Antidotes (Special Edition) – Foals
RATING: 3.5/5
When I first listened to Foals over a year ago I could tell that they had the perfect balance of playing a similar style to the rising trends but having something extra to the rest of the dance indie bands out there. When I saw them a few months later in Brighton, I knew that they would be big. The tight combinations of high, staccato guitar riffs along with catchy melodies and brilliant vocals were even more entertaining to watch live than listen to on record. Unfortunately, when their album came out, the bubble (or balloon if you wish to make lyrical puns) was burst.
To be honest, this is a bit unfair. The album is not a bad album. It’s pretty solid and contains a lot of fantastic songs that they have not necessarily released as singles (in my opinion, that is always a good sign of the quality of the band). Furthermore, the bubble did not really burst when I heard the album since I had kind of been expecting something rather unspectacular for quite awhile on account of the songs I heard that had been leaked online. However, nonetheless it is always sad when such a eagerly anticipated album actually turns out to lack the spark you were expecting.
Once again, this isn’t a bad album by any stretch of the imagination. I want that to be clear. They are actually very adept at creating slow, powerful melodies that rival the catchy singles that had launched them to stardom. ‘Red Socks Pugie’ in particular is one of the stand-out tracks on the album. The fast, repetitive drums mixed with the slightly chilling chord progressions and intelligent vocals are sublime and it is the one song I can listen to over and over again. ‘Olympic Airways’ also shows Foals’ brilliant knack of taking rather simple riffs and combining them to create beautiful melodies and, just as you tend to with many of the greats, you wonder how someone (particularly you) couldn’t have come up with it before. The confidence to use harmonics for the majority of the song really demonstrates their ability and is perhaps an indication of how they have grown. Throughout the album there is a great sense of the songs being restrained. This may sound odd, but so often bands try to throw as much into the three of four minutes as possible. Foals, as so many good bands do, hold back trusting in the simpler riff and letting the combination of sounds build, making the emotional climaxes of the songs as strong as possible.
I would also advise that you actually get the special edition version of the album as well since it contains all the old songs you would have heard as well, such as Hummer, which I believe bands should tend to put into their first album. After all, that is why you started listening to them and so it is nice to hear those first songs that excited you so much as you listen to the album on your mp3 player. I’m nostalgic like that I guess.
However, the reason why I am slightly disappointed with this album is that while there is nothing fundamentally wrong with it, there is equally nothing that stands out as phenomenal. I believe Foals made a big mistake in the amount that they said about their upcoming album. In plenty of interviews we heard how this album was going to be completely different to anything you have heard from them before, that it would not have the old tracks on, would be quite dark and melancholic etc etc. I for one didn’t want their album to be really different to what I had heard so far mainly because what I had heard so far was why I liked them, obviously. However, what was even worse was that the album actually turned out not to be much different to any of their previous stuff. It is perhaps slightly more melancholic than you would expect if you had only heard ‘Hummer’ for example. However, most had actually heard a number of their songs and it was clear that they were able to creating slow, meaningful songs as it is what added so much depth to their more dancey numbers. I know this seems a bit harsh to say I didn’t want the album to be different and then complaining when it isn’t, but the point I am trying to make is that you shouldn’t go about making a big deal about doing something daring and different and then don’t do it.
The album, in fact, gets quite monotonous after the first couple of listens. While their high pitched guitar riffs are part of their signature sound, it tends to become a bit grating after while. Just as you commend them on the use of harmonics or some high riff, you move onto the next song and hear another, and then another, and then another ad infinitum. In other words, if you have the beginnings of a headache make sure you do not use this album to soothe you.
One more problem is the first track, ‘The French Open’. It just isn’t that good, probably the worst track on the album. It’s repetitive with the least intelligent vocals and thus puts you in an oddly ambivalent mood throughout. If you have been waiting for an album for ages and the first song you listen to on it kind of ignores you, then it puts you in a rather odd, critical mood for the rest of the album. The lesson to learn here is don’t put your worst song at the beginning of your album. It doesn’t help.
So, as I have said throughout, I am being quite critical. However, that is because Foals, both in their music and what they said in interviews, seemed to be promising one of the albums of the year. And it wasn’t. Unfair as it may be that just leaves me disappointed and we all know from our parents that that’s the worst emotion to feel.
Oracular Spectacular – MGMT
RATING: 4.5/5
The term ‘oracular’ can be defined as something that is enigmatic or hard to interpret and in this light it becomes a highly insightful comment on the nature of this debut album by this Brooklyn duo.
