My take on GAF is this:

As many mentioned, there were many "technical difficulties" on this release. Also the band just wasn't into this album at all, and it shows, just listen to S.K.'s scathing lyrics. I suppose the critics all agreed that it hadn't met the expectations that were building from Starfish. (was that a bad thing, it happens all the time?)

But consider this. Some of S.K.'s best stories exist on GAF, even if they are muddled up in poor production. Lyrically, Kilbey was reaching a zenith around this period, both with the Church and in his solo efforts. His style of writing changed from the period in the mid 80's to the early 90's. IMO, his writing was very vivid at this time. We would see this later on P=A.

Another point is that at no other time in the bands history were any two successive albums so closely tied together as Starfish and GAF. Think about it, whenever discussing GAF, Starfish always becomes part of the equation. This is really remarkable since these two albums are supposedly so different from one another. It is almost like night and day, where one doesn't exist without the other. Does GAF make Starfish better or the other way around?

Lastly, if GAF had become a success, building on the success of Starfish, one might speculate that The Church might have gone the way of U-2 and REM. Burned out by the mid 90's and become a shadow of what they were. One can argue that there music has been spotty, "touch and go" since then, but they appear to be working hard at maintaining their artistic freedom.

I can overlook the productional deficiencies on GAF, like I do with Seance. I'd agree that GAF is not epic, but it has some value, that even S.K. doesn't appear to admit to.

GAF is not the worst Church Album, I'd have to give that to SA.

Trout