Talk Talk (RIP Mark Hollis)

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (1247 of them)
And to respond to Keith up above:

on the norman records update they mention Bed as a band that is an exact duplicate of laughing stock era tt. has anyone heard them? any thoughts?

I have indeed heard them thanks to Doug Watson -- there's a definite, obvious similarity, though I would ascribe it mostly to how the feller sings and the minimal arrangements rather than the exact sound. On that level, though, they work for me more than, say, Elbow.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 19 January 2004 21:58 (twenty-two years ago)

Late in with my two'penneth, but simply put, I've often found myself thinking about Talk Talk's music and concluding that it might just be some of the finest recorded music ever made.

What's the word that means being nostalgic for things you've never experienced? Thats what TT does for me.

mzui, Monday, 19 January 2004 22:57 (twenty-two years ago)

Spirit of Eden is an utterly flawless album from start to end.

Alex in NYC (vassifer), Tuesday, 20 January 2004 00:05 (twenty-two years ago)

Those last two albums are nice at times. However, the real gems of their output was the first three albums ;)

Geir Hongro (GeirHong), Tuesday, 20 January 2004 00:07 (twenty-two years ago)

The Colour of Spring is my favourite. I'm surprised that in a year as maximalist/pop-oriented as 2003, this very fine album didn't get more votes on this thread. I mean, how much more now can you get?

(I picked up a vinyl re-issue of TCoS over the weekend. Beautiful pressing. Simply beautiful).

The reason why TCoS stands out for me is that it exhibits the genius of Talk Talk in a somewhat embryonic but no less impressive state. I betcha the same kind of people who like TCoS best are also the sort who prefer Isn't Anything.

fields of salmon (fieldsofsalmon), Tuesday, 20 January 2004 00:27 (twenty-two years ago)

TCoS is in a lot of ways Talk Talk's transitional album. Kind of a cross-in-between the early sophisticated but song-oriented pop material and the more experimental and "floating" later material.

Geir Hongro (GeirHong), Tuesday, 20 January 2004 00:37 (twenty-two years ago)

I relish the dichotomy between The Party's Over and Laughing Stock. Both fantastic, but utterly polar albums.

Alex in NYC (vassifer), Tuesday, 20 January 2004 00:39 (twenty-two years ago)

id forgotten about my posts to this thread

the point


I'm reminded of something I said once, to fred maybe (on here?), about the beach boys and the way people from certain musical backgrounds engage with 'pretty' and 'highly spiritual' music. this is clearly pretty complicated, though, especially with people like melissa who have a much deeper engagement with that terrain.

made by josh apparently interested me then and interests me now because i really think that there are certain musical qualities--obv shifting ones over time, given the shifting contexts--that evoke "spiritual", "transcendent", etc. i suppose one could even set up a kind of experiment to determine the superlatives that people attach to certain music, but i suppose this would have to presume a large enough sample of people with exceedingly similar experiences with music.

i think its obvious that TT brings an enormous amount of talent and skill to their work, which is why i can say without reservation that i'm a fan, but i think it's a combination of this skill AND the particular metier...the particular nature of t he work...that produces the sort of (what seems to me) hyberbole or at least...peculiar range of superlatives. this can be illustrated better perhaps by responses to lesser bands with similar aims. maybe even with U2...i dunno.

teasing out what musical qualities track to these adjectives would be a worthwhile endeavor which i suppose few living rock critics (or whomever) would be prepared to undertake

amateur!st (amateurist), Wednesday, 21 January 2004 14:26 (twenty-two years ago)

i guess what i'm saying is that the common celebration of certain music...from talk talk to arvo part to (name your fave or least-fave here) ...as being transcendent, etc. bothers me because it kind of shuts doubt, or even the observation of specific musical qualities, out of the discussion. it kind of denies analysis, whereas my experience of this music is inevitably shot through with a kind of analysis (albeit one i'm not prepared to translate into words), and kind of moment to moment registering of the music in its choices and novel way of approaching the tension and release strictures...and its lapses and overreaching (occasional) in doing same...

amateur!st (amateurist), Wednesday, 21 January 2004 14:29 (twenty-two years ago)

Am I the only one who's tiring of how chic it is to love these guys? The whole phenomenon of rediscovery with these guys just seems so preditcable...

Naive Teen Idol (Naive Teen Idol), Wednesday, 21 January 2004 15:59 (twenty-two years ago)

They're so hip, they're square.

