[swivelmaster]

The reason that I dislike Human After All is that, quite simply, it's not fun.

It's dour. It's depressing. And it's repetitive in a way that feels tiresome; You can't dance to most of it or even really tap your foot to it.

What happened was that Daft Punk challenged themselves to make an album in six weeks and ended up with a showcase for a few neat guitar pedals and two fun songs (Robot Rock and Technologic), one of which consists almost entirely of a barely-changed sample (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFwGQAEYqHs).

Electronic music certainly evolved in ways that made it less warm, but that didn't make it less fun. Case in point, Skrillex's early music is weird and playful despite relying on 'cold' synth sounds. Human After All is just cold.

[coldtea]

>And it's repetitive in a way that feels tiresome; You can't dance to most of it or even really tap your foot to it.

Being robotic and repeatitive never stopped people dancing like crazy to techno all night. In fact, that's its very allure.

[sneak]

Not to be that guy, but techno is only repetitive if you are a) listening to boring/uninspired techno (the same kind of complaint being leveled here against HAA), or b) not paying attention.

[marcedwards]

Agreed! Also, context matters. How and where you’re listening matters.

[coldtea]

or (c) done right

[swivelmaster]

"in a way that feels tiresome" is the operative phrase here. I like the throwaway tracks on Homework that are twice as long and half as interesting more than I like most of Human After All. They're fun.

[l33tbro]

Fine not to like it for those reasons. But maybe try listen to it next time from a more psych, garage, or post-rock perspective. They were influenced very early on by groups like Spacemen 3, and I see HAA as them doing something big and dirgey in this kind of school. I even recall the liner notes saying only "all guitars by Daft Punk".

[swivelmaster]

The sound design is certainly interesting from the perspective of psych, garage, post-rock, etc., but the sound design doesn't make up for the songwriting. You need both. Or at least, I do.

[l33tbro]

I think it's a just a more experimental record. The lack of songwriting is kind of the thesis of the entire album, right? (technology, repetition, etc) It's aims are not to be Digital Love or their more conventional song-based stuff. If anything, it's almost a return to their origins like some of the more techno-orientated tracks on Homework.

That's what I meant with what it has in common with garage and psych. Not the textures or sounds, but the relentlessly experimental approach to convention. Not saying it is perfectly executes, but I think this what it is meant to be.

[swivelmaster]

What you’re describing is an album that’s more fun to think about than it is to listen to!

It definitely has a theme, but unfortunately as executed it’s basically “what if we defied convention by using live instruments and making a shitty album?”

When you bring up psychedelic, experimental post-rock, I want to mention that one of my favorite bands is Battles. They’re a good example of what you can do when you defy convention!

[l33tbro]

Ha. Fair, but music that makes us think more than feel isn't necessarily always a terrible thing. John Cage, Steve Reich, even Battles is pretty intellectual in a way (it's quite literally math rock lol).

I guess we like different artists for different reasons, and you like Daft Punk in boogie mode. Which I definitely get, as it is their strong suit. But I just think this is album is a bit of an anomaly in their catalogue and might require having to unlearn them a bit to dig it.

Their live album Alive 1997 would have to be my favourite of theirs btw. But I don't hate Human After All as many other fans do.

[swivelmaster]

Honestly, I used to focus much more on how objectively interesting music was. I got into Frank Zappa and started down the very deep rabbit hole of his discography, and eventually realized that I really loved some of it and the rest was just... not enjoyable.

Speaking as someone who has been writing music for quite a long time, writing something that is objectively interesting (by being complex or unusual) is much, much easier than writing something that is just plain entertaining.

I think there's always something to be said for pushing boundaries, and I love experiencing any art or entertainment that makes me think "oh shit, I didn't know you could do that." But even then, that doesn't make it good or enjoyable, just interesting or thought-provoking. They're not mutually exclusive, but they also aren't necessarily correlated either.