Girl Talk
Feed the Animals
[Illegal Art; 2008]
Pitchfork gave it an 8.0.
As much as I want to write some breathless diatribe about how Girl Talk is the fourth rider of the apocalypse as far as indie music going all the way up it's own ass until it got puked out of pop music's mouth in the 2000's, A. I can't really get it up to do so on any kind of intuitive level, and B. I kind of just did.
Listening to this now, I'm not sure what it's supposed to make me do. Dance? Yeah, I don't think so. I think it wants me to "not JUST dance." Like it wants me to also go "wooooo" because I can't believe I'm listening to Sinead O'Connor and T.I. at the same time. Well here in 2010, not only can I believe it, I can't fucking stand it. I feel like Girl Talk is like the Weird Al of DJ's. He doesn't even have to make up parody lyrics, he just drops references and you're like "Allman Brothers and David Banner, ha ha ha." Really, it's dance music for the Jerky Boys set. And his records stand the test of time just as well as "Amish Paradise" does, which is to say it's a parody of a thing that probably never should have happened.
Other than that, though, great. Oh man "Hotstepper" and "Woo Ha" just transitioned into "Na Na Hey Hey Kiss Him Goodbye" and "Bonita Applebum" and "It Is It" and "Criminal Minded." This is like being ear-raped by a pop music-themed New York Times crossword puzzle. It's making me nauseous in the same way as trying to read on a long car trip. I get that I'm supposed to let go, but the second I do, I find my legs carry me out the door.
Kleerup
Kleerup
[EMI; 2008]
Pitchfork gave it a 7.7.
Sometimes you read just enough to say to yourself "oh no, I am gonna haaaaaaate this." Well, I don't hate this. It's a minor victory. I don't love it, either, but what are you gonna do? My ears are deaf to Swedish techno pop. I'm wrong about hating it, but right about the deafness. I think (?) this is good Swedish techno pop, but I probably wouldn't know the difference. It sure is... shiny.
Nurse With Wound
Huffin' Rag Blues
[Jnana; 2008]
Pitchfork gave it a 4.9.
There was a time in the early-ish internet when Brainwashed was my source of choice for music news, reviews, and opinion. I'm kind of glad to see they're still chugging along (means they care), even though I couldn't be less interested in their news, reviews, and opinions. They really hitched their wagons to glitch and didn't ever let go, and the tone has never stopped being hyperserious, like "something important is happening here, and it's important that we know about it." I think there's a healthy dose of musicianship "I understand the history of composition" snobbery in there too. It's a weird subgenre of music fan. The John Cage type. Culture dupes.
Nurse With Wound makes me think of this stuff. They're annoying in a way that makes you think, "Maybe I should like this, it sounds like it's supposed to be for smart people, I'm a smart person, therefore I like this." Well, I'm a smart person and I hate this because I'm a smart person. On an intuitive level where life's too short.
Bobby Womack
The Best of Bobby Womack: The Soul Years
[Capitol; 2008]
Pitchfork gave it a 6.2.
Pitchfork says Bobby Womack isn't all that great. Suspicion confirmed. Thanks guys.
Pwrfl Power
Pwrfl Power
[Slender Means Society; 2008]
Pitchfork gave it a 4.9.
How is this working on me in any way? There are so many wrongs here (cuteness, that name, a commercial), how does it make anything resembling a right? I'm not knocked out or anything, I'm just tolerating this against all odds. It's cute, quirky, "I'm damaged" songwriting by a Japanese guy who's a great guitarist but who apparently wants to make silly songs in a Daniel Johnston meets Moldy Peaches mode. And everybody knows that the Moldy Peaches singlehandedly destroyed rock, but of course that wasn't their fault really. They were just kind of charming without particularly being charmers, so it worked. And despite wanting to hate, that Juno song is actually cute, not the fake kind where it's cute by numbers.
This guy, though? How is he getting away with this? Is it because he's Japanese and Japan is a whole country that's built on not being afraid to come off as cute even when you're borrowing something not inherently cute where you're supposed to be tough? (Notice the complete lack of girls, that was the whole point of the American version of rockabilly--getting girls) What's that about? Are the Japanese predisposed to cuteness in some endemic way we'll never be able to catch up to? Should we be worried?
