James Blake, Mt Kimbie, CD/SD

assuming we're talking about the same tweet that's been everywhere else (how I wish we weren't etc) he said "pub singer" not "coffee table"

ah. even more off the mark then.

i. the music on album is gorgeous & really incredible
ii. doesn't sound anything like dubstep to me? up until the point where that (admittedly nagl) bass riff came in on like the fourth song it sounded a lot more like antony & the jonsons over really delicate disembodied drum stuff. last james blake thing i'd heard was bells sketch & this threw me totally off guard

Despite Geoff Barrows great musical contribution with Portishead, I don't take anything that man says in consideration.

I've been listening to this James Blake guy after not knowing he existed for an entire year. I think the album as a concept doesn't achieve what it wants to. I actually found the first song, "Unluck" to be quite unnerving for some odd reason. It was like I didn't know he wanted the song to be a traditional song with a few quirks or it is trying to be like typical abstract electronica.

However songs like "I Never Learnt To Share" did tug at my heart strings. Though the traditionalist in me wanting more lyrics, the fact he just repeated that line got me into it. I'm just struggling with what James Blake is trying to be with this album. However, tying him to dubstep for his debut album is lazy music writing (looking at the Pitchfork media review).

If anything this album is like post-r&b or deconstructionist r&b.

yeah i agree w/ that last part good way of putting it

flopson otm: Antony and the Johnsons is exactly the comparison that came to mind for me...as I said above, I just don't think Blake has the presence or the tunes to pull it off.

The weird thing about the Portishead beef is that the first Portishead album was much more accessible than "James Blake"; you couldn't use most of the tracks here as e.g. TV music without seriously disturbing the viewer.

yeah but afaik all GB said was that his singing sucks

lol grumpy geoff

do i have to fight for "coffee table" NOT being a pejorative here? this is re: portishead - and really it was weird to me that dummy did get used as tv music etc, cuz i thought beth's vocals there were pretty fkn anguished, def enough to "disturb" casual viewers.

"pub singer" isn't quite right, blake's vocals are worthless shit but in a v different way. "bedwetter" about sums it up. i can def see it as incidental music in a "gritty" "raw" bbc drama set in a bedsit or something

I think his singing/tone is fine, just the way he uses his voice can be a little irritating. But Geoff Barrow should not talk, Beth Gibbons on a bad day could get on your nerves as well.

With Portishead I guess there's some sort of circular effect: because they became very popular their music became more acceptable/accessible ("I know that song!"), but I assume their initial popularity must have rested on some amount of accessibility (I wasn't paying much attention at the time). As Lex says, Beth Gibbons' voice is anguished and piercing, though I guess the music is easier to get into (unlike Blake, they had tunes).

Part of me feels like no one's quite figured out James Blake. His popularity is inexplicable. It's as though some a&r guy saw this fella making weird experimental electronica and thought 'well he's tall, young and blue eyed - I can use him as the face of dubstep for radio 2', despite the music itself being quite undercooked and absolutely unmarketable. The fact this trick appears to have worked beggars belief, and i guess this is why no one can quite get their heads round it.

many x-posts

nothing says "jamaican soundclash" like guest vox from dutty projectors:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RVKLcaIAE8

um i think everyone's managed to "get their heads around it" fine, both lovers and haters - it's not like he's doing anything particularly weird that's ~beyond our ken~

completely agree that the hype and marketing is baffling - last year he was one of hundreds of producers (good, bad and mediocre) making music in this field, and i can't figure out what stood out about his productions particularly, or why they caught the major labels' ear - i could reel off 50 other candidates who i both think are superior and who seem, to me, to have far more commercial and/or critical potential. why him? why not - looking at the title of this thread - mt kimbie? (not that i'm into them either but whatever.) why not subeena or girl unit or rustie or faltydl or jam city or ill blu? but then i am pretty much always totally mystified by how major labels work.

