Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Why's this got... like... no coverage at all? It's well good. 34 tracks as well. Value!
...part of it's due to how patchy it is (though it has some real highs), plus the fact the press release didn't really break down which songs were from when etc - it's like a grrreatest hits before they've had any hits, so requires some research to get head round. overworked journalists appreciate the attitude, but don't have a lot of time to piece together the progression themselves.
i think that's what happened (subconsciously) with me, anyway - and i quite like 'em.
should be online today.
wasn't really an issue for me, mainly because it evidently wasn't much of an issue for them. As a collection of songs just to stick on shuffle, it's great.
I agree that it's patchy, but even so, I think it's more consistent than a 34 track LP from a new band has any right to be. Plus, there's enough there for you to ignore half of it and still have half an hour of great music.
as Minutemen were when they released Double Nickels, which has more tracks, is more consistent and is much much better
and wondering if I was just making excuses for it which didn't need to be made for something like Double Nickels, thus making them overly-generous, but in the end I decided:
1) I don't know Double Nickels well enough (or indeed any other album comparable in track and album length) to really develop any opinion regarding whether it suffers from the same problems as Alphabetically Arranged or not, and although plenty of people take the latter view, they could just be looking at it through rose-tinted specs.
2) Even if Double Nickels doesn't suffer from the same problems, that just makes it an exceptional album and is no reason not to judge Alphabetically Arranged on its own merits.