so tell me, why is Kaputt better or worse than Let England Shake?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (856 of them)

(i've vaguely intended to get into the blue nile for about a decade now but this episode may have killed that faint intention completely)

first period don't give a fuck, second period gon get cut (lex pretend), Thursday, 9 February 2012 02:18 (2 years ago) Permalink

would u ask mariah if u could call her brother?!?!

first period don't give a fuck, second period gon get cut (lex pretend), Thursday, 9 February 2012 02:18 (2 years ago) Permalink

you are definitely not mariah.

judith, Thursday, 9 February 2012 02:19 (2 years ago) Permalink

can we all agree that 'let england shake' is considerably more of an indie rock album than 'kaputt'? it's strange that lex is spending so much energy defending indie rock.

iatee, Thursday, 9 February 2012 02:20 (2 years ago) Permalink

oh lex you sure are incorrigible, arent you

⚓ (gr8080), Thursday, 9 February 2012 02:24 (2 years ago) Permalink

I think Let England Shake is more in the tradition of major label outsiders than indie rock.

timellison, Thursday, 9 February 2012 02:35 (2 years ago) Permalink

pj harvey is obviously not indie rock enough for you p4k disciples

first period don't give a fuck, second period gon get cut (lex pretend), Thursday, 9 February 2012 02:39 (2 years ago) Permalink

way more rock than kaputt and made a *concept album* about..."war, man"

iatee, Thursday, 9 February 2012 02:40 (2 years ago) Permalink

in England anything that sells less than 1 mil or spends fewer than 20 weeks in the chart counts as indie iirc

unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 9 February 2012 02:42 (2 years ago) Permalink

way more rock than kaputt

what ISN'T more rock than that mimsy weakling nonsense

first period don't give a fuck, second period gon get cut (lex pretend), Thursday, 9 February 2012 02:45 (2 years ago) Permalink

cool, lex is going to tell us what rocks

congratulations (n/a), Thursday, 9 February 2012 02:48 (2 years ago) Permalink

so you're saying that rockin is a good attribute

iatee, Thursday, 9 February 2012 02:48 (2 years ago) Permalink

I'm not even sure it's more rock. Because the electric guitar is more prominent? If Destroyer is not soft-ROCK, than what is it?

timellison, Thursday, 9 February 2012 02:48 (2 years ago) Permalink

lex i think once you let go of the notion of "rock" = the pinnacle of music you can experience kaputt in the proper context (a context that oft involves, ime, a girl by your side and a full pitcher of sangria though ymmv)

omar little, Thursday, 9 February 2012 02:49 (2 years ago) Permalink

⚓ (gr8080), Thursday, 9 February 2012 02:50 (2 years ago) Permalink

the m83 superpitcher remix is really awesome and id like to thank this thread for reminding me of it

BJ O (Lamp), Thursday, 9 February 2012 02:52 (2 years ago) Permalink

so: thanks

BJ O (Lamp), Thursday, 9 February 2012 02:52 (2 years ago) Permalink

oh yeah that is totally a gr8 remix

⚓ (gr8080), Thursday, 9 February 2012 02:55 (2 years ago) Permalink

ive been listening to 'kaputt' a fair bit this week trying to hear in it the virtues that plax and gr80 hear and i guess i still prefer bejar when he was making altars out of halter tops than after his rebirth as a ladies man even while i vibe the red silk flourishes that adorn 'chinatown' or the meadows and memories through which 'the laziest river' meander i almost wish the songs were cleaner, softer, easier to please. idk ive never really listened to the stuff hes referencing here except in the vaguest way or like jennifer warnes 'famous blue raincoat' and i can here that albums sax and longing in this but its way more subtle, i guess?

BJ O (Lamp), Thursday, 9 February 2012 03:00 (2 years ago) Permalink

(i've vaguely intended to get into the blue nile for about a decade now but this episode may have killed that faint intention completely)

I don't think you'd like The Blue Nile anyway lex.

They don't sound at all like indie or destroyer (that wasn't the purpose of my reference), but even so my sense is that you're not into any balearic vibes that actually come from an 80s pop-rock place (as opposed to being, like, disco with spanish guitars).

Tim F, Thursday, 9 February 2012 03:02 (2 years ago) Permalink

Is he a Ladies Man on this record? He's closer to embodying Death of a Ladies Man.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 9 February 2012 03:03 (2 years ago) Permalink

My intuition is that there's far less self-conscious "signifying" happening on this record that some folks are reading into it. It makes sense that Bejar was deep into Avalon when we was writing these songs, but his voice feels assuredly and self-consciously his own. Just because he doesn't sound like Ferry or feel like he's coming from the same place in his delivery doesn't mean he's wrily resigning himself to non-Ferry-ness. That's why this, Tim, despite it being a lovely and provocative mise en scene, doesn't ring true for me:

<i>It's not so much that Bejar could never write "More Than This", it's more that he could never write a song from the perspective of the singer of "More Than This", only from the perspective of someone sitting in the audience watching Ferry sing it and wishing for a moment that that could be him, and at the same time knowing it's an impossibility.</i>

The first part is true--he could never write a song from that singer's persepective (his voice is just not that kind of voice, and he's just not that sort of lyricist)--but why does the second part follow? I think there's a certain distanced quality to Bejar's vocals across all of his stuff--certainly his New Pornographers songs--which makes me feel like that's just the way he sings rather than some sort of purposeful distancing from what he's drawing inspiration from.

