|
|
Post by Michelle Hannon on Feb 18, 2008 12:25:30 GMT -5
The first song I heard by Band of Horses was from their first album. I wasn't interested - thought it sounded boring. But then I got the new album Cease to Begin and loved it. I thought, well, maybe the first album is good - everyone seems to think so. So, I got that one too. Now, I've listened to it 5 or so times and I don't get it. There's maybe one song that is as good as any of the songs on Cease to Begin, maybe two that I really like. My confusion is this: Band of Horses became popular because of their first album, Pitchfork gave the first album a higher review than the second... can someone explain this to me?
|
|
|
|
Post by Keith Groover on Feb 23, 2008 8:14:32 GMT -5
I think this happens to a lot of bands. If the second album isn't obviously leaps and bounds better in every way than the first, then it's assumed that they've run out of steam and don't have anything else to add. It's a ridiculous idea, since artists generally get better (at least for a while), but they might not necessarily show any revolutionary change.
I think most music reviews are dodgy at best and downright wrong most of the time (but you know my opinion about music reviews . . . ha ha.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Michelle Hannon on Feb 23, 2008 9:51:34 GMT -5
Hahaha... yes.
The thing that mystifies me about this band is how much obviously better the second album is from the first, and how people still rave about the first album. (The first album is hardly anything special except for one or two songs.)
|
|
|
|
Post by daniel on Mar 17, 2008 8:13:06 GMT -5
Wow. I'm in the exact opposite boat. I loved the first album and have nearly worn it out. I got the new one as soon as it came out and have maybe listened to it 5 times, but since then have gone back and listened to the first one more and more. They lost 1/2 the creative force between albums, so that explains a difference. Lots of money and polish don't make for better music. Perhaps a better sounding album, but the emotion is gone.
As far as pitchfork goes, their opinions are about as valid as the Enquirer. Honestly, I can't take anyone seriously who reads pitchfork as a legitimate music source.
|
|
|
|
Post by Michelle Hannon on Mar 17, 2008 10:35:40 GMT -5
I'm not really a dedicated BOH fan, most fans I've talked to love the first album. However, I've talked to several other people who completely agree with me. I don't really care if someone likes the first album more, but from my perspective I can't understand it since it seems so boring. That said, it's possible that I will "rediscover" that album later and completely have to eat my words. Just for the record, I don't put all my stock in what Pitchfork says about an album. They're just one site with an opinion. I go there occasionally to see what they're talking about, but I can judge for myself whether an album is good or not. While we're on the subject, I don't think I like the second album as much as I used to either.  |
|
|
|
Post by daniel on Mar 18, 2008 9:50:58 GMT -5
Everything All the Time is what made me start playing guitar again. It's really simple and clean but still brings the rock.
|
|
