Album Rating: 4.0

'Seperator is amazing'



Yeah that one is top three definitely, maybe top two

Album Rating: 4.0

'preferential crit is good and fine - but pretending that anything falls foul there gets lumped in as 'filler' is silly'



well, it's all opinions



but also...the consensus off this website online is it isn't that great a RH album by their lofty standards so to extend that....there's probably some consensus some of the agreed weaker songs on an agreed weaker Radiohead album are 'filler'...by Radiohead's lofty standards



but mainly, yes, I was just expressing my opinion that I consider them skippable and B-Side'ish and even a little filler'ish

Gosh this is a sassy thread love to see it

if you want to generalise my electronic ratings at least check them on RYM first

Album Rating: 4.0

'+ v much hope you have a better response in store than a take-it-or-leave-it list of whatever material you've duly binged for no meaningful reason'



you not I are the one who generalised my taste in electronic music based on maybe a few interactions and a couple of ratings :/



most every child of the 90s who was into music in a big way has listened to a shit tonne of electronic before rating stuff online was even a thing - anyone over forty I don't think you can level that critique really, if you bought the CD (ownership of genre electronic: 247 albums according to RYM and my brother probably owned 200+ electronic albums just in the 90s that I borrowed while I was still living at home, I mostly stopped purchasing music soon after joining Sput and streamed more) it wasn't to 'impress someone'...quite possibly no one...knew? Context.

Album Rating: 4.0

"why do all your comments reek of day-old spilt milk"



The same reason your opinions do bb

Album Rating: 4.0

''if you want to generalise my electronic ratings at least check them on RYM first''





yeah good catch

Album Rating: 2.0

Whoa that’s a lot of text ^ and not true at all in my experience… I think a lot of ‘90s children’ stick to their tried and trusted indie, rock etc. wheelhouse. It’s certainly not a given, even those who proclaim to be musically aligned

Seems someone successfully struck a nerve tho

Album Rating: 4.0

Demon, in my experience most people 'really into music' (like us lot) in the 90s listened to a lot of electronic and hip hop...the best era of both genres (if electronic is one genre but you know what I mean). Plus trip hop and instrumental hip hop were massive (no one called it plunderphonics then as far as I knew). Why would people not listen to all this stuff in the 90s? That would be strange.



Obviously people 'not that into music' behaved just like they've always done and still do. I'll admit it is a lot more normal to listen to 'almost every genre' on an almost even level now, that would have been a bit strange and maybe expensive in the 90s.



'Seems someone successfully struck a nerve tho'



You have to throw some stuff back at Johnny from time to time, it's healthy

Album Rating: 2.5

for electronic in general, sure - not questioning exposure or the validity of a 90s passport there

but the topic was specific styles of glitch (which didn't really begin to emerge until the end of the decade anyway)

and why am i surprised that flagash doesn't know how to deal with an opinion that doesn't involve lying back and mooing contentedly to the approx same vibrations of whatever white bread run-of-the-mill wash his NPC algorithms are pushing him

Album Rating: 4.0

My brother used to record his own glitch stuff back in the day. Yeah, Prefuse 73 and all that, some Four Tet. It wasn't something I specifically sought out I guess true, always thought it was more just an 'ingredient genre' than "...I'm looking for a glitch album, I'm very into glitch".

Album Rating: 4.0

Nah I just think it’s hilarious you think your taste is better than other people’s really that’s all and it’s fun to combat you

Album Rating: 3.0

It wouldn’t have not occurred to me to compare Wall of Eyes to TKoL, but it makes sense actually, they share aesthetics more than WoE and the debut. However, TKoL is way more exciting as a whole, has catchier songs and a better flow. I agree with @Talons that the “from the basement” version is where it really shines though.

Still wonder @Johnny about your take on the mediocre track vs filler issue, what would be your academic assessment?

