which one? honestly I lean more towards S/T
Which one? honestly I lean more towards S/T
Other urls found in this thread:
laughing stock wins because New Grass
Yeah New Grass is good, but S/T has "A Life (1895 - 1915) and "A New Jerusalem"
(applauds you)
I prefer spirit of eden
having listened to s/t but spirit of eden is the best one undoubtedly. LS is good but it lacks the powerful vocal approach of SoE
This
You're confused, OP, it's Spirit of Eden and Laughing Stock :)
Out of Spirit of Eden and Laughing Stock, Laughing Stock definitely takes the cake.
>which one has after the flood and ascension day?
Hmmmmmmm
laughing stock wins because taphead
>hey which one of those is better, the 10/10 brunette or the 10/10 blonde
but that's the worst song on the album
Laughing Stock.
What ever.
This
Followed closely by Spirit of Eden.
patrician
Spirit of Eden first 3 tracks are fucking fantastic
The other 3 are not that great
Hell yes, Taphead is fantastic. I'm so impressed by how much tension and mood it manages to build when the drums and bass come in. God, the track just oozes mood.
Spirit of Eden has nothing on LS or S/T, both of which are fully realized takes of what started with SOE.
First of all you pulled that out of your ass, secondly Spirit of Eden is better than s/t and I don't even need to tell you that. You don't sound cool or interesting or whatever you're going for.
Very wrong, the first 3 tracks are too samey and bring the album down, the final 3 are what makes it
Na the first three are the high point for sure.
SoE and LS are both easy 9s, I struggle to choose between them but usually pluck for Laughing Stock.
Mark Hollis s/t really isn't on the same level at all.
Settle this dust.
Spirit of Eden sounds bad to me, it is such a noisy album, thinking of this trilogy of albums you think of the quiet sparseness that allow for room to breathe with the instruments. I don't get that at all on SoE, it just pierces my ears, it sounds unpleasant at times.
>this trilogy of albums you
It isn't a trilogy and I really wish people would stop trying to make there be one when there isn't. Spirit of Eden and Laughing Stock are a duet.
add colour of spring and then I'll vote
that's my favorite
life's what you make it, baby.
My favourite of the saga is Beth Gibbon's Out of Season.
I didn't mean trilogy in the sense that it was a planned one. But the three are connected, whether intended or not, there's a progression throughout and again not as part of some concept but just what Mark Hollis was going through as a musician. That is why I call it a trilogy, the three feel tangibly related.
Really? I would recommend listening to S/T more, it is seriously fantastic.
The first 3 tracks are all one song
They're one movement.
The instrumental bridges in Inheritance and I Believe In You are two of the best parts on the album, Inheritance for the chamber music esque sound with the counterpoint/call-and-response and how it prolongs dissonance for so long before that great resolution at the end, I Believe In You for how it's more an exploration of timbre than anything else. Also the combo of organ and children's choir, as well as the modulation up a 4th, at the end of I Believe In You is absolutely sublime. I would order them
>The Rainbow
>I Believe In You
>Inheritance
>Desire
>Wealth
>Eden
But they're all excellent.
I enjoyed this post. This is the type of enthusiasm and passion that makes me revisit tracks and listen to them with a new perspective. You've made me appreciate SoE more.
How do you feel about Laughing Stock?
They're all great and all but seriously the bass line on Life's What You Make It.
Laughing Stock was my favourite for a long time but every time I listen to SoE I like it a little more. I put them on about the same level now.
I mean the instrumental passage in particular, in the way that there's not really any discernible melodic lines, just a bunch of abstract noises and brief snippets of instrumentation poking in and out to create a sea of texture rather than focusing on melody and harmony. Basically the quintessence of what "post-rock" was supposed to be.
>I mean the instrumental passage in particular, in the way that there's not really any discernible melodic lines, just a bunch of abstract noises and brief snippets of instrumentation poking in and out to create a sea of texture rather than focusing on melody and harmony. Basically the quintessence of what "post-rock" was supposed to be.
I think you're overcomplicating it, but it's a beautiful song though.