I like "Outlaw" for "Cherrystones" and that about does it. "Headless Heroes" is a far more interesting and compelling album, musically and conceptually.
'Outlaw' is really about 'Unspoken dreams of light' primarily - then 'Cherrystones'. 'Headless heroes....' is genius from start to finish - but you gotta hear it. ie it's not instant at all.
I agree with this. I can understand how the focused, nervous energy and folk cues coursing through the album make more sense for the generation prior to mine, but it's really a solid listen, even if you don't initially "get it." Outlaw is a lesser album, to be sure.
I'm always suspicious when people claim that albums need to be "digested." That usually means they didn't sound good to begin with.
I don't expect to hit it off with every album the first time I hear it. There are a number of reasons why this might be the case; some genres may foreign to fresh ears; some LPs are simply more complex or layered and just need to be processed. Less obviously formatic albums, namely Jazz and Prog LPs, can have a situational effect; their impact can depend on the topical climate of the listener. For example, Can's "Future Days" and some of Terry Riley's work sounds different to me almost every time I listen to it. Even straightforward music mightn't "take" at first glance. I never "got" "Safe As Milk" until I listened to it two years after the first time I heard it.
Re-evaluations of art are necessary. We - as the ones experiencing the art - are not static beings, and good art often supercedes the artist or their intent.
I'm always suspicious when people claim that albums need to be "digested." That usually means they didn't sound good to begin with.
I don't expect to hit it off with every album the first time I hear it. There are a number of reasons why this might be the case; some genres may foreign to fresh ears; some LPs are simply more complex or layered and just need to be processed. Less obviously formatic albums, namely Jazz and Prog LPs, can have a situational effect; their impact can depend on the topical climate of the listener. For example, Can's "Future Days" and some of Terry Riley's work sounds different to me almost every time I listen to it. Even straightforward music mightn't "take" at first glance. I never "got" Safe As Milk until I listened to it two years after the first time I heard it.
Re-evaluations of art are necessary. We - as the ones experiencing the art - are not static beings, and good art often supercedes the artist or their intent.
No offense, but you're trying way too hard right here.
I was specifically railing against those who claim that albums need to be "digested" because they're supposedly deep.
I'm always suspicious when people claim that albums need to be "digested." That usually means they didn't sound good to begin with.
I don't expect to hit it off with every album the first time I hear it. There are a number of reasons why this might be the case; some genres may foreign to fresh ears; some LPs are simply more complex or layered and just need to be processed. Less obviously formatic albums, namely Jazz and Prog LPs, can have a situational effect; their impact can depend on the topical climate of the listener. For example, Can's "Future Days" and some of Terry Riley's work sounds different to me almost every time I listen to it. Even straightforward music mightn't "take" at first glance. I never "got" Safe As Milk until I listened to it two years after the first time I heard it.
Re-evaluations of art are necessary. We - as the ones experiencing the art - are not static beings, and good art often supercedes the artist or their intent.
No offense, but you're trying way too hard right here.
I was specifically railing against those who claim that albums need to be "digested" because they're supposedly deep.
I can understand if it doesn't fit a mood.
No offense, but I don't think you explained yourself very clearly. Also you put "digested" in quotes even though you were the first one to use the word here...
Comments
I agree with this. I can understand how the focused, nervous energy and folk cues coursing through the album make more sense for the generation prior to mine, but it's really a solid listen, even if you don't initially "get it." Outlaw is a lesser album, to be sure.
I don't expect to hit it off with every album the first time I hear it. There are a number of reasons why this might be the case; some genres may foreign to fresh ears; some LPs are simply more complex or layered and just need to be processed. Less obviously formatic albums, namely Jazz and Prog LPs, can have a situational effect; their impact can depend on the topical climate of the listener. For example, Can's "Future Days" and some of Terry Riley's work sounds different to me almost every time I listen to it. Even straightforward music mightn't "take" at first glance. I never "got" "Safe As Milk" until I listened to it two years after the first time I heard it.
Re-evaluations of art are necessary. We - as the ones experiencing the art - are not static beings, and good art often supercedes the artist or their intent.
No offense, but you're trying way too hard right here.
I was specifically railing against those who claim that albums need to be "digested" because they're supposedly deep.
I can understand if it doesn't fit a mood.
I have many much loved albums that didn't floor me on first listen.
No offense, but I don't think you explained yourself very clearly. Also you put "digested" in quotes even though you were the first one to use the word here...