Chris Dahlen (Chris Dahlen), Wednesday, 21 January 2004 16:07 (twenty-two years ago)

Damn those pesky kids.

Llahtuos Kcin (Nick Southall), Wednesday, 21 January 2004 16:24 (twenty-two years ago)

I hate when I'm sitting in the privacy of my home, digging the shit out of a record and suddenly it occurs to me, "A lot of other people like his album," or, "I should've known about this ten years ago," and I have to switch the thing off.

Chris Dahlen (Chris Dahlen), Wednesday, 21 January 2004 16:32 (twenty-two years ago)

I really hope that's ironic or I'm going to become a terrorist.

Llahtuos Kcin (Nick Southall), Wednesday, 21 January 2004 16:52 (twenty-two years ago)

i really wish people would work harder to untangle the critical response to an album or whatever from the music itself.

there are albums and films i love despite their being adored in the laziest terms by all kinds of poseurs...

amateur!st (amateurist), Wednesday, 21 January 2004 17:07 (twenty-two years ago)

Agreed, but I think more than anything, I'm just tired of people applying this kind of cheap mystical-quality to the records. It's often just a case of people being at a loss for words to describe them, so they kind of go for the most obvious ones...

Naive Teen Idol (Naive Teen Idol), Wednesday, 21 January 2004 17:23 (twenty-two years ago)

in that case i agree with you completely and that was what i was driving at above

i think the battery of adjectives applied to their later albums actually does the band and its music a disservice

you can stretch this comment to include a good chunk of the sort of music thats covered in the wire etc

amateur!st (amateurist), Wednesday, 21 January 2004 17:26 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah. It doesn't make me want to stop listening to them — just not read about them anymore. Which is a shame, because I love Talk Talk and good criticism — two great tastes and so forth...

Naive Teen Idol (Naive Teen Idol), Wednesday, 21 January 2004 17:41 (twenty-two years ago)

The best writing I've read about Talk Talk lately has been the material from Phill Brown in mags like Tape Op. Hearing about how the records were made - for example, how they ended up throwing away 60% or something of the orchestrations and goofy stuff they tried on Laughing Stock before they honed it into what it is now - actually makes me enjoy them more. I think that's the difference between their stuff and some of the other airy-fairy avant-rock that crumbles under examination: it was built to sound that effortless, and even in its airiest, fairiest moments you can hear a man struggling with what he's doing.

Maybe that's why the critical fawning doesn't bug me (although the gave-it-two-listens negative reviews are still funny after all these years).

(BTW, don't mind Matt and I - we're friends from way back.)

Chris Dahlen (Chris Dahlen), Wednesday, 21 January 2004 17:50 (twenty-two years ago)

In fact, I discovered that Tape Op stuff from this thread. Thanks up there!

Chris Dahlen (Chris Dahlen), Wednesday, 21 January 2004 17:51 (twenty-two years ago)

what WAS the initial critical reaction to laughingstock anyway?

the mythology is that it was ignored completely and then rediscovered thanks to tastemakers like jim o'rourke etc in the mid 90s (not a long path to rediscovery mind, but still)

but is this actually true? certainly the emergence of post rock etc. gave the album a new home, a new sense of approachability etc., but i would think a symapthetic audience would have existed in 1991 as well, however small

amateur!st (amateurist), Wednesday, 21 January 2004 17:56 (twenty-two years ago)

what WAS the initial critical reaction to laughingstock anyway?

Some contemporary reviews (scroll downward) It most certainly was not ignored completely -- Melody Maker, for one, ran a big interview with Hollis, a follow-up technical interview with Brown and Hollis and a review all within a couple of weeks of each other.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 21 January 2004 18:04 (twenty-two years ago)

From the page Ned linked to, here's the NME review - I've seen others that are in the same vein:

From NME, September 28, 1991

TALK TALK
Laughing Stock (Verve)
Once upon a time Mark Hollis was the intense-eyed ranting lad who shouted "All you do is talk talk !". Then he became the anthemically melancholy lad who moaned "Its my life !" and never looked back from a life of anthemic melancholy.

As time goes by, Mark Hollis' music has slipped into a vat of dark, brooding melancholy so deep that even David Sylvian would join Right Said Fred rather than partake of its glummo brew.

In despair did EMI release an anthemically melancholy singles album and in more despair an anthemically melancholy dance remix album - an act on a par with releasing an Ambient House mix of Sham 69's "Hurry Up Harry", only not as interesting.

