Savages

would you guys say there is a flight from presentism involved in the hype surrounding this band?

matador records baby, it's their raison d

I can't take Husbands seriously because the chorus sounds so much like Horses by Patti Smith. Along with the Ian Curtis aping - it was an unfortunate way to put yourself out there I thought.

― Hinklepicker, Saturday, May 4, 2013 10:47 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Ok now I can't unhear this.

I've found them a bit lacking in actual tunes. But, you know, there's something attractively astringent about their music.

But the behind-the-scenes stuff surrounding them is very off. John aka Johnny Hostile seems almost Kim Fowleyesque in his manipulativeness and desire for control. Rebecca made mention of that in her Guardian piece, but it was all very WTF last year (I know their ex publicist and ex manager).

the genre overlords allowed post-punk inspired bands in the 90s and early 00s, but this decade is off-limits. Why don't you try your hand at some nice folk rock?

― Fastnbulbous, Sunday, May 5, 2013

There were cynics in the '90s and '00s too.

I listened to the whole album, it's ok but not clicking in a major way yet & I feel like if you're gonna be into this band you prob need to really be into them & I'm just not feeling inclined to make that leap of faith & devotion. Yet. Matt otm; maybe in the autumn it'll make more sense.

Also when you're not in the mood the seriousface stuff is just funny, I mean

coz you have no face
you have no face
you, have, no, face

http://www.bubblegun.com/toons/images/hace1.gif

why the blank expression?

kind of sound like a gothy version of wire, very taut and spare. i like the furrowed-brow intensity of it all but i don't think the songs are really there just yet

even with those catchy riffs and hhoks, this band is too flashy, too formulistic, and too hollow at the end. (to my taste).

like Yeah Yeah Yeahs and Suede, i predict Savages will also have the same future as those bands, for better and for worse

They could do way worse with post-punk influences. Plus, the songs' feminisit narratives are great. I'm rooting for them.

The same future awaits us all nostormo. But yes, this band is crap.

Plus, the songs' feminisit narratives are great.

nu board descrip

puts on dunce cap*

Feminisit brostep

like Yeah Yeah Yeahs and Suede, i predict Savages will also have the same future as those bands, for better and for worse

― nostormo, Monday, May 6, 2013 7:34 AM (5 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

What a tragedy for Savages.

http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/17977-savages-silence-yourself/

i don't get any of the comparisons that are being made here except for scott's xmal-lite which is about as bang on as it gets. the album rules.

Many of the comparisons are right on, I'd say. It's just ok, neither great nor horrible.

It's hard not to play spot-the-influence. The East Bay Ray, Siouxsie, and Joy Division nods jumped out at me. Does it sound good on it's own? Yes, it does to me. Is it an uber-classic? Doubtful. If, like me, you've been rolling around in the post-punk muck for decades, it's going to be hard to be impressed. But I still find bands that draw inspiration from my favorites are fun and occasionally great. I loved the first albums from Yeah Yeah Yeahs, Interpol and some of the other bands in that scene 10 years ago but quickly lost interest. Savages seems like they could go off in some really different directions. Maybe they'll discover The Au Pairs, Essential Logic and Lilliput and really mix things up.

I find it weird that we are already speculating on their career when the first album has been released for less than 24 hours. It is as if people want them to fail, somehow. Is it a reaction to the marketing/hype?

It is as if people want them to fail, somehow.

Ha ha, welcome to ILM/indie rock.

define "fail".

at least in my case, my Suede/Yeah Yeah Yeah's prediction (i'm a prophet btw) means they'll make lots of money and be famous. artisticaly speaking though...

it's like the careful work of an historian who make conclusion based on past events lol

It is as if people want them to fail, somehow. Is it a reaction to the marketing/hype?

― Van Horn Street, Monday, May 6, 2013 8:11 AM (45 minutes ago)

i don't think it's that simple.

hype draws the curious. some may come with a chip on their shoulder, but most don't. a lot of people do, however, tend to evaluate hotly tipped albums in light of their acclaim. "is my beloved dark twisted fantasy really that good? why is everybody losing their shit over it?" these are natural questions. they shouldn't be the primary driver our evaluation, but they inevitably figure in.

that's what's going on here. personally, i like silence yourself. i didn't drop-to-my-knees love it on initial listens, but i like the sound palette, variety of ideas, point of view and intensity. i can see why they've attracted so much attention, and i'm gonna give silence yourself some time to sink in.

they sound fresh, they are well-scrubbed and fashionable, and they have a little pep. makes perfect sense that they would stand out from the dreary crowd. if anything their x factor might even be x-ier than the xx.

the biggest revelation for me is that I have, apparently, subconsciously, always wanted to wanted to make out with a sexy Ian Curtis. it's like discovering late in life that there is furry fandom inside of you. I hope this takes off next Halloween.

I find it weird that we are already speculating on their career when the first album has been released for less than 24 hours.

Pretty sure the next ten years of the band have already been charted out.

