What's the eeriest album you've ever heard?

Hi,

I have never thought of them as gloomy, or weird, or eerie. In my ears, they were experimental albums, and they kinda gave us a feel and a touch that was foreign to our ear-experience, but that is not a reason for any of these things to be eerie ... I consider folks that use bizarre covers, and then create bizarre lyrics and often a lot of noise, as being way more "eerie" that a lot of experimental things.

There might be one, that is special in its own way, and when you hear it off a CD without any visuals, you get one idea or two ... and later when you see the film, the stuff kinda crawls in your skin ... and it isn't about anything, except that we have no idea where it is going, and you and I ae out in the middle of nowhere! The film is "The Stalker" ... 

In general, the commercial side of music does not bode well for a lot of that "eerie" stuff as it throws fans off and away ... and that defeats the point of even having it. The ones I don't like are the very obvious fake ones, gorging themselves off youngsters money ... and that is not only "eerie", it is also "malicious" ... and at time, probably irresponsible.

The hard/harshest part is that we do not know, or understand the work ... and you can't tell if the "eerie" is from the work, or from your own perception feeling alienated from it ... that's 2 very different things to consider. Likewise, the use of electronics in one film way back when made it scary because it was so different and off anything we knew or felt ... but the film makers made do in that film with light touches so we would not be scared senseless ... the robot made drinks for folks ... !!! All of a sudden the description of the whole place of the Krell's work, by that time is not scary or eerie, it is .... wow ... that's nuts! By that time you are already with the film and appreciated the Sci-Fi side of it.

The bad side of things for me is the stuff that hurts and kills ... religion, drugs, ugly politics ... but within the arts, I'm not sure that folks are in it to scare anyone, unless your middle name is Giger, but I wonder how much of that art was for shock, and/or something else altogether. It might have meant something to a different set of folks, but I'm not sure that it does the same for the fans.

I don't consider the art work, btw, on par with the music and lyrics of the work btw, and that's a bit on the strange side for me ... a concept and something else to trip the idea ... nice to have that art on the cover, but I think it was misguided. I don't think the album would have sold less without that cover.

Hi,

I'm not sure it was eerie for me at all ... almost all of PH for me, was "very personal" and the "anger" was always a response to thing that PH might have felt bad about ... "genuflection in church" some moments in that album are much more on the eerie side ... it's like he knows someone that was abused in church ... and a lot of the anger comes out in that album ... but I don't find "anger" eerie at all ... it's an emotion that expresses how you feel ... it can have bed results, of course, but in general, in the arts, most anger is well placed, though in Hollywood, the anger is always set to malicious and some ketchup!

All in all I look at PH as a poet, and the emotions within ... and Roy Harper is the same thing ... he has his angers, and sometimes it comes off as eerie, but in the end, they boh return to the poetry and the flow of the work.