As much as I'm fond of cultural reductionism, I think Pwrfl Power comes out a winner simply because the guy is evidently a great guitarist, and he could probably go and get plenty of recognition for that in "we care about great guitarist" circles, but instead he chooses to do cute goofs. It's even a little disingenuous, because I don't think he's as addled as Daniel Johnston or as big of a goofball as those Moldy Peaches kids, but still it's a lot better of an "I'm emulating this" choice than this would be, especially since nobody would blame him. That's Leo Kottke at the Nugget in Starke, NV! You have any idea how much a gig like that pays? And it's just one guy, he doesn't even need a roadie!
Actually, maybe he didn't have a choice. Maybe the Japanese, beneath all those layers of cute, are really deadly serious all the time 100% of the time.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Friday, July 2, 2010
Pitchfork Reviews 6/26/08
Pyramids
Pyramids
[Hydra Head; 2008]
Pitchfork gave it a 6.5.
The best rock is a war against whatever most musicianly forces are ruling the day. This is a thought I had last night while getting super baked and watching "Hype" for like the 9th time. I don't know if it holds any water, per se, but you could make a decent case for it. I think you could also make a decent case that this Pyramids album might be, for a certain subset of the musical spectrum, a fairly apt demonstration of the most musicianly forces ruling the day. There is certainly nothing simple going on here.
Ok, I understand the language being spoken here, it's avant garde metal and complex tension-based arrangements ladled onto a kind of shoegaze-y pop songwriting structures with plenty of breaks for pure introspective abstraction, a la side two of David Bowie's Low. Ok. I get it.
But also: I don't get it. What's fun about that?
Air France
No Way Down EP
[Sincerely Yours; 2008]
Pitchfork gave it an 8.6.
I know people who tell me I'm wrong when I say things like "techno is not a valid form of music." And that's why it's fun to say those things. It's like saying "I can't believe you're into that stuff, Jim Henson was a child rapist" to somebody who still makes a big deal out of loving the Muppets even though they're a grownup.
The Watson Twins
Fire Songs
[Vanguard; 2008]
Pitchfork gave it a 4.6.
It's gross, but the fact about twins is: they always seem like they're hotter than they actually are because there's two of them. The phenomenon doesn't work for music, though. They don't sound better than they are.
They sound like regular, pleasant, pretty adult singer songwriter music of a kind you can probably track down at any given medium-sized "on the downside of the career slope, hence mellowed out hassle-free" oldrock venue at a major metropolitan area near you. Or maybe at some place bigger if they're opening for Tom Petty and you want to get there early.
Plantlife
Time Traveller
[Decon; 2008]
Pitchfork gave it a 7.9.
I like this in roughly the same way I liked this when it came out. I actually like something about it, but I'm taking it with a mountain of salt because I know it's an appropriation.
Fern Knight
Fern Knight
[VHF; 2008]
Pitchfork gave it a 7.1.
I also watched a documentary about the Shakers last night. They're fascinating. As I was watching I launched into a reverie I often have where I'm a hip "Lean On Me" style history teacher in a run-down inner city high school. The Shakers documentary would be a part of a lesson I could probably never get away with called "Why White People Are Like That." It'd work fairly well as a teaching tool, because the Shakers are basically a cartoon of W.A.S.P. religious and cultural values.
Inner-city high school kids would totally fucking hate it, though. Not to mention I'd probably get fired for showing it and/or having a lesson about white people. But: Shakers are W.A.S.P.s in a nut shell. W.A.S.P.s think that to be Godly, you have to be serious and focused and work hard at everything you do and make it the best it can be, and also you can't have sex (or at least you're supposed to be in control of your sexual urges). And as hard as they try not to be judgmental, they think other people should be the same way because God don't party.
