[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.