Let’s get any judgment out of the way immediately. This album is fantastic. In the past few years I have found that with all the albums I have listened to (and I listen to a lot of music!), I rarely like an album the first time I listen to it. This does not mean that I do not go on to really adore some of them. Albums such as ‘Weekend In The City’ by Bloc Party, ‘Hissing Fauna, Are You The Destroyer?’ by Of Montreal and ‘Colour It In’ by The Maccabees are just a very small fraction of the albums I have gone on to play incessantly while strutting around with my overly large colourful headphones on. Generally though I need a little time to get used to the songs and realise (if it is a good album) the many intricacies involved in the melodies and/or the catchiness of the tracks.
However, from the very beginning of the album with their hit single ‘Time to Pretend’ to the fantastic vocal finale of ‘Future Reflections’, this album is simply spell-binding.
The songs are original and intelligent, yet instantly accessible, making you feel as if you have listened to the track a hundred times before, but still cannot get enough. The vocals have a great range, taking in influences from the quirky style of Modest Mouse, the older (and more preferable) rawness of The White Stripes, the catchiness and attitude of Prince, and the memorable, melancholic group vocals heard in the likes of The Sleepy Jackson. The melodies are also highly eclectic. There are elements of funk, country, 80s pop and ballads that permeate the songs throughout providing it with a simultaneously new sound yet the comfortable sense of familiarity.
What was particularly refreshing about this album was that, contrary to recent trends, you hadn’t heard every song to death already. However, nearly every single song stands out as a hit in its own right. At first, I was slightly anxious about them placing ‘Time to Pretend’ as the starting track of the album. After all, anyone who has made a mix tape knows that if you start with your strongest song, you are leaving yourself with nowhere to go. Yet it proves to be a masterstroke for two reasons. First, the perfectly managed eclecticism of MGMT means that every song is so diverse, from the Bee Gees-esque (but good!) ‘Electric Feel’ to the quirky, rustic appeal of ‘Pieces of What’, which sounds like a restrained Modest Mouse, perhaps more like Isaac Brock’s sideband, Ugly Casanova. Therefore, there is no danger that the rest of the album will sound like a poor echo of their one hit like horrific bands such as Scouting For Girls, or even the increasingly unoriginal and unimpressive Calvin Harris. And second, ‘Time to Pretend’, in my opinion, isn’t the best song on the album. It is fantastic, but there are others that are at least, if not better, than their hit single. In particular, ‘The Youth’ is a mesmerising, atmospheric song with a chorus that you will find yourself humming away to yourself even weeks after you last listened to it. It is just one of those songs that makes you feel as if you should be feeling some intense emotions, perhaps going through that serious part in the film that is a diving point in a character’s development. ‘Kids’ is equally good with powerful synth melodies that brilliantly supplement the great lyrics and vocals. Once again I am sure that you will be singing along and I would be surprised if this isn’t release as a single at some point.
It has been quite a while that an album has come out that is so consistently good. There is not one song that you you want to skip and the album has a fluidity and unity that makes it a moving overall piece rather than simply a collection of good songs. This is yet another testament to the talent of Dave Fridmann, who was also producer for Flaming Lips. The only fear now is whether their second album can live up to this initial standard, as so many bands seem to falter. However, considering the wealth of influences and the impressive depth of the album, I am hopeful that there is plenty more to expect from this exciting band.
The Music Review Marathon
Okay, so I have been massively stressed over the past month, as I imagine a number of you are as well, swamped with work. With 30,000 words due in for the 28th April, I have had one day off for my birthday, and am growing worryingly fond of Coronation Street! However, throughout this I have been listening to even more music than ever and I thought that I should spread the love. Therefore, from now on, everyday I will be bringing you a comprehensive review of an album that has just been released so you can waste your hours downloading music as well!
Enjoy!
Can You Love Musicians?
This isn’t necessarily, as the title may imply, about whether you can fall in love with, date, marry and eventually spend your wrinkly days with a musician, however interesting such an article may be. Instead, this is about the idea of really loving, bordering on being obsessed with, the music of any particular artist. Is there one artist or band that you just love: they can do no wrong, the majority of their songs are masterpieces and you know you always love them, a belief so strong you are willing to tattoo it across you chest? I for one cannot.
