free counter with statistics Animal Collective Review | Pajiba - Scathing Reviews for Bitchy People

animalcollective2.jpg

Pajiba Music

You Asked For It, You Got It

Wednesday Music Reviews / Pajiba Music Writers

Music | January 28, 2009 | Comments (55)


Never let it be said that we don’t listen to your cries. Of course, seeing as we are who we are, sometimes what you want and what you get are two different things. We’ve got some great reviews today, for some not-so-great albums. So by all means, read on. Thanks.
—TK


merriweather.jpgAnimal Collective: Merriweather Post Pavilion
[Domino Records]

At the suggestion of some readers, we decided to review Animal Collective’s recently released Merriweather Post Pavillion. I volunteered for this because I really want to expand my knowledge of new music, and I was surprised to learn that this is Animal Collective’s ninth “album” (they have also released several E.P.s, although I wonder how useful that term is anymore, unless you’re a vinyl collector). I had never heard of Animal Collective before this, so I thought this might be a second or third release from an independent band.

I think it’s a good thing that rock music (for lack of a better term) is always evolving. The most important thing to me is that the music stays true to the original ideas, mainly acting up by creating a jangle of noise, the idea of being able to thrust your hips to a song (whether that be dancing or screwing), and having a good time. You can throw any message in there, be it political, being free, good love, bad love, what have you, just make sure you have a good foundation and the subject matter is pure bonus. In my opinion, good lyrics make a good melody even better.

The album starts out with “In the Flowers” which reminds me in some ways of early-to-mid period Pink Floyd with its weird sound effects in the beginning. When the song finally kicks in, the computer/synth blasts the highs out of my speakers while a pleasant melody is sung over the noise. Instead of working together, the percussion, computer and vocals seem to be fighting for dominance.

Flat intertwined vocals layer the entire album. The vocals themselves are somewhat hypnotic in the same way as those Benedictine Monk chants I heard everywhere in the 90s. This is like 80s synth-pop without the fun. Kind of like if Baltimora, who gave us “Tarzan Boy”, decided to write serious music.

“My Girls” comes close to being a good song. The vocal exchanges are compelling, reminding me of the Beach Boys or Brian Wilson’s vocal stylings, although this is a far cry from the five-part harmonies you hear on Shine. That synthesizer loop is shrieking. I’m not at all in love with the drum machine, either.




“My Girls”

Each song seems to begin with some kind of atmospheric swirl. What the fuck is the time signature in “Also Frightened”? It’s perfect music for rolling down a stone-filled hill inside a large tractor tire. Random synthesized sound-effects and vocal “la-las” pepper this tune.

“Summertime Clothes” comes close to being The Feelgood Hit of the Summer. This is probably the bright spot of the album for me. It’s a bit too noisy for my tastes, but it sure is bouncy.

The sampling and rhythm of most songs is almost industrial sounding. The repetition in “Brothersport” is rave-like. I felt like I was in downtown Pensacola, circa 1997, at Bedlam, hanging out with a bunch of other people with no place to go at 3:15 a.m., watching the empty, lit dance floor.

“Bluish” starts with some promise. I start to believe that I’m going to get an atmospheric, mellow tune, a style I think would work well with the singer’s voice, only the heavy, warbling sound effects start about 30 seconds in, and I’m annoyed. I like atmospherics in music. Wilco is a good example of atmospheric rock. It’s true they can have some jarring instrumentation and effects as well, but I think those are more controlled than what exists here.

The thing I hear most in this music is that it can’t figure out what it wants to be. In a way, it is uncontrolled and seems to be allowed to wander. Maybe that’s what Animal Collective was going for. But I can’t get into it because I’m constantly distracted. I save music with these features for tasks such as long drives to keep me awake or painting a room to counter the mundane task.

