found itself in. It would be one thing if bands like this were rejected, but the supposed bastions of cutting-edge new music are treating these people as visionaries when they're just sycophants. It's not cute, it's not interesting, it's all been done before, and I'd like the 21st Century to start now, please. Hip hop, for all the co-opting and diffusion of its politics that's occurred in the last few years, at least continues to try to grow and expand. Obviously, this isn't to say all rock music is bad "these days" or that there aren't serious concerns to be had with other spheres of music, but enough is enough; let's get some meaningful, contemporary rock music.

[PoorOldPo]

Originally Posted by joy_circumcision

This silly nostalgia trend that's been going on in underground music since the mid-2000s is insipid at best. Even in the eighties there wasn't such an active regression in music. When the "mainstream" is doing a better job of pushing forward three-chord musicality (via exploration of new technologies, instrumentation styles, syntheses with dub music and moving beyond dubstep even, creating new trends even if they're short lived as long as they are vaguely original, etc.) there is a major problem. Tame Impala continue this weird rockist bent where underground rock "strips down" and goes back to archaic forms for a certain aesthetic. The aesthetic is insufferable in its lack of real ideals beyond venerating "masters" (read: bands that give boomers hard-ons quicker than six viagra and welfare cuts) and continuing this dumb feedback loop rock music has found itself in. It would be one thing if bands like this were rejected, but the supposed bastions of cutting-edge new music are treating these people as visionaries when they're just sycophants. It's not cute, it's not interesting, it's all been done before, and I'd like the 21st Century to start now, please. Hip hop, for all the co-opting and diffusion of its politics that's occurred in the last few years, at least continues to try to grow and expand. Obviously, this isn't to say all rock music is bad "these days" or that there aren't serious concerns to be had with other spheres of music, but enough is enough; let's get some meaningful, contemporary rock music.

Well honestly man, I think you're reading too much into it, I mean I dislike a lot of contemporary music like yourself, but you are basing your distaste off this kind of "revilalist" music getting more attention than it deserves, and you are not appreciating the quality of the songs, you are just writing them off. I mean seriously, it is music. I am well aware that these guys (well just Kevin) are inspired by the Beatles. But there is a lot of progression in this music as well. I love Avant-garde music, like you, I like listening to weird ****, stuff that feels completely progressive to listen to. But these guys just do it for me, I don't need to think about it. And yes I am a fan of the Beatles and yes, I can hear similarities in this guy's voice to Lennon, but I don't see why this is a bad thing. Lennon himself talked about this very thing in an interview and said that he was directly influenced by blues and jazz from the 50's and that the influence was clearly audible in the music of the Beatles, as well as all early forms of psychedelic music like Country Joe, Captain Beefheart etc. However I think that Lonerism is far less beholden to its influences than you are making out. I love the lack of choruses in some of the songs on this album, and some of the melodies are absolutely beautiful, this music is very progressive in its' own right, it is psychedelic and poppy and synthy, but it is all those things with a modern interpretation, a modern lens of vision.

[joy_circumcision]

Originally Posted by PoorOldPo

Well honestly man, I think you're reading too much into it, I mean I dislike a lot of contemporary music like yourself, but you are basing your distaste off this kind of "revilalist" music getting more attention than it deserves, and you are not appreciating the quality of the songs, you are just writing them off. I mean seriously, it is music. I am well aware that these guys (well just Kevin) are inspired by the Beatles. But there is a lot of progression in this music as well. I love Avant-garde music, like you, I like listening to weird ****, stuff that feels completely progressive to listen to. But these guys just do it for me, I don't need to think about it. And yes I am a fan of the Beatles and yes, I can hear similarities in this guy's voice to Lennon, but I don't see why this is a bad thing. Lennon himself talked about this very thing in an interview and said that he was directly influenced by blues and jazz from the 50's and that the influence was clearly audible in the music of the Beatles, as well as all early forms of psychedelic music like Country Joe, Captain Beefheart etc. However I think that Lonerism is far less beholden to its influences than you are making out. I love the lack of choruses in some of the songs on this album, and some of the melodies are absolutely beautiful, this music is very progressive in its' own right, it is psychedelic and poppy and synthy, but it is all those things with a modern interpretation, a modern lens of vision.

