/mu/ - Music (Temp full images)

Cause it's mainstream MM
I agree though OP it is fucking awesome.

because it's popular

>>54852687
>>54852710
These.
I like it too

>>54852680
it's not praised as highly because it's not as good. i still like it plenty though

>>54852680
Good News is probably the worst thing they ever released. Float On is hype though. We Were Dead is better.

TM&A are the best thing MM has put out, no argument.

/mu/ as a whole just relates to the youthful energy of TLCW more since the board itself is 90% 16 year old white boys.

>>54852680
Because it's worse than TLCW

>>54852804
>Good News is probably the worst thing they ever released.

I have no words for you. Godspeed man, I hope your life improves.

>>54852680
It's good, but it's not as good as their first three.

7/10 I enjoy it

>>54852832
Sorry that I don't want to listen to Isaac Brock write embarrassing banjo songs about shittier authors for an hour.

Ugly Casanova does everything that Good News tries to do, but better, minus Ocean Breathes Salty, The View, Bury Me With It and Float On, which are the more "Modest Mouse"-ish tracks on the album (also the only good ones).

>>54852826
i agree but i still think its worth praise

suprised this didn't catch on on more : it's like a good version of tame impala

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xejoe0comV4

>>54852832
it is tho.
apart from their ep (no-one's first) or maybe their new album (i haven't listened to it)

>>54853448
>or maybe their new album (i haven't listened to it)
then shut your shitty mouth.

>>54852680
it's good, but no where near as good as tLCW and M&A

>>54853448
>no one's first
>worst

kill yourself

Don't get me wrong, I love this album. It's just that it's inferior to most of MM's work. It has a LOT of filler, and no long epic tracks that MM is known for.

>>54853637
>It has a LOT of filler
not saying youre wrong but im curious what songs youre referring to

>>54853717
>horn intro
>dig your grave
>interlude

All literal filler.

>>54853759
I beg to differ, Interlude is great. I really enjoy it.

>>54853759
horn intro is 10 seconds
dig your grave is 13 seconds
interlude is 1 min

i agree theyre filler but filler is only a problem when it slows down the album and wastes a lot of time. it does waste time but its a combined 1 min 30 sec out of a 50 min album. thats not a significant enough amount of filler for me to care i dont know about you

I think their new album is excellent too but everyone seems to hate it. Shrug.

>>54853822
I'm not the fella you originally replied to, just saying they're filler. Not saying it's good or bad.

>>54853827
i think its decent but by far their weakest. even the best songs (which i think are very good) are nothing like the great songs on other mm albums. it had no single song which blew me away

>>54853818
Still doesn't change it from being filler.

>>54853827
It's not bad, and MM at their worst is still alright to listen to. Doesn't really stack up with their discog though. To me, personally, it just seems like b-sides from Good News and We Were Dead.

>>54853898
>it just seems like b-sides from Good News and We Were Dead.
That's funny because the two actual b-sides from Good News are better than the album itself.

>>54853827
I think it is a damn fine album. The slower songs really drag it down but Ground Walks and Sugar Boats are two of the best things they've done. Pistol is great.

>>54853898
the funny thing is i think the bsides from good news and we were dead are better. (also theyre releasing what is essentially a bsides from strangers to ourselves in 2016)

Ok serious question, if this album was from an underground indie band and it was their only release, would /mu/ like it more?

>>54853759
Those are called link tracks you fucking knob. How can something be filler if it starts the album off? Also, the point of filler is to take up space which these tracks collectively don't. Trucker's Atlas is more filler than these tracks.

>>54853968
Yes, absolutely.

>>54853988
The tracks could have been tacked onto the song itself. Literally no need for them to be separate tracks other than to pad out the track list.

>>54853968
I would not but I am also not the webpage called "/mu/" so that wasn't directed at me.

>>54853968
probably. i think modest mouse fans who dont like it probably would like it a lot more.

>>54853988
i agree with your point mostly, but i think this anon >>54853999 is right (also nice trips and dubs you guys)

also something can be filler if it starts off an album, as long as its extraneous, adds little to the album and slows it down i think it can be filler despite starting it out

>>54853999
13 is plenty of tracks. They separated those tracks because they are very much separate entities.