Acting up by creating a jangle of noise - check; Hip thrusting and having a good time? Not so much on this release from the boys in Animal Collective.
Jez


cryinglight.jpgAntony and the Johnsons: The Crying Light
[Secretly Canadian Records]

This is so painful. I don’t mean The Crying Light — although that is also painful in its own pompous, plodding, boring way. No, what really hurts is having to put the smackdown on one of my favourite artists. This feels like kicking a really good friend in the teeth, just after they’ve come seventh out of nine in the three-legged race at school. Me and Antony, we go way back - all the way back to, ahem, 2005 - when everyone else found out about him with the release of second album I Am A Bird Now, and pretended to each other that they owned and enjoyed his first. That’s how close we are, Ant and I. So believe me when I say that I derive no enjoyment from the dissection that is about to follow.

The Crying Light is devastatingly dull. Consider the really, really boring lead single, “Another World”: the simple piano chords that make up its backbone sound like a standard retread of “For Today I Am A Boy”, and then there is a sort of howling kind of sound blowing through the song as Antony wails the most wretched lyrics, masquerading as elemental poetry or a lament for a world due for extinction: “I’m gonna miss the sea/ I’m gonna miss the snow/ I’m gonna miss the bees/ I’ll miss the things that grow.” Jesus. When I heard the song, I purposefully threw away some glass bottles with my plastics. Screw the icebergs.

Things don’t get much better, lyrically, elsewhere: “Daylight and the Sun” finds him moaning, “Now I cry for daylight/ Daylight and the sun/ Now I cry for daylight/ Daylight everyone”. I’m sorry, did you just say daylight everyone? It’s so gnomic, it makes Rhea Perlman look like Magic Johnson. Otherwise, the song title “Her Eyes Are Underneath The Ground” is bleakly evocative, I suppose. But the song itself I found to be limp and uninvolving, right up until the sombre, flinty cello which closes it off, courtesy of Nico Muhly: at last, a moment to break up the monotony.

Speaking of which, Muhly’s arrangements do bring some much-needed levity to proceedings: on closer “Everglade” (the unquestionable highlight of the set), a swell of strings and a sad oboe are the perfect foil for Hegarty’s still-astonishing voice. What is wonderful about it the song is that it is so grandiose, so ambitious, so full of itself: bulging fatly with this overblown arrangement, it is everything that the other, little, beige songs are not.

What is really sad is that Antony’s voice, which is still the glorious tool it always was, has a hard time imparting profundity to these moribund, stodgy numbers. His beautiful, soaring tremolo still holds so much clipped, contained sorrow; his precise enunciation makes him sound other-worldly; his phrasing likewise. But there is nothing thrilling here - no shiver-inducing moments such as there were in “Hope There’s Someone”, for instance, and no real moments of transgression to rival the deluded, paean to domestic violence of “Fistful of Love”. And so many songs are plain embarrassing: “Dust and Water” and “Kiss My Name” are just incomprehensible.

I understand the project, and it’s a noble and original one: to map our departing world; to find some balm in our disappearing resources of water and air; to sing our world. Well done! Cute idea. But the trouble is that Antony’s music has previously benefited from sounding very personal. The spectral hush of I Am A Girl Now suited these confessional stories, as did first person narration: think of the emotion he dredged from “Bird Gerhl”, with its Garland-like yearning to fly away and escape the prison of gender. Here, he can’t come to grips with his subject in the same way, and the result is a curiously listless, disappointing collection of songs.

Sorry, Tony. You made me do it.
—Caspar Salmon


oldmoney.jpgOmar Rodriguez-Lopez: Old Money
[Stones Throw Records]

In response to just about every review I’ve ever posted on this site, I’ve always gotten a flood of comments from people (who I automatically imagine are bald men, for whatever reason) who decry my musical tastes and bemoan the lack of “ROCK” music on the site. I can only presume that these people want me to write about something heavy. Something loud, something fast, something in-your-face. Something that sounds HARD. Well, whenever someone tries to tell me that all I listen to is “pussy rock”, or if anyone says that hard rock music hasn’t been good in the last decade, I first show them The Mars Volta. And for those who can stick through more than one full song, it’s usually a revelation.

