It's a number one record because it's a good song. I think noz makes a lot of good points, but too many of them seem to be at the expense of the people most likely to buy/like/sing the praises of the Gnarls album. For what it's worth, I think it's OK, but I don't share noz's assessment that it's been focus-grouped for ad agencies and such like - it just sounds like two musicians doing what they feel like. Besides, as I said in the other Gnarls thread, a) it's not a rap/hip-hop record anyway and b) the kind of people who bought Moby's "Play" are its most likely audience, which begs the question; why act like it's taking sales/shine from, say, E-40 or T.I.? There's a long and illustrious history of writers and consumers alike refusing to accept rap music on its own terms but, by the same token, there's a similar history of rap writers and consumers turning on those acts who decide they want to expand their musical horizons a little. I couldn't care less for either group, personally, but it is interesting to note that ascetic purists now seem to come both with and without backpacks. Either way, the single's sold nearly half-a-million in the UK [good job the royalty checks count, even if the country doesn't ], and the album will probably follow suit, both here and elsewhere. Good luck to those of you who won't have to work hard to avoid it.
underrated post.
