What do you think about the George Barnett cover? I find it much more enjoyable than the original. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6NDY8FSr9M

I like it a bit better, it's still very repetitive and the beat just isn't that great to me. I like his voice better and the song is better when you remove daft punk from the equation oddly. I think that's why my stomach turned at the song it's not what I expect/want out of daft punk. Same problem w/ Around the world.

Hits in obscurity. This is different.

They have hit the Billboard top 100 previously.

http://www.billboard.com/artist/300085/daft-punk/chart?sort=...

And even more for their albums in their genre

http://www.billboard.com/artist/300085/daft-punk/chart?f=322...

MIT's radio show French Toast has been playing other tracks from the album, not as edgy as their older stuff but quite good. Get Lucky is catchy but a little repetitive.

I had the opposite reaction. I quite like Get Lucky, but the other songs from the album felt really bland without anything that made them memorable. Not even worth pirating... No offense.

I also would have liked Get Lucky to have more of Daft Punk in it. As it is, I can only tell it is a DP song the last half minute of so when the vocoder section starts.

It appears to be a concept album about humans reaching their full potential (the stars) and is uplifting in general if not edgy. I compare it to Flaming Lips album Yoshimi. Even in Get Lucky there is a double meaning of up all night working on something and up all night to party, both equally valid.

It's a formulaic little disco song. It's calculated soulless pop. I don't get the appeal.