Posts by Dennis Hall41

Women and Fury Vol. 2:

Kevin Chavez3 said:even Disintegration wasn't a double album until they reissued it back in 2010.

Well, that explains why I never saw it on those "best double album" lists. 😁

I totally forgot we were deep in the CD player era by then—since I still think of CDs as relatively modern tech, which is a dead giveaway that I'm way too damn old for my vinyl-loving, 33 RPM self.😁

Yeah, the Ramones are somewhere in there too—honestly, I can't even say how much I loved them, but I know that after just three listens, everything they do starts feeling way less intense.

Interesting thought. With all those grooves packed in there, you're probably getting way too much compression—which I bet messes with the low-end bass response, and that’s a real shame for an album rooted in soul and R&B.

Arthur Brown6 said:No way. I’ve definitely had records where a single side ran for at least 30 minutes—I actually remember one album having a side that hit 32. Take Oldfield's "Amarok," for instance; that whole thing is exactly 60 minutes, split perfectly into 30-minute sides.

Hmm, I'm no audiophile—not really my thing—but maybe Oldfield's stuff is just more compressed? Like, would a soul record even handle that much music per side?

Edit: here's a helpful link if you want to dive deeper into this topic
https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threa...-fit-on-an-lp-

So, I just stumbled onto some info claiming a record can hold 40 minutes (!) per side. Honestly, I have zero clue how much that would wreck the sound quality.
Plus, I don't think I've ever seen an LP longer than 55 minutes that wasn't a double album. You got any examples besides Hex Enduction Hour?

It should be—it clocks in at exactly 60 minutes. Wasn't vinyl usually capped at around 54-55 minutes?

Hex Enduction Hour really should have been a double album—it’s easily one of the top 5 or 6 peaks in The Fall's massive catalog.
Maybe the most vital cornerstone of that aggressive 90s indie-rock guitar sound holds some absolute gems, like these:

That manic 7-minute stretch of Fortress/Deer Park:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7Dljw...s&index=5&t=0s

The genius opening of The Classical:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZZZjD...s&index=2&t=0s

That classic infectious, groovy Fall moment—heavy on those 60s garage vibes Mark always loved—those catchy garage bursts were always their bread and butter, and on HEH you get a killer The Jawbone and The Air Rifle:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7LI_zA...s&index=3&t=0s

And finally, one of their all-time legendary moments, the immortal hip Priest:

If nobody’s brought up Disintegration by The Cure yet, I am—honestly probably their absolute peak, and for me, Plainsong and Prayers for Rain are just untouchable.

frozenraven39 said:I guess it just comes down to personal taste at this point.

People always talk about Strummer being able to cut straight to the core of an issue with just a few words—and honestly, I think that’s his superpower. Plus, he had that perfect gritty voice to deliver those lyrics. For instance, whenever I wake up right at 7 am, I can't get "ring ring it's 7 am, move yourself to go again" stuck in my head.

Then you've got Mick Jones, who's such a musical guy he probably could've made it in any genre. Paul Simonon has his own strengths too. And look, there will always be people claiming someone isn't a "real" punk or anarchist just because they aren't blowing up embassies like the Red Brigade or RAF—as if making any kind of capitalist compromise isn't baked into the system from day one (I mean, how would anyone even hear about them if they didn't sign a record deal?). To me, all three of them were the real deal, which shows in everything they did after the band split.

Musically speaking, The Clash's biggest strength was being this incredible melting pot. Is there any other band that blended punk, rock, reggae, dub, funk, and hip-hop better than them? (Seriously, good luck finding a band that did it better before they showed us how.)

PS: Frank Zappa was also one of those one-in-a-million geniuses. Sure, someone might get bored with him for purely subjective reasons—I get that, it happens to me too—but objectively, you have to respect the people who stood apart through sheer talent, originality, or breaking new ground. David Bowie was a total original, and Bob Dylan is easily one of the most vital and influential figures in 20th-century art (what he's doing in the 21st century is still solid, just maybe not quite as world-shifting).

I'm not saying you should actually blow up embassies, I'm just saying some other groups felt like more convincing critics of reality to me—especially since they understood how complex things are and that you can't just write off the individual in the middle of it all.

But if we're talking about direct social commentary, Gang of Four has always been the standout for me.
I don't think I've ever heard a better critique of alienation and the absurdity of consumer culture than their absolute classics like It's Her Factory, AT home He's a Tourist, or my personal favorite, Paralyzed.

You're right that The Clash mixed genres well, but I've always leaned toward the more niche, enigmatic acts from that era—like Wire (you seriously HAVE to listen to Pink Flag) or Gang of Four. They always felt a bit more my speed.

Zappa definitely had flashes of genius, but his biggest hurdles were his own elitism and this weird, almost obnoxious obsession with technicality over raw emotion. He often lacked a sense of balance and taste, which didn't help him much.

Maybe I should've worded that better—and honestly, the fact that they're fakes isn't even the main issue.
The real problem is they were just "good" at everything without ever actually being great. You could find technically superior musicians anywhere—look, they were punks, so that's understandable—but it wasn't a dealbreaker.
The thing is, you had way more talented songwriters out there by a mile, singers who actually moved you, heaps of better lyricists, and tons of people who channeled their rage in a much more convincing way.
And all of this was happening within the punk scene, let alone in other genres.