Now Hollis has gone to Verve and recorded "Laughing Stock" with 23 acoustically-oriented bass and organ and drum people. There is a slight jazz feel to this record. There are elements of soundtrack ambience. There are songs called "After The Flood". There are lyrics like "A hunger uncurbed by nature's calling". The whole thing is unutterably pretentious and looks over its shoulder hoping that someone will remark on its 'moody brilliance' or some such. It's horrible.

(4 out of 10)

David Quantick

Chris Dahlen (Chris Dahlen), Wednesday, 21 January 2004 18:07 (twenty-two years ago)

well i figured that the reality was closer to what ned's link has illustrated...that the album WAS greeted with interest and even excitement in some quarters

what's funny is that certain phrases in hollis's lyrics DO irritate me, but only when i can make them out. it doesnt seem to be an album that really puts much pressure on the lyrics to signify anyhow.

amateur!st (amateurist), Wednesday, 21 January 2004 18:16 (twenty-two years ago)

also the latter TT albums dont really seem "melancholic" to me...they seem much too worked up and ambitious for that

amateur!st (amateurist), Wednesday, 21 January 2004 18:17 (twenty-two years ago)

David Quantick has always been a ridiculous cunt though.

Llahtuos Kcin (Nick Southall), Wednesday, 21 January 2004 18:29 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah, some people definitely slagged 'em back then. You read Trouser Press, and they crap all over it, too.

I know that John McEntire of Tortoise namechecked SOE or LS in The Wire around '95. But I don't think he was a fan much before that, as I know the guy who turned him onto them only a few years previously...

Naive Teen Idol (Naive Teen Idol), Wednesday, 21 January 2004 20:02 (twenty-two years ago)

I remember the "Select" magazine reaction to "Laughing Stock" was good - although all I can remember off the top of my head was that it was entitled "Talk Talk - A Perverse Genius" and they gave it 4 stars.

Keith Watson (kmw), Wednesday, 21 January 2004 20:33 (twenty-two years ago)

... or 4 squares anyway.

Keith Watson (kmw), Wednesday, 21 January 2004 20:33 (twenty-two years ago)

I just noticed SoE has Nigel Kennedy on it!

Chuck Tatum (Chuck Tatum), Wednesday, 21 January 2004 20:53 (twenty-two years ago)

Other questions:

1. i think the battery of adjectives applied to their later albums actually does the band and its music a disservice

amateur!st, i've been trying to divine what you and other threaders mean by this, and i'm still not quite sure. (i'm assuming it's not a "they don't understand it like i do" type of reaction.)

2. What on earth is that thing on the cover of the Mark Hollis album? It looks like a ferret trapped in a can of sardines.

Chuck Tatum (Chuck Tatum), Wednesday, 21 January 2004 20:58 (twenty-two years ago)

http://image.allmusic.com/00/amg/cov200/dre100/e142/e14231ylzsd.jpg

?

Chuck Tatum (Chuck Tatum), Wednesday, 21 January 2004 21:00 (twenty-two years ago)

No, I think what amateur!st means is that a lot of those adjectives cheapen it — that part of what makes those record special is their unknowability...

Naive Teen Idol (Naive Teen Idol), Wednesday, 21 January 2004 21:12 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah, that Mark Hollis album cover has always given me the creeps. I mean....Whaaaaaaa?

Alex in NYC (vassifer), Wednesday, 21 January 2004 21:14 (twenty-two years ago)

C/D? I've always thought Mark Hollis was...okay

Naive Teen Idol (Naive Teen Idol), Wednesday, 21 January 2004 21:29 (twenty-two years ago)

The solo album is beautiful, but perhaps pushes the aesthetic too far into the austere and minimal.

Llahtuos Kcin (Nick Southall), Wednesday, 21 January 2004 21:45 (twenty-two years ago)

I'd agree w/ that. Unlike the previous two, melodies—even hidden ones—seem to be lacking...

