My vote is no, but I know I'm in the minority. I don't get the 'genius' lyricism and I find the music to be nothing extraordinary. Also, one of the worst live bands I've ever seen. But I'd give NMH another chance if he ever got himself together a put another record out.
On a related note, the book (from the 33 1/3) on ITAOTS has been repressed because it went out of print, which is pretty amazing. It shows that the cult of NMH is strong and devoted, and I should watch my back when I badmouth Mr. Mangum.
Posts: 3875 | Location: ATL, GA | Registered: 25 May 2004
I voted no, but only because I'm not sure if it's a 10.0 album. It's a great album, I'm just not sure if it's the stone cold classic everyone makes it out to be. Good, but not perfect.
----- People claim I'm possessed by the devil, but mama, I know I'm possessed by your daughter.
Posts: 5498 | Location: Michigan | Registered: 19 June 2005
If I sat down and made a real 90s list, I'd probably rank Aeroplane pretty high. Top 25, maybe. But he's not some tortured recluse who just can't produce another album because — O woe is him — he's afraid he'll never match the sucess of his cult classic, or his brain is just too jumbled to step into the studio. Yawn. I find the legend pretty annoying, and the album undeserving of the lauded 10.0 status. I'd give it an 8.3. (How's that for arbitrary? Wait, isn't that the score 'Fork gave it in 1998?)
Posts: 1652 | Location: Philadelphia, PA | Registered: 15 September 2004
I would wholeheartedly give it a 10.0. It's one of the most beautiful, yearning, heartbreaking albums I've heard in my life. I can see why a person would be put off at points but when Two-Headed Part 2 comes around, I am greatly moved and wish that everyone could see the immediacy with which he sings and of the subjects which he sings about. Of course this is just a wish, but in my opinion musically, lyrically, and emotionally it is perfect.
Originally posted by m.leland: If I sat down and made a real 90s list, I'd probably rank Aeroplane pretty high. Top 25, maybe. But he's not some tortured recluse who just can't produce another album because — O woe is him — he's afraid he'll never match the sucess of his cult classic, or his brain is just too jumbled to step into the studio. Yawn. I find the legend pretty annoying, and the album undeserving of the lauded 10.0 status. I'd give it an 8.3. (How's that for arbitrary? Wait, isn't that the score 'Fork gave it in 1998?)
Haha. Yeah it was #85 on their original 90s list, #4 on their redux a couple years later. And of course the reissue got a stone-cold ten-point-oh.
Pitchfork's revisionism aside, I voted yes. It's in my top 5 from the decade. I think the legend is irrelevant though. I don't think there's any such thing as a perfect album, as works of art are not spelling tests. But I do think there is such a thing as a five-star/10.0/A+ album, and there seems to be one every few years or so.
Originally posted by dubs: Haha. Yeah it was #85 on their original 90s list, #4 on their redux a couple years later. And of course the reissue got a stone-cold ten-point-oh.
The odd fact about that is that the 'reissue' was a straightforward rerelease. I can understand giving a reissue extra points for new material, B-sides, or other revelatory extra stuff that make reissues worth buying, but this one had none of that. I think it just built up a credible cult following over seven years and they had to acknowledge that.
Posts: 3875 | Location: ATL, GA | Registered: 25 May 2004
The odd fact about that is that the 'reissue' was a straightforward rerelease. I can understand giving a reissue extra points for new material, B-sides, or other revelatory extra stuff that make reissues worth buying, but this one had none of that. I think it just built up a credible cult following over seven years and they had to acknowledge that.
I suspect that many of their newer writers were members of that cult. Also, it is an album that takes some time to sink in, and given the scale of its release it's not surprising that it wasn't immediately recognized. After all, Elephant 6 was barely a blip on even the indie screen in 1998 (OTC had just one album out, Apples in Stereo had two). Personally, I'm glad the reissue failed to include, say, two live tracks and the demo version of "Oh Comely." Pitchfork gladly took advantage of the opportunity to correct themselves, which is fine with me, since the second review is what convinced me to give it another shot (I first tried it before my tastes were tolerant enough).
I agree, everything changes over time. There are some records that sounded great at the time, but have aged horribly. I listen to Areoplane, and it still sounds fresh and crisp from the horns on the fool to the Jeeeeeeessusss Chrisssssst. Thats you you should be able to look back in retrospective and say "Wow, that was a really good album." Some music ages like wine, some like milk. You never know.
After all, Elephant 6 was barely a blip on even the indie screen in 1998 (OTC had just one album out, Apples in Stereo had two).
Maybe, but I heard a lot about Aeroplane in 1998 or 1999. It suddenly became a friend of mine's favorite release "of all-time," and others recommended it to me repeatedly. I found it hard to ignore.
Posts: 1652 | Location: Philadelphia, PA | Registered: 15 September 2004
After all, Elephant 6 was barely a blip on even the indie screen in 1998 (OTC had just one album out, Apples in Stereo had two).
Maybe, but I heard a lot about Aeroplane in 1998 or 1999. It suddenly became a friend of mine's favorite release "of all-time," and others recommended it to me repeatedly. I found it hard to ignore.
It might have been a blip nationally, but it was all the rage here in Athlanta circa '98. All of the E6 bands were such regulars in the Atlanta/Athens clubs and the local music press was so far up their butts, you could hear local music critics jabbering whenever Bill Doss or Robert Schneider farted.
Posts: 3875 | Location: ATL, GA | Registered: 25 May 2004
I think that if Neutral Milk Hotel gets a 10, then so should a lot more cds that are well known just for being well known and, while good, probably don't merit a perfect score if you step back and look at it.
I mean, the instrumentation is well devised, but almost every song includes a quick paced acoustic guitar strumming. I like the lyrics a lot, but they're rather nonsensical (which could of course be countered with the "You gotta listen to it more to get it" but I guess I just don't).
So, I say that Pitchfork should've stuck with their first rating.
Posts: 174 | Location: My Tree | Registered: 15 December 2005
I ran into a really good article on the album today written by Will Sheff of Okkervil River. (I actually stole it from a stylus article on the song "Ghost"). Sheff gives the best explanation of the albums concept I've seen.
I mean, the instrumentation is well devised, but almost every song includes a quick paced acoustic guitar strumming. I like the lyrics a lot, but they're rather nonsensical (which could of course be countered with the "You gotta listen to it more to get it" but I guess I just don't).
So, I say that Pitchfork should've stuck with their first rating.[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't say you have to listen to it more to get it. I would say one listen is sufficient to hear the emotional ache that pervades the album stylistically, vocally, and lyrically. I mean when he cries out "When we break, we'll wait for our miracles, God is a place where some holy spectacle lies... God is a place you will wait for the rest of your lives" the message is pretty clear. But that's just me.