Well, even if I were to have a strictly aesthetic view of music (which I don't, and I believe the lack thereof is really the final nail in the coffin of the listening pleasure I could hypothetically derive from a Tame Impala or whatever), they 1. don't "do it for me" (this seems to be an adequate defense of the band's artistry, so I think it's just as valid a criticism) and 2. are identical to a zillion other bands I could listen to and have listened to and have enjoyed at certain stages at my life.

[RVCA]

Originally Posted by joy_circumcision

This silly nostalgia trend that's been going on in underground music since the mid-2000s is insipid at best. Even in the eighties there wasn't such an active regression in music. When the "mainstream" is doing a better job of pushing forward three-chord musicality (via exploration of new technologies, instrumentation styles, syntheses with dub music and moving beyond dubstep even, creating new trends even if they're short lived as long as they are vaguely original, etc.) there is a major problem. Tame Impala continue this weird rockist bent where underground rock "strips down" and goes back to archaic forms for a certain aesthetic. The aesthetic is insufferable in its lack of real ideals beyond venerating "masters" (read: bands that give boomers hard-ons quicker than six viagra and welfare cuts) and continuing this dumb feedback loop rock music has found itself in. It would be one thing if bands like this were rejected, but the supposed bastions of cutting-edge new music are treating these people as visionaries when they're just sycophants. It's not cute, it's not interesting, it's all been done before, and I'd like the 21st Century to start now, please. Hip hop, for all the co-opting and diffusion of its politics that's occurred in the last few years, at least continues to try to grow and expand. Obviously, this isn't to say all rock music is bad "these days" or that there aren't serious concerns to be had with other spheres of music, but enough is enough; let's get some meaningful, contemporary rock music.

What you're essentially saying is that if a new piece of music isn't novel in some way, it isn't worth anything. That's a pretty horse**** thing to say in my opinion. Yes, novelty should be considered when evaluating music, but is it the end-all-be-all? Can there be nothing else without novelty? Of course not, the very idea seems laughable, not least because it immediately discredits 99.9% of music in existence.

Tame Impala is derivative throwback 60's psych nostalgia wankery. Sure. It's basically just Paul McCartney + synths. But I can put that aside and enjoy the music on its own merits anyway.

And to be honest, I find it very difficult to take someone seriously who rates a "noisecore" album, comprised of eighty micro-tracks, 8/10 stars (which means you think it's better than 88.81% of albums you've rated). Because when you get to that stage of your music appreciation career, it just looks like you're trying too hard.

[joy_circumcision]

Originally Posted by RVCA

What you're essentially saying is that if a new piece of music isn't novel in some way, it isn't worth anything. That's a pretty horse**** thing to say in my opinion. Yes, novelty should be considered when evaluating music, but is it the end-all-be-all? Can there be nothing else without novelty? Of course not, the very idea seems laughable, not least because it immediately discredits 99.9% of music in existence.

Ignoring your use of the word novelty (a remarkably reductionist word choice that betrays your complete lack of perspective on 1. what I listen to and 2. what the "artier" parts of my collection set out to do), I will say that I do indeed value something more than pure aesthetics, yes. If you're willing to actually take a look at the music I listen to via my RYM (a link is provided below) you'll find a pretty large amount of aesthetic-driven pieces in my highly-recommended 3.5+ ratings. They earn their way into these positions by having some kind of point, being particularly emotionally poignant, particularly of their moment (or ahead of it in some way or affectionately behind it in such a way as to make a statement beyond "I like old things") or whatever. There was no flippant denial of Tame Impala based on a pre-registered bias, and if you think otherwise, you're just refusing facts.

