Wait so why do we hate them here?

shit opinion

he's right though.
psychedelic albums are supposed to be a psychedelic journey. Tame Impala albums are the equivalent of looking at trippy instagram feeds when you're stoned

...

Ok so if they’re entry level who are senior level current bands that are better? Or are you saying one should just go back to the basics and listen to old school psychedelic rock

Personally I feel like he could make such better music if his songwriting was more ambitious and experiential and if he wasn’t doing that Dolor store Michael Jackson impersonation. Ultimately I think he had great potential but he’s to scrubbed clean. Good psychedelia should be raw and weird. He’s just to just to slick and pretty

Currents & Lonerism are life changing on psychs

Neck yourself

They contribute to the appropriation of psychedelic being used as an aesthetic rather than an approach/attitude. At Bear it’s just well produced indie rock with a psychedelic rock tint and at worst it’s just slow boring pop but with attention to production so that automatically makes it better apparently

>listening to music on lsd instead of murdering sharon tate and her unborn child
cringe

You sound like you’re 15 years old and only smoked weed twice in your life.

kek

Does jumping on cop cars, quoting EZIEKAL 25:17 from pulp fiction to the cops, and being restrained while taken to the hospital come close enough?

>guitar playing with phaser effect
>now guitar riff has added delay effect
>vocals have reverb now
>"DUDE"

Attached: 1531714842127.jpg (250x241, 25K)

>from pulp fiction
it's from the bible you fucking sperg

NOT EVEN CLOSE!

Attached: Charles_Manson_-_Lie-_The_Love_&_Terror_Cult.jpg (210x210, 15K)

See
There was a point in time where the only thing I could do was psychedelics but I don’t think that’s the important discussion here like you.
You cannot possibly convince me Tame Impala isn’t great.
But if you want to rec some other shit
Here’s my RYM
rateyourmusic.com/~decemberwyatt
Nice contrarian attitude

While being popular doesn’t mean something will be good by any means, it doesn’t mean it’s bad either.
Commercial success doesn’t preclude it from being good music
I’m operating under the assumption you’re young enough to not know otherwise, so I’ll inform you now.
Sorry but that verse doesn’t exist in the Bible. Completely made up for the film.
Yeah but at least I walked away
Admittedly not until sobering up in a hospital bed & realizing what I had just experienced as some dude in the hospital room next to me screaming about how the nurses were trying to kill him because “the machine stopped beeping.”

Holy fucking cringe

Being bad at doing drugs doesn't stop Tame Impala from being boring, but if you've had profound psychedellic experiences with them ofc you'd think they were good

Anyone who discounts Parker's skill at crafting pop songs and his damn near immaculate production is a contrarian. I am not a big fan of his music but it's impressive to all be coming from one man

>skill at crafting pop songs
>absolutely no memorable pop songs
What did he mean by this?

rephrase that to "loved" and its correct
between the time from innerspeaker and maybe about a fourth of a year after lonerism, they were extremely popular on the board.
this is half correct, them blowing up in the mainstream definitely has something to do with it but them turning towards a more poppy and accessible attitude to their songwriting is what caused hate, and casually, why they blew up.

nu-Yea Forums and the last album was mediocre. we used to hold lonerism as the aotdsf

"causally" is what i meant to write.

The name, Tame Impala, it just sounds mediocre, I haven't listened to them much though. I heard a song by them once and it was okay.
I just can't get into newer rock type shit nowadays.

Much in the same way that an ideal being held by the mainstream does not constitute it as being the right or correct opinion, any ideal held by the majority of Yea Forums users (or in this case the artistic perception of an artist by Yea Forums) does not mean it is correct.

In this particular scenario the mainstream opinion happens to be the one I agree with and as such I won’t rest when I see a thread making such negative assertations about an Artist I hold in high regard without providing an opposition view point.
Strawman argument.
When I provide evidence contrary to your previous assertion for my supposed incorrectness you attempt to than use said evidence as reason enough for why I’m wrong since you can no longer support your original claims.

Do you have any legitimate reasons for not being to hear the wistful dreamy beauty in “Eventually,” or the melancholic nostalgia of, “Past Life?”

This song is crazy popular so you must have heard it if you have any opinion on the guy. Tell me with a straight face this isn't some well made pop
youtube.com/watch?v=sBzrzS1Ag_g

Attached: 1445808944994.jpg (1508x1493, 437K)

>absolutely no memorable pop songs
Are you joking?
youtube.com/watch?v=VR008ZCmzoo

>Nice contrarian attitude

There is nothing life changing about Tame Impala albums because he's doing the same shit that bands 50 years prior them did. How is that life changing? You need to listen to more psychedelic albums from 60s mate.

Embarassing.

Attached: 1541022101759.jpg (320x240, 50K)

this
when tame impala first came out that seemed like the direction they were going. i still like their music to a degree but it's so disappointing it's hard to judge it for what it is and not for what it could be.

Ah the classic attempt to discredit.
Again, nice strawman.

Overall he is capturing the essence of what the artists in the 60’s are doing, I 100% agree.
But he is also doing so with modern production techniques and quite frankly, his sense of Melody & songwriting is so adapt that he doesn’t need to revolutionize the psychedelic genre.

