Go to the NEW FORUM
10 out of 5
Dear Science exceeded my expectations by a mile. There Sophomore album " Return to Cookie Mountain" was outstanding, and there Debut "Desperate Youth, and Blood Thirsty Babes" was simply one of the best debuts ever.
On Dear Science, they keep everything that made them great (Sonic Textures, Disturbing Lyrics, howled vocals) and add some new age funk and some 80's style bowie into the mix. The result is amazing, this band just seems to get better and better.
In some circles I would imagine the breakup of TV ON THE RADIO feeling similar to what had happened with the beatles (It would leave modern music with unfillable hole)
This band is so essential to our times, it goes beyond explanation. There are only a handful of great bands out there right now (There's lots of good, just not great). Radiohead, Arcade Fire, wilco, TV On the radio, LCD Soundsystem, and some great solo artists: Sufjan Stevens, Joanna Newsom, Bon Iver. I beg of you not to look away. This isnt the 70's, there isnt great music around every corner.
Please check out Dear science, even if you disliked there to previous efforts. This one will surely not dissapoint.
Dont call me shirly
This album is awesome! It's my favorite of the year by far...
Yeah. and I find it sad that your average smalltown radio station wont play or probably wont even hear this kind of music. Its SAD
Just encase anyone is wondering. You can find the tunes on limewire. But dont worry, I plan to buy both a cd and vinyl copy of the album. Possible a few copies for my friends to enjoy
Indeed, an amazing album it is. I didn't like "all of" "Cookie Mountain", but I still had VERY high expectations for this one, especially since this year seems pretty poor compared with 2007 or some previous years.
Yet, after only one listening, "Dear Science" is my third favourite album of the year (after "Hercules & Love Affair" and "Lucky Old Sun"). Maybe it will be my #1 by the end of the year.
This is probably my favorite one of theirs but I still don't get what the big deal is. It's pretty good but it's not like they're breaking any new ground.
It definitely did exceed my expectations after the monumental Cookie Mountain (which is deservedly in the top 200 all time on this site). I hope Dear Science eventually makes the top 25 or so of the 2000s after this site starts updating again.
Having listened to it once, it's definitely really good. Probably at least in my top five, I guess it's got a chance at #1, but I need to absorb it more.
It's probably not as strong as their previous one.
It already dropped from a 91 to an 88 on Metacritic so I'm guessing it's already losing some of it's edge.
I've listened to it once and I don't get it.
I liked Cookie Mountain, but this one... Idon't know
Too intellectual for me. I don't really like intellectual music.
Their funk is cold and numb. The lyrics are pretentious.
They sound like some unfunny Outkast, or the worst Bowie era.
But I might change my mind after reêated listens..
i think it's fairly forgettable... a good album, but not a great album. it will probably be in the top 5 for this year, but it won't challenge any of the best albums of this decade. i liked return to cookie better.
TV On The Radio is a critics' favorite. I mean a lot of people loved that album even before they heard it. You could tell exactly which magazine would love it; in France, it's Les Inrockuptibles. So of course in the beginning it got a lot of 4 or 5 stars ratings, and then it started to drop.
Last week Telerama (a paper I love) gave it 2 stars.
It's a pretty good album, but after a dozen or so listens it's also losing my interest a bit. Still might make it to my annual top 10, though.
I do like the funky bits, that does not feel cold and pretentious to me.
And I would not so much refer to Bowie from the 80's, but hear more Prince.
After hearing it more and going to a TV On The Radio show, I think it has a few really great tracks then several just above average tracks. (Which is the same way I feel about cookie mountain, tracks 1-5 great, the rest just above average.)
I don't think it's fair to accuse people of deciding to like the album before they heard it. I'm sure it was predictable who would like it, but that's like predicting who will enjoy a hamburger more, a meat eater or a vegan. Every magazine's staff has it's own tastes, and obviously liking one eccentric pop album is going to correlate with liking another one.
Also, have you noticed that when a critic's darling band gets critical praise, people say 'Oh, they're just a critic's darling'. But when they release a bad album, they get slammed immediately, called overrated, blamed for their hype, and their success unjustly attributed to Diplo.
I'm not sure where I stand on this one. In one aspect I think critics favorites are favored for good reason. If a band has shown it's ability and creativity in the past the music community should rally around that. But, on the other hand, you hope that critics don't profess blind love. But, I kind of agree that most established acts usually aren't given much leeway after a couple albums. There might be certain critics who have favorites (Pitchfork's unfailing love for Animal Collective comes to mind) but for the most part critics usually tend to be harsher on the vets.
I never did get the hype of TV on the Radio so I'll refrain from my opinions on whatever ratings they get.
One of the reasons why I like this site so much is that it introduces me to superb music I would normally miss out on had it not been for the critics. But sometimes critcs rate music that is easier to admire than to like. I admired "Return to Cookie Mountain" but I could never really get into it. "Dear Science," on the other hand, I can't get enough of. An album that strives to make experimental music popular? What's wrong with that? It's euphoric and engaging. What a rare and wonderful combination.