so tell me, why is Kaputt better or worse than Let England Shake?

Sure, yes. And I'd argue (and Tim said something like this upthread: "I think that typically we can overstate the importance of retro sonic signifiers in respect of stuff that sounds a bit like 1982-1987, certainly as compared to stuff that sounds like 1977-1981, or 1966-1968, or etc.") we as listeners have a more difficult time wrapping our heads around an artist borrowing from this once (and, for many, still) beyond-the-pale era with a straight face than we do with an artist borrowing from postpunk, etc. We're seemingly still at a stage as critical listeners where we insist that a saxophone signifies with more intentionality than, say, a guitar.

Speaking of which, that Boys of Summer guitar on The Laziest River is way more blatant a pastiche than any of the saxophone playing--which is really not very straightforward or slick or formulaic at all.

I don't think it's so much that the saxophone signifies more than something else. It's just that its presence is notable in part because they're fairly big, fairly expensive instruments, take a lot of chops to play well, and not many people play them. So it's inclusion on the record or on the M83 record is a fairly notable example of someone going the extra mile.

I mean, it's obviously not that unusual for someone playing some different kind of instrument to appear on a record. But I think it's notable when something like this happens - a saxophone player appearing for (to whatever degree it's so) postmodern purpose.

Is there also a chance that we're perhaps overemphasizing Bejar's auteuristic imprint on the record? I mean, did he write out all of the saxophone and piano parts explicitly, or was there a lot of improvisation / collective writing involved with the other instrumentalists? I think the more we can potentially view Kaputt as a more thoroughly creatively collaborative effort, the less we can straight-facedly view it as some sort of pastiche/commentary/"record about records"...

He doesn't play or compose like Nick Cave. He gets his band in (often separately) to jam around his songs, I gather.

i feel very sorry for people who describe destroyer as the pinnacle of bliss or good vibes or whatever. you have never known true bliss ;_;

if i had a boy by my side and a pitcher of sangria i wouldn't want to spoil that context with sodding destroyer, i'd be listening to some actual balearic dance music. always go for the best!

If I have a boy by my side and some alcohol (sangria or otherwise) I tend to go for something far sleazier than any stripe of balearic.

Let's have our priorities straight.

can we all agree that 'let england shake' is considerably more of an indie rock album than 'kaputt'? it's strange that lex is spending so much energy defending indie rock.

― iatee, Wednesday, February 8, 2012 6:20 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this is nuts

We're seemingly still at a stage as critical listeners where we insist that a saxophone signifies with more intentionality than, say, a guitar.

...Speaking of which, that Boys of Summer guitar on The Laziest River is way more blatant a pastiche than any of the saxophone playing--which is really not very straightforward or slick or formulaic at all.

...Is there also a chance that we're perhaps overemphasizing Bejar's auteuristic imprint on the record? ... I think the more we can potentially view Kaputt as a more thoroughly creatively collaborative effort, the less we can straight-facedly view it as some sort of pastiche/commentary/"record about records"...

― Clarke B., Wednesday, February 8, 2012 10:35 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

it's not just the presence of "smooth sax" that causes us to view the album as deliberately evoking the 80s, as you point out in noting the guitars. the album is littered with such sonic reminders, and the lyrics draw the exact same connections even more explicitly. regardless of how we attribute authorship here, the idea that it's a deliberate pastiche is hard to avoid.

The term "pastiche" doesn't sit right with me in this context. I know it simply means imitation of prior artworks but it always implies hodge-podge to me, which i don't think applies in this case.

okay, perhaps there's a connotative diss there i don't intend. appropriation?

There's no doubt in my mind that he'll hate it, but I am starting to doubt that lex has actually heard Kaputt at all yet.

There are two definitions of pastiche, which tend to overlap, IME:

1: a literary, artistic, musical, or architectural work that imitates the style of previous work; also : such stylistic imitation
2
a : a musical, literary, or artistic composition made up of selections from different works : potpourri
b : hodgepodge

the talk about M83 remixes reminded me of this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYFxMUQZ2LE

This album has about as much to do with Balearic as Omar-S has to do with Harold Faltermeyer.

I also don't think of this record as pastiche, neither in its imitating sense nor its hodge-podge sense. Contrast it with something like Interpol's first record, which basically sounds like them taking a stab at Chameleons-style slightly gothy postpunk. (Forgive my dated analogy; that's just the first time in my life I heard a band and sensed immediately just how derivative they were, and so it's always been a reference point for the idea of pastiche for me.) Yes, on Kaputt you can hear allusions to '80s Roxy Music, Steely Dan (though this connection is SUPER tenuous IMO), etc, but it feels like its own weird thing and not just an aping or a cobbling together of old records. Bejar's quote above about "the tyranny of chord structure" rings true; the album meanders beautifully, it doesn't feel as rigorously composed as much of the music it gets accused of ripping off.

did you ever read my groundbreaking pastiche review of the first interpol album? it was groundbereaking.