The Mars Volta are one of the craziest, ballsiest, most creative bands you will ever listen to. And since their sophomore release, Frances The Mute, they’re one of the heaviest and fastest “hip” bands in the scene today. The band is known for its outrageous tempo changes, screaming horns, and uniquely incomprehensible guitar solos. The man who composes all of their songs is their guitarist, Omar Rodriguez-Lopez. So, it should come as no shock to anyone who’s listened to The Mars Volta that every other track of this solo effort is no less complex, unusual, or rocking. In those songs, there is a distinct feeling of déjà vu, with musical ideas and arrangements that sound like rehashed riffs from TMV’s The Bedlam in Goliath. It’s strange to be almost jaded with such a fantastic musical mind, but it’s true. Just about every other track on Old Money is same old, same old.

But that’s just half of the genius at work here, and thankfully, refreshingly, Rodriguez-Lopez has learned how to capture his musical virtuosity in a record that isn’t just impressive but, in contrast with his previous solo efforts, is also fun to listen to. Take the fifth track, the nonsensically titled “Trilateral Commission As Dinner Guests” (I’m sure it means something to him). The song begins simply, a fairly strong beat backing a repetitious and slightly unusual lead guitar riff, when all of a sudden, in come the horns. And from there, the song is jazz/rock magic, Miles Davis-level creativity that perfectly blends the flavors of music that Rodriguez-Lopez has become famous for with his technical influences.

The rest of the album is Rodriguez Lopez at his finest, yet for all his spontaneity, it’s somehow predictable, almost rote for someone who’s crafted a career out of challenging listeners more than any other rock guitarist today. Still, it’s a more than worthy purchase for the self-respecting hard rock fan of today; experimental, dissonant, but absolutely brilliant. I won’t be showing this album off to every person I meet who complains about a lack of hard rock in my collection. But I have a feeling I’ll be able to lead those people to it. Eventually.
Christian H.


Big Stan Trailer | Pajiba Love 01/28/09



Comments

I can't bring myself to listen to The Mars Volta. I've still got a burning ember for At The Drive-In, and I'd feel like I was cheating... However, due to your review, I might check out the Lopez album.

Or I could just get drunk and chuck rocks at my neighbor's garage.

Posted by: Skitz at January 28, 2009 12:19 PM

I take from this the idea that I should listen to Antony's second album. My tastes and Caspar's are never too far apart.

Posted by: Optimus Rhyme at January 28, 2009 12:23 PM

My, now I can never take Pajiba's music reviews to heart.
Animal Collective is one of my favorite bands and I thought Merriweather Post Pavilion was one of their best albums.

Posted by: feels at January 28, 2009 12:24 PM

The Mars Volta kicks so much ass they should be in a Rob Schneider movie. har.

Posted by: Protoguy at January 28, 2009 12:30 PM

Oh no! Someone finally writes a critique of Merriweather Post Pavilion... what has the world come to?

Thanks Pajiba for assuring me I'm not the only person who thinks Animal Collective is overrated.

Posted by: Averdade at January 28, 2009 12:33 PM

Well, as the Jazz Butcher said, I'm at war with modern music, so I probably wouldn't like the current cause celebre either way.

I was ready to give Vampire Weekend a try until I saw their Spin photo shoot. "I am not giving that sweater any of my time. If they find their way to my ears, fine".

Posted by: Jay at January 28, 2009 12:43 PM

Re: the headline

Creeeedit card? Yoooooou goooot iiiit!

Posted by: Lucie at January 28, 2009 12:52 PM

Animal Collective is the most overrated, pretentious group I've ever heard. I'm glad I'm not the only one who doesn't like them.

Okay, maybe that's a bit strong, but generally anytime a band is review on All Things Considered, they suck. It's just a fact.

Posted by: Marra at January 28, 2009 1:04 PM

That header photo is funny. Nice reviews, guys.

Posted by: Sean at January 28, 2009 1:07 PM

I'm 0-500 on Pajiba music posts. Woohoo! I never have ANY idea who any of these people are. My pajiba-coolness card keeps losing points.

