This album starts fast and loud. One of the issues I have with Deerhoof is the same issue I have with Sonic Youth (who I don’t really like) and the early Boredoms (who I do like) - and that is the use of what I guess would be called “dissonance” and “atonality”, combined with abruptness and a jarring quality in the songs. I like all these things in concept, but in practice they can be disruptive, not interesting. I find this phenonmenon/aesthetic prevalent in Deerhoof quite a bit – call it “avant-rock”.
I really have to listen actively to this album; if I try and just put it on and concentrate on others things while it’s playing, I find “Friend Opportunity” annoying. If I listen actively, though - like if I’m in the car on a long distance drive, or maybe doing something around the house that doesn’t require a lot of attention - I can follow the nuances. This is why I find myself going back and forth on Deerhoof albums. They combine elements of innocent pop, planned amateurishness, dissonace, atonality, abruptness, and other listener-challenging techniques. There’s a lot of simplicity, and even more complexity, on Deerhoof albums, and I don’t think either one of those things is automatically good or bad. On “Friend Opportunity” there’s a lot of sound texture. There’s also minimalism of varying kinds – simple and thrashing guitar noise, electronic beat minimalism, lone and vulnerable vocals. The strongest strains running through the music are Progressive Rock complexity (a la Goblin, Faust, etc), Avant-Noise dissonance (a la Boredoms, Yoko Ono, Faust again), and unpolished Indie-Pop melodicism (a la I don’t know who – I’m not too familiar with those specific bands: insert your own – this is your review too!).
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Auburn Lull “Regions Less Parallel (early works & rarities 1994 - 2004)” (2005) [by Michael]
This music lives in the troposphere between ambient and shoegaze. It’s ethereal to the extreme. It consists of sound washes, echoes, warm electronics, processed instruments, dreamy vocals, slower tempos, and drones – the usual cast of characters for shoegaze and dream pop. Some of it has a less song-structured, more “com- positional” aspect, tuning it into the frequency of ambient music: more about soundscapes than songs. The problem is that this music is just not that inventive and so the overall impression is of uniformity. This is a common problem in shoegaze music. It works better with pure ambient compositions, which tend to be composed as longer pieces that build and shift, creating a sort of background atmosphere. Shoegaze also creates that haze of atmosphere. It’s an easy formula not to either fuck up or excel at.
My current feeling about shoegaze music is that it’s too easy. It’s too easy, given the proper studio equipment and an understanding of the aesthetic, to create ethereal, dramatic soundscapes, and then if you want, add indecipherable, dreamy vocals. It doesn’t seem too hard to create a competent shoegaze album, which is what I think this CD is. I could see enjoying it if someone put it on during a long, nighttime car ride, or at night at home to have in the background for quiet conversation or making out. But it’s just not good enough - it’s kind of a cheat. It’s too easy. The music just isn’t that interesting, and it gets kind of annoying and tedious. Listening to the whole thing in one sitting, I feel like I just spent the night getting stoned and watching TV – not without its pleasures, but ultimately unsatisfying and kind of a waste of time. (That all being said, I think there are actually a couple of good tracks on here.)
My current feeling about shoegaze music is that it’s too easy. It’s too easy, given the proper studio equipment and an understanding of the aesthetic, to create ethereal, dramatic soundscapes, and then if you want, add indecipherable, dreamy vocals. It doesn’t seem too hard to create a competent shoegaze album, which is what I think this CD is. I could see enjoying it if someone put it on during a long, nighttime car ride, or at night at home to have in the background for quiet conversation or making out. But it’s just not good enough - it’s kind of a cheat. It’s too easy. The music just isn’t that interesting, and it gets kind of annoying and tedious. Listening to the whole thing in one sitting, I feel like I just spent the night getting stoned and watching TV – not without its pleasures, but ultimately unsatisfying and kind of a waste of time. (That all being said, I think there are actually a couple of good tracks on here.)