it made more sense before the record came out, it just looks weird in retrospect. amazing remixes > great eps that each stick to a concept and give a real sense of progression from one to the next > "oh, he can sing?" = it seemed like he was poised to do something really different (from everyone else in a scene that's already pretty varied) and exciting.

it's too bad about all the hype, 'cause it's just not a record that stands up to it. i guess it was just asking for a backlash.

xp

fwiw I do think James Blake is "really different" - it doesn't sound like either the Mount Kimbie album (which more or less sounded like what people expected) or the Darkstar (which was conventional in an unexpected but uninteresting way). There's not much out there that sounds like JB, and I'll rep for the album from this angle (if from no other).

and i agree that it's not the big pop crossover that the labels were hoping for, but i've played some of it for friends here (like midwest u.s. girls who have no idea what dubstep is and would never, ever listen any of the dance music producers that lex is mentioning) and it makes sense to them on a singer-songwriter type level, whether or not the songs are there (of if that's even the "point").

the reason that blake got signed and bok bok and jam city and all them didnt is cos he makes electronic music built more for home listening and they dont, duh. and who cares if its not the big pop crossover - thats not his fault hes being marketed like that. this is something youd expect to be on hot flush or hyperdub really, not a major. its actually very fucking cool its being promoted like it is (though a bit worrying for him, i hope he can handle it, and i think im about to get bored of seeing him hyped so much).

There's not much out there that sounds like JB

theres plenty of other records that sound like garbage

Ok, maybe I'm overstating the weirdness (I've only listened to the album twice and may never do so again) but I was struck by the way that many tracks are just difficult to listen to (and not just "because they're crap") and require more tolerance than I credit £50 man and friends with. Something like Lindisfarne I is crazy, not because of the "O Superman" vocals but because of the stretches of silence throughout the track.

um i think everyone's managed to "get their heads around it" fine, both lovers and haters - it's not like he's doing anything particularly weird that's ~beyond our ken~

I dunno -- the one thing that gets me is this widespread kneejerk that seems to go: (a) he's singing, so he must be trying to do some kind of crossover singer-songwriter thing, and (b) as a crossover singer-songwriter thing, this is tuneless and boring.

Whereas to me it seems really, really clear that he's not actually trying to make conventional voice-and-piano stuff. I mean, pretty much all his efforts are concentrated on these odd structural and textural choices. Just the pure organization of the songs -- they don't move forward melodically! They're mostly organized around their proportions changing! Etc.

I feel like I've read a few things that seem to see it as a ridiculously failed attempt to make singer-songwriter stuff -- as if he tried to make a normal record and is somehow just so dumb that he doesn't know how, or never noticed how pop songs work? -- and that's the one spot where, you know ... I sorta think that reaction is missing what's happening on the actual record and just reacting to the idea that switching to voice and piano must mean making pop. Which is exactly the idea he seems kinda perverse about deliberately fucking with here.

xpost -- (I agree about "home listening" and would add terms like "evocative" and "atmospheric" to that -- as soon as someone coming from a dance direction gets good at those things, the immediate question is how to wrap their "evocative atmosphere" around conventional songs. Obviously I find it kind of cool that Blake totally reversed that here, like "how about I use a familiar singer-songwriter setup but use it for structurally odd purposes.")

Whereas to me it seems really, really clear that he's not actually trying to make conventional voice-and-piano stuff.

lol, well...

'conventional' is a bad hinge, i guess, because sure, ok. but even attempting to subvert or 'reinterpret' w/in the 'voice-and-paino stuff' context/genre/mode you need some dialogue btw what your attempting and the conventions your looking to subvert

ugh this p badly argued but i dont really want to relisten to jame blake but my point is basic the old saw of you have to understand something to disregard it & a) blake is still working however unconventionally w/ in a certain mode b) he sounds p tone-deaf to what makes music w/ in that context work c) as work outside the trad 'song' mode its really boring & just sort of bad & im not sure what value it has divorced from that tradition.

i don't think he's trying to make a conventional singer-songwriter album, but his "odd structural and textural choices" are neither all that odd nor particularly effective, whatever he's trying to do with them. (also: using singer-songwriter tools - ie one's VOICE - and fucking around with the s-s format isn't a particularly esoteric choice; isn't this what most (electronic and other) producers who choose to strip their music down and use vocals do? and haven't many actual singer-songwriters from scott walker to tori amos already fucked around with their own format and abandoned traditional songcraft in their various experiments?)

there are some obv s-s-type tracks on here but theres a lot that really isnt- like wilhelms screan and learnt to share (when he gets a bit more s-s'y i think the album isnt quite as good).

