[Bicorn Halfelven]

Originally Posted by atsonicpark

the breeders were an interesting pixies side project in 1991.

Your flame-baiting skills are excellent.

[koolthing78]

First off:
"I like it"
"It's bad"
What's the difference between these two statements?
If something is stated as fact, please give supporting evidence to help substantiate your case, other than simply rephrasing the original idea ("it's bad because the song writing is bad," etc.)
If all you have to say is that it's terrible, and you have nothing more to add, then there's really no reason to keep posting in this thread. We know your OPINION, thanks.
That being said, if "Mountatin Battles" had been released by some obscure new band without any of the Breeders expectations, I wonder if people would feel differently. And I'm not even talking good expectations, necessarily--even if you thought "Last Splash" was mediocre at best, there's still the sentiment of "and here they're even worse at executing what they were going for!" But what if you ignore everything they've done previously, including the Pixies? What if this was the new album from some alt-country group, that never had any intention of trying to recreate the sound of the Pixies or Pod or anything? I really don't see how people who consider themselves open-minded music conniseurs can dismiss the subtle textures and lyrical honesty as "bad songwriting" (especially without citing any actual details to support their claim). Did people really expect something called "Mountain Battles" would be exhuberant and fun, especially given the history of the Deal sisters? It's a song-by-song documentation of the struggle to remain clean, to find joy in the simple, mundane details of day to day living. These aren't songs for the sake of songs, with grandiose structures and over-thought out attempts to write crowd-pleasing hits, and you can tell that they really had no intention of trying to convince anyone otherwise. This album is the diary of a troubled, neurotic thinker, who's only goal was to create something 100% honest and real, with no pretenses or compromises for the sake of making something that "sounds better." And to that end, they've succeded at doing what few other artists in today's musically self-conscious climate have. "You want another "Pod"? Fuck you. You want another "Gigantic"? Fuck you. You want another *anything*? Fuck you. This is what my life sounds like, and it's ugly. And pretty. And sad. And happy. And boring, and fun, and anything else I might be feeling at a particular moment. So deal with it. Or don't--I could really give a fuck."

[Toilet & Bowels]

Originally Posted by koolthing78

That being said, if "Mountatin Battles" had been released by some obscure new band without any of the Breeders expectations, I wonder if people would feel differently.

it's all the more amazing for the fact that this band features a member of one of the most bland, sappy, half arsed, and over rated groups of all time, the pixies.

[atsonicpark]

Eh?

These last three posts were all insane.

Are people now not allowed to ''not being keen'' about an album without having to go through an emotional bath that reminds them of what they are doing wrong? It's not like one can't be a first-time fan of a band and just dislike, say, one of their records and that's it.

How are The Pixies bland, half arsed and sappy? Overrated yes, perhaps, but all those adjectives?

[PAULYBEE2656]

im hungry...............

[atsonicpark]

You can say a lot of things about the pixies but "bland" just can't fit that description.. unless you're talking about bossanova.. then, sure..

[koolthing78]

Originally Posted by sarramkrop

Are people now not allowed to ''not being keen'' about an album without having to go through an emotional bath that reminds them what they are doing wrong? It's not like one can't be a first-time fan of a band and just dislike, say, one of their records and that's it.

