The Pipettes

INDIE

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

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

cracker repeats!

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)

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?

they're a lot shoutier and 'reaching' more than Bananarama because the song seems to demand it but as they really seem only in the same league as Bananarama as singers it's not totally convincing (but still endearing perhaps).

Have you been walking around with your eyes closed for the last few months? They're everywhere!

In 2006, when you hear cheerleader-style shout vocals, are they immediate and relevant? Do you take them and enjoy them for what they are with no added weight from musical or cultural history? Or, do you understand them through a lens that creates a distancing effect, as in "oh isn't it funny that pop music sounded like this once and now someone is doing it again." Irony is the gap between apparent meaning and intended meaning. Am I intended to take the Pipettes at face value? Of course not. Their music and image are intended to conjure up all kinds of associations to the past, and lead me to eventually agree that they are just so cute.

I don't understand what you mean by "immediate." What is something in pop music now that is immediate in a way the Pipettes are not? It is of no concern to me whether those vocals are *relevant*.

Do you take them and enjoy them for what they are with no added weight from musical or cultural history?

Of course not, but the same could be said for any specific style-connoting element in any contemporary cultural object. Am I supposed to find them all ironic? They seem to be more standard course now.

Or, do you understand them through a lens that creates a distancing effect, as in "oh isn't it funny that pop music sounded like this once and now someone is doing it again."

That's the thing - I don't find it funny. Was it funny when Tracey Ullman did it? I suppose the Pipettes are a little more goofy, but I don't see as that this makes them ironic. My response to them is not, "Oh, that's ironic that they are doing something with a little sort of '60s girl group style. Who would have imagined?"

I would dispute that. There are surely plenty of things with gaps between apparent and intended meaning that one would not identify as "ironic."

When I see/hear a longhaired pretty boy hammer a distorted guitar, I automatically think, "This music and image are intended to conjure up all kinds of associations to the past, and lead me to eventually agree that he is just so cool." Right?

'Cuz all musical choices must be read as meta-recursive signifiers pointing to the fact that they're pointing while also pointing to other things. Right?

God, that's exhausting...

Ba-dump-bump.

How come no one's laughing?

Retro/gimmick/kitsch novelty or no, their version of "Wuthering Heights" just gave me the biggest smile I've had in days.

We can only wish the Pipettes had a "They Don't Know" on this album. There's an example of a girl group pastiche that actually works.

Re "Pull Shapes" - I think the "I like to disco/to rock & roll/to hip hop" is a key to what I don't like about this album. It's way too Spice Girls/"Wannabe." It's like they're trying their hardest to get everyone up and dancing, but everyone's just staring blankly.

I'm just saying that it's an approach that doesn't suit this particular project.

2 brilliant songs (pull shapes and judy). but the rest range from good to blatant filler.

Everyone who has reviewed the Pipettes album, yesterday.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zihW7WCYMs