So yeah, they managed to blend a bunch of elements together quite skillfully, but they never truly mastered any single one of them—and frankly, mastering one thing would have been better than being mediocre at everything else.

Take Bob Dylan, for instance. He’s no instrumental virtuoso or master composer, and some might say he’s a lousy singer (though if you ask me, when he's on his game, he conveys incredibly complex meanings and emotions—he's a genius vocalist, really)—but what he *did* do well, he did damn well.

Yeah, but Bob Dylan and David Bowie are absolute geniuses, so I'll give them a pass—not so sure about Joe Strummer, though.

Chris Myers, this is a killer topic.

Here are some of my picks—though honestly, I don't spin most of these nearly as much as I used to.

Zappa—honestly, I feel like people give him way more credit than he actually deserves. I have to sit back and really wonder if he ever dropped anything truly essential after Zoot Allures—and lately, I keep finding myself circling back to Hot Rats. To me, that's his most serious, timeless work.
I feel like my massive obsession with his music back in the day was mostly just a side effect of my own teenage failures—mostly because I was super cynical, and Frank just kind of fed into that vibe.
I don't know what on earth I was thinking—calling his comedy-rock stuff funny back then—but honestly, that whole era was easily my favorite part of his work.

Public Enemy—man, they're such a tight, complete band that I actually hate myself for even bringing them up here. Honestly, I think I just hit a saturation point with them since, at their core, they're basically music for teenagers.

Genesis—honestly, I don't even know what headspace I need to be in to listen to much else after Gabriel left, even with some killer stuff from the Collins era. But that Gabriel phase was just pure gems—especially Foxtrot, which is easily one of my all-time favorite albums.

I still absolutely love Tim Buckley—no doubt about it—but I’ve always had this massive issue with artists who constantly shift gears and demand you just follow along. Even with all his insane talent and at least two killer albums, I honestly can't pin down what his actual core identity is as a musician, or even what he's trying to say with his music.

Jimi Hendrix—I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: he’s a killer guitarist, but that’s where his greatness ends for me. He never actually dropped a flawless album without any filler, he isn't an above-average singer, and he's definitely not a standout songwriter. Honestly, my teenage obsession was mostly just because all my friends were listening to him.

The Clash—another band that really should be top-tier, but from where I’m standing, something just feels off. There's this vibe—I don't even know how to put it—that feels kind of fake about them. Honestly, I mostly loved them for the aesthetic and because they were "supposed" to be favorites, rather than actually thinking for myself.

Joy Division is seriously good—honestly, *Unknown Pleasures* is pretty much perfect. But man, that relentless gloom is a struggle—I mean, I don't think they have a single lyric that isn't totally dark or desperate. It felt cool back in the day about 15 years ago, but now? I really need to be in a specific headspace—either feeling amazing or totally trashed—just to actually digest them.

Wait, so are Trumpet Fanfare and Songs for the Deaf double albums, or just doubles on the vinyl release?
Anyway, fine—let's just say anything over 55 minutes counts as a double album for this thread.

Actually, I totally blanked on a massive one, and honestly, I’m being a pain to everyone—God knows it—but King Krule's The OOZ would definitely be an archetypal double album based on length and scale alone.

@lemozoo Thanks for the input, but live sets and compilations shouldn't really count here.

Anyone seen any killer double albums drop in the last few years? Is the whole format basically dead at this point?

He wasn't the first guy to be both a simple man and a true artist—but if I ever had to explain how you blend pure swagger, simplicity, and raw emotion all at once, I'd start by playing one of my all-time favorite vocal performances—his masterpiece, Rock and Roll Records.

Honestly, his best work—and probably his most impactful, too—has to be The Graduate.
And I’m not just talking about him; that’s easily one of the top 50-100 movies I’ve ever seen.

I actually think Fassbinder was at his peak during that early era—especially with those three: the one I mentioned, Charlie Chaplin, and Lost in Translation.

I don't think you can really compare them. Even with that calm vibe, Fonda didn't exactly leave people with the impression he was a nice guy—if I remember correctly, he was known for being pretty difficult both personally and on set.

Picking a role from De Niro is tough—really tough—but I’d say he’s definitely underrated in Mann's heat.
He gets totally torn apart by every angle here—from the incredible Amy Brenneman he's head over heels for, to the great Val Kilmer and those women who see him as a father figure or counselor—all while running from an absolutely unhinged Al Pacino. He perfectly captures that neurosis of a guy just living life at a hundred miles an hour.

Walter Grant5 said:So, based on that, I’m getting the vibe you’re critiquing how certain people react to Tom Hanks' casting choices.

Basically, the whole progression—from "I'd beat up a million people if I saw this choice" to "I just can't see myself playing any of his roles."

I meant that you probably wouldn't even think you were Ramsay Bolton—just that it was an amazing performance regardless of whether we actually feel like being that guy.

Bottom line—I'm not saying Tom Hanks is the greatest actor ever, but maybe we shouldn't judge acting quality by how much we relate to the characters he plays... because we definitely aren't going to feel like those guys.

It's not about them being bad guys, it's just that they're real, tangible people.

As for Hanks, he's just okay for me—not great, not terrible—kind of like a modern version of James Stewart (who's honestly just a better actor). I think he'd work fine in some lighter Hitchcockian films.