Album Rating: 2.5

Hmmm mediocre = unremarkable for lacking strong positives or negatives, and leaves quite a lot of room for debate

Filler is more specific and suggests a functional approach to the song (which presumably has no clear purpose beyond padding out the tracklist and suggests a creative dearth). I think it's much harder to argue that a track counts as filler when it makes an obvious advancement to the band's sound (as Feral very much does, however much the direction turns some folks off) or distinguishes itself in any specific way (Burn the Witch is one of my least fav Rh songs, but it's so unique in their discog that I'd never fingerpoint it as filler). Has to be redundant as well as average in quality - but still some room for debate there. Is Treefingers filler? Does its album-function outweigh its inertia as a standalone? Could see both answers being well argued there

"you think your taste is better than other people's"

other people here is a cheap sidestep away from meaning you. the majority of users on this site have distinct taste profiles and are interesting enough to interact with that there's no reason to care whose taste is 'better' - not my fault you still haven't picked that bar off the floor

I mean Johnny I love you but you to give off the impression that you consider your taste better than a lot of the folks you interact with here (I’ve got that impression in some of your conversations with me, for example, though again you may say that’s justified as with ash idk). Hard to distinguish tongue / cheek internet persona and what you actually think, though, I guess I’m just saying the way you carry yourself and frame particular conversations does give that impression (Eg the I rate your 5s list and any time I’ve seen you interact with doof over the last 6 months, for example).

Idk why I started this rant i guess just checking you do get how you come across sometimes

Album Rating: 4.0

I mean what I would say is there should be some faith people might be making quite casual observations (“sounds like filler to me”) and aren’t making some definitive statement they are saying should go up on the song’s wiki page.



We only take our own opinions so seriously. You’d think.



It’s all fun debate though, you want some people to be super invested and frequently Johnny takes on that stance/role.

Album Rating: 3.5

I've learned that if you want to post about a particular band/artist in a positive manner and get people to basically agree with you/post similarly positive things you go to the band's subreddit.



You come here to debate and some would say argue haha.

Album Rating: 3.0

Re: filler vs mediocre track

Do these labels make any sense from the artists’ perspective? It is hard for me to imagine the band in studio saying “let’s now make a mediocre track/a filler for the new album”. Surely some songs will be regarded as weaker and may not even make the tracklist, but those that do should (ideally) be regarded as integral parts of the album by the production team (Electioneering comes to mind). Tracks such as Treefingers or even Hunting Bears are instrumental pieces providing glue to the overarching atmosphere an album tries to establish, and again, are surely not included just to reach an acceptable run time. Those flirting with new stylistic approaches (such as Burn the Witch) are simply experiments that will surely not resonate with many, and therefore I agree that they can’t really be called fillers. To me a filler is a mediocre track whose removal from the album would either be unnoticed, or would even improve the overall experience. And thus, I find these terms to describe largely overlapping qualities.

Album Rating: 2.5

Doof is a great example of someone I routinely + extensively disagree with with some degree of earnestness (how much?! how important is this?! who's to say?!) but wouldn't weigh in on in terms of taste (beyond ye olde Bends slander) because it's more important and interesting that he's orientated + invested enough to sustain a discussion. Got our share of differences, but I'd say differing opinions on music are fairly low-ranking, as is the case for most folks who shoot the shit here

'Bad taste' is something I associate more with being easily impressed by frivolous things or obnoxiously close-minded in your interests - q hard to keep up a halfway informed discussion with anyone on here who is either of those to an offensive extreme

But being overly precious about people bricking on stuff you like and/or your own bullshit standards is a far bigger deal than having 'bad taste', and is the real issue-behind-the-issue for at least half of all discussions like this

"We only take our own opinions so seriously"

On the one hand lol yes, on the other hand this does not make it easier to trust certain people's judgements on certain things

"might be making quite casual observations"

Well yeah it was clearly a casual observation, but I'd say filler put it in the trousers of a substantive critique, which comes with clout it ain't halfway entitled to

Album Rating: 3.5

"You come here to debate and some would say argue haha. "



who would say that? i'll kill them