This is a thread for fostering musical debate.

Each time i listen to the album it makes me want to put on Meddle. Certain tracks just sound too much like Pink Floyd's acoustic work. It's ok, but not deserving the 4½ stars that AMG, or the 8.1 (out of 10) that Pitchfork gave it. I would like to hear what specifically turns you on about it.

¥

I disagree. Everytime a Suprergrass album comes out people call them "undervalued" and "underrated", to the extent that they end up getting the praise that people say they deserve to get, but don't. There is such an outcry from some to "give these lovable scamps the credit they deserve", that I am left scratching my head in bafflement. They have to earn it, I argue. Grating vocals, bombastic riffs, and that horribly contrived sense of "fun", do not merit great attention in my book.

All your other points were fair, and that is duly noted, but they are NOT as overlooked as people would have you believe.

Like I said, I can't really put my finger on it. It's possible they distill Pink Floyd's post-Syd stuff for uninitiated folks like me. I really like the melodies, the sort of abstract but unified-in-theme lyrics and, yes, that lush atmosphere that's probably derived from Floyd. There are also just great moments -- off the top of my head, "You are still evil/ in my sword you'll be caught" is a real danger for sticking in my head, but not so much in the bad way.

Another thing, and this isn't a diss because I read it daily and think the writing has taken an upturn of late, but does anyone really go by P'fork's ratings? Good for getting thumbnail viewpoints/ overviews on new indie stuff, but far from a reliable buyer's guide. I mean, a show of hands for those who think the Dismemberment Plan's Emerency and I re-defined pop music? Anybody? Beuller?

On the other side, I'm pretty sure high ratings from AMG just mean it's the best stuff from an artist (i.e. relative to their own back catalog, not all of pop music in creation as a whole).

Nonetheless, if I had to give a rating on that record, it'd be a high one, for the reasons stated above and also for that certain "I don't know what" that I simply don't know about.

This is one of the very few records that I could play for my father that was of the indie varity that he didn't make him run screaming out of the house. He said it sounded honest and real.....

I would have thought that the Strokes would be a prime example of a band for people who "like to go on rants about manufactured this, Britney Spears that". To be honest, any popular pop-rock act present people with this sort of "alternative", but this isn't really a fault on the part of the music-maker, more to do with the listener's bogus notions of what is "real music". The likes of Ash would sound to me to have a better grasp of making perfect pop than the Strokes, though. And while I don't think many people would make any great claims for Ash being anything other than a fun pop group, people make STRONG claims for the Strokes. I'm sorry, but ("Hard to Explain" aside), I'm not hearing any classic tunes on that album.

(It should be noted, however, that most of the Strokes lovers I talk to are of the "Rock & Roll will never die, gee I miss Nirvana even though I was too young to have been around when Grunge exploded anyway" variety, not the chin stroking NME readers.)

The point, though, was that we were told to name bands who baffle us, and the burden of proof would be on the people who write back to convince us of their merits. I know people make strong claims for the Strokes, and they seem to hit lots of listeners where 95% of rock bands don't, but WHY? "The Strokes managed to make a perfect pop/rock album without fucking sounding like Ash" won't convince me that it's worth re-considering.

(by the way are you sticking with journalism or running free to the hills/changing course)

You were supposed to be defending the track, not digging its grave

(Am sticking with JR, despite all my threats/promises. Had opportunity to head to a different course, as I'd re-applied to CAO, but have decided to stick with it. You the same?)

this is what i said: ''Part of the appeal though is that too many listens are never enough (you can never completely understand it)''

You can get what they are doing (after a few listens) but I am only a listener (don't play music and I don't know any theory) and I think structurally it's very difficult to completely get it from that perspective.

''I quite liked Julio's defense of Trout Mask Replica, but I'm not sure this explains completely the esteem in which it is widely held (meaning, and I'm guessing here: these are not the reasons most will give in praising it).''

Thanks. I don't quite know the reasons ppl give since I have never read any reviews of the record.

''Funnily enough, I tried TMR again last week (probably just the third or fourth time I've played the record since I bought it many years ago)''

It took me six or seven times for me to say: 'Yes, this is a great album'. After the first listen I didn't like it. I was thinking, 10 quid for this crap but i remember i liked Ella guru and the lyric sheet gave me a few laughs so i tried it again.

''Apparently, the Captain's prescription for listening to it is to just go about your everyday business while the record plays in the background. I tried it yesterday and failed utterly.''

my god! that's a great joke. I find it very difficult to use most music as background and i've never tried TMR.