Posted by: figgy at January 28, 2009 1:07 PM

Um, yeah, I think your problem started when you went into an Animal Collective CD thinking of it as rock music, and wanting to dance to it. Not that I'm going to defend all their music, because I mostly just like a few songs from their previous output, but yeah. Not for dancing, unless you are very stoned.

Posted by: Sabrina at January 28, 2009 1:13 PM

@ feels: I love the idea that because there is a single review that you disagree with, all subsequent reviews are thereby rendered a failure.

That's smart thinkin'!

Posted by: Madmartigan at January 28, 2009 1:30 PM

Optimus Rhyme: yes, definitely seek out Antony & the Johnsons' second album. It is shockingly beautiful and brave. Glad someone's getting something from my efforts.

Jez: good review! I actually like Animal Collective's two previous albums, Feels and Strawberry Jam especially, a lot. This new one I also think I like, but it's bloody hard work (which I often think music shouldn't be)! It may be a grower.

Posted by: Caspar at January 28, 2009 1:55 PM

As one of the commenters pushing for a review of Animal Collective, I was very surprised by the review. It is fine with me if you don't like the band as I know everyone feels differently about music and Animal Collective is a strange band, but to think you were going to be listening to a rock album and then reviewing it as such is doing a disservice to readers of the review. This would be like going to see The Dark Knight expecting a light romantic comedy and then hating on the film for not delivering on an absurdly incorrect assumption. Animal Collective is not a rock band, they are an experiment in noise and hypnosis. Like the alternative worlds answer to Philip Glass. Once again the music reviews on this site fail to live up to the standards of the film/book reviews.

Posted by: The Ross Sea Party at January 28, 2009 2:32 PM

I just downloaded Merriweather Post Pavilion and haven't had a chance to really listen to it; I'll admit, at first blush, I'm a bit confused by all the hype it's currently garnering. That said, I'm going to second the Strawberry Jam recommendation and throw a shout out to Sung Tongs as well. Excellent records, both. And FUN.

Posted by: masha at January 28, 2009 2:32 PM

Animal Collective is not a rock band, they are an experiment in noise and hypnosis. Like the alternative worlds answer to Philip Glass.

"Dude, don't be a douche"

Posted by: Jay at January 28, 2009 3:09 PM

As someone who knows and accepts that Animal Collective is not a rock band, and someone who has listened to them and bands like them before, I can say that most of their songs barely qualify as music, and many are just noise. Pure, unfiltered, semi-pretentious noise. And some of it's good. I like zoning out listening to their work or having it on in the background when I'm trying to get work done (I haven't tried it while under the influence. Yet.). But let's be honest, they're not the geniuses of music everyone says they are. They don't write songs. They don't compose anything, really. They just do things, they sound weird, and they record them. That's a drastic over-generalization, and not entirely true, but sometimes, dammit, I can't help but feel that way.

Posted by: ChristianH at January 28, 2009 3:46 PM

The Mars Volta are a bunch of pussy rockers. The singer sounds like a bitch and they all dress like hipsters except for the drummer.

Posted by: Sad Rockstar at January 28, 2009 3:49 PM

As a follower of Animal Collective since Sung Tongs, I can attest that the new album is their most "accessible" in terms of familiar song structure, but still very much the style of an AC album, which to me is remarkable.

For those who claim they're not really music, or don't really write songs, define what a song or music is. To me (and to any musician), music = the collection of notes and rhythms in some kind of organized way; songs = organized music. AC produce some of the most complex songs/music of any band that I've heard recently. "My Girls" incorporates some wicked-awesome rhythm with the triplets on the synth overlapping with the straight-up eighth notes on the drums. Call it pretentious, whatever, but doing so does a disservice to this music that, at least to me, is full of joy, as if every song they produce is the song where they discover what music is.

Posted by: qualler at January 28, 2009 4:43 PM

People who say that Animal Collective don't qualify as music probably don't listen to much music that ventures outside of the verse-chorus-verse format.

Posted by: kamil at January 28, 2009 4:54 PM

qualler:
thanks, I'm getting tired of people not liking an album or a movie because it doesn't fit their expectations and ignoring the actual product. At least there are some folks out there who take the product for what it is and build their opinions from an open mind.