Now this isn’t going to be an article ridiculing or criticising people who do ‘worship’ a particular artist or band. Frankly, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it and I really like the idea of loving an artist that much. However, I just have never experienced that passion. I certainly like a lot of bands across a lot of genres. A few of the artists and bands I particularly like at the moment are (not all necessarily new bands, but ones I’m still fond of listening to) The Research, Neon Plastix, We Are Scientists, Sufjan Stevens, The Teenagers, Final Fantasy, Late of the Pier and the remixes of Chewy Chocolate Cookies. I would not say though, that I love any of these bands intently. Even artists that I have listened to from an early age, such as Glassjaw, Mars Volta, Thursday and funk greats like Funkadelic, Gap Band, Average White Band, and who I still really like listening to, I would not say I am obsessed with.
I find there is always some little thing about them I don’t quite like, or I think that they do really good music but am not always in the mood to listen to that type of music, or they are too new and I want to see what their next album is like etc. There is always something to prevent me from declaring that I love that band without question and always will, that they are inspired, moving, sum me up perfectly, and so on.
However, after talking to my friend, an eternal Morrissey fan, about this briefly, I do not think that people who ‘love’ a particular artist are that different. She doesn’t like some of Morrissey’s songs anywhere near to others and listens to a vast array of other genres, some that are quite significantly different to the likes of Morrissey. So, arguably, she views Morrissey in a similar way to how I view the artists I really like. The difference, though, is that she will defend Morrissey to the end and has a passion to be envied when discussing anything to do with him. And when she meets others with this same passion for Morrissey (and there are many, even in the quite town of Egham), an instant bond is created. Loving Morrissey like this can actually be enough foundation for an entire friendship.
And Morrissey is just one example. I know plenty of other people who love a certain artist or band in the same way as my friend, which makes me question: why not me? Why do I not feel that passion for a particular artist? I believe I feel that passion about music in general, as you may notice by the general musical focus of my posts, but I have never really experienced that passion about one artist in particular.
So what do you think about this passion and why is it so elusive? Is there an artist you love? Perhaps it is a matter of dedication and I am just too lazy. Or perhaps my time is yet to come. Sometime in the future I will shout down anyone who says something against a particular artist and realise that I too have become one of the worshippers.
Does Live Music Live Anymore?
As music continues its progression with ever increasing genres, subgenres, artists, subartists, there has been one consistent movement that has gathered pace over the past decade: the use of technology within music. By this, I mean computers offering people more and more musical freedom and expression. On stage bands no longer need drummers because they have drum machines, bands do not need consistent members because you can just record a riff onto a computer. Teenagers aspiring to be in a band do not need friends because there are infinite pieces of software that will create a more exciting, dynamic sound than a friend just learning guitar ever could. One spotty adolescent can create the sounds of an entire orchestra within their bedroom.
However, it makes us question: what exactly is live music nowadays?
At first this may seem like a stupid question. Obviously, live music is an artist or band performing live on some form of stage, preferably to an audience. However, if that artist is using laptops, pre-recorded synth lines and drum patterns (as more and more artists do) then is this actually live? As you watch some new rising musician sitting behind his laptop on stage, how do you know he’s actually doing anything other than pressing play and then continuing his game of Civilisation 4?
The simple answer could be that the majority of bands no longer perform live. A live performance, one may say, allows you to hear the music straight from the instrument without any technological intrusion; it is a simple equation of musician and audience with the musician strumming a guitar and the audience hearing the unadulterated result. However, these performances just do not exist anymore. Even your standard acoustic set is packed with technology – wires, amps, PAs, mixers, DI boxes – that all affect the way that music is heard. At any decent gig every individual sound the band creates has its separate channel on a mixer, ensuring that the music can be equalised to give the best possible representation of the band. So if an overly excited bassist hits his strings louder than he usually would, it doesn’t matter because there is a technician there on the mixing desk able to change the levels accordingly.
So if technology is being used to improve the performance anyway, is it that much worse to use pre-recorded riffs? Surely, it is unfair to expect an aspiring musician, who uses a vast number of instruments, effects and so on, to have to hire in an entire session band in order that they can perform live. Therefore, it makes sense to use laptops, drum machines, samplers in order that the musician can play ‘live’ at all. Perhaps the problem, though, is where to draw the line. For example, Final Fantasy is a solo artist who uses all types of instruments and drum patterns for his songs and when he performs live he does it in a way that is simply fantastic to watch. While he plays some pre-recorded lines, he will then add to them and record further riffs live, consequently sampling them over the top to eventually create this full sound on stage. Watching and listening to him build his songs makes his music even more exciting than when listened to on CD. However, another artist I recently saw performed an entire set on laptop and sampler. The songs built up in a similar way, but I was nowhere near as excited and I believe this was because I could not actually see it being done. This would then mean that a live performance depends on you trusting that some element of it is happening in the present and the problem is that with laptops you cannot tell for certain if this is happening.
