Album Rating: 2.5
classic mix up!
|
| |
"if punk couldnt be progressive every subsequent release would take step backwards until it was literally just one note of ambient noise and or nothing at all ya dig"
hilarious chuck, no it doesnt have to turn into that , they can stay afloat without regressing, I thought the point was not to be musical, not to push the sound, that was irrevelant, the attitude and political views was what mattered
maybe I was thinking they were just a punk band, not post hardcore progressive but not progressive sounding art experimental punk
I tend to lean toward bands that can be described as music.
|
| |
Album Rating: 2.5
what
|
| |
what
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.5
"if this came out in 77-81 it would have been just another punk album"
If it came out at that time it would have been considered way farther ahead of its time than it already is
|
| |
Album Rating: 5.0
It would've been considered blasphemy
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.5
"It would've been considered blasphemy"
Exactly like what happened to Ornette when he came up with The Shape of Jazz to Come, his style was considered blashpemy among the Jazz community he was that far ahead of the game
|
| |
Album Rating: 5.0
good music is good music it just would have been like so out of left field that people couldnt connect the dots and been like
what
|
| |
Album Rating: 5.0
Or when 'extreme' metal became more popular. THE OUTRAGE, lol
|
| |
Album Rating: 5.0
"Exactly like what happened to Ornette when he came up with The Shape of Jazz to Come, his style was considered blashpemy among the Jazz community he was that far ahead of the game"
sometimes critics shit on ultra progressive art but i think most times artists recognize art ya dig
didnt they shit on 2001 by kubrick
i cant say this with any certainty but i think if i was born at that time and sat in the theater watched that movie i would have thought it was brilliant regardless of what people were saying, i dunno tho
btw not putting this on the same level as 2001
|
| |
Album Rating: 5.0
RIP my previous comment
|
| |
Album Rating: 5.0
rip
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.5
actually no, 2001 was a major success when it was released
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.5
"I thought the point was not to be musical, not to push the sound, that was irrevelant, the attitude and political views was what mattered"
yes the attitude and political views were the appeal of punk back then and they are important on this album as well but the genre has progressed so much from the 70s sex pistols and stuff (which i feel you base your opinion on). art punk is a thing, believe it or not
|
| |
Album Rating: 5.0
"actually no, 2001 was a major success when it was released"
"Pauline Kael said it was "a monumentally unimaginative movie",[152] and Stanley Kauffmann of The New Republic called it "a film that is so dull, it even dulls our interest in the technical ingenuity for the sake of which Kubrick has allowed it to become dull."[153] Renata Adler of The New York Times wrote that it was "somewhere between hypnotic and immensely boring."[154] Variety's 'Robe' believed the film was a "[b]ig, beautiful, but plodding sci-fi epic ... A major achievement in cinematography and special effects, 2001 lacks dramatic appeal to a large degree and only conveys suspense after the halfway mark."[155] Andrew Sarris called it "one of the grimmest films I have ever seen in my life ...2001 is a disaster because it is much too abstract to make its abstract points."[156] (Sarris reversed his opinion upon a second viewing of the film, and declared, "2001 is indeed a major work by a major artist."[157]) John Simon felt it was "a regrettable failure, although not a total one. This film is fascinating when it concentrates on apes or machines ... and dreadful when it deals with the in-betweens: humans ...2001, for all its lively visual and mechanical spectacle, is a kind of space-Spartacus and, more pretentious still, a shaggy God story."[158] Eminent historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. deemed the film "morally pretentious, intellectually obscure and inordinately long ... a film out of control".[159] The BBC said that its slow pacing often alienates modern audiences more than it did upon its initial release.[160]"
|
| |
Album Rating: 5.0
its ok tho i like to talk out of my ass sometimes too
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.5
Don't know about critical reception, but it was one of the most successful movies of that year. Didn't claim anything else than that. (edit: as far as I know, it even was the single most successful movie of 1968 /edit)
Was mostly due to hippies getting stoned to it though.
|
| |
Album Rating: 5.0
sometimes critics shit on ultra progressive art but i think most times artists recognize art ya dig sometimes critics shit on ultra progressive art but i think most times artists recognize art ya dig sometimes critics shit on ultra progressive art but i think most times artists recognize art ya dig
literally talking about critics but anyway
like you literally just said i was saying yeah glad we agree though
|
| |
I liked the shape of Jazz to come, because that is what jazz is, continually progressing the sound and format forward, at least how I see it, but punk is supposed to sound like shit, basic music, I things progressing, to a point,
I like the album, but think it is not that far ahead of its time, just a mix of different genres, been done before, many times. I mean christ, Raw power was a progression in the grand scheme of punk with the different arrangements and instruments introed in mix that was done 25 years before the great Refused
|
| |
Album Rating: 5.0
if its been done before pls give examples because id genuinely like to hear them
im no expert of punk music so it could be true
|
| |
|
|