Posted by: The Ross Sea Party at January 28, 2009 5:23 PM

Where does the reviewer say that it's not music? I don't believe he ever makes that claim. And I think the term "rock" is used more as a generic than as a definition.

The Ross Sea Party, I get that you like the album, and I even get why you like it. But it strikes me that you're making the argument that the those who don't like it, don't "get" the album. Which is pretty condescending. Perhaps it's much more simple. Perhaps he simply doesn't think it's very good. That doesn't invalidate your opinion, nor is he trying to. It's just a different one.

Posted by: I Love Beets at January 28, 2009 6:13 PM


I will never wrap my head around the drooling, fan boy adoration for The Mars Volta. Sure, they're technically skilled musicians. But the sum of their creative output is f-ing abysmal. A tangled mass of indulgent, bombastic tripe that shoots for epic and lands on moronic. The kind of hollow artifice that all the faux Jimmy Page caterwauling in the world can't save.

And Jesus God, what music journalist worth his salt has never heard of Animal Collective? I'm all for experiencing things from a virgin perspective. But come on. It's not a legit review if you have zero prerequisite knowledge.

I dig the open-thread style, nostalgia soup music posts on Pajiba. I do not dig album reviews that could be written by my Grams.

Posted by: Slawapalooza at January 28, 2009 6:14 PM


I will never wrap my head around the drooling, fan boy adoration for The Mars Volta. Sure, they're technically skilled musicians. But the sum of their creative output is f-ing abysmal. A tangled mass of indulgent, bombastic tripe that shoots for epic and lands on moronic. The kind of hollow artifice that all the faux Jimmy Page caterwauling in the world can't save.

And Jesus God, what music journalist worth his salt has never heard of Animal Collective? I'm all for experiencing things from a virgin perspective. But come on. It's not a legit review if you have zero prerequisite knowledge.

I dig the open-thread style, nostalgia soup music posts on Pajiba. I do not dig album reviews that could be written by my Grams.

Posted by: Slawapalooza at January 28, 2009 6:15 PM

"It's not a legit review if you have zero prerequisite knowledge."

Funny, someone said the same thing about my Britney Spears review.

Posted by: TK at January 28, 2009 6:20 PM

As a point of clarity, if a band releases their first album, and a music critic doesn't already know that they released a tape made from a boombox in their basement to 4 of their friends, would the critic, in this case, not have "prerequisite knowledge?"

Posted by: Jez at January 28, 2009 6:36 PM

Allow me to make amends, for I have said something foolish. I did say that some Animal Collective songs aren't so much "songs" as collections of noise (and I maintain that they have made tracks that are exactly that, though I may have over-exaggerated just how many, a lot). I over-simplified in defense of the reasons that I don't like Animal Collective, and I apologize.

See, we can be civil!

As for those of you who think The Mars Volta is "dumb" or "a bunch of whiny pussies", what are you talking about? That's like this girl who once said to me "That was the stupidest movie ever" about All The President's Men. You might not like it, it might not do it for you personally, but they aren't dumb, and they aren't whiny. More importantly, calling them pussies because they dress like "hipsters"? Childish. That's like saying they Obama isn't patriotic because he won't wear a flag pin.

Okay, I apologized. Who's next?

Posted by: ChristianH at January 28, 2009 7:01 PM


Ok. Let me clarify my beef. If you're reviewing material by a debut artist, you're obviously not obligated to wrangle copies of their lo-fi demo tapes or thumb though their high school yearbook. I'm not an asshole hipster suggesting you be ahead of some imaginary underground curve.

But this isn't a budding death metal outfit from Tampa we're talking about. Animal Collective is a band with a sizable (and increasingly influential) catalogue of material. If this was a piece describing your first encounter with their avante garde musical sensibilities, cool. But this is a review. And being in the dark about their previous work is an enormous handicap. It renders you incapable of discussing whether this album is a creative leap forward, a departure, etc. And it forces you to unknowingly slog through comparisons that have been made a million times over (The Beach Boys influence been noted by critic after critic).