However, someone could make it look like they are doing more than they are necessarily doing. You could have a complex drum beat already recorded and then just add a few more drums over the top. That way you can jump around and look like you are physically doing something, putting on a live performance. This though seems to be too dangerously close to the likes of Spice Girls miming at a ‘live’ concert and people overlooking it due to the amount of different dresses they wear and the spectacle of the show. The spectacle alone cannot be what constitutes a live set.
Could the answer be that a live set needs room for change, spontaneity and error? I do not mean that the audience are standing there hoping the guitarist will make a fatal flaw at which point they can deride said guitarist, but more the fact that the bands you watch have the ability and freedom to change their songs, providing something slightly different to the recorded version you heard. It is the chance that they will throw a guitar solo in the middle of your favourite track or extend an intro to really warm up the crowd. The likes of Hot Chip, regardless of their use of laptops, synthesizers and the latest electronic instruments, can perform brilliant versions of their singles that are completely different from how you may have heard them. On a different level Mars Volta are similarly brilliant at providing new interpretations of their own songs live, quite often perfectly blending songs into each other during the set. Once again though, we enter controversial territory. Would a performance by an orchestra not be considered live? It is unlikely and unfair to expect an orchestra to alter Beethoven’s ‘Piano Sonata No.8’ with some crazy drum solo thrown into the centre. Similarly, even if a DJ outfit, such as Justice or Daft Punk, considerably alter a song, even have two songs mixed together, how do you know that mix is not just pre-recorded as well? However, if it simply comes down to the potential of error then you can’t necessarily dismiss DJs either. While a guitarist may briefly hit the wrong fret it can be covered the noise of the rest of the band, but with a DJ, control all the music at once. Therefore, if they do not loop a section properly, it will be jarringly obvious to the audience. Similarly, is there anything more obvious than a CD skipping while playing? In this particular regard, a DJ would not even have to be doing anything for something to potentially go wrong. In this respect, a DJ, although playing all pre-recorded music, is putting on a truly live performance simply by the act of pressing play, which surely demeans the whole idea of ‘live’ music.
It seems that the idea of ‘live’ cannot be categorised into any set idea anymore, if it ever could. However, we could probably agree that a ‘live’ performance requires a combination of at least a couple of the elements mentioned above. I believe that a DJ is performing live even if he is using a laptop and other people’s music. If he is adding loops and effects, changing tempo, mixing songs together then he is undoubtedly performing live. He may be using other people’s music, but he is creating a live sound that is arguably transient. Similarly, I do not reckon a band should have to alter their songs just for it to be constituted as a live act. The very act of performing is a live act. However, I think the key issue here is the idea of performance. Any act that is being performed live on stage makes it a live performance, but this means that the artist must be doing something other than pressing play and ensuring the volume is okay. Whether they are a DJ, band, acoustic artist, they must be doing something other than checking their email. They must be contributing to the music that is currently being heard at the ‘live’ gig. Generally, I believe any artist knows whether they are performing live or not if they answered truthfully so it is ultimately an easy question to answer. However, the problem lies with the audience believing they are at a live performance and, unfortunately, as music becomes more and more electronically based, they will always require the artist to reassure them that it is so. It is then with the artist to decide how.
What’s with the delay?
Hey people,Just wanted to very briefly apologise for my absence as of late. Work had been getting on top of me and as a result I couldn’t bring you an articles or random thoughts. However, now 10,000 word essays be damned! Here’s some blogging goodness for you in my next two posts!x
school service [a poetic break 2)
school service
blame(d for) the decline of the obesity epidemic
pilot (in the pipeline) fight the flab wireless-based children
2 palestinians infiltrate a school = th()rough attendance
– well-armed cells of militants biologically studied –
“lil angel” is consistently missed
brandishing a bottle on raunchy internet show
‘Close up her ample cleavage!’ – ‘She should be serving the people of Henley!’
ne0 Nazis link arms (all three teachers are male)
pastoral care pretend to be religious pretend to be jewish? – Holocaust Education. Trust. – ‘So totally jewish!’ my freaky Britney faking religion
chart toppers Clock the madrasah – ‘psssst! Offer them the imam!’
this is the year £2008
– makes you pew:
thousands of parents suffer from KIDs = evaluation for misbehaving
DISCIPLINEINDISCIPLINE – get it into their heads create an ethos plaque quoting plaques chosen at random }likely to be disappointed; adopt controversy.
