.flickr-photo { border: solid 1px #000000; } .flickr-frame { float: left; text-align: center; margin-right: 15px; margin-bottom: 15px; } .flickr-caption { font-size: 0.8em; margin-top: 0px; }
As I cannot sleep and scour the Internet, I just found this snippet jammed into a post about "The Stand Ins", i.e. the new album by Okkervil River:
I thought the reason I like this album so much more is that it's a bit more true to the bands roots so I'm surprised diehards would be let down by it.
This is what I commented:
On this note: I've always thought the queer notion that bands should adhere to previous aesthetics of their released recordings is strange. This may be because I expect this from my favourite bands, e.g. Einstürzende Neubauten, The Smiths (of course now defunct), Super Furry Animals, and also Okkervil River. Bands - as they're made up of people - develop. I've found OR's leaps and bounds to be shiny and interesting, even though I cannot say I love all they've produced, but that goes for their oldest as well as their latest recorded songs.
While basically no-one (as far as my near-sighted vision goes, apparently) has written about the experimental "The Stand Ins, part x" on the new album, about how they relate to stuff like "A Forest" off "Black Sheep Boy Appendix" or just about what they think of them, I believe a lot of people would now just like more new songs to be similar to "Kansas City" or "Black" in terms of sound, when they clearly aren't.
And of course, as with human relations, when a band one dearly loves moves in a new direction and loses what was once their appeals to you, it can sever bonds, but still lets you hold on to those memories of yore. Like Oasis and Marilyn Manson today are to me; I think they're continually proving they'll never make another "Definitely Maybe" or "Antichrist Superstar", respectively, but I still love those albums.