I don't even think the two albums are even comparable, despite the names. They're both brilliant, but totally different SAWII is *very* minimal and textural...ambient in the truest sense. It's a lot less accessible than the first one, which is probably why you've seen bad reviews. You either love it, or just don't get it at all I guess. It's not for everyone, but I'd say it's definitely worth getting if you like more challenging stuff.--Tim Moore
I personally didn't find SAW2 that challenging or inaccessable at all. To
me, it is simply beautiful music. It did, however, completely change the way
I think about what music is and can be, and furthermore became one of those
albums that defines a year (1995 I believe it was for me). Every time I hear
it I think of things that happened during that time period. I think you know
what I'm talking about.
As a matter of fact, my CD's are getting wore out... I need to replace them.
Tim Moore writes:
- Re: (313) first techno record - summary alex . bond
- Re: (313) first techno record - summary alex . bond
- RE: (313) first techno record - summary Robert Taylor
- RE: (313) first techno record - summary Brendan Nelson
- RE: (313) first techno record - summary Mann, Ravinder [CCS]
- RE: (313) first techno record - summar... Sean Creen
- AW: (313) first techno record - summar... Carlos de Brito
- Re: (313) first techno record - summar... Tim Moore
- Re: (313) first techno record - su... Thorin Teague
- Re: RE: (313) first techno record - summary Kelly Money
- RE: (313) first techno record - summary Robert Taylor
- Re: RE: (313) first techno record - summary alex . bond
- Re: (313) first techno record - summary Martin
- Re: RE: (313) first techno record - summary Kelly Money
- Re: RE: (313) first techno record - summary Kelly Money
- Re: (313) first techno record - summary Michael . Elliot-Knight