Courses/corpses divided into 2 camps
How many will be left?
Remember to avoid expellatory grammar; most people got it and kept passing it along for fun – school links to gay pornography site [links appear = play/say Wii] – Christian molestation
handcuffed five year olds school-cuffed just rambling and confused
Pick up at school; giving is not an impulse
Launch the proto ty P.E.
(Distribution was far more widespread )
white t-shirts – insane and moral ly – are see through (black with pink) – GirlsActive
Bargain = school apartheid/bottoms instead of pleated skirts
‘ENTER THEIR CHILDREN FOR TESTS!’ non-hood wearing yobs just Nod Like the head
instil some enthusiasm in negative stereotypes – they are as commonplace as organic chicken
parents with sharp elbows move on to plan B = sudden longing
fail to comply fail to learn fail to lie fail to fail
inspire people as they do their business
take extra curricular activities = generosity classes = prevent naming rights/money flooding
men’s bathrooms (the technology hub) promote philanthropy refuse {direct social impact}
– plopped £25,000.
Zap Porn Images (dynamism for kids) = a Fagin-style crime racket
Public denouncement/private exaltation
stabbed + shot =
shot + killed =
The Flight of the Conchords Rises From the Ashes of The Mighty Boosh
It is very important from the outset that you do not think I am drawing any comparisons between the comedy ‘The Mighty Boosh’ and the comedy ‘The Flight of the Conchords’. Apart from them being both primarily focused on a duo and a use of music within the programmes (much more in ‘TFotC’), they are completely different comedies.
The only reason I have given this post such a title is because I felt bad leaving you with a rather negative review of the third series of The Mighty Boosh and thought it was only right I give you something else to watch. And, in my humble opinion, I am giving you something that is absolutely incredible! I am a legend. You’re welcome.
Okay, so while The Mighty Boosh lies on BBC Three, The Flight of the Conchords was aired about five months ago on BBC Four, as well as being played on HBO (arguably USA’s most respected television channel in terms of quality) . It is based on a band called Flight of The Conchords, which consists of two men from New Zealand (Bret and Jermaine), who have travelled to the USA to make it big. With an incompetent manager, called Murray, who also works in the tiny building that is the New Zealand Consulate, and only one disturbing fan, called Mel, each episode focuses on both their attempts to succeed as a band and their own lives.
I’m not going to go too much into what happens in each episode and so forth, as I find that nothing ruins comedy more than an actual essay about it! However, each episode contains brilliant storylines that cover the awkward, slightly bizarre lives of these few characters in New York. The humour ranges from intelligent, subtle insights into the idiosyncratic nature of everyday life to fantastic surreal images and concepts.
Furthermore, every episode is capped off with at least two songs interwoven within the plot that are hilarious, but also very good songs! There is no doubt that with serious lyrics they would be great tracks. They achieve a great balance that will have you laughing when you hear them (and see the brilliant music videos!) and have you singing them later on as you walk down the street. I warn you though, singing these songs will make you look quite weird to passers by as you sing about mermaids, songs in french, and lines like, ‘oh pretty prince of parties, where’d you get your clothes? They’re made of snow!’
This comedy achieves the perfect balance of restrained moments that display great insight into everyday life and the sense of surreal that can be found within the mundane. The directing is superb and the whole comedy achieves aural and visual originality.
Whether you are a fan of the humour in The Office, The Mighty Boosh, The IT Crowd, The Peep Show or whatever other cutting edge comedies have existed over the past ten years, you are bound to find something you love in The Flight of the Conchords. I would even go far to say you end up preferring it to the great array of comedies it arises from.
While The Office and Extras end and The Mighty Boosh and The Peep show grow stagnant, the rise of The Flight of the Conchords ensures there is still a comedy out there for everyone to love.
The DVD of their first series is available to buy along with all of their music. The songs from the series can also be viewed on YouTube, so you can see how right I am first and then buy the DVD!
