Review:

on 2011-02-20 CharlesMartel Said:

This album is a mass of contradictions. To begin with, it appears to be a concept album, but one which doesn't want to be. There is a clear continuity in terms of what the tracks seem to be about and what the band wants to tell the listener, but when you listen to each one on its own, you are not sure if that is an interpretation you have put on it solely because your brain forces you to try to bring order to the music. Just as your brain will try to superimpose an emphasis onto the steady rhythmic ticking of a metronome or a clock, so it will seek to bring order out of the chaos.



Then there are the tracks themselves. Listen to one, and then go listen to another album. Better still, mix them up on a blank CD with a few other tracks from other bands. At that point, you will recognise that some of the tracks on this album are actually pretty good and can stand as something which would draw you to the album. Trouble is, when you put them all together, they merge into one amorphous mass of music, not helped by the fact that all tracks are run together, segued by a mixture of radio recording, whistles, feedback and whatever - the whole album seems to play as one single piece. I have no doubt that is what the band intended.



Then there is the music itself. An initial reaction you feel is that it was made by a bunch of kids who thought that screaming like a demented soapbox preacher equates to singing, and volume makes up for lack of ability. Yet the more you listen to it, the more the ability of the musicians seems to come through. This is not something which a bunch of kids who knew three chords between them could ever come up with, let alone commit to recordings. In that context, the sometimes chaotic feel to the music can be re-interpreted as energy, enthusiasm and innovation.



This is not punk, this is not emo, this is not screamo, this is pretty much unique and I suppose that is a compliment olf sorts. Yes, some of the tracks are worth repeat listens, "Days of Being Wild", "Baudelaire", "Monsoon", "How Near How Far" and "Relative Ways" being the obvious examples, but often the track runs out of steam half way through and slips into something entirely different before fading away in a hum of feedback. At times this disjointed effect breaks up what is fast in danger of becoming a monotony; at other times it simply provides an excuse to extend a track so that, collectively, you feel you are getting your money's worth. Sometimes when you listen you hear subtlety and invention; at others you just hear a sound crashing through the decibels. Sometimes the tempo is slow; the next minute it is racing towards a brick wall, unstoppable. At least you can say that the album is never going to bore you with predictability.



In some ways, this mixture is to be commended, but overall it seems to detract from the whole experience. In the end, it becomes difficult to rate the album. It is either a long and somewhat overblown piece of pomposity, or a collection of individual tracks, some of which are quite good. And for that reason, I give it a rating which sticks it smack in the middle of the system I use to rate albums I own. That does not necessarily mean it is mediocre, it simply reflects the ambivalence I feel and the difficulty in coming down on one side or other of the many conundrums this poses.
Rating: 6/10

on 2011-02-20 CharlesMartel Said:

Sorry, this was posted twice for some reason. Mea culpa. Could an admin please delete. Thx
Rating: 6/10