― lou, Monday, 16 April 2007 13:40 (seventeen years ago) link
― Ronan, Monday, 16 April 2007 13:48 (seventeen years ago) link
― lex pretend, Monday, 16 April 2007 13:54 (seventeen years ago) link
― lex pretend, Monday, 16 April 2007 13:55 (seventeen years ago) link
― Mark Rich@rdson, Monday, 16 April 2007 14:05 (seventeen years ago) link
― fandango, Monday, 16 April 2007 14:09 (seventeen years ago) link
― Ronan, Monday, 16 April 2007 14:11 (seventeen years ago) link
― fandango, Monday, 16 April 2007 14:11 (seventeen years ago) link
― fandango, Monday, 16 April 2007 14:12 (seventeen years ago) link
― Ronan, Monday, 16 April 2007 14:15 (seventeen years ago) link
― artdamages, Monday, 16 April 2007 14:16 (seventeen years ago) link
― fandango, Monday, 16 April 2007 14:21 (seventeen years ago) link
― artdamages, Monday, 16 April 2007 14:26 (seventeen years ago) link
― fandango, Monday, 16 April 2007 14:29 (seventeen years ago) link
― christoff, Monday, 16 April 2007 15:50 (seventeen years ago) link
― djmartian, Monday, 16 April 2007 15:57 (seventeen years ago) link
― lex pretend, Monday, 16 April 2007 16:17 (seventeen years ago) link
― Matt DC, Monday, 16 April 2007 16:30 (seventeen years ago) link
― Matt DC, Monday, 16 April 2007 16:31 (seventeen years ago) link
― jaymc, Monday, 16 April 2007 16:31 (seventeen years ago) link
― kenan, Monday, 16 April 2007 18:51 (seventeen years ago) link
― Cameron Octigan, Monday, 16 April 2007 22:25 (seventeen years ago) link
― HPSCHD, Monday, 16 April 2007 23:30 (seventeen years ago) link
― creme1, Monday, 16 April 2007 23:35 (seventeen years ago) link
― fandango, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:18 (seventeen years ago) link
― ken taylrr, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:09 (seventeen years ago) link
― matt2, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:23 (seventeen years ago) link
― ken taylrr, Friday, 20 April 2007 21:28 (seventeen years ago) link
Still #1 on Metacritic - huh? (ok it's great and stuff, but aren't we supposed to have Dylan or some unknown Brazilian at #1 usually?)
― StanM, Tuesday, 19 June 2007 08:47 (sixteen years ago) link
Aye, the Metacritic score is completely banjaxed; it's cos there are only about seven reviews written about it.
I like it; it's a decent record, perhaps even a really good record, but it's, to me and my girlfriend anyway, essentially just some nice ambient. It's certainly not the perfect artistic behemoth a lot of people are talking it up as.
― Scik Mouthy, Tuesday, 19 June 2007 08:58 (sixteen years ago) link
It's very Orbital/Spooky, isn't it? If it didn't remind me of them as much as it does now I think I might enjoy it even more.
― StanM, Tuesday, 19 June 2007 09:15 (sixteen years ago) link
It's not (Geirism alert) melodic enough or varied enough in the beat to be too Orbital, but I know what you mean.
― Scik Mouthy, Tuesday, 19 June 2007 09:17 (sixteen years ago) link
ok, not everything by Orbital or Spooky, just the general feel of things, I guess.
― StanM, Tuesday, 19 June 2007 09:26 (sixteen years ago) link
The #1 spot has been hijacked, and rightly so: http://www.metacritic.com/music/bests/2007.shtml
― stephen, Wednesday, 21 November 2007 18:27 (sixteen years ago) link
Isn't Robert Plant & Alison Kraus #4 on Metacritic this year? AKA, who cares about Metacritic?
― Z S, Wednesday, 21 November 2007 18:30 (sixteen years ago) link
xpost, SCREENSHOT OR IT DIDNT HAPPEN
― ☪, Wednesday, 21 November 2007 18:46 (sixteen years ago) link
not saying i care much about this, or any, hierarchy of "best" albums. just pointing out that it's no longer #1 now.
― stephen, Wednesday, 21 November 2007 18:47 (sixteen years ago) link
Comments section of the Field review is interesting. It kind of lays out the challenge for writers, in trying to describe why this album is good. Convince the people with the red numbers next to their comments, tell them what is special about this album and why they should care. It ain't easy!
― Mark Rich@rdson, Wednesday, 21 November 2007 21:17 (sixteen years ago) link
Maybe I just don't understand it but in my opinion it should defiantly not be #1 let alone the top 10
i feel like this is probably the general feeling of 95% of metacritic's general readership.
― J0rdan S., Wednesday, 21 November 2007 21:27 (sixteen years ago) link
iTunes (UK) has the "sound of light" EP for 79p a track right now (they've got it as a "partial album" -- don't think they realise what it is). that's an hour of music for £3.16, which strikes me as the kind of thing they'll bump upwards as soon as they realise.
just saying, like. just saying.
― grimly fiendish, Wednesday, 16 January 2008 14:58 (sixteen years ago) link
one of those albums i bought, liked the first track a hell of a lot, couldn't get into the rest. have just put it on again, skipping first track and am enjoying a paw in my face a hell of a lot. think this dude should make an album without beats.
― Crackle Box, Wednesday, 16 January 2008 15:09 (sixteen years ago) link
i bought "sound of light" on itunes(us) for $3.95 yesterday. "morning" and "night" are super super nice.
― the leglo, Thursday, 17 January 2008 21:52 (sixteen years ago) link
"morning" is awesome; wasn't so sure about "night", actually. like "day" a lot, too.
― grimly fiendish, Thursday, 17 January 2008 22:22 (sixteen years ago) link
iTunes just freaked out playing Chris Brown and it sounded exactly like this album!
― I know, right?, Friday, 22 August 2008 11:32 (fifteen years ago) link
haha that sounds incredible
― J0rdan S., Friday, 22 August 2008 15:15 (fifteen years ago) link
this album is like the end of a.i., but more fun
― :) Mrs Edward Cullen XD (max), Sunday, 30 November 2008 16:02 (fifteen years ago) link
So upon hearing some of his remix work done after 'from here we go sublime' I couldnt help but notice how homogenic and limited his sound palette is. Rumours has it that he'll be making a comeback this year. Is The Field a one-trick pony about to encounter the inevitable backlash? Or will he be able to hold up to the amount of sheer excitement provoked by this album?
― Moka, Saturday, 31 January 2009 08:37 (fifteen years ago) link
I still rock this occasionally (good record to fall asleep to, oddly enough, and I mean that in a positive way), but I don't think I'd have much tolerance for more of the same.
― The Reverend, Saturday, 31 January 2009 08:48 (fifteen years ago) link
do people still listen to this album? because in my ears this is the type of album that wow-ed you at first listen only to get tiring quickly.
― dan138zig (Durrr Durrr Durrrrrr), Saturday, 31 January 2009 08:58 (fifteen years ago) link