ppl who just post pics care to add names,, would be sooooo usefull. thx (I mean pics without names etc).
"If your chest ain't rattlin it ain't happenin'" - DJ Pinch
"Move pples bodies and stimulate their minds"
we just ride the wave
Life sucks; Get used² it.
to be honest, i don't really LOVE that many straight electronic albums. they tend to be/get samey a lot of the time (not sure why cos rock albums are even more limited in the sounds they can produce in theory)
maybe its the lack of vocals
AxeD wrote:post your awful taste in music you assholes
The 'album' format itself is pretty overrated when you consider that most artists can't deliver that much quality in one go. I don't blame them, though. Giving people 45-60 minutes of quality music on a single release is waay too high of a standard. It's doable, but it's pretty rare to find something that's truly consistent and all killer/no filler from start to finish.
Dance music is a lot more "rational" in that aspect, they release more good tunes and don't feel as forced to release 60 minutes worth of quality music in one go. But when they DO attempt an album, you notice it's pretty hard to sit through it most of the time.
With rock music, I still think it's really fucking hard to sit through that shit. But there's just way, waaaay more, rock 'full lengths' being released because that's become the standard 'rock format' in the '60s. So it's not that rock music is 'better' or 'more suited for an album', but that pretty much all rock music has been released as an 'album' for 50 years now. So there's more 'good rock albums' simply because of the overload of rock music in that format.
dubfordessert wrote:to be honest, i don't really LOVE that many straight electronic albums.
yeah, this
Even with albums I love, I can't really listen to them more than 2 times in a row without getting bored or beginning to just ignore it as background music. And a lot of times there's a track or two I don't like and skip. Also, 50+ minutes is a bit too much.