The Pipettes

It begs question whether taste need be an either/or proposition. Frankly, I feel that one may be openminded enough to enjoy both Wong Kar-Wai and Howard Hawks, Dostoyevsky and David Foster Wallace, and, in terms of mainstream pop music, Sugababes and Herman's Hermits. The past shouldn't be treated as a foreign country, after all.

ALSO: Yay Pipettes!

huh? it's as tight as you could ever want! it's bloody marvelous, it doesn't outstay its welcome and it has repeatedly made me laugh out loud on the tube.

the my life story comparison is not a million miles from the truth, either! and that's sure to sort the men from the boys.

the day looks are ignored when it comes to image-conscious bands is the day pop music dies, and anyone who seriously thinks a band's visual aesthetic is irrelevant or not worthy of judgement is naive to the extreme. kate, you know this really, stop being reactionary!

That's kind of the problem with the entire thing, isn't it? I like a couple of their songs alright, but after two or three minutes I just start wondering why I'm not listening to One Kiss Can Lead To Another instead.

I really like the drum sound on this record. I like how they've done a bigger production that uses that contemporary garage rock drum sound (fairly dry, crisp, and loud). It's fresh.

P.S. They're sexy.

And the perception of "sexy" takes up a lot of the male brain think-capacity. We all know this: male, female, gay, straight, whatever. We all know that most guys spend an awful lot of their time looking at "hot" bodies and thinking about what might be done with or to them, as depersonalized sex objects. (Hopefully, we're also grown up enough to realize that this is perfectly okay...)

The Pipettes know know that the boys are looking, as did the Ronettes and certainly Spector himself. Sure, they're speaking to other girls of/from shared experience, but they're also, very explicity, speaking to boys. And specifically, intentionally positioning themselves as objects-to-be-looked-at.
And lusted-over.
By boys.

So be it. And so what? That's what people do. It's what rock bands do. Just like the Strokes and Iggy Pop before them. Sex appeal appeals. Again, though, I suspect that everyone already knows this.

If the Pipettes didn't WANT their sex appeal to be an issue, they wouldn't make such an issue of it. And since they do so obviously want it to be an issue, I think it's perfectly appropriate to include it in the discussion.

I am quite nostalgic about Herman's Hermits. But I do not live in 1964.

I think sentimentality about the future is far more dangerous than sentimentality about the past.

I have only heard a couple of Pipettes tracks.

They sounded fairly good and witty to me.

It would be nice to have a Fuzzbox revival.

Pippettes image is not sexy, it is sterile, like their name.

If Uncut had existed in 1962 they would have been doing 30-page cover features on Vera Lynn.

I like their song, ABC! I would not like to see them live, because it's all a bit creepy. It's like the Sarah Cracknell effect manipulated to the max, more than one song can get quite unappetising. Also, MEN OF THE WORLD, there are grillions of gurlies who look like this if you just go to Brick Lane market or indeed to New Cross :( ... or do I mean :) I dunno!!

They sound nothing like the Beatles, nor especially like the Vernons Girls or the Caravelles.

Doubtless if they were middle-aged, hairy men replicating the period details of the Flying Burrito Brothers, Uncut writers would be disposed towards them more favourably.

I like to think of them - incidentally - as the Pie Pets, which is a much better name, don't you think?

Funnily enough, I have written about the Pipettes for Uncut. But I don't think I have written about many middle-aged hairy men! I do quite like that Midlake record though.

Funnily enough, The Pipettes are, in name at least, on the cover of the new Plan B! Big feature within, too, with much polka-dottage and excited/ing chatter.

can you expand on this Marcello? i thought it was an interesting remark.

never mind, i've seen the Stylus TOTP thing now.

God no. "Pull Shapes" is great, but it's hardly "Cruel Summer" is it?

It was most pleasant and attractive.

I think their album will make for fine and supple summer listening.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio2/shows/radcliffe/

You should play some Marvelettes - much better than Dross and the Supremes.

I actually think this "emotional flatness" is kind of characteristic of some early girl group stuff -- Diana Ross is almost too late -- and so, to an extent that it may be intentional. I do agree, however, that only one of them (Gwenno, noted above) really seems to be a good singer.

(hmm, well, I guess I disagree with Marcello on this. Maybe the live session will convince me I'm wrong)

?You should play some Marvelettes

i should HEAR some marvelettes! i have no idea where to start with any old girl groups. (while you're here marcello, where should i start with pre-tilt scott walker? i have never heard any of it!)

the pipettes sound fine on record, praise be to autotune, but i heard a live tv show they did and it was appalling, their voices are these awful out-of-tune caterwauling things which completely betray their lack of formal training (obv formal training is not a necessity by any means but if you are in a girl group and are singing HARMONIES it is best not to flaunt your vocal deficiencies)

However, since you asked...

steve, girls aloud sing (technically) badly on record too, but it doesn't matter because they don't sing material which requires much technical mastery.

Pardon me?