Sunday, June 3, 2007
Patience (1961) by John-Michael Sherrick
At least in English-speaking countries, Sir Arthur Sullivan's series of operettas composed to libretti by Sir William S. Gilbert remain the only Victorian comic operas performed today. For about a hundred years, the D'Oyly Carte Opera Company was the leading performers of the G&S canon, developing a performance style forever associated with the operettas. The DCOC really wasn't an opera company... it performed only operettas and many of its singers weren't classically trained singers (although a few alumnae went on to successful operatic careers). Still, their performances are synonymous with traditional performances of G&S. Their 1961 recording of Patience even includes the operetta's complete dialogue.
On the positive side, there is certainly a sense of fun and theatricality that one doesn't hear on G&S recordings made by non-G&S specialists. This isn't presented as some sort of down-market opera or glorified musical comedy or museum piece to be reverenced but not touched. At the best moments, the dialogue sparkles, the singing sounds as if it's sung by the characters, rather than a group of singers in a studio, and the orchestra carries the along the score at a vibrant pace. Then, of course, there's the fact that one's listening to a theatrical company that at the time of this recording had been performing Patience for 80 years... there's an intangible sense of confidence and tradition in the performances... a delicate balance between reverence for the past and making a classic theatrical work alive for a new audience.
On the negative side, the recording's selling point is also its main drawback. The DCOC's singing, quite frankly, isn't always easy on the ears. It's not that the performances are bad... it's simply that the DCOC is something of an acquired taste and a taste that I haven't yet totally acquired. Listening to their performances always leaves me with a sense of frustration. Obviously, unlike a DVD, one can only listen to a cd. Is this the best way to show off Sullivan's music? I'm not convinced that it is. On a cd, the music is the main appeal and really gives the attentive listener the opportunity to hear the care with which Sullivan lavished his comic opera scores, an artistry which especially shines in Patience, which I believe to be one of his most delicate and lovely scores. Sometimes the DCOC approach works. Mary Sansom in the title role conveys a certain fragility and sweet youthfulness in her waltz song, "Love is a Plaintive Song" that an opera singer probably wouldn't convey. It's one of the highlights of the set. As usual, Phillip Potter's clear Irish tenor charms the ear and John Reed's patter songs are funny and adroitly performed. But none of this changes the fact that the recording is performed by singing actors and the cd ends up, I think, being less a recording of G&S's Patience as it is a document of the DCOC's performance style.
On the positive side, there is certainly a sense of fun and theatricality that one doesn't hear on G&S recordings made by non-G&S specialists. This isn't presented as some sort of down-market opera or glorified musical comedy or museum piece to be reverenced but not touched. At the best moments, the dialogue sparkles, the singing sounds as if it's sung by the characters, rather than a group of singers in a studio, and the orchestra carries the along the score at a vibrant pace. Then, of course, there's the fact that one's listening to a theatrical company that at the time of this recording had been performing Patience for 80 years... there's an intangible sense of confidence and tradition in the performances... a delicate balance between reverence for the past and making a classic theatrical work alive for a new audience.
On the negative side, the recording's selling point is also its main drawback. The DCOC's singing, quite frankly, isn't always easy on the ears. It's not that the performances are bad... it's simply that the DCOC is something of an acquired taste and a taste that I haven't yet totally acquired. Listening to their performances always leaves me with a sense of frustration. Obviously, unlike a DVD, one can only listen to a cd. Is this the best way to show off Sullivan's music? I'm not convinced that it is. On a cd, the music is the main appeal and really gives the attentive listener the opportunity to hear the care with which Sullivan lavished his comic opera scores, an artistry which especially shines in Patience, which I believe to be one of his most delicate and lovely scores. Sometimes the DCOC approach works. Mary Sansom in the title role conveys a certain fragility and sweet youthfulness in her waltz song, "Love is a Plaintive Song" that an opera singer probably wouldn't convey. It's one of the highlights of the set. As usual, Phillip Potter's clear Irish tenor charms the ear and John Reed's patter songs are funny and adroitly performed. But none of this changes the fact that the recording is performed by singing actors and the cd ends up, I think, being less a recording of G&S's Patience as it is a document of the DCOC's performance style.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)