Clarke B., Thursday, 9 February 2012 05:26 (2 years ago) Permalink

that's a weird claim too given how completely constructed a persona Ferry's is. anybody could write "More Than This," in a sense; it's not an act of self-expression except at great remove

unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 9 February 2012 05:30 (2 years ago) Permalink

I'd argue that the part of Ferry that's being expressed in what we often perceive as a "constructed" or "removed" way is just as real and crucial to his persona as, like, whatever he's like at home.

Clarke B., Thursday, 9 February 2012 05:38 (2 years ago) Permalink

mmm - there's an argument to be made there but it's pretty theoretical. the point is whether one buys Bejar doing it or not isn't really down to "who" either of them are but how one aligns with musical/social cues - more on the listener than on the artist

unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 9 February 2012 05:40 (2 years ago) Permalink

Sure, yes. And I'd argue (and Tim said something like this upthread: "I think that typically we can overstate the importance of retro sonic signifiers in respect of stuff that sounds a bit like 1982-1987, certainly as compared to stuff that sounds like 1977-1981, or 1966-1968, or etc.") we as listeners have a more difficult time wrapping our heads around an artist borrowing from this once (and, for many, still) beyond-the-pale era with a straight face than we do with an artist borrowing from postpunk, etc. We're seemingly still at a stage as critical listeners where we insist that a saxophone signifies with more intentionality than, say, a guitar.

Clarke B., Thursday, 9 February 2012 05:57 (2 years ago) Permalink

Speaking of which, that Boys of Summer guitar on The Laziest River is way more blatant a pastiche than any of the saxophone playing--which is really not very straightforward or slick or formulaic at all.

Clarke B., Thursday, 9 February 2012 05:59 (2 years ago) Permalink

I don't think it's so much that the saxophone signifies more than something else. It's just that its presence is notable in part because they're fairly big, fairly expensive instruments, take a lot of chops to play well, and not many people play them. So it's inclusion on the record or on the M83 record is a fairly notable example of someone going the extra mile.

timellison, Thursday, 9 February 2012 06:12 (2 years ago) Permalink

I mean, it's obviously not that unusual for someone playing some different kind of instrument to appear on a record. But I think it's notable when something like this happens - a saxophone player appearing for (to whatever degree it's so) postmodern purpose.

timellison, Thursday, 9 February 2012 06:25 (2 years ago) Permalink

Is there also a chance that we're perhaps overemphasizing Bejar's auteuristic imprint on the record? I mean, did he write out all of the saxophone and piano parts explicitly, or was there a lot of improvisation / collective writing involved with the other instrumentalists? I think the more we can potentially view Kaputt as a more thoroughly creatively collaborative effort, the less we can straight-facedly view it as some sort of pastiche/commentary/"record about records"...

Clarke B., Thursday, 9 February 2012 06:35 (2 years ago) Permalink

He doesn't play or compose like Nick Cave. He gets his band in (often separately) to jam around his songs, I gather.

Sick Mouthy (Scik Mouthy), Thursday, 9 February 2012 07:18 (2 years ago) Permalink

i feel very sorry for people who describe destroyer as the pinnacle of bliss or good vibes or whatever. you have never known true bliss ;_;

first period don't give a fuck, second period gon get cut (lex pretend), Thursday, 9 February 2012 08:30 (2 years ago) Permalink

if i had a boy by my side and a pitcher of sangria i wouldn't want to spoil that context with sodding destroyer, i'd be listening to some actual balearic dance music. always go for the best!

first period don't give a fuck, second period gon get cut (lex pretend), Thursday, 9 February 2012 08:31 (2 years ago) Permalink

If I have a boy by my side and some alcohol (sangria or otherwise) I tend to go for something far sleazier than any stripe of balearic.

Let's have our priorities straight.

Tim F, Thursday, 9 February 2012 08:55 (2 years ago) Permalink

can we all agree that 'let england shake' is considerably more of an indie rock album than 'kaputt'? it's strange that lex is spending so much energy defending indie rock.

― iatee, Wednesday, February 8, 2012 6:20 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this is nuts

Little GTFO (contenderizer), Thursday, 9 February 2012 09:12 (2 years ago) Permalink

We're seemingly still at a stage as critical listeners where we insist that a saxophone signifies with more intentionality than, say, a guitar.