Tame Impala is derivative throwback 60's psych nostalgia wankery. Sure. It's basically just Paul McCartney + synths. But I can put that aside and enjoy the music on its own merits anyway.

And your subjectively assigned merits are the large conversation driver here along with others in this thread who enjoyed it. I don't really understand why your subjectively assigned merits (that I could dismiss as shallow but don't because I give you the benefit of the doubt) matter more than mine (which you label as pretentious without second thought because you aren't interested in real discussion or giving me any sort of benefit of the doubt). I can accept that others enjoy the album, and that is fine. If they reserve the right to call me some sort of elitist for expecting more out of a several-thousand-year-old artform than Tame Impala, so be it; I reserve the right to call them pig-headed and a little silly for thinking so. What I don't appreciate is this dogmatic righteousness of "let me take it how I will maaaaan" and refusing me to take it as I will.

And to be honest, I find it very difficult to take someone seriously who rates a "noisecore" album, comprised of eighty micro-tracks, 8/10 stars. Because when you get to that stage of your music appreciation career, it just looks like you're trying too hard.

And here comes the inevitable ad hominem. Let me dissect it.

1. You mention Agoraphobic Nosebleed, a band you've probably never listened to but who exist as one of the primary acts in their genre. This presents a couple dilemmas: it indicates that you not only decided to just fish for a controversial 4/5 from my RYM (and failed, as it's pretty much a consensus among people who actually appreciate Cybergrind that AN are among the best) but most likely didn't go past what you perceived as an obscure first page of those ratings (it starts with A and is right on top for your picking), but it also indicates that you're willing to dismiss kinds of music based on their genre without listening. Who is more close-minded: the guy like me who keeps coming back to Pitchfork-core and rating it fairly for his standards (though those standards land it 0.5s-2.5s generally with exceptions coming up) or the guy who wants to take a piss on a dumb message board that proves itself to be as closed as possible to exploring different facets of music than personal aesthetic rhapsody and strict genre classifications for the same 1000 albums everyone has an opinion on every time I show up and does so by NOT ****ING LISTENING TO THE ALBUM HE IS ATTACKING?

2. You have major problems with other people exploring music in a different way than you do, and your insecurities in what taste you have manifest in pre-supposing snobbishness and hierarchical internal derision from those who listen to different kinds of music. You perceive me as some try-hard who thinks he's better than you are when there's nothing to indicate either.

3. By reaching this point, you've confirmed that you have no defense of this album or the band that made it besides that you liked it. I don't understand this cognitive dissonance: if one big bad poster comes in and says "I dislike this" in a less-than-pathetically-vanilla manner, he is DEMANDED to give an explanation, but when whatever Joe Schmo wants to pontificate affection for the album, he can just say "It's good" and have absolutely no resistance, no demand for further thought or greater contribution to discourse on the album.

**** you and **** your close-minded derision of things you don't understand and make no attempt to out of a self-satisfied ignorance.

[Forward To Death]

Took me multiple trips to local record stores/best buys to find it, but it was worth it.

I love this album. It's proggy, psychedelic pop with Beatle melodies. I'd give it a 4.5/5, but since that wasn't an option I just went with 5.

[Gucci Little Piggy]

Originally Posted by Forward To Death

Took me multiple trips to local record stores/best buys to find it, but it was worth it.

I love this album. It's proggy, psychedelic pop with Beatle melodies. I'd give it a 4.5/5, but since that wasn't an option I just went with 5.

Really? I actually found it the first time I were looking for it, really.

[sidewinder]

Originally Posted by Gucci Little Piggy

Really? I actually found it the first time I were looking for it, really.

I've looked for the vinyl a few times at local shops and haven't had any luck. I figured it would be readily available.

[Forward To Death]

Probably "Feels Like We Only Go Backwards" or "Elephant". I like every song, though.