Part of the Shaker program is music, and their music says a lot about W.A.S.P.s. Here are a people who at their most spiritual make music that is unadorned, simple, God-fearing people singing as plainly and as earnestly as they can. "Tis the gift to be simple." That kind of a thing. It's the voice of a people saying to God, "Ok, you gave us these nasal, pinched voices, and we don't care if we sound like some kind of an embarrassing librarian folk singer, we will take our ability to sing thin, wavering devotionals as a gift and praise you with these annoying voices of ours, and we will not be self-conscious about style or technique or sounding all gross and reedy because that's not what we think you would want, Glory to You." And, weirdly, right on. "Shake" what your mama gave you.
Of course if you're looking for a more complete picture of why white people are like that, there's also the Appalachian tradition of moonshine-soaked Holy Ghost relijun, but those are not WASPs, those are White Celtic Protestants. Totally different breed. Their God has a deep appreciation for recklessness and banjo. And that stuff is also an important part of why white people are like that. Not sure what I'd do to communicate that with these fictional kids. Maybe if somebody made a movie out of this and probably also this, and while we're at it, because Catholicism is centrally important to understanding the middle-class urban tradition of why white people are like that, also this and this and this and... aw hell, this is turning into a college-level ethnic studies class about Caucasians for inner-city high school kids. I might as well cut the middle man and just shiv myself.
Anyhow, Fern Knight is Shaker rock. You can only get super into it if you live in a big house and never get married and wear simple clothing and never make a picture of anything and you worship God for 22 straight hours every Sunday while doing ritualistic dances, and you work so hard to make perfectly functional things that everything you make will last forever. Otherwise, no thanks.
Pyramids
[Hydra Head; 2008]
Pitchfork gave it a 6.5.
The best rock is a war against whatever most musicianly forces are ruling the day. This is a thought I had last night while getting super baked and watching "Hype" for like the 9th time. I don't know if it holds any water, per se, but you could make a decent case for it. I think you could also make a decent case that this Pyramids album might be, for a certain subset of the musical spectrum, a fairly apt demonstration of the most musicianly forces ruling the day. There is certainly nothing simple going on here.
Ok, I understand the language being spoken here, it's avant garde metal and complex tension-based arrangements ladled onto a kind of shoegaze-y pop songwriting structures with plenty of breaks for pure introspective abstraction, a la side two of David Bowie's Low. Ok. I get it.
But also: I don't get it. What's fun about that?
Air France
No Way Down EP
[Sincerely Yours; 2008]
Pitchfork gave it an 8.6.
I know people who tell me I'm wrong when I say things like "techno is not a valid form of music." And that's why it's fun to say those things. It's like saying "I can't believe you're into that stuff, Jim Henson was a child rapist" to somebody who still makes a big deal out of loving the Muppets even though they're a grownup.
The Watson Twins
Fire Songs
[Vanguard; 2008]
Pitchfork gave it a 4.6.
It's gross, but the fact about twins is: they always seem like they're hotter than they actually are because there's two of them. The phenomenon doesn't work for music, though. They don't sound better than they are.
They sound like regular, pleasant, pretty adult singer songwriter music of a kind you can probably track down at any given medium-sized "on the downside of the career slope, hence mellowed out hassle-free" oldrock venue at a major metropolitan area near you. Or maybe at some place bigger if they're opening for Tom Petty and you want to get there early.
Plantlife
Time Traveller
[Decon; 2008]
Pitchfork gave it a 7.9.
I like this in roughly the same way I liked this when it came out. I actually like something about it, but I'm taking it with a mountain of salt because I know it's an appropriation.
Fern Knight
Fern Knight
[VHF; 2008]
Pitchfork gave it a 7.1.
I also watched a documentary about the Shakers last night. They're fascinating. As I was watching I launched into a reverie I often have where I'm a hip "Lean On Me" style history teacher in a run-down inner city high school. The Shakers documentary would be a part of a lesson I could probably never get away with called "Why White People Are Like That." It'd work fairly well as a teaching tool, because the Shakers are basically a cartoon of W.A.S.P. religious and cultural values.
