The Pipettes

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (365 of them)

View Previous Page...

it is?

― electric sound of jim [and why not] (electricsound), Thursday, 27 July 2006 04:17 (nineteen years ago)

uh, byrds review.

― polyphonic (polyphonic), Thursday, 27 July 2006 06:34 (nineteen years ago)

apparently Ken Bruce has been taking the piss out of them. referring to Sheila's Wheels and everything!

― Konal Doddz (blueski), Thursday, 27 July 2006 08:49 (nineteen years ago)

link?

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Thursday, 27 July 2006 09:50 (nineteen years ago)

Are Pitchfork just giving bad albums 8.4/10 on principle these days or what?

― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Thursday, 27 July 2006 10:00 (nineteen years ago)

hahaha sheila's wheels zing OTM!

― Roughage Crew (Enrique), Thursday, 27 July 2006 10:02 (nineteen years ago)

what a load of shite.
-- jed_ (colin_o_har...), July 3rd, 2006.

in a nutshell.

i thought they were a joke or something.

― Roughage Crew (Enrique), Thursday, 27 July 2006 10:21 (nineteen years ago)

anyway here is the pdork review.

unfinishable.

"not so much retro as they are post-retro, the product of an age in which progression in pop music has all but been replaced by cultivation and fusion"

― Roughage Crew (Enrique), Thursday, 27 July 2006 10:30 (nineteen years ago)

Taking too long to load. You want readers, make your writing accessible immediately. This is the age of the broadband, not the sundial.

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Thursday, 27 July 2006 10:35 (nineteen years ago)

How about,

"That the Pipettes are doing Shangri-La's impersonations on stage is almost a moot point."

"The twist is meant to be that these three are sexually aggressive, have read their French feminism, own some riot grrrl records, and have distinct, unique personalities in a sort of Spice Girls way."

I could also swear that there was a line in the review early yesterday morning that has since been removed about how The Arcade Fire and Band of Horses should be playing arenas but have to settle for just being indie bands because there is no justice!!

― Sean Braud1s (Sean Braudis), Thursday, 27 July 2006 10:40 (nineteen years ago)

it amazes me that people think a pitchfork review is such a talking point that they have to bump a thread because of it! pitchfork = not a talking point, irrelevant to people outside usa, BOTHERD. if you think the writing is so bad don't read the damn site and leave the indie kids to fester in their own language-mangling.

― The Lex (The Lex), Thursday, 27 July 2006 10:41 (nineteen years ago)

"I Like A Boy In Uniform (School Uniform)." So they're promoting paedophilia, right?

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Thursday, 27 July 2006 10:56 (nineteen years ago)

I've just read the "Why We Hate Indie Kids" thing on FT. "Infantilism is endemic to indie kids"...

Not a bad article, that, except they missed out the stripy French fisherman's jumper.

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Thursday, 27 July 2006 11:38 (nineteen years ago)

i knew this would get BNM it's just the kind of pap Amy Philipps creams herself over

horrid

― kevin barking (arghargh), Thursday, 27 July 2006 11:56 (nineteen years ago)

It's not actually a very good album.
They've fallen into the same trap as the Belle Stars, Strawberry Switchblade and Fuzzbox before them - their music suffocated and blanded into searing nothingness by a third-rate producer who fancies himself as Trevor Horn.

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Thursday, 27 July 2006 12:09 (nineteen years ago)

x-post to the Lex:

I actually think Pitchfork writing is pretty decent at times, and while I didn't express it (it was late and I was hoping others would start some discussion) the review should be a talking point because it 1) apologizes for faux-retro irony in the lamest possible terms, 2) gives them feminism shoutouts while glossing over the four boys who play the music, and 3) hilariously attempts to give indie-pop some kind of big-scheme importance or cultural weight.

And I know it's irrelevant outside the USA. Do you think that I care? Ignore the topic, brotha. It's easy, there are plenty more.

― Sean Braud1s (Sean Braudis), Thursday, 27 July 2006 21:13 (nineteen years ago)

Am I alone in thinking that the "third-rate producer who fancies himself as Trevor Horn" is the virtue?