I feel like I've read a few things that seem to see it as a ridiculously failed attempt to make singer-songwriter stuff -- as if he tried to make a normal record and is somehow just so dumb that he doesn't know how, or never noticed how pop songs work? -- and that's the one spot where, you know ... I sorta think that reaction is missing what's happening on the actual record and just reacting to the idea that switching to voice and piano must mean making pop. Which is exactly the idea he seems kinda perverse about deliberately fucking with here.

this is right. & ppl hating on this album itt not rly bringing the heat -- idk maybe you have to care abt uk dance music to get upset abt this album? the relentless use of repetition & phrasing is really interesting and the way he works with it really interesting. feel there is a relation b/w the minimalism & intimacy of the music that is p powerful too

altho a lot of this sounds like that autotune chorus at the end of that song on the kanye album & obv it's clear lex would hate these vocals so w/e

idk maybe you have to care abt uk dance music to get upset abt this album?

i've been thinking this too

not that i love the album, it seems find to me & i get how if you were into the idea of manipulation in the manner he deploys it that you could find the album to be really interesting

seems fine*

idk maybe you have to care abt uk dance music to get upset abt this album

actually it's the people who don't care at all about uk dance music (or even electronic music in general) getting most upset about this record. because they're checking it out because of the hype, with zero context, and being totally underwhelmed by what's kind of a small, weird, line-straddling record.

that's pretty much the opposite to what I've observed but that's diff't samples for you I guess

i listened to it last night kind of hesitantly, having been into bells sketch for a few days but ultimately getting over it & i was p astounded and i care the least abt uk dance music than like anyone -- i think u are disappointed because there arent any cool beats jordan. could see someone being underwhelmed by this album but to me it's the opposite

well i'm not totally unreceptive to this guy -- i think "limit to your love" & "wilhelm's scream" are both amazing, but nothing else has really struck me as that good, but i plan on listening to this a bit more, so who knows

i meant the other Jordan who just posted in this thread, sorry for confusion

it'll be p funny when all the mags & sites who panned this will have it on their eoy lists now that p4k likes it

nah, at this point i'm not even talking about whether or not i like it, just the hype/backlash. i don't mind the beats (or lack thereof) at all.

have many mags + sites panned it? in the uk all the press love it

i just might not have actually read any of them, think i just misread a post upthread

i've seen complaint from both ends -- it's not an electronic record, it's not a song record -- so he's definitely in some no-man's land. lex, i'd agree with you that plenty of people have made music this structural and sculptural from similar tools: I guess i tend to like that stuff in about the same way I enjoy this, sorta clocking the choices they're making to create a new format for themselves.

it really is strikingly low on event and high on dead air, though, so i don't exactly begrudge anyone finding it really really boring. (although i would note that i found it more boring on first listen, because i was waiting for it to work a certain way, and less boring a few listens in, because i'd noticed the structures it IS using.)

idk is this james blake album actually dubstep, even his pre-lp stuff was barely dubstep. i guess it had bassiness and two-step rhythms, now it just is sortof bassy

btw i like this album?

i'm not really sure, you'd have to ask yourself

idk maybe you have to care abt uk dance music to get upset abt this album

actually it's the people who don't care at all about uk dance music (or even electronic music in general) getting most upset about this record. because they're checking it out because of the hype, with zero context, and being totally underwhelmed by what's kind of a small, weird, line-straddling record.