Inner-city high school kids would totally fucking hate it, though. Not to mention I'd probably get fired for showing it and/or having a lesson about white people. But: Shakers are W.A.S.P.s in a nut shell. W.A.S.P.s think that to be Godly, you have to be serious and focused and work hard at everything you do and make it the best it can be, and also you can't have sex (or at least you're supposed to be in control of your sexual urges). And as hard as they try not to be judgmental, they think other people should be the same way because God don't party.
Part of the Shaker program is music, and their music says a lot about W.A.S.P.s. Here are a people who at their most spiritual make music that is unadorned, simple, God-fearing people singing as plainly and as earnestly as they can. "Tis the gift to be simple." That kind of a thing. It's the voice of a people saying to God, "Ok, you gave us these nasal, pinched voices, and we don't care if we sound like some kind of an embarrassing librarian folk singer, we will take our ability to sing thin, wavering devotionals as a gift and praise you with these annoying voices of ours, and we will not be self-conscious about style or technique or sounding all gross and reedy because that's not what we think you would want, Glory to You." And, weirdly, right on. "Shake" what your mama gave you.
Of course if you're looking for a more complete picture of why white people are like that, there's also the Appalachian tradition of moonshine-soaked Holy Ghost relijun, but those are not WASPs, those are White Celtic Protestants. Totally different breed. Their God has a deep appreciation for recklessness and banjo. And that stuff is also an important part of why white people are like that. Not sure what I'd do to communicate that with these fictional kids. Maybe if somebody made a movie out of this and probably also this, and while we're at it, because Catholicism is centrally important to understanding the middle-class urban tradition of why white people are like that, also this and this and this and... aw hell, this is turning into a college-level ethnic studies class about Caucasians for inner-city high school kids. I might as well cut the middle man and just shiv myself.
Anyhow, Fern Knight is Shaker rock. You can only get super into it if you live in a big house and never get married and wear simple clothing and never make a picture of anything and you worship God for 22 straight hours every Sunday while doing ritualistic dances, and you work so hard to make perfectly functional things that everything you make will last forever. Otherwise, no thanks.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Pitchfork Reviews 6/25/08
Sally Shapiro
Remix Romance Vol. 2
[Paper Bag; 2008]
Pitchfork gave it a 6.4.
What am I gonna do, track this down and then listen to it before I come up with an opinion? It's another remix album of Swedish discopop. Do I need to tell you if I think it's a "good" remix album of Swedish discopop? Is that a responsibility I have? No. It's summer. It's nice outside. I don't have to do this.
Ponytail
Ice Cream Spiritual
[We Are Free; 2008]
Pitchfork gave it an 8.4.
Allow me to out myself as a total square: I spent a majority of my 20's doing improv comedy. Most of it sucks, but whatever. A few of the people who do it are funny to hang out with, and it's cheaper than being in a band. Eventually I got to the point where I got a little money for doing it, and as a result I did all kinds of weird things that I don't actually like, like living on a cruise ship and hearing "Hot Hot Hot" on maximum rotation blasted out of every crevice of the FLOATING BUILDING THAT I LIVE IN for four months, or asking for a suggestion of a location that would fit on the stage from a hotel ballroom full of bored union electrical workers who could all kick my ass and drink me under the table, and were probably considering both. But fuck it, it beats working. I'm quick enough on my feet for most regular people (drunken idiots mostly) to be impressed that I thought of saying something before they could, and that's really the whole trick of improv. It's like a shitty magic act but for talking. And it's also an artform, but whatever. You could also say "it's an artform" about magic, but that's not going to make you want to give a shit about it.
But as far as the artsy creative-process side of it, well yeah, there are certain principles of craftsmanship and all that. You learn things from it about what it's like to work together to do a thing. Also: I am a total square anyway. No sense in hiding it. I might as well be the best at it I can be. So: improv comedy. I've done it enough that I view collaborative projects through that lens. It's pretty hippy dippy, but it boils down to: you make yourself look good by making the other people you're with look good. Somebody does something that's weird and not immediately funny, then you change what you're doing (or not) to make it make sense (or at least not make sense but on purpose), and then the whole thing will end up being more funny than something that's just kind of medium funny to begin with. It's not rocket science, but people are often bad at it because they're too afraid of not looking good to worry about making other people look good.