I’m tired of seeing this narrative constructed that unless someone is doing someone completely new, they are of no artistic worth.

Yes pushing music forward is a good thing, but it isn’t a prerequisite for good music.

There are many Tame Impala songs that use previously established techniques, but there isn’t a single one that sounds like a song that has come before it (“Remember Me” being an exception of course since it’s a cover after all).

So you agree that Tame Impala isn't boundary pushing or revolutionary? Then there is nothing life changing about them.
They are just another psychedelic pop act. King Gizzard, MGMT and AnCo are better at it.

bingo - the sound has evolved, but imo it's objectively ahead of the curve and topnotch. The vocal minority on here are just angry that tame got big.

Wrong Kid.

Are there people who actually described them as revolutionary? That’s going a tad overboard.

I don't hate them

>YOU WILL NEVER COME CLOSE TO HOW I FEEEEEL

Attached: 1553190536066.jpg (640x480, 25K)

Tame Impala sucks zoomer.

They're just boring, man

Why does something need to be revolutionary for it to be life changing?
I feel that music can be life changing not based on its objective merits in terms of contribution to musical development, rather in the subjective experience it provides listeners.

And for me, Tame Impala’s albums (Currents especially so) have all had a profound impact on me in pivotal moments of my life, in terms of contributing to a positive mental state or at the very least moving beyond negative ones.

Music is a powerful tool not for how inventive it is, but for how it can impact you emotionally as a human being.
Whether that is emotional consolation, hyping you up, or even just providing a relaxed atmosphere for the better part of an hour.

Music does not need to be revolutionary. And even though the songwriting techniques themselves are not revolutionary, there’s almost nobody who uses the same stylistic pallet with modern production, and as such, when combined with his aforementioned strong sense of melody and penchant for poignant lyricism, it creates UNIQUE music that you won’t otherwise hear.

While I love an album by at least every single one of the artists you mentioned, the only one I find comparable in overall scope is King Gizzard.

Personally I would give Tame Impala the overall nod with regards to their peak, but King Gizzard with regard to their overall discography.

I’ve also heard mixed things about Tame Impala in concert, and having attended a King Gizz one, can attest that KG may have the upper hand there as well.

But that doesn’t discredit the studio achievments of either artist by any means.

I hate them specifically because my sister likes them and she's one of those ariana stans.

Attached: 1548264395850.jpg (750x693, 79K)

yeah
ENTER
i dont know about this one
ENTER
brother
ENTER
PERIOD

DUDE, 60's

Yes that’s where psychedelic music originated from

Are those the same person?

This is so fucking good I'm literally in tears laughing at how incredible this sounds - the bongos, the maracas, the snapping it's all so good

This guy has the right idea. They're eclipsed by bands who came before them but for some reason happened to be sprung into the spotlight way more than their peers. I imagine a lot of people disliking them is based on this fact alone

>The name, Tame Impala
this
I've never listened to anything by them but their name is so lame. I thought it was the name of a rapper at first

Isn’t it sort of sweet though? Like, imagine just petting an actual impala. That’d be pretty surreal

lol what a great analogy
mind if i use it user? i'll give you credit

Yes

Cognitive dissonance the post

We do?

We don’t. Lonerism is one of the top 15 albums of the decade.

This is so fucking good I'm literally in tears laughing at how incredible this sounds - the bongos, the maracas, the snapping it's all so good

I thought the same, I was already into 60s-70s psychedelic music when I first found out that it was not the case

The writing was on the wall when Kevin Parker started talking about how much he wanted to be Max Martin and the music went on a downwards slide as a result with Currents which was a bit of a mixed bag.

KP might have be a fairly decent songwriter and producer but he does not have the vocal chops to compete in the pop big league like he so badly wants, so most of Yea Forums would prefer more psych or proggier stuff like their earlier material

not reading all of that shit, fuck off redditor

Proof you have no argument

he has basically sold out since innerspeaker. tame impala is still making cool music despite the cringeworthy lyrics and a couple shit songs. tame impala still has good tunes but kevin had way better potencial from what we had antecipated whenever he put out innerspeaker. thats that dude. i dont blame the dude. its still very listenable

i mean, i remember back when innerspeaker came out i thought parts of it were super interesting and then lonerism came out and i was like "damn, this is something special" and then kevin parker just turned 360 degrees and fucking mega double double sold out because he wanted to start making music that would "be heard in a social setting" bitch we all know what that means you want top 40 hits that will play at the club and shit, Currents is such a weird fucking album because i can still hear the intricate layered production and psychedelic sensitivity but all the lyrics are shit and all the songs are so super saccharine they rot my teeth.

Attached: 76543.png (2312x1730, 3.61M)

This so much.

He's the psychedelic Playboi Carti

I don't, currents is a fine pop album.
Faux Psych can be done MUCH more wrong than this. Believe Me.
Someone tried to pass Nirvana worship with sugary synths as psych once and it was awful. They aren't the deepest shit ever but at least didn't went full pop cancer, you can still hear their typical sound in the poppiest songs.

Listen to Air's Talkie Walkie. Kevin took a lot of production and melodic cues from that album and applied his usual synth sounds to it