Joined: July 2005
||Posted: Dec. 21 2008, 05:49
|Quote (Sweetpea @ Aug. 22 2008, 05:30)|
|Interesting to think of this, Light + Shade, as being such a catalyst for fanhood. Especially since I think it's a lovely work and I listen to it much more than Discovery, Islands, and Earth Moving. Is L+S really so radical for Mike? I didn't come to it from the viewpoint of a huge lifelong fan - this was one of the first albums in my rediscovery of MO - so I didn't see it as a disappointment. Then again, maybe I just have low standards? |
How much we listen to an album is a point I come back to time and time again. Some time ago I asked which 5 MO albums everyone listened to the most. Some people surprised themselves by putting Tres Lunas on the list but not Amarok. The latter may be technically better, but I find that I have to be in the mood to listen to Amarok. Tres Lunas is much easier to pick up and play pretty much anytime.
Calling Tres Lunas or Light and Shade "easy listening" may be incorrect, but they do seem to be easier to listen to than some of the more "classic" albums. I listen to QE2 quite a lot, for instance.
I didn't enjoy L&S on the first listen, but it really grows on you. That said, I would have been quite happy if the album had only included: Angelique, Blackbird, Our Father, Sunset, Quicksilver, Tears of an Angel, Ringscape and Nightshade. The other tracks aren't bad (except Romance, which I can't bear to listen to) but I find most of them boring.