And then we'll release a second album that sounds like the first. And then a third that sounds like neither of the other ones, which some will call a misstep and others will hail as a brave new direction. Then our guitarist will leave, but we'll put out a return to form fourth album. And then we'll break up and the singer will go solo. But then the original guitarist will come back and we will reunite, but fail to capture the initial spark and inspiration. And then we'll break up for real and go back to school.

as far as tunes-havingness goes, i think this sort of music often works just fine in the absence of strong melodies or even obvious/conventional hooks. atmosphere, structure and energy can be more than enough. like the way "i am here" finally explodes at the end, with the high whooping vocals over the top. that's awesome. doesn't need much of a tune.

also suspect that politics, gender and gender politics are helping to drive interest - that's a good thing, imo

early favorite = "waiting for a sign". while we're making ridiculous wild guesses, i imagine that's the sound they'll follow.

opening of "she will" always makes my mind jump to "she sells sanctuary"

What's the mixing / mastering like on this?

lol

mixing / mastering is great. vinyl is cut loud.

I kinda wish she her singing voice was closer to her speaking voice on the spiel at the start of "Shut Up". I want it be more shouty.

From that P-fork piece:

They’re certain the venue’s monitor tech didn’t like being told what to do by women. When Savages started performing in early 2012, too many similar experiences persuaded them to employ their own sound team.
“One guy gave us really awful sound, then came and apologized afterwards, saying, ‘Sorry, I didn’t realize you were going to be good,’” says Milton.

Not that it's going to make them feel any better but this is sort of the default setting of every sound guy in world. I'm in a band and this sort of high-hat treatment on the road is not uncommon. I can't tell you how many times a sound guy has gone out his way to be a dick to us while we load in and set up only for them to suddenly want to be our best friends the second we start playing a song during soundcheck (if there is one).

Not saying it isn't fucking annoying or sexiest but being a dude doesn't make it any better.

I do applaud their stance on cell-phones & tweeting & all that, though sadly that's a losing battle I think.

SFJ in the new Yorker proclaims savages greatest rock band of the century.

People seem to be okay with the fact that you can find literally thousands of bands influenced by Chuck Berry, Little Richard, the Stones, Cream, Zeppelin, Free, Sabbath, Lynnyrd, all the way up through White Stripes, but as soon as there's a whiff of anything from the post-punk era, the originality police come out in droves. Look at the comments on the Quietus review. They can grumble all they want and stay at home fondling original editions of Metal Box, but they'll be missing out on some great stuff.

I have experienced this first-hand after creating my own new wave-inspired music. People like to say you are "stuck in the 80s" and not doing anything original or think you are bandwagon-jumping and point out influences which are often incorrect. I started calling my music new wave when I started in 98/99 because it seemed to fill "genuine" punk rock fans with absolute disgust. I always found it baffling.

For my money, the post-punk and new wave era remains one of the most thrilling in all of rock music history, and a nifty propulsive song like "Husbands" still makes me feel really really excited. Have I heard 300 songs that sound similar? Probably. But it's still a really fucking good sound.

word!

I think a lot of big 80's new wave fans are just sensitive like metal and rap fans are when people make fun of those genres. *haha remember the flock of seagulls?* was kind of a normal attitude for a lot of people for a long time and I know that personally I took a LOT of that music very seriously. so, I think that's where that comes from. people never really heard a chuck berry riff or a stones riff coming from a modern band and rolled their eyes and said *lol oh god remember poodle skirts and Eddie Cochran records?* to a lot of people the 80's were a joke! so over the years when you saw people trying on 80's clothes you looked at it with your arms folded a bit. or at least I did. and I think I was justified in a lot of cases in the 90's and beyond cuz a lot of 80's-derived indie stuff was kinda haphazard and not made very well. or at least what I heard of it. and I appreciated the dance music people and goths who I felt carried the torch in a more responsible manner. most of the electroclash and indie retro bands couldn't write a good blancmange song if their lives depended on it let alone a cure song. so, that's where my attitude comes from. savages sound fine to me though. i'm a sucker for the deadpan euro accent and the guitars sound cool to me and the drums and bass are loud. I don't think the songs are great though. they seem almost improvised on the spot. but hey the stones improvised on the spot too so I got no problem with that.

(though post punk music is obviously taken more seriously by SERIOUS people than new wave is. its rockier, so rock fans can can safely like it. but my point still stands about the 80's stuff.)

it's loud, scik

ahh glad they're getting some hype! nico and camille were using what is now my synth room as their studio when i first moved to london, cool people, very hard working, very focussed, more so than any other musicians i've met here. kinda cool to see that kind of dedication actually work out.

used to enjoy hearing savages practice here too. they had very serious / productive practices.

each time my gf and i discuss savages i've always been like "they'll never get anywhere, sound is too derivative, critics like the ilm lot will rip it apart" where my gf has always been "nah cammy and nico know what they're doing just you watch, they'll be huge"

I am hoping that CREEP decides to do a single with Jehnny Beth

lol dan that's like some inevitable prophecy

ha I hope so! I could just as easily see them swinging towards Kirsty Hawkshaw (yay!) and Kelli Ali (yay?)

so what's up?! do we like the album?

I fucking love the album (shocker)

The only record store near my job is Best Buy and they don't have it.

Predictable comment from Turrican coming up...

...I love this band, and this album :)

I love this record.