Why the fuck am I talking about this? It's boring.
Mark Richardson expends a lot of words on the subject of Ponytail's vocalist Molly Siegel. She doesn't sing words so much as skwawk out noises. Richardson's thesis is that some people might think it's annoying, but it's actually great. I am not one of those people who think it's annoying. I think it's great. So good.
The problem I have with Ponytail, and it comes from my experiences in improv, is that Molly Siegel's complete lack of interest in the verbal isn't being given its proper attention as a choice. In a musical sense. Instead of being put as far out into the mix and given the proper space and attention I think it deserves, her shrieking serves mostly as a counterpoint to wall-to-wall guitar interplay, in a instrumental/math/prog rock tradition. Ok, fine, I get it, there's no rules and etc. etc. But the guitars are ignoring the vocals. And the guitars are not doing anything transcendent. They're doing exact riffs I've heard elsewhere then quickly switching those riffs to other riffs. It's an old trick. The only thing that makes this iteration of guitar interplay different is that Molly Siegel has the task of gamely barking out squeaks and yelps in reaction to it. The way those guitars go on without any apparent reaction to what she's doing, she seems like an afterthought, like her only apparent musical purpose is to gather up blogcolumn inches.
Why not have her out there hollering away on her own if it's the most interesting thing about the band? Let her lead. Even just for a couple of bars before you switch back. Like she's a part of what you have planned and not some gimmicky thing. That would be interesting. We've heard the dual lead guitar thing and the prog thing before, dudes. You've got this insane shrieking woman. Why don't you try making her look good instead of insisting on having it the other way around? Maybe I'm a little biased towards lead singers, but if your vocalist is a blend between Satomi Matsuzaki and Greg Peters and that's the first thing people notice, then it's the first thing people notice. Be who you are, not who you wish you were.
The more I listen to this, the more I am mad at half a band. Why not just kick her out if you're not going to even listen to what she's doing? But part of the problem is her fault, too. She could probably stand to assert herself more, do something that intentionally clashes with the guitar sound, force adjustments, take control, participate more, build something instead of react to something. If the guitar dudes don't notice, make it bigger. Yell "STOP" or stagedive onto your head and bleed and make them worry about you. I don't know. I do know that there's the start of something very interesting going on here, but it's stillborn, and it comes off as being annoying not because of the vocals but because of the evident lack of support for the vocals. Either by the rest of the band or by the vocalist herself. It seems like a goofy little accisperiment instead of a deadly serious thing somebody's doing on purpose.
By the way, if there's a more easily-makefunable phrase in rock than "guitar interplay," I'd like to hear it. It sounds like two dudes swordfighting with their dicks. Like both the phrase "guitar interplay" and the actual sound of guitar interplay sounds like that. Fine, but that's not how you have sex. I don't fault it for being homoerotic, just for being ineffectual.
But of course what difference does my opinion make? I'm a fucking square who does improv comedy. Like in my life I have made up a Shakespearean monologue about toaster ovens. For strangers. On purpose. Without even having been paid for it or even being particularly asked to. So it's not like I've got any moral high ground on what people should and shouldn't do or what's embarrassing or what's good. I just get disappointed by missed opportunities sometimes as far as a band totally ruling is concerned. This is sooo achingly close to being something. Which is a compliment.
South San Gabriel
Dual Hawks
[Misra; 2008]
Pitchfork gave it a 6.9.
I listened to like three songs. As far as I can tell, these guys don't do anything that Wilco doesn't already do. Maybe there's more echo and/or reverb, but really I'm not hearing anything outside of the realm of Wilco. Are you a big fan of Wilco? I mean to the point where you're constantly thinking "man, I love Wilco so much, I'd even listen to something exactly like it but less good." Are you that big of a fan of Wilco? Wilco. Me neither.
Dosh
Wolves and Wishes
[Unknown; 2008]
Pitchfork gave it a 7.7.
Oh great, The Arcade Fire claims its first hip hop producer as a part of the collateral damage of their war against soulfulness. This thing sounds like the original score to Zach Braff's life.
