Any boomer UKAnons out there who can tell me why Chemical Brothers were so beloved? This is very boring to me.
You got filteredThanks for your time
>>130211326You must not like it much either if you're not willing/able to even write a single sentence about why.
they are the soundtrack to my life.
>>130211353What is it about their music connected with you and so many others?
>>130211315They were early enough to have a sound. It was pretty cool for a few songs, an album maybe. Probably something about the mixed beats and scratching records and so, like beck did with the grunge.
>>130211491Sure the sound is cool, but to me it feels like the songs never really go anywhere. They just loop for a few minutes.
>>130211525>the songs never really go anywhere. They just loop for a few minutes.Valid. As I said, it was a sound, a hook or two and some beats. They commercialised a bit and fell off quickly. Superstar dj's, here we go.
they're the bridge between electronic and rock, and they came along at the right time to do itfull albums, features from rock singers, a heavy, energetic sound that was appealing to rockists but still felt fresh
>>130211347>I don't understand why people like things that I don't likeusually doesn't merit a serious response. But you've elaborated further, so tit for tat. Dig Your Own Hole and Surrender are two albums I can put on replay without ever getting sick of either. They've both aged gracefully, even compared to Fat of the Land. Even your other issue...>They just loop for a few minutesgets addressed on tracks like Elektrobank or Out of Control where they break from the main loop before it gets too old. Outside any of this, their art direction on nearly all their singles and album covers is just the most consistently cool that I've ever seen
>>130211632>Outside any of this, their art direction on nearly all their singles and album covers is just the most consistently cool that I've ever seenOk. Not really music related, though.
>>130211315If you're really interested in "getting" them instead of just complaining, check out their third album, Surrender, which is much better.
>>130211315they are a social band where you take drugs then dance to them with friends and at raves and nightclubs.you dont listen to them alone, sober, sat down at home like a retard.
>>130211315you’re meant to experience their music at a rave or a nightclub, not alone sober through headphones
gen x, I was there, 3000 years ago. anyway they were the accessible sound of dance music for people who went clubbing and might pop half a pill but weren't actually into the rave scene. that was a big market in the mid-late 90s. most people who'd been partying through the peak of 88-93, whether they'd burnt out or were still going, didn't hold them in such high regard. the Chemicals were more popular with normies and semi-normies and while they weren’t despised or dismissed by any means they didn't get the affection from the hardcore like, say, the Prodigy did.
>>130211686>>130211713So the music is not actually good is what you're saying?
>>130211315Big beats are the best, get high all the time
>>130211315They were shit and you're right to call them out. They were the ultimate wannabe red flag. There were similar acts, which got similar attention, but you could turned a blind eye. Underworld - Born Slippy, Trainspotting soundtrack. Fatboy Slim - Weapon of Choice (had Bootsy Collins and Christopher Walken in it). Basement Jaxx - Where's Your Head At was poppy and accusing at the same time.The real talent of the era (for the UK) were/still are Dave Clarke, Surgeon, Luke Slater, Regis, Ben Sims and (only slightly related) Tricky, The Orb and Goldie.Chemical Brothers took the edge off, they were less confrontational, so women liked them more. As a result men with more blood in their dicks than their brains liked them more too. It's music for cattle.
basement jaxx were superior
>>130211767well I’m not really into the music devoid of context, but they were probably better at stitching together samples and building crescendos than 99.9% of the acts trying the same thing at that time
>>130211878lol holy fucking shit at this post… à real doozy… way too much knowledge to be a zoomer but far too ignorant to have been there at the time…calling underworld poppy and then referencing the orb and goldie and tricky… top tier stuff mate. I’ll just point out the obvious which is that Norman has tracks you have never heard before which utterly mog 90% of what you referenced. https://youtu.be/1nL6L0bqP68
what it do?
>>130211649Thanks for proving my gut feeling right, that engaging with you was a waste of time
