The thread for Portishead "Third"

i gotta agree with surmounter in that it's fair enough to have initial impressions. and if everyone had the same approach towards appreciating and responding to music, the medium would be very dull indeed.

incidentally, i recall listening to third for the first time and thinking that a lot of it sounded more liberated and less contained that the records that came before it. perhaps not 'sprawling' as such, but definitely a bit more expansive in sound. though as i mentioned somewhere upthread, the earlier portishead records are a pretty vague and irrelevant reference point for an appraisal of this one.

yeah it's 'looser'

(I think what Dan is getting at is that words like 'composed' and 'melody' and 'structure' are being thrown around without much regard for what they actually mean, it's all getting a bit Geir Hongro in here - it's nothing to do with the approach to listening per se)

well i think the crux of the problem tho is that you can't use a word without knowing the ins and outs of the definition. it's a conversation not a textbook.

Actually, you SHOULDN'T use a word unless you know the ins and outs of the definition because you might not actually be saying what you think you're saying and it makes it more difficult for other people to understand you. The entire point of a conversation is to exchange ideas and get your point across and, if you can't do that, you can't really contribute to the conversation.

x-post -- Surmounter, HI DERE actually DOES have technical music training and in fact knows what he is talking about. I've found this very helpful over the years since we like many of the same things, and it gives me both a greater knowledge and appreciation for those acts and songs. What's wrong with learning?

i know enough about the words i use to feel like i can contribute to a conversation.

what i don't like is when people have to lord their knowledge over me like my words aren't valid. i love learning, i don't like preaching.

i'd be much more open to hearing about your technical education if you didn't mock me with it.

i don't want ILM to be a place where i need to look every word up in order to feel like i can open my mouth.

i don't think there's anything wrong with learning. i think it's the tone that's the issue here. i won't argue that HI DERE has some extremely valid insights, and in fairness the highly refined level of music observation on ILM is the reason i generally spend more time here reading than contributing. but i just think that it's a little bit rich to shut down somebody who is trying to make a considered evaluation of what they're hearing.

fwiw i don't care if you're wrong man xp

also, i feel i'm getting the brunt of it b/c a lot of other people seem to have made a similar observation. just because there's a common reaction to something, doesn't make it entirely stupid.

what use is an education if you can't lord it over people

haha thanks =) xp

i mean, if that was directed to me

I wasn't trying to shut you specifically down, although I can see how it comes across that way. First reactions to things are fine and "valid" (if that word is even useful when discussing opinions) but so are responses to those reactions; my initial response is one of frustration that this album is getting tagged as "difficult" (whether intended positively or negatively) when it isn't. They're doing something different from what they did before, but most of the difference lies in the sounds they're using rather than the song construction or the melodic/harmonic choices they used; the most radical departure from a typical Portishead song on the album is "Deep Water"!

My second response was me laughing at a typo in a post where you promised to be more precise with your words, which, well, lol irony.

i didn't say anything about it being difficult. and your frustration isn't really because of me, but because of an overwhelming reaction to this album that i know nothing about. i have no problem with arguments, as long as they're respectful. i appreciate your knowledge, but it'd be nice if i could chime in too.

i know that was a dumb typo.

Jesus Christ

i'm just dropping in to say that i listened to this 2-3 times and i loved the beats/sounds/production tricks/instrumental playing/etc. but none of the vocals stuck with me at all, not even a little.

Even "Machine Gun"???

ok HI, it's really fine. you didn't mean to shut me down, i overreacted. big deal. life goes on.

yeah, i've heard machine gun maybe 5 times and i can recall the beat and the keyboard line at the end, but not the vocals. it's like her voice is being used as a pad or background part, or maybe it's just me.

see that's how i kind of felt too

I walked around singing that song for days after the first time I heard it. That vocal line immediately leapt out at me (and stays with me).

well, it usually takes me a while with vocals anyway. for them to leap out. but i don't know that minor/moody/dissonant thing they do with the vocals sometimes works and sometimes gets old.

this album sucks 95% of the tracks are grating carried by whats her name

yah it kinda sucks ass

grating carried?

http://www.metals-inc.com/imbargra.jpg

everytime i see this thread, or really any mention anywhere of the band or this record, i have to listen to it. aaugh.

I kinda agree with the lack of structure arguments 'cause after a few listens, despite the vocals i'm not hearing these as typical verse/chorus songs. The instrumental parts stand out much more, in my memory at least, and you could hardly argue that e.gs the drums and synths on machine gun follow normal pop music structure. My impressions may change with time of course. And I'm normally *very* vocal oriented so it's kinda weird they aren't sticking with me.

usic isn't really luriqua, is he?

careful what you say ledge

haha jk

:)

dummy to the death-- abandoning socalled trip hop which is really just dope music --> failure

I think Dummy is better than Third. yeah. But Third is still fantastic.

Third >>>>>> P >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dummy

abandoning socalled trip hop which is really just dope music --> failure

i actually found that really refreshing, the change.

love that live album

Dummy>>Third>>>>>Portishead

Portishead isn't a bad album, even tho it's kinda grating.

that All Mine song tho, is still pretty classic

I don't think Portishead is a bad album at all either. Just significantly worse than the other two. It gets a little samey on side two.

definitely samey

^great album title

For Oasis records nos. 2 - 28 or whatever they're up to now.

I can see the argument for saying that "Machine Gun" has no verse-chorus structure if you completely block out the vocals, considering that the music track remains static until after the vocals drop out. There is a very definite verse-chorus structure to the vocal line, though; even if you ignore the pattern of the melodic line and the repitition of the text, you can break it down as "the verse is the part where Beth is singing in isolation and the chorus is Beth singing over a track of herself going 'oooh'". Additionally, the synth coda at the end actually sketches in the chord harmonies implied by the chorus, so the whole song is intro-verse-chorus-verse-chorus-bridge-chorus, which is a pretty standard pop song construction.

Portishead>Dummy>Third

The juxtaposition of the drums and the achingly pretty, almost folksy melody in Machine Gun is what makes it work so brilliantly. I don't really get people saying it doesn't have a tune.

my initial response is one of frustration that this album is getting tagged as "difficult" (whether intended positively or negatively) when it isn't.

I have to disagree here. "Third" is definitely difficult.

I may be wrong but my impression is that some people are mixing up melody with harmony. I think it would be fair to say that there's less harmony in Third. Haven't listened carefully to all of it but I'd say "Machine Gun" for instance has almost no harmony.

...although it definitely has a melody.