― bows don't kill people, arrows do (Jordan), Wednesday, February 9, 2011 1:00 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark

I think Jordan and flopson are on the right track, and are saying the same thing I said up in this thread. I like the album, but not sure exactly how much yet.

I think it's pretty obvious why Blake has generated so much hype vis a vis other post-dubsteppers: pretty much every release has gone for a very specific sonic (and even conceptual) angle quite distinct from previous releases, so there's a sense of an emerging "narrative" in his work. You could call this "the Aphex Twin model".

This is like catnip for a lot of music critics, (a) because it makes reviewing any particular release more interesting in that you can do the whole "where has he come from, where is he going?" thing, and (b) more generally, that internal diversity makes of Blake's work its own "genre" which the critic can reflect on without reference to other producers, other music etc, so the auteurist emphasis of most music crit is not impeded by the "scenius" quotient habitually associated with dance music.

Nicolas Jaar has benefited from the same dynamic. The proportionately larger hype for Blake is mostly reflective of the fact that there's more critical goodwill towards the idea of an auteur emerging out of post-dubstep than out of post-minimal (which has already had a surfeit).

(compare/contrast with most reviews of individual Night Slugs releases which are usually half about the label in general, half about the specific release - reviewers are less inclined to abstract away from the context in which the specific artist is situated and so the spotlight is less sharply focused on the artist herself)

I think major labels (consciously or otherwise, but I'm willing to bet consciously) are very good at picking up on those signals, and can recognise when an artist is generating hype that is detachable from their scene-context and thereby more ripe for crossover. Whether or not Blake's label expected the album he gave it is a different question.

Yeah, xpost Tim. And I think the Jaar is more interesting than this, tbh.

lol postminimal

oh, the nicolas jaar is so many leagues better than this and has got maybe 1% of the attention.

pretty much every release has gone for a very specific sonic (and even conceptual) angle quite distinct from previous releases, so there's a sense of an emerging "narrative" in his work

huh what? i have...not noticed this at all? i mean his EPs have been "coherent" but...so are many electronic EPs? and i haven't noticed that with jaar, either. everything you've said about him you could say about girl unit or subeena.

also tim's post is kinda depressing w/r/t how critics and major labels work.

ugh what he's covered "a case of you" now??? LEAVE JONI ALONE

I think it's pretty obvious why Blake has generated so much hype vis a vis other post-dubsteppers:

pretty much every release has gone for a very specific sonic (and even conceptual) angle quite distinct from previous releases, so there's a sense of an emerging "narrative" in his work. You could call this "the Aphex Twin model".

This is like catnip for a lot of music critics, (a) because it makes reviewing any particular release more interesting in that you can do the whole "where has he come from, where is he going?" thing, and (b) more generally, that internal diversity makes of Blake's work its own "genre" which the critic can reflect on without reference to other producers, other music etc, so the auteurist emphasis of most music crit is not impeded by the "scenius" quotient habitually associated with dance music.

Nicolas Jaar has benefited from the same dynamic. The proportionately larger hype for Blake is mostly reflective of the fact that there's more critical goodwill towards the idea of an auteur emerging out of post-dubstep than out of post-minimal (which has already had a surfeit).

(compare/contrast with most reviews of individual Night Slugs releases which are usually half about the label in general, half about the specific release - reviewers are less inclined to abstract away from the context in which the specific artist is situated and so the spotlight is less sharply focused on the artist herself)

I think major labels (consciously or otherwise, but I'm willing to bet consciously) are very good at picking up on those signals, and can recognise when an artist is generating hype that is detachable from their scene-context and thereby more ripe for crossover. Whether or not Blake's label expected the album he gave it is a different question.

he's cute

i am not going to listen to this. calm. calm.

a cover version as your debut mainstream single is a dubious tactic already imo. to continue relying on them is indicative that MAYBE YOUR OWN COMPOSITIONS ARE PISS WEAK.

lol j.blake is s0 not the cutest post0dubstep artist

he has the bieber-esque pretty boy face, easy on the eyes