>>54854037
(presumably) he just meant on average would any given poster on /mu/ like it more.

no need to get snooty about it since you most likely knew what he was getting at.

>>54854126
you said earlier that they linked the tracks, i think the fact that they are so clearly separate entities to the songs before and after them (so much so that they are separated from the neighboring tracks) shows that they shouldnt be there

>>54854126

Except it was an unnecessary separation, and led to those tracks being seen as filler.

>see end of tiny cities made of ashes
>see end of a different city

The ends of those songs could be separated to be called "connecting tracks" except they weren't, because that would be unnecessary.

>>54854196
im not the guy youre replying to, but i dont think them being tied to a track makes them filler or not. it doesnt really physically change much at all. i think youre addressing a different issue of it seeming thematically pointless

>>54854158
It is more snooty to claim the userbase of /mu/ only likes and approves of "obscure music" when there are threads about Kendrick Lamar, St. Vincent, Sufjan Stevens, Death Grips, GYBE, etc. (I can keep going) every single day.

Just because you want to defend an album full of shit songwriting that mostly comes from a sad, drunk man, doesn't mean the world has to follow your own shitty/childish internal logic.

>>54854234
Well, I'm of the opinion that if a song doesn't jive with the theme of the album and it has nothing noteworthy in it, that the track is filler.

>>54854270
how does it become not filler if the sound of the album is separated differently?

>>54854298
I'm fairly inebriated right now, and I can't seem to grasp the intent of your post. Could you possibly rephrase it so that someone operating on my level (that of an infant) might understand?

>>54854189
They're part of both tracks, silly

>>54854263
he wasnt suggesting that /mu/ only likes obscure music, and saying people on /mu/ also like non-obscure music doesnt actually combat that assertion. in the same way that him making a snooty question wouldnt justify your snooty comment

i think band association influences peoples feelings towards an album. and i think if good news were separated from mm and written by some obscure band with no other albums it would have no band associated with it that alters peoples thoughts, i think it would be liked more if not pre judged and that has nothing to do with people liking obscure shit more.

also how does sad drunk man demean the album at all and not just the artist?

>>54852985

burger shill pls go

>>54854333
i hope im not complicating it more but lets go with this

lets say theres no such thing as track breaks. and you just have 49 minutes of sound. and you hear these things that were currently reffering to as filler.

with no knowledge of there being track breaks i think its still filler whether you view it attatched to a song or not. i think that change has no real effect on the sound of the album and doesnt make those 13 seconds filler or not.

>>54854352
what do you mean theyre part of both tracks?

were still talking about horn intro and dig youre grave right?

cause horn intro is not part of world at large, or am i missing your point entirely

>>54854463
Oh, I see. I don't know how I feel about that. Because, like I said, the ends of Tiny Cities and a Different City both contrast the majority of the song, but I don't see it as filler. It is, like the other anon said, "Connecting tracks" but they didn't feel the need to separate it. I see filler as separate songs with no purpose, rather than bits tacked onto existing ones. That being said, I do understand the concept of time filler songs, though I believe that those types of songs are just repeated lyrics and measures without any thought, simply to fill space on an album.

>>54853947
quite literally the 3 worst songs they've ever made, not even joking

>>54854558
Dunno anon

>what is sucker bet

>>54854545
i see what youre saying but instead of seeing it as separate songs with no purpose i just see it as separate parts of the album that serve no purpose

i think truckers atlas is a great song for the first 7 min. i think the last 4 min is filler and unnecessary and it drags on. it doesnt make the whole song filler, and it doesnt need to be separated to be considered filler by me. i see those last 4 min filler but the rest of the song to be not filler.

>>54854558
>16 year old who wishes he wasn't a fetus when TLCW was released here, look at my shit opinion
:^)

>>54854579
Fair enough. Truckers atlas is always the go to when talking about filler on mm albums, and I understand why.

It's definitely not on the same level as the Moon & Antarctica or TLCW, but it's still overhated.