Sunday, October 30, 2005

A pale thin boy with eyes forlorn


Since I've already given a disclaimer to my non-ability to write an album review, I'm absolved of any wrongdoing in what I'm about to write. You may or may not have gotten ahold of the leaked Babyshambles album, Down in Albion, but I have, and I want to talk about it. "Review" is such a harsh word. Maybe it can be my own style of review. They'll name it after me. A "wreview."

Look, I love the music, but I'm no Pete Doherty scholar. I dont have each and every bootlegged version memorized. I can't tell you which songs were combined to make up which songs on the album. But I listened to the songs, and I'm going to tell you what I think of them. And tell you, first of all, that I'm disappointed that "Do You Know Me" is not on the album. It's one of the ones from all the live sets that I like the most. Anyway, on to what actually is on the album.

"La Belle Et La Bête" (aka "Kate Moss Sings")
I like this song. It has an old fashioned movie vibe to it. There's a word for it, but it escapes me. Perhaps "noir." It has a slightly sinister feel to it, which is played up when Pete sings, "But then the conversation turned eeeevil." My favorite part is when it picks up by the "You turned your back upon her one too many times..." A line I can relate to. As well as the, "Is she more beautiful than me?" That's female insecurity in a nutshell, though made less plausible sung by a supermodel. (One I've never found particularly attractive, personally.) I can stand Kate's voice, but let's hope she's not aspiring to a recording contract now that she's lost her modeling contracts. I like how Pete mutilates the real language when he says "She's the belle of the bête of the ball."

"Fuck Forever"
It's unanimous. The Zane Lowe session version of this song is the best, hands down. I first heard it, and the song, when it came on shuffle while I was waiting for a friend in the 34th Street subway station, heading onto the PATH train to New Jersey for a gig. I was blown away. The song is that good. I listened to it on repeat, about six times in a row. And when my friend got there, I couldn't stop raving. She was amused. I think the album (and single) version is overproduced, especially with the layover vocals. The noises he makes after "They'll never play this on the radio" sound vaguely like him trying to hurl. But, you know, it happens. The line "But I'll never sever the ties" makes everyone raise their eyebrows. Hmm... Even so, it's such a good song. But this version isn't the one that goes on my mp3 player.

"Á Rebours"
I don't have too much to say about it, other than I really like it. The bass line kicks ass. And I love the line, "You ignore, adore, a’rebour me," even though it doesn't quite make sense.

"The 32nd of December"
I LOVE the title. Pete is cleverer than us mere mortals. It's a happy sounding song, but that's misleading, obviously. "You'll be nobody's fool but your own." He should take his own advice.

"Pipedown"
I. Love. This. Song. It would get stuck in my head before I even knew which song it was. It's a great recorded version, with a shout along chorus. I am a bit disappointed that he doesn't roll his "r"s when he says "right." I've always liked that. And I love the short guitar at the end.

"Sticks and Stones"
Or Pete Does Reggae. It annoys me that he references himself ironically. "Don't look back into the mother fucking sun." Argh. Not a fave.

"Killamangiro"
In terms of instrumentation, the consensus seems to be that parts of this version are better, and parts of the single version are better. I like the single better. I miss the rough guitar pieces. And the chorus seemed more...anthemic, spirited. This version seems more rote, less boisterous. The background vocals before "On the off chance..." are just pure cheese. And I miss the "On the off chance you listen to the radio, I thought you might like to know you broke my heart." Granted, it's a good thing it's been "la la la"d over - it shows a lessening of animosity. But the original had such poignancy, and was just a bit heartbreaking.

"8 Dead Boys"
Nothing particular sticks out about this song to comment on, just that I actually rather like it.

"In Love With A Feeling"
A harmless ditty, but the title lyrics have always appealed to me.

"Pentonville"
No. Just, no. We get it. You were in jail. It was rough. You're grateful to the General. But no.

"What Katy Did Next"
First of all, it's Katie, thanks. And what's with all the clichés?! This song is an insult to the original. Was it just to make a point? If so, you did - lightning doesn't strike twice. You don't get a song like the first again. Polka dots fill my eyes, and I don't know why.

"Albion"
This is perhaps one of the most poignant songs any band has ever written. People are so personally attached to this song, that either saying anything positive or negative about it can hurt feelings. Hearing the first few chords of this song does not fail to get me choked up, whatever version (and I don’t’ even live in “Albion.”) People either love this version or hate it. I seem to stand somewhere in the middle. A lot of people are saying that the only version of this song could (and should be) Carl and Pete, with acoustic guitars and a harmonica. And yes, that’s my favorite too. But that version wasn’t going to wind up on an album like that, it would have been finished and probably been overdone. It especially wasn’t going to wind up on a Babyshambles album. So to say that any version but that one is blasphemy is pretty unrealistic. As for the one we do have – I’m retracting my stance a bit. I never thought it was awful, and it’s certainly not great, but it’s ok. Maybe good, even. It could have been so much worse, really. They could have electrified it, but they didn’t, it still retains its “acoustic sensibility.” To me, what keeps it from being great (much less my favorite version) is just a bunch of little things. The weird noise at the beginning and the end. The cheesy repeating “anywhere in Albion.” How Pete keeps shifting keys, and strains to reach the high ones. Even the way that Albion is pronounced in the song (being American, I wasn’t even sure how to pronounce it at first. After all, the British pronounce everything differently – “aluminium,” anyone?). But as I said, I don’t think it’s a bad version. It’s a “real” song, now, it was going to have to be produced, and that shouldn’t be held against it. Still, I think I would like it a lot better without the “anywhere in Albion”s (but leave everything else the same).