I find them trying for this big 60s girl group sound and getting it so badly wrong actually endearing (big crashing drums etc). If they'd been a faithful facsimile of their influences I doubt I'd find them anywhere NEAR as entertaining.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Thursday, 27 July 2006 21:26 (nineteen years ago)

Haven't heard the album, but liked some of their singles. There's nothing that needs to be apologized with regard to their retro aspects and there's nothing faux or ironic about these aspects. Try making sense.

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Thursday, 27 July 2006 21:47 (nineteen years ago)

"nothing that needs to be apologized FOR"

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Thursday, 27 July 2006 21:48 (nineteen years ago)

There's nothing that needs to be apologized with regard to their retro aspects

agreed

and there's nothing faux

ahem

or ironic

HAHAHA

about these aspects.

― jed_ (jed), Thursday, 27 July 2006 21:58 (nineteen years ago)

What is ironic about it? I suppose they're slightly cartoonish, so I GUESS you could call that "faux." If you wanted to, anyway. I guess. (Strikes me as a bit of an unnecessary pejorative.)

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Thursday, 27 July 2006 22:05 (nineteen years ago)

I suppose it is in reference to this definition:

2.
a. Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs: "Hyde noted the irony of Ireland's copying the nation she most hated" Richard Kain.
b. An occurrence, result, or circumstance notable for such incongruity.

I mean, you could MAYBE argue that there was incongruity when SHA NA NA first appeared on the scene, but I would think retroisms have become established as fairly commonplace over the last couple of decades.

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Thursday, 27 July 2006 22:12 (nineteen years ago)

So haha yourself, fule!

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Thursday, 27 July 2006 22:14 (nineteen years ago)

oh it's totally faux. it's an excercise in faux. i don't think they should be condemned for it. i dunno who SHA NA NA are, sorry. I take your point about the irony but in this case the irony is that they can't sing and they look awful.

― jed_ (jed), Thursday, 27 July 2006 22:24 (nineteen years ago)

that's so garbled but i got poxy fuled (ironic) then retyped it quickly.

― jed_ (jed), Thursday, 27 July 2006 22:26 (nineteen years ago)

Well I'm just a po' simple boy who watched a video where three girls with bad indie haircuts and matching polka dot dresses did synchro hand gestures onstage and sang into big silver retro microphones. I didn't know what else to call it.

Maybe it's a sincere homage to the music/style they love, more likely it's a visual stunt to attract comments along the lines of "well aren't they cute." I don't know if I'd be more concerned about male fans who kinda got off on it, or those that didn't.

It wouldn't even be that bad a song if not for the obnoxious cheerleader-style shouting of the title. Am I supposed to take that any way other than as irony in 2006?

That the Pipettes are doing Shangri-La's impersonations on stage is almost a moot point.

That is an apology. That is what an apology sounds like. Whether it was necessary or not I don't really care, but he clearly wants to gloss over the fact that the Pipettes are pushing their image at least as hard as their songs.

― Sean Braud1s (Sean Braudis), Thursday, 27 July 2006 22:29 (nineteen years ago)

Heaven forfend that a pop group should have an image!

The disappointing thing about the album is that the fellow from Go! Team is involved in the production. On paper I would really like to hear a bricabracolage skip hop girl group along the lines of the G!T but with, you know, songs and harmonies and stuff. But the way the record turned out is sooooo weedy.

― Jerry the Nipper (Jerrynipper), Thursday, 27 July 2006 22:52 (nineteen years ago)

pipettes X scritti politti production & hair & shrugs circa 198?

― youn (youn), Thursday, 27 July 2006 22:56 (nineteen years ago)

the obnoxious cheerleader-style shouting of the title. Am I supposed to take that any way other than as irony in 2006?

Again, what is ironic about it?

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Thursday, 27 July 2006 22:58 (nineteen years ago)

And I disagree about that line being an apology.

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Thursday, 27 July 2006 23:06 (nineteen years ago)

Brighton's second-greatest after ESP. I haven't heard any of their stuff but if they're not better than British Sea Power I'll be surprised...

― Louis Jagger (Haberdager), Thursday, 27 July 2006 23:11 (nineteen years ago)

eh? you havent heard them but you'll be surprised if they're not better than British Sea Power?

― jed_ (jed), Thursday, 27 July 2006 23:14 (nineteen years ago)

i like the pipettes and this thread is weird (no connection between these two observations)

― electric sound of jim [and why not] (electricsound), Thursday, 27 July 2006 23:15 (nineteen years ago)

British Sea Power aren't very good. Carrion is their only genuinely worthwhile song so far...