Damon & Naomi
Within These Walls
[20-20-20; 2007]
Pitchfork gave it a 6.1.
So this is an album by two of the people from Galaxie 500 who have managed to put out a bunch of signer-songwriter stuff. It sucks. It's boring, it's about feelings, it has no teeth. It is pretty, though. Unfortunately, I'm getting tired of pretty. And calling anything Within These Walls unless you're joking is puke-inducing.
And also I can't quite understand why I'm supposed to be so impressed by Galaxie 500 that I'd give this anything but a middle finger. Or anybody, really. If there was this exact same sounding album but by Anybody I Admire & Somebody I Also Admire, still called Within These Walls, it would get a middle finger too. I wouldn't care how mournful the ruminations were. Or in today's more specific context, if this was just a straight-up indiefolk duo from now like She & Him or Scarlett Johansson & Whoever Is Currently Trying To Fuck Scarlett Johansson, I would give it a more vociferous double middle finger with my balls out of my fly. That's what's going down within these walls.
Remix Romance Vol. 2
[Paper Bag; 2008]
Pitchfork gave it a 6.4.
What am I gonna do, track this down and then listen to it before I come up with an opinion? It's another remix album of Swedish discopop. Do I need to tell you if I think it's a "good" remix album of Swedish discopop? Is that a responsibility I have? No. It's summer. It's nice outside. I don't have to do this.
Ponytail
Ice Cream Spiritual
[We Are Free; 2008]
Pitchfork gave it an 8.4.
Allow me to out myself as a total square: I spent a majority of my 20's doing improv comedy. Most of it sucks, but whatever. A few of the people who do it are funny to hang out with, and it's cheaper than being in a band. Eventually I got to the point where I got a little money for doing it, and as a result I did all kinds of weird things that I don't actually like, like living on a cruise ship and hearing "Hot Hot Hot" on maximum rotation blasted out of every crevice of the FLOATING BUILDING THAT I LIVE IN for four months, or asking for a suggestion of a location that would fit on the stage from a hotel ballroom full of bored union electrical workers who could all kick my ass and drink me under the table, and were probably considering both. But fuck it, it beats working. I'm quick enough on my feet for most regular people (drunken idiots mostly) to be impressed that I thought of saying something before they could, and that's really the whole trick of improv. It's like a shitty magic act but for talking. And it's also an artform, but whatever. You could also say "it's an artform" about magic, but that's not going to make you want to give a shit about it.
But as far as the artsy creative-process side of it, well yeah, there are certain principles of craftsmanship and all that. You learn things from it about what it's like to work together to do a thing. Also: I am a total square anyway. No sense in hiding it. I might as well be the best at it I can be. So: improv comedy. I've done it enough that I view collaborative projects through that lens. It's pretty hippy dippy, but it boils down to: you make yourself look good by making the other people you're with look good. Somebody does something that's weird and not immediately funny, then you change what you're doing (or not) to make it make sense (or at least not make sense but on purpose), and then the whole thing will end up being more funny than something that's just kind of medium funny to begin with. It's not rocket science, but people are often bad at it because they're too afraid of not looking good to worry about making other people look good.
Why the fuck am I talking about this? It's boring.
Mark Richardson expends a lot of words on the subject of Ponytail's vocalist Molly Siegel. She doesn't sing words so much as skwawk out noises. Richardson's thesis is that some people might think it's annoying, but it's actually great. I am not one of those people who think it's annoying. I think it's great. So good.
The problem I have with Ponytail, and it comes from my experiences in improv, is that Molly Siegel's complete lack of interest in the verbal isn't being given its proper attention as a choice. In a musical sense. Instead of being put as far out into the mix and given the proper space and attention I think it deserves, her shrieking serves mostly as a counterpoint to wall-to-wall guitar interplay, in a instrumental/math/prog rock tradition. Ok, fine, I get it, there's no rules and etc. etc. But the guitars are ignoring the vocals. And the guitars are not doing anything transcendent. They're doing exact riffs I've heard elsewhere then quickly switching those riffs to other riffs. It's an old trick. The only thing that makes this iteration of guitar interplay different is that Molly Siegel has the task of gamely barking out squeaks and yelps in reaction to it. The way those guitars go on without any apparent reaction to what she's doing, she seems like an afterthought, like her only apparent musical purpose is to gather up blogcolumn inches.
