Why isn't their album more acclaimed than it should be. Their other records sound like humpback whales during mating season and now that there music is finally accessible people turn there backs on them. It's not like Bjork who's last album sucked balls but still got rave reviews for being prog. Tori Amos was very prog in Boys for Pele so why didn't that record get the same acclaim as the last Bjork release? Just because something sounds unusual why does it have to get rave reviews? Portishead and Antony are perfect examples. If this is the case why isn't Yoko Ono more acclaimed?
Takk...is fantastic. It's easily one of the contenders for best album of the year, but I think their timing is a little off. A lot of times when albums arrive at the end or the beginning of the year, they get forgotten. Plus everyone has been feeding Sufjan Stevens and The Arcade Fire (again) through the hype machine, and the TRULY brilliant albums get left in the cold. It happens to the best and then they get looked at as overlooked masterpieces years to come. Plus, Sigur Ros is a rather quiet band so little attention arrives because it and its music is so subtle. The same happened with Doves this year with Some Cities, which I believe to be every bit as masterful as The Last Broadcast. In Britain, the acclaim was almost unanimous, but has been forgotten because Doves is not a band that screams, "Pay me attention!" And I am rambling so I'm done now...:)