I was making a crass rhetorical point, get over it. It's too hot in here...

― Louis Jagger (Haberdager), Thursday, 27 July 2006 23:18 (nineteen years ago)

Jed, why you say "can't sing?" It is hard to fathom - that lead vocal on "Pull Shapes" seems fine to me.

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Thursday, 27 July 2006 23:30 (nineteen years ago)

jim is right, about weirdness. there seems to be great effort to say we don't like the pipettes as if there is some need to quash the great groundswell that is about to lift them into posh digs. they've got a limited appeal and granted they might be more careerist than their peers in that same group but this thread is surely going to reacted to with indifference by anyone into twee pop. Perhaps they don't see themselves as members of that ghetto but that's where their key demographic lies and those sorts don't normally mind if their records aren't produced as professionally as the sugababes. it's seems to be similar to when people complained about the production values of the baxendale album.

― keyth (keyth), Friday, 28 July 2006 02:10 (nineteen years ago)

actually this thread would probably make more sense if you replaced all references to the pipettes with baxendale

― electric sound of jim [and why not] (electricsound), Friday, 28 July 2006 02:14 (nineteen years ago)

the pipettes makes me think mean thoughts about hurting girls in polka dot dresses

― kevin barking (arghargh), Friday, 28 July 2006 02:23 (nineteen years ago)

you might wanna see someone about that

― electric sound of jim [and why not] (electricsound), Friday, 28 July 2006 02:28 (nineteen years ago)

I find them trying for this big 60s girl group sound and getting it so badly wrong actually endearing (big crashing drums etc)

INDIE

a proper pop group would have not got anything wrong. shiny shiny perfect facsimiles all the way

― The Lex (The Lex), Friday, 28 July 2006 07:10 (nineteen years ago)

I'm still entertained by your dogged refusal to accept that imperfections are sometimes what a song needs.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Friday, 28 July 2006 07:16 (nineteen years ago)

oh wow i saw an advert for this retro 30s style girl group on itv3 last night. their name is quite like 'the pipettes' n'all. oh god what was it? anyway, major yuckage.

― Roughage Crew (Enrique), Friday, 28 July 2006 07:22 (nineteen years ago)

matt i love some imperfections. i love paris hilton's voice! but for this style of music imperfections are just clunky, clumsy, inefficient, distracting and THOROUGHLY INDIE.

― The Lex (The Lex), Friday, 28 July 2006 07:29 (nineteen years ago)

xpost

The Puppini Sisters. Why on earth were you watching ITV3?!

― Jerry the Nipper (Jerrynipper), Friday, 28 July 2006 07:43 (nineteen years ago)

What are the perceived imperfections on "Pull Shapes?" I don't really get it. Is it really much more clunky or clumsy than, say, Bananarama?

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Friday, 28 July 2006 07:45 (nineteen years ago)

Oh come on, the Puppini Sisters look awesome, in a Sunday afternoon in the Glasto acoustic tent way. The Final Countdown as performed by a 30s revivalist girl group would be amazing.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Friday, 28 July 2006 07:48 (nineteen years ago)

Why on earth were you watching ITV3?!

cracker repeats!

― Roughage Crew (Enrique), Friday, 28 July 2006 07:48 (nineteen years ago)

wonder if the puppinis will get shown pdork love...

― Roughage Crew (Enrique), Friday, 28 July 2006 07:51 (nineteen years ago)

they sound like eclectism gone mad. why would they cover europe, the smiths and kate bush, when they could cover elsie carlisle, jack hylton and ray noble?

― -- (688), Friday, 28 July 2006 08:14 (nineteen years ago)

What are the perceived imperfections on "Pull Shapes?" I don't really get it. Is it really much more clunky or clumsy than, say, Bananarama?

i dunno tim, when you say "clunky or clumsy" i just think : yes, it is those things. as for their vocals yes, i guess they sound "fine" but they're a vocal group, right? vocal groups should sound great vocally!

(i have only heard two songs - the ones on their site with videos)

― jed_ (jed), Friday, 28 July 2006 08:19 (nineteen years ago)

Skipping 265 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

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