I think I've only read the Ned Raggett re-edit.

Clarke, if you remove Steely Dan from your equation and replace it with Al Stewart, I'm not sure this ends up being less derivative than Interpol. Maybe I'm wrong.

destroyer is a pinnacle but its heights are shared by endless amounts of other good time music and i oft slip a destroyer song into certain poolside-specific playlists i have crafted. to those who have not felt the album's positive qualities (of which there are many, too many to inventory at this moment) i like to sit down with them, tell them to close their eyes, and just play the album. once their eyes are opened, their eyes are usually opened (if you see what i mean.)

I've never knowingly heard Al Stewart! I'll remedy that.

Listened to a few Kaputt songs just now, the one in the baywatch video above wasn't bad until the singing, was a bit new order-ish. the singing was terrible. Then one called Song for America - this sounds like Momus wtf?

The others don't really sound like anything in particular, people saying balearic, retro, eighties and other things, I'm not hearing any of those things at all

I've been humming "Time Passages" for days.

oh, the sax i guess?

The sax is ok! definitely the best part anyway

Then one called Song for America - this sounds like Momus wtf?

Holy shit, that's what the vocals were reminding me of! I'd had to settle for "slightly more self-satisfied guy from Belle & Sebastian", but Momus is a lot closer.

too much talk about destroyer on this thread too little about pj harvey

I still don't have a clear picture of what people actually mean when they use "balearic"

don't worry, nobody else does either

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CljGFQ8xi6U

Yes, on Kaputt you can hear allusions to '80s Roxy Music, Steely Dan (though this connection is SUPER tenuous IMO), etc, but it feels like its own weird thing and not just an aping or a cobbling together of old records. Bejar's quote above about "the tyranny of chord structure" rings true; the album meanders beautifully, it doesn't feel as rigorously composed as much of the music it gets accused of ripping off.

― Clarke B., Thursday, February 9, 2012 9:08 AM (51 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

OTM. while kaputt may be in large part a pastiche of dated soft rock styles, bejar doesn't get lost in the mix. it's still clearly a destroyer album. it's not a simple simulacrum of something else, but rather a work that takes obvious influence from other works. similar to ariel pink. AP's style is a pastiche, but more synthetic than replicatory. vanishingly fine line there, i suppose, but w/e.

too much talk about destroyer on this thread too little about pj harvey

lex OTM here, much as it pains me to say. everyone's got an opinion on kaputt, but there's been very little discussion of let england shake itt. idgi? it's not like destroyer crushed PJ by some insane margin. did everyone get tired of talking about it way back when?

everyone is trolling Lex

war, man, warrr

some of the songs on LES are catchy but the idea that it's some powerful work of art is pretty lol to me, war, man..death...violence...destruction..england...

^ art shouldn't address these things?

no it prob should it's just the way she does is so hamfisted and lol

guys I listened to "England' while taking a shower today – so gorgeous.

did you learn something about violence and war

so hamfisted and lol

Meaning naive, shallow? What is the meat of the criticism?

there is no meat to the criticism; dude didn't like it on first listen so he didn't spend all that much time thinking about it (which is totally fair and not an attack)

i'm not sure what your objection is, iatee, other than standard hipster sneering at anything that comes across as too serious/earnest. like, what do you think is concretely wrong with her approach?

did you learn something about violence and war

― iatee, Thursday, February 9, 2012

that's what ILE is for

it's one-dimensional, full of cliches and self-important. but like I said, some catchy songs.

DJP: that's cool, but snidely dissing it as a "powerful work of art lol" is dickish, worse than lex traipsing through indie threads to voice generic disdain.

I mean if you guys are really moved by this album I have this thing called pink floyd's 'the wall', be ready

it's one-dimensional, full of cliches and self-important. but like I said, some catchy songs.

it's no more one-dimensional than kaputt. they're both albums with a unified voice, theme, set of concerns. nether colors outside those lines all that much, but they both leave a lot of room for exploration within them. and i'm not sure how LES is cliched in ways the destroyer album isn't. one's concerned with war and national identity, the other with romance, alienation and 80s culture. both lean on familiar sounds & conceptions, neither is saying anything terribly novel at heart.

Don't think the Destroyer is cliched at all - don't think its good either though

I mean if you guys are really moved by this album I have this thing called pink floyd's 'the wall', be ready

uh no thanks

i can't really help anyone who thinks lines like "beautiful England, and the grey, damp filthiness of ages, and battered books / fog rolling down behind the mountains / on the graveyards of dead sea captains" are clichés - that's about as ambitious an attempt to sketch a country in a few lines as you get, and it's evocative exactly like a literal sketch would be. she's a great songwriter, always has been - it's pretty interesting to draw comparisons between her previous mostly inward-facing songwriting and her first conscious attempt to put herself entirely outside the action of the songs.

i mean, you're obviously not really interested in it though, so i won't spend time arguing. your loss! i pity you.