Naive Teen Idol (Naive Teen Idol), Wednesday, 21 January 2004 22:00 (twenty-two years ago)

the cover is a loaf of bread, I seem to remember that it's a type of loaf baked somewhere (eastern europe?) at Easter; it is made to look like a lamb.

anthony kyle monday (akmonday), Wednesday, 21 January 2004 22:15 (twenty-two years ago)

also, that album is pretty much the equal of laughing stock and spirit of eded, for me.

anthony kyle monday (akmonday), Wednesday, 21 January 2004 22:15 (twenty-two years ago)

re: the mythology is that it was ignored completely and then rediscovered thanks to tastemakers like jim o'rourke etc in the mid 90s

I bought both late period records when they came out (I actually had the 45 of "Life's What You Make It" too but it took me much longer to finally pick up Colour of Spring). Sorry if that sounds annoying; that's my "losing my edge" moment for the day. Anyway, I first heard "I Believe in You" on WLLZ-FM in Detroit which was like an AOR station by day, but had a weekend alt program (I wonder if Andy K. remembers it; hosted by Mike Halloran I think?) I was immediately transfixed; it just sounded so unlike everything else they would play. I remember hearing that organ and ascending bass kick in after the first verse and feeling like I was floating away. And then the choir at the end .. goosebumps. Laughing Stock was definitely one of the most anticipated albums of that period of my life. Badmotorfinger was probably the other one though, so that my lose me some coolness points.

Anyway, I don't remember seeing anything written about them. The one guy I do recall writing a really positive review that seemed to "get it" is the sometime-maligned Thom Jurek in the Metro Times. So I've always kind of respected him for that, no matter what I've thought of his writing since.

I was the music director at my college station when Laughing Stock came out, and anyone who's done that job knows one of the worst aspects is taking calls from annoying major label reps promoting all sorts of horrible records. I remember once the PolyGram rep phoned, and preparing to take the call I'm thinking "Oh great, this shouldn't be too irritating, I'll just talk to him about how much I like the Talk Talk record." But he was all like "oh, we don't care about them" (!) Like, he didn't even want to push this record of theirs that I had actually expressed interest in (for once). It was like, they were completely resigned to it doing poorly and weren't even bothering or something. Or maybe they had the jazz department working it or something. Anyway, I just found it shocking and depressing.

Broheems (diamond), Wednesday, 21 January 2004 22:18 (twenty-two years ago)

i agree with Anthony KM - Mark Hollis is just as great as Laughing Stock.

jed_ (jed), Wednesday, 21 January 2004 22:31 (twenty-two years ago)

Interesting. Certainly, on a conceptual level, I would actually say that Mark Hollis is probably the best of the three.

But is SOE the best record of the bunch? I know it's become kind of hip to like LS, esp. in light of our revisitation of all things 90's lately. Plus, it's even more oblique in many ways. Still, I wonder whether SOE is the best of the three (better of the two). On the basis of its very strong tunes, the originality of the concept, and the risk Hollis took making it (it supposedly made the record execs cry it was so uncommercial), I think it might be...

Naive Teen Idol (Naive Teen Idol), Wednesday, 21 January 2004 23:06 (twenty-two years ago)

It's certainly the one I enjoy the most, howsomuch 'enjoyment' comes into it.

Llahtuos Kcin (Nick Southall), Wednesday, 21 January 2004 23:41 (twenty-two years ago)

I agree with how Nick puts it.

Tim Finney (Tim Finney), Thursday, 22 January 2004 00:37 (twenty-two years ago)

I love the later records, but no way can I pretend any of them give me as much pleasure as It's My Life.

I'd rate the other ones in decending order per their order of release, with Mark Hollis a definate last. But that's just me.

Sean (Sean), Thursday, 22 January 2004 00:40 (twenty-two years ago)

I think there are more moments on Laughing Stock and Mark Hollis' solo album that are more discordant (oboes gone awry, etc.) than on Laughing Stock, which is perfectly melifluous from start to finish (bluesy electric guitar bombast during "Desire" included).

Alex in NYC (vassifer), Thursday, 22 January 2004 01:12 (twenty-two years ago)

Er, you lost me (by accident).

Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 22 January 2004 01:13 (twenty-two years ago)

Sorry, I'm retarded this evening. I meant than on Spirit of Eden. Which is why I prefer Spirit of Eden.

Alex in NYC (vassifer), Thursday, 22 January 2004 01:13 (twenty-two years ago)

Meaning that there are certain moments on Laughing Stock and Mark Hollis where the melodic structure almost falls away completely. While this adventurousness is somewhat exciting, it doesn't make for the sheer envelopment in sound and atmosphere that characterizes the entirety of Spirit of Eden, if that makes any sense.

Alex in NYC (vassifer), Thursday, 22 January 2004 01:15 (twenty-two years ago)

i think theres a bunch of things on SOE that strike me as pretty jarring

i like all of the cited records and dont feel any need to decide, although as noted above i took spirit of eden with me to paris in a clinch

amateur!st (amateurist), Friday, 23 January 2004 10:26 (twenty-two years ago)


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