I'm not attacking your prose here. Or your opinion. If anything, i'm wondering why your editor suggested you review an album from a well-known indie band without having a passing familiarity with their music. Especially since the readers who suggested the review likely expected something a bit more informed.

Posted by: Slawapalooza at January 28, 2009 7:03 PM

@ Madmartigan: No no, it's not that it was just this review. I haven't agreed with most Pajiba reviews thus far, and this one just helped affirm that their musical opinions are not for me and I should stop looking to Pajiba for music suggestions.

That is, unless they're criticizing pop music. I still love the scathing and bitchy reviews.

Posted by: feels at January 28, 2009 7:08 PM

Slawapalooza: I agree to a point, but mostly I think that we need to be objective here. If Animal Collective made an album that was directly related to their previous body of work, (e.g. referenced it in some way specifically), then yes, a knowledge of that previous work would be required. However, any musician worth their salt should be able to have every album criticized independently. You can measure the album against their other work, but your opinion won't be objective, which is fine. But if an album is really good enough, it can stand on its own. And, according to the reviewer's opinion, it doesn't.

I would also submit that more than one reviewer offered to take a shot at it, and all were taken up by other projects. But I'm pretty sure that of the four or five who offered to do it, maybe 1 liked the album. So we went with the negative perspective from someone who made themselves available.

Posted by: ChristianH at January 28, 2009 8:06 PM

I agree that objectivity is a virtue. And I agree that every album is should be judged on its individual merits. I think plenty of music journalists are guilty of canonizing bands and giving them a lifetime free pass based on the quality of their previous work (Radiohead, say). But a Mennonite level of naivete about a well-regarded, oft talked about indie group seems pretty unacceptable. It's not that it invalidates the review's conclusion. But it does make it sound one-dimensional and ill-informed. More of a gut-level reaction than a thoughtful discussion.

There's nothing wrong with not being on the pulse of college rock, freak folk, psych pop, whatever label you wanna slap on it. There's nothing wrong with not knowing Sung Tongs or Panda Bear's solo projects. But there is something a bit off about a review from a writer that doesn't seem interested or familiar with the type of music being dissected.

And if your assertion is true, a review of Omar's solo work would be possible without ever having heard the Mars Volta. And technically, maybe it is. But knowing an artist's ins and outs gives your opinion weight.

Posted by: Slawapalooza at January 28, 2009 8:40 PM


Also, I have kicked up WAY too much dust for someone with lukewarm feelings towards Animal Collective. Gah.

Posted by: Slawapalooza at January 28, 2009 8:43 PM

Slawapalooza, I don't necessarily agree with your argument, but that doesn't mean the argument isn't worth having. It does, however, get my hackles up when you say things like this: "Jesus God, what music journalist worth his salt has never heard of Animal Collective?" Yes, it's certainly well known in many circles, but I could say the same of a hundred bands that I'm certain you've never heard of. That smacks of elitism, and that bothered us all, I think.

I will tell you this - when Jez volunteered to review Animal Collective, part of what intrigued me was the fact that he is unfamiliar with them, which is why I ended up punting it to him.

That is to say, you know where to go to read starry-eyed reviews about Animal Collective. Yet I feel that there's something compelling about having someone who not only is unfamiliar with the artist, but isn't particularly interested in the genre itself. I'd call it the layman's view, except in all honesty Jez is far too knowledgeable about music to be called that.

The review could easily have swung the other way. Had Jez given the same preface and introduction, but then loved the album, would we still be having this discussion?

I can't help but think that the answer to that is no, in which case the argument isn't really about his knowledge or familiarity at all.

Posted by: TK at January 28, 2009 8:56 PM

3/4 time. it's in 3/4 time.

Posted by: cooper f at January 28, 2009 9:19 PM


Eek. Didn't intend to offend anyone. I get how my comment could be construed as indie snobbery. My fault for not self editing.