"Back From The Dead"
I really like the instrumentation/melody line. And notice the "shoop shoop shoop delang delang"s in the background? WRONG SONG, dumbass.

"Loyalty Song"
This is the only song I recognize the conglomeration of different versions. It's pretty easy, considering it's right in the lyrics. "What did I dream?" (Or was it always called this?) But I've always liked it. It's a happy, pleasant song. A nice contrast to some of the others.

"Up The Morning"
Why does it take so damn long to start? Once it does, it misleads you into thinking it's going somewhere good. I don't like the "up the morning"s. It has a dissonance in melody and vocal tone that is characteristic of Pete's solo work (it's much less melodic than the Libs' stuff.)

"Merry Go Round"
It's very troubador-like. I prefer Yeti's, though. The "you should get some sun on your face" part is so pretty.

All in all, there are many harmless tracks on this album. They just don't stand out. In an album of 16 songs, should there be more? There are definite stand outs, but they're mostly the ones we all knew already. In general, I just find his music with Babyshambles lacking. It doesn't live up to any of The Libertines' stuff. There is less song structure, more meandering, which may appeal to some, but not to me.

I'm not disappointed, though. I wasn't expecting an earth-shattering album. But it's not one I'm going to listen to all the way through often, though I'll definitely pick out the tracks I like for my mp3 player.

The album's out on November 14. Buy it. You know you need a copy in your collection.

Friday, October 21, 2005

Background check

“I’ve got enormous holes in my background knowledge of music, which is quite exciting to me in a way. The things I love I fall in love with obsessively, and everything else either doesn’t interest me or is something that I can later look forward to learning all about.”

-- Carl Barât (Taken from Adelaide's weekly Rip It Up Magazine, issue 849)

All I have to say is, thank god it’s not just me!! I have huge holes in my musical background, too. With siblings much older than I am, you would think I’d have a vast knowledge of classic rock bands, but not so much. I grew up on Michael Jackson, Culture Club, and more than anything else, Simon and Garfunkel. Also some big band/swing, and oldies (like, “Blue Moon” oldies. But they’re so good.)

American music fans can’t believe I never got into Led Zeppelin or the Rolling Stones. The best I can do with that is say I know some Boston and Aerosmith. Not really the same thing. British music fans can’t believe I don’t know anything by…well, it’s so bad, I don’t even know the bands I should be listing there.

Mostly, this doesn’t bother me. I feel exactly the way Mr. Barât described – the music I love, I love obsessively, and the other stuff I just don’t care about or I will one day, but I’m not bothered in the meantime.

But this also is one of the big reasons I cannot, for the life of me, write a decent music review. Things of an analytical nature, no problem. But an actual single or album review? Fuhgeddaboutdit. Because I don’t have this vast background knowledge, I am useless. I can’t write one of those “this band sounds like that band in their this band phase” which typify so many music reviews. (I also don’t necessarily know enough about instruments and production aspects.) I wrote ONE. I’m not proud of it. Please don’t ever read it. (I will not tell you where/what it is.)

I feel a bit better, though, knowing that Carl might not be able to write a good one either. (Just humor me, ok?)

Monday, October 10, 2005

A rose by any other band name

Franz Ferdinand? Or the Karelia? Or the Amphetameanies?

Kaiser Chiefs? Or Parva?

It’s an old story, but it’s still a recurring theme in music – famous bands that have existed in previous incarnations, or at least their band members have. It makes one wonder though – ok, it makes me wonder – what is it about the new improved version that makes it work? And when the artists all say, “I’m just being true to myself” or “We’re just being true to the sound of the band,” how do we or they even know what the truth is? What makes a band’s new sound “them?” Why is it different? And why does it all of a sudden work?

Former Indie upstarts (currently suffering from NME-darling backlash syndrome) Kaiser Chiefs were formerly known as Parva.

“New York(shire) band Parva are one of the most exciting British bands around at the moment. Hailing from Leeds, they ape no-one; they are their own band doing their own thing, making music that is as infectious as it is original in the process.” (Read more here)

I repeat, “they are their own band doing their own thing, making music that is as infectious as it is original in the process.” They apparently toured with the likes of The Rapture and The Libertines. And yet, they no longer sound remotely like Parva. They certainly no longer look remotely like Parva. (Exhibit A: Drummer Nick Hodgson’s former short, spiky haircut, compared to his current long, mod, “indie-ly correct” ‘do.) They change their sound, their look, Ricky starts yelping and drinking too much, and all of a sudden, they’re famous.

Alex Kapranos is well-known for having been in bands before Franz Ferdinand, and one of the songs off the new album You Could Have It So Much Better, “Outsiders,” is a reworked version of one his own songs. Paul Thompson, Franz’s drummer was in the Amphetameanies with Alex, as well as being a member of Pro Forma. Different to the Kaiser Chiefs in that this was a new grouping of band members, is it the new combination of band members and what they bring to the sound of the band?

Or is it a certain indefinable thing that just clicks, that just makes it right? The thing that makes the “It” people IT. The way you know when you just connect with someone. Can you assume that things, when they’re the way they’re supposed to be, the connection between the band members is "right," and everyone’s being true to themselves, that everything coalesces, and that’s why the hit it big?

Is it freak luck? Is it some reaction to or gauge of the trends in the music industry, or better, anticipation of where things are headed? Does that make them sell-outs? Can you fault a band for wanting to be successful? Can you doubt their integrity as musicians, or as being true to their art? Is it just one of those showbiz mysteries?

And the bigger question: Does it really matter?

Friday, October 07, 2005

Attention New Yorkers!

Ever get tired of never having anywhere to go to party/drink where they're playing "your" music (or rather, my music)? Well, someone felt your pain...

The Gorgeous Undertow

Now the only question is, how good is the beer at the bar??