Why not have her out there hollering away on her own if it's the most interesting thing about the band? Let her lead. Even just for a couple of bars before you switch back. Like she's a part of what you have planned and not some gimmicky thing. That would be interesting. We've heard the dual lead guitar thing and the prog thing before, dudes. You've got this insane shrieking woman. Why don't you try making her look good instead of insisting on having it the other way around? Maybe I'm a little biased towards lead singers, but if your vocalist is a blend between Satomi Matsuzaki and Greg Peters and that's the first thing people notice, then it's the first thing people notice. Be who you are, not who you wish you were.
The more I listen to this, the more I am mad at half a band. Why not just kick her out if you're not going to even listen to what she's doing? But part of the problem is her fault, too. She could probably stand to assert herself more, do something that intentionally clashes with the guitar sound, force adjustments, take control, participate more, build something instead of react to something. If the guitar dudes don't notice, make it bigger. Yell "STOP" or stagedive onto your head and bleed and make them worry about you. I don't know. I do know that there's the start of something very interesting going on here, but it's stillborn, and it comes off as being annoying not because of the vocals but because of the evident lack of support for the vocals. Either by the rest of the band or by the vocalist herself. It seems like a goofy little accisperiment instead of a deadly serious thing somebody's doing on purpose.
By the way, if there's a more easily-makefunable phrase in rock than "guitar interplay," I'd like to hear it. It sounds like two dudes swordfighting with their dicks. Like both the phrase "guitar interplay" and the actual sound of guitar interplay sounds like that. Fine, but that's not how you have sex. I don't fault it for being homoerotic, just for being ineffectual.
But of course what difference does my opinion make? I'm a fucking square who does improv comedy. Like in my life I have made up a Shakespearean monologue about toaster ovens. For strangers. On purpose. Without even having been paid for it or even being particularly asked to. So it's not like I've got any moral high ground on what people should and shouldn't do or what's embarrassing or what's good. I just get disappointed by missed opportunities sometimes as far as a band totally ruling is concerned. This is sooo achingly close to being something. Which is a compliment.
South San Gabriel
Dual Hawks
[Misra; 2008]
Pitchfork gave it a 6.9.
I listened to like three songs. As far as I can tell, these guys don't do anything that Wilco doesn't already do. Maybe there's more echo and/or reverb, but really I'm not hearing anything outside of the realm of Wilco. Are you a big fan of Wilco? I mean to the point where you're constantly thinking "man, I love Wilco so much, I'd even listen to something exactly like it but less good." Are you that big of a fan of Wilco? Wilco. Me neither.
Dosh
Wolves and Wishes
[Unknown; 2008]
Pitchfork gave it a 7.7.
Oh great, The Arcade Fire claims its first hip hop producer as a part of the collateral damage of their war against soulfulness. This thing sounds like the original score to Zach Braff's life.
Damon & Naomi
Within These Walls
[20-20-20; 2007]
Pitchfork gave it a 6.1.
So this is an album by two of the people from Galaxie 500 who have managed to put out a bunch of signer-songwriter stuff. It sucks. It's boring, it's about feelings, it has no teeth. It is pretty, though. Unfortunately, I'm getting tired of pretty. And calling anything Within These Walls unless you're joking is puke-inducing.
And also I can't quite understand why I'm supposed to be so impressed by Galaxie 500 that I'd give this anything but a middle finger. Or anybody, really. If there was this exact same sounding album but by Anybody I Admire & Somebody I Also Admire, still called Within These Walls, it would get a middle finger too. I wouldn't care how mournful the ruminations were. Or in today's more specific context, if this was just a straight-up indiefolk duo from now like She & Him or Scarlett Johansson & Whoever Is Currently Trying To Fuck Scarlett Johansson, I would give it a more vociferous double middle finger with my balls out of my fly. That's what's going down within these walls.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)