...Speaking of which, that Boys of Summer guitar on The Laziest River is way more blatant a pastiche than any of the saxophone playing--which is really not very straightforward or slick or formulaic at all.

...Is there also a chance that we're perhaps overemphasizing Bejar's auteuristic imprint on the record? ... I think the more we can potentially view Kaputt as a more thoroughly creatively collaborative effort, the less we can straight-facedly view it as some sort of pastiche/commentary/"record about records"...

― Clarke B., Wednesday, February 8, 2012 10:35 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

it's not just the presence of "smooth sax" that causes us to view the album as deliberately evoking the 80s, as you point out in noting the guitars. the album is littered with such sonic reminders, and the lyrics draw the exact same connections even more explicitly. regardless of how we attribute authorship here, the idea that it's a deliberate pastiche is hard to avoid.

Little GTFO (contenderizer), Thursday, 9 February 2012 09:20 (2 years ago) Permalink

The term "pastiche" doesn't sit right with me in this context. I know it simply means imitation of prior artworks but it always implies hodge-podge to me, which i don't think applies in this case.

Tim F, Thursday, 9 February 2012 09:29 (2 years ago) Permalink

okay, perhaps there's a connotative diss there i don't intend. appropriation?

Little GTFO (contenderizer), Thursday, 9 February 2012 09:43 (2 years ago) Permalink

There's no doubt in my mind that he'll hate it, but I am starting to doubt that lex has actually heard Kaputt at all yet.

Laughing Gravy (dog latin), Thursday, 9 February 2012 11:35 (2 years ago) Permalink

There are two definitions of pastiche, which tend to overlap, IME:

1: a literary, artistic, musical, or architectural work that imitates the style of previous work; also : such stylistic imitation
2
a : a musical, literary, or artistic composition made up of selections from different works : potpourri
b : hodgepodge

jaymc, Thursday, 9 February 2012 15:24 (2 years ago) Permalink

the talk about M83 remixes reminded me of this

Number None, Thursday, 9 February 2012 16:59 (2 years ago) Permalink

This album has about as much to do with Balearic as Omar-S has to do with Harold Faltermeyer.

Clarke B., Thursday, 9 February 2012 17:00 (2 years ago) Permalink

I also don't think of this record as pastiche, neither in its imitating sense nor its hodge-podge sense. Contrast it with something like Interpol's first record, which basically sounds like them taking a stab at Chameleons-style slightly gothy postpunk. (Forgive my dated analogy; that's just the first time in my life I heard a band and sensed immediately just how derivative they were, and so it's always been a reference point for the idea of pastiche for me.) Yes, on Kaputt you can hear allusions to '80s Roxy Music, Steely Dan (though this connection is SUPER tenuous IMO), etc, but it feels like its own weird thing and not just an aping or a cobbling together of old records. Bejar's quote above about "the tyranny of chord structure" rings true; the album meanders beautifully, it doesn't feel as rigorously composed as much of the music it gets accused of ripping off.

Clarke B., Thursday, 9 February 2012 17:08 (2 years ago) Permalink

did you ever read my groundbreaking pastiche review of the first interpol album? it was groundbereaking.

scott seward, Thursday, 9 February 2012 17:15 (2 years ago) Permalink

I think I've only read the Ned Raggett re-edit.

Clarke B., Thursday, 9 February 2012 17:18 (2 years ago) Permalink

Clarke, if you remove Steely Dan from your equation and replace it with Al Stewart, I'm not sure this ends up being less derivative than Interpol. Maybe I'm wrong.

timellison, Thursday, 9 February 2012 17:23 (2 years ago) Permalink

destroyer is a pinnacle but its heights are shared by endless amounts of other good time music and i oft slip a destroyer song into certain poolside-specific playlists i have crafted. to those who have not felt the album's positive qualities (of which there are many, too many to inventory at this moment) i like to sit down with them, tell them to close their eyes, and just play the album. once their eyes are opened, their eyes are usually opened (if you see what i mean.)

omar little, Thursday, 9 February 2012 17:30 (2 years ago) Permalink

I've never knowingly heard Al Stewart! I'll remedy that.

Clarke B., Thursday, 9 February 2012 17:33 (2 years ago) Permalink

Listened to a few Kaputt songs just now, the one in the baywatch video above wasn't bad until the singing, was a bit new order-ish. the singing was terrible. Then one called Song for America - this sounds like Momus wtf?

The others don't really sound like anything in particular, people saying balearic, retro, eighties and other things, I'm not hearing any of those things at all

post, Thursday, 9 February 2012 17:37 (2 years ago) Permalink

I've been humming "Time Passages" for days.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 9 February 2012 17:38 (2 years ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.