animal collective / 'freak folk' / manitoba etc.

[kid cue]

Originally Posted by Strangelet

so basically you're saying its just not your cup of tea? so cool. Beyond that I have a few problems with what you're saying. HOw can it be a problem hearing a particular kind of religious quality when we agreee experiencing music can be religious in nature? This is kind falls flat when you take away the first premise of your argument: you don't like animal collective. I happen to know from previous conversations that you appreciate the music of bach, which you must understand emotes the kind of religiousity that only someone with his religious sentiments could create. other artists evoke different religious principles. BUT ALL OF THIS is irrelevant because I never said Animal Collective is shooting for a religious experience. I never read that anywhere. That's completely my own reaction to the music, independent of any desired effect. Which means I can pretty much say it as much as I want. Its not a math equation, its art.

umm, please chill out a little

of course you can say whatever you want. it's not like i've decided that i officially dislike the band and am thus presenting an algorithm to justify that dislike (where the hell did the math equation comment come from?????). i said the quasi-religious feel of the music doesn't sit well with me--to which you responded that all music is or can be somehow religious, to which i responded: yes! but it doesn't have to be music with Religion in it. especially not nature and animal spirits and Gaia, Earth's mother. i know you brought this up because you were just responding to the sounds (so was i), but let's take Religion in Animal Collective as an axis of discussion: Bach was making music in a highly religious atmosphere, where his music literally had a religious function, so I have a much easier time accepting it as part of the music. (also, as music, i like Bach's music about 100000000000x more than Animal Collective's.) meanwhile, i think it's reasonable to say that Animal Collective are either consciously or semi-consciously choosing to suffuse their music with religious or proto-religious themes, but in a secular environment. this is an aesthetic choice that i could either take or leave. i kind of can't stand it by nature, so i'm leaving it.

i mean, in theory. what i'm actually now going to do is go and listen to Feels a couple more times -_-

??!! what is your definition of "prententious?" I consulted google and got this to come up on top....

making claim to or creating an appearance of (often undeserved) importance or distinction

which implies observation, which implies the existence of audience. what definition are you using?

sure, and my dictionary says that to "pander" means to "gratify or indulge". if anything pretentious is necessarily "pandering" to anyone, it's to the artist himself. going back to your original point, i thought it was kind of ridiculous to claim that i can't hear Animal Collective's music as pretentious simply because they are "doing their own thing."