But my knee jerk reaction that a contemporary music journalist had never heard of Animal Collective was genuine shock. They've been around for years, and their profile is higher than ever (inclusion in Rolling Stone being a good mainstream litmus test). Just like you expect someone that writes about baseball to know key players, you expect someone that writes about music to know artists that are making a substantial mark. Sure, you could argue that what constitutes "important" or "well known" is subjective. But there's also an argument to be made that knowing indie rock in 2009 (and writing about it) means this is basic stuff. It's in every music rag. It's on every college radio station list.

I was never throwing Jez's breadth of musical knowledge into question. Only pointing out that the review and the reviewer seemed mismatched.

And for the official record, I am REALLY neutral on Animal Collective. Neutral like Switzerland! So in fact, we would still be having this discussion in the event of a favorable review.

Posted by: Slawapalooza at January 28, 2009 9:36 PM

I'm basically with Slawapalooza here. In this case, unfamiliarity with the band seemed to lead to expectations that were completely mismatched with reality. Jez went into it wanting to shake his ass, and that was just never going to happen. Someone who knew anything about their music wouldn't have put it down for not fulfilling some random criteria like that.

It's like if I decided to branch out and review a metal band, then dismissed it because I wanted something melodic or soothing. If you don't like something, you don't like something, but it's good to know what you're getting into.

Posted by: Sabrina at January 28, 2009 9:44 PM

I suppose I would respond that you are correct - perhaps the review and the reviewer are mismatched. And that's exactly why I did it. It's the same reason I chose to review a Britney Spears album (and caught similar, if less eloquent, criticism). Call it a grand experiment, call it ego, call it whatever you wish, but I will say this:

It got us talking about it, and I'd say the discussion has been a good one. So I therefore consider the experiment a success.

The rest may simply be agree to disagree stuff.

Posted by: TK at January 28, 2009 9:45 PM

I was never throwing Jez's breadth of musical knowledge into question.

But there is something a bit off about a review from a writer that doesn't seem interested or familiar with the type of music being dissected.

Do you know how boring it is to write a review about music that's really familiar and that the reviewer has heard a lot and seen a lot of reviews about? It is completely boring, not to mention frustrating. When I was regularly writing music reviews back around 2000/2001 I ended up learning about latin jazz and some experimental stuff just because I couldn't stand to try to say "kinda sounds like Superchunk/"Odessey and Oracle" in some impossibly new way yet again. So I'd look at the bin of promo copies and say "No idea what this is, let's try that!" You might struggle to think up words, but not because you're avoiding words to avoid unoriginality, it's because you're trying to make sense of something new.

So A: Yes, you definitely were insulting the curious writer and being a pissy snob.

and B: Writing about new things is a lot more interesting and fun.

Posted by: Jay at January 28, 2009 9:55 PM

Wow, the Eloquents are really deserving their name today. Sabrina, I think you make a fair point about the way a listener's knowledge of a band/musician informs her/his opinions - and for the record I don't think Slawapalooza deserved such a beating - but I agree with TK on this one, that we're not going for the encyclopaedic analysis of Animal Collective, and that in this instance a different approach is refreshing. Pajiba Music is necessarily selective of the records we choose to review, and therefore can't hope to provide a universal overview of everything. For that, you can consult umpteen reviews wherever you want. Here, Jez is tackling it in light of his own tastes and - although I myself love Animal Collective - I appreciate hearing something new on the subject.

Posted by: Caspar at January 28, 2009 10:07 PM

BY THE WAY, I wasn't trying to insult anyone. I don't care whether or not you've heard of a band, or like them or not, or whatever. Going in blind can be fun, new musical genres are great, all that jazz. I just think it probably skewed the listening experience on this one.

Posted by: Sabrina at January 28, 2009 10:11 PM

Oh and is rock still over?

Posted by: Jay at January 28, 2009 10:11 PM

Oh hey, thanks Caspar. And honestly, it is kind of nice to see a review that isn't all "BEST ALBUM OF 2009 NO NEED FOR ANY MORE MUSIC THIS YEAR!!!"