Umm, yeah... that was kind of my point. There's a difference between saying something like "I don't like it" and "it's bad." "It's bad" implies a certain objectivity, like "it's a fact that this is bad, and people who think otherwise are wrong." That's completely different from saying "I don't get it" or "I don't like it," which still leaves room for other people's opinions (and isn't the whole point of music and art to be subjective, up to the individual interpretations of the listener?). Now, I do sometimes contradict myself, and say things like "Paramour is aweful." But the reason I feel they're aweful has to do with their lack of art in the first place. (Which, obviously, is still *my* opinion, so following my rules I should provide supporting evidence if I want to attempt to prove my opinion as fact. But I don't feel like talking about them right now (except to say that their song I keep hearing is too slickly and steriley produced, lifelessly mimics the sound of other things that are popular among teens with disposable income, and lyrically or musically does nothing new that hasn't been done before (and much better, at that)). Anyway, if we are to accept that "Mountain Battles" is bad as a fact, I just want some more details as to what specific aspects make it completely unredeemable, and why I should feel like I'm wrong for loving it. Has someone else expressed the "hopelessly hopeless, life must go on (because death would be too easy and victorious)" sentiment of the line "No council, no grand strategy--no sword to fall on" any better? Or the use of the title of their Spanish song, translated into English, as one line in "Night of Joy" to add a new dimension to that song's meaning? I guess what I'm trying to say is, it's easy to dismiss music at both ends of the spectrum--that which requires no thought to enjoy (for those who enjoy Paramour and the like), and that which requires too much thought to enjoy (ie: the music is not initially captivating enough for you personally to keep you listening and uncovering all the potential hidden gems). I'm sure there are plenty of things that if I really gave them a chance, or got baked out of my mind before listening to them, I might change my opinion on. And while I may never care enough to give those things a chance--or even if I did and I *still* didn't like it--I would never consider labeling it as "bad," knowing full well there may be perfectly good reasons why other people might be astounded at its brilliance or personal relevance.

[Rob Instigator]

Beyond is very good. The Lou songs on it are fucking mazing.

[Rob Instigator]

Originally Posted by atsonicpark

You can say a lot of things about the pixies but "bland" just can't fit that description.. unless you're talking about bossanova.. then, sure..

hahahah! bossanova! ha ha ha! the boringest!

great songs on it, but velouria sucks the major donkey balls

Originally Posted by koolthing78

Umm, yeah... that was kind of my point. There's a difference between saying something like "I don't like it" and "it's bad." "It's bad" implies a certain objectivity, like "it's a fact that this is bad, and people who think otherwise are wrong." That's completely different from saying "I don't get it" or "I don't like it," which still leaves room for other people's opinions (and isn't the whole point of music and art to be subjective, up to the individual interpretations of the listener?). Now, I do sometimes contradict myself, and say things like "Paramour is aweful." But the reason I feel they're aweful has to do with their lack of art in the first place. (Which, obviously, is still *my* opinion, so following my rules I should provide supporting evidence if I want to attempt to prove my opinion as fact. But I don't feel like talking about them right now (except to say that their song I keep hearing is too slickly and steriley produced, lifelessly mimics the sound of other things that are popular among teens with disposable income, and lyrically or musically does nothing new that hasn't been done before (and much better, at that)). Anyway, if we are to accept that "Mountain Battles" is bad as a fact, I just want some more details as to what specific aspects make it completely unredeemable, and why I should feel like I'm wrong for loving it. Has someone else expressed the "hopelessly hopeless, life must go on (because death would be too easy and victorious)" sentiment of the line "No council, no grand strategy--no sword to fall on" any better? Or the use of the title of their Spanish song, translated into English, as one line in "Night of Joy" to add a new dimension to that song's meaning? I guess what I'm trying to say is, it's easy to dismiss music at both ends of the spectrum--that which requires no thought to enjoy (for those who enjoy Paramour and the like), and that which requires too much thought to enjoy (ie: the music is not initially captivating enough for you personally to keep you listening and uncovering all the potential hidden gems). I'm sure there are plenty of things that if I really gave them a chance, or got baked out of my mind before listening to them, I might change my opinion on. And while I may never care enough to give those things a chance--or even if I did and I *still* didn't like it--I would never consider labeling it as "bad," knowing full well there may be perfectly good reasons why other people might be astounded at its brilliance or personal relevance.

Applause, that is a truly a brilliant post for many reasons.

I get what you're saying about what's being posted about the album, you obviously gave it many more spins than I have and understand the record much better than I do.

I played it three times and it just didn't click, there's nothing I can do about it. What I'm trying to explain is that just because I'm not keen on it doesn't mean that it is a bad album per se, it's just that at this moment in time this is the way I hear it and feel it.

This band being The Breeders, a band that I really like, I will probably find myself giving it another go with a different heart and mindset in the future, and hopefully I'll be able to hear what I'm deaf to now, or maybe not.

If it was a band that I'd immediately feel like I would not want to invest time or energy in , it would be a different story, and that still wouldn't be an absolute answer regarding the worth of that band as such.