r/fantanoforever

A coworker was telling me she wanted to get into the beatles and asked me where to start and I immediately recommended rubber soul because, to me, it’s the primary example of a “goldilocks zone” album.

By that i mean it’s an album that is the perfect combination of what came before and after it. Rubber soul is quite reminiscent of that classic Beatles sound with similar subject matter to their previous albums and less experimental instrumentals, but still possesses some elements of maturity and sonic elevation that eases you into their later stuff. If you love rubber soul, chances are you’ll love everything Beatles.

It got me thinking about other albums that i would also classify as “goldilocks zone” and currents came to mind. It’s more focused on the electronica sound like the slow rush, but also possesses a few of elements of psychedelia like his previous albums.

My mind has drawn a blank after that. Are there any albums you can think of that are kind of the perfect middle ground in an artists discography?

Sly Stone IMO. Musical genius who not only played multiple instruments at a high level, he also wrote, composed and produced Sly and the Family Stone’s entire discography by himself.

Who do you think is the most talented front man?

I had "Go Easy" came up on my playlist shuffle for the first time in a long while. Instantly transported me back to college and how this album just embodied those times.

What are some albums that really hit the spot in that period of your life?

Hey everyone—before you tell me Maroon 5 sucks, I *know*. Some people like them, but for most, it’s just about their radio hits or being sick of how overplayed their songs are. But strangely enough—and I say this from personal experience—*Songs About Jane* is undoubtedly (and unanimously) the only good thing they’ve ever done. I think it had a blend of organic elements—funk, groove, rock, and touches of pop—that was far superior to what they do now. Plus, like I said, it’s an album I absolutely loved and used to have on repeat as a teenager. I stopped listening after that—let's just say I realized how pathetic Adam Levine was. I suppose that hatred, combined with the fact that they essentially started churning out shitty songs—even if tracks like "Payphone" and "Sugar" have a bit of nostalgia—turned me off. Nowadays, I feel like it’s basically just Adam Levine and his friends.

To each their own, of course. Like I said, I stopped listening after the first album, and when I gave them another chance later on, their sound struck me as similar to Imagine Dragons—which is not a compliment thought everybody could give they opinions.

I remember that many years ago—around 2005—everyone unanimously agreed that Moby was a genius, basically because of the album Play, but then he sort of lost his momentum... I think. Do you think his albums are worth listening to? What do you think of him?

-----------------------------------

Edit: I didn't say *Play* was from 2005; I said that following the success of the *Play* album (from 1999), he was something considered a genius between 2000 and 2005—or thereabouts. I remember songs like "We Are All Made of Stars" or "Lift Me Up" playing constantly on the radio.

2. Listening to random songs from different eras—and if you search through that ocean of material, you'll likely find something good—I was struck by how hollow the songs sounded and how poorly they’ve aged. My worst suspicions were confirmed when I checked and saw that he produced all his own albums. I didn't think he was a good singer, either; I think it would have been better if he’d formed a duo or a group and let someone else handle the vocals and production. Well, the vocals are forgivable, but the production isn't.

3. *Play* might be the exception where the songwriting transcends the production—and "Porcelain" could be a masterpiece—but it’s a bit overrated in the sense that not every song is a 10/10. (The B-side "Flowers," for what it's worth, is actually quite good.)

4. I think many of their old albums from the 2000s aren't well-produced and are in urgent need of remastering.

5. I have no idea about the hate directed at him personally—though he does have a somewhat creepy vibe—but I don't know anything about the man himself.

6. Surprisingly, things improve after 2010 or 2013; basically, the recording systems get better, and the guy actually lets himself sing. I mean, compared to how albums like 18 or Hotel sounded—heavily focused on the hit single, with the guy refusing to move away from the microphone.

7. He should grow a Michael Stipe-style beard.

I’m going with Pat.. but it’s definitely close.

Both are smell-a-thons, let me assure you.

What do you think?

I genuinely believe that this is the pinnacle and THE defining album of it's own genre.

Please give Sunset Mission by Bohren und Der Club Of Gore a listen.

Let’s say four albums minimum.

Pictured: Elliott Smith. I’d also throw The Dillinger Escape Plan and Isis here for the metalheads.

Do you think longevity really matters when judging a band’s greatness?

I always see people online argue that the Rolling Stones are better than The Beatles because they’re still touring, have released more albums, and have lasted much longer. Personally, I don’t think that’s the best way to measure it.

I think it’s more about the quality of the music and the impact an artist had during their time. Nirvana were only at the top for a few years, Biggie released just two albums in his lifetime and he’s considered one of the GOATS of Hip Hop, and Jimi Hendrix’s career lasted only a handful of years, yet all three left an enormous mark on music. I can name even more artists.

Longevity is impressive for sure and definitely deserves credit, but I don’t think a band is automatically better just because they stayed together longer or released more material lol. I’d take a short, incredible run over decades of average output any day.
What are yall thoughts on this?