Posted by: Sabrina at January 28, 2009 10:20 PM


I would agree that rock is over...

...but i'd probably get crucified for being a pissy snob. :)

Posted by: Slawapalooza at January 28, 2009 10:21 PM

Sabrina, along the same lines, it's nice to see comments that aren't all "U GUYS R SUCH QUEERS YOUR FUL OF FAIL LOOSERS!"

Posted by: TK at January 28, 2009 10:27 PM

Well, you've got a pal here then. Me, I'm too old to argue with screen names, so it's my own fault if my goat gets got.

Posted by: Jay at January 28, 2009 10:28 PM

Hey, I haven't forgotten the abuse the Beautiful South got, TK. Cretins.

Posted by: Jay at January 28, 2009 10:32 PM

"Rock n' ain't gonna die." - Brian Johnson. Rock never left, and it isn't going anywhere.

Posted by: Reding at January 28, 2009 11:24 PM

Proofread much? I blow goats.

Posted by: Reding at January 28, 2009 11:27 PM

Gimme back my goat! He got got and now you're gonna rile 'im up! I can't have that!

Posted by: Jay at January 28, 2009 11:48 PM

Why so serious? I dig music that's unlike everything else on top 40 radio. I love Animal Collective. Then again, I smoke a lot of weed and drop mad acid. Just kidding. Not really. Not ever. Only on weekends.

If you like this Animal Collective album, check out Panda Bear's 'Person Pitch.'

Posted by: Porkchop at January 29, 2009 2:06 AM

thanks Sabrina! you got to the point I was trying to make in a much more elegant and simple fashion than I was able to. And honestly I would not have minded a review that hated the album for being what it was and the reviewer not enjoying it, but to put any work of art down for not being something it isn't is a disservice to the artist and to anyone reading a review.

Posted by: The Ross Sea Party at January 29, 2009 2:52 AM

I just read the review again and I'm still not seeing a "I thought this was supposed to be dance rock, and it's not, so it sucks!". Jez didn't like it, it didn't please his ears, and he didn't hide that he was out of his comfort zone, but I think there was plenty of description for someone else to possibly think "sounds like something I be into though".

I was thinking though, if it had blown him away, it's not so much that, as TK said, his background knowledge wouldn't be criticized, but that it shouldn't be. I've re-read stuff I've written where I was ecstatic about what I was hearing, but, with a little embarrassment, I can see I didn't much know what I was talking about regarding a band's history or catalog or something I didn't know was a cover, etc. Really haphazard reference points. Someone can call you on that and you can look back and cringe and be thankful if no one did. I wrote a review like that once and the band was thrilled, rather than saying "well, you know...". There's not much worse than telling someone "yeah, but you don't like it in the right way". Plus it's false. I've probably been lucky in not having caught shit from my internet elders through the years when I obviously said something positive but uninformed so it's kind of become an ethical thing as I age into "veteran" to follow the same example. Of course I've also been drifting into "old and out of touch" so I hope the kids'll be nice too. Enthusiasm's enthusiasm.

Posted by: Jay at January 29, 2009 9:09 AM

"something I might be into". I'm not suggesting negative yet descriptive reviews create spontaneous Ebonics in the reader.

Posted by: Jay at January 29, 2009 9:17 AM

The Mars Volta opened for a concert I was at awhile back, and It was the worst concert I have ever seen. Uncoordinated, lousy performances from all the band members, and horrible stage presence. I don't know if this was one of their earlier tours (I assume so, since they seem like a popular band and they were the opening act at the time) but I hold a grudge and cannot bring myself to listen to any music of theirs or even affiliated with theirs, so, um, rant over.

Posted by: erin at January 29, 2009 9:38 AM

That Animal Collective video was a big hit on youtube recently. I couldn't stand listening to the whole song and had to stop the video. That's all the attention I'm going to give them. I have no idea who Antony and the Jonsons are and they sound terribly boring. Mars Volta and Omar Rodriguez, on the other hand, are pure class. Keep on rockin'

Posted by: barf at February 1, 2009 12:17 PM