So, Fleet Foxes...

See, in the old days you had, say, a Buffalo Springfield album, and all you got was maybe a picture of the band on the front and another on the back plus personnel details, track listing and other relevant credits and you had to work the rest out for yourself instead of being spoonfed.

That's not entirely true, Marcello, is it? If anything you get less info on record sleeves these days cos it';s all on fucking Facebook.

CD packaging is pathetic these days. All you get is a picture of the artist on the front and maybe another on the back plus track listings, personnel details (if you're lucky) and other relevant credits (not always) and so you have to work the rest out for yourself instead of being given proper information what you've paid your hard earned £16 for innit.

Elbow do everything Coldplay do but with a better singer, better lyrics, better rhythms, more interesting songs, a wider emotional palette, a better guitarist and less grade 1 piano.

And more imaginative/adventurous arrangements/production, greater emotional acuity and honesty, a sense of genuine rather than ersatz connection with their listeners, a total lack of pomposity... I could go on!

Oh Mike, btw, I think you might dig the Shearwater album if you've not already heard it.

Just playing "Red Sea, Black Sea" now. Hmm, starts off like Richard Thompson, and then it all expands outwards and kind of goes WAAAA! Yes, not bad at all.

As for Grizzly Bear: I didn't like that Crystals cover at all, sorry. But hark, what's this... "Knife"... ooh, much more like it...

Rook is some pretty awesome, folk-rock-ambient shit.

Okay, this is the new one, yes? It's on eMusic. I'll investigate.

Nope, I can't get with endlessly played on R2 because he's a DJ on 6Music glumdar 1974-style soft rock The Fortunes if they'd lost a fortune Ovaltine-inciting peddlers of dribbling Harvester schmindie Phil and Kirstie-approved mock-pop Elbow.

First album was quite good, though.

Well, you have to put "Grounds For Divorce" and "One Day Like This" within the context (i.e. loss and love) slash hem-hem Emotional Arc of the album innit. Try "Starlings" and "The Bones Of You" instead?

I have no tolerance of "Grounds For Divorce," even when it was originally recorded by the Levellers under the title "Just The One."

I really want to like a band that can actually, truly sing. But I'm not sure about these guys.

Funny, I really like Grizzly Bear but it never occurred to me to make the comparison. Mostly it just seems very Shins-like but without the hooks and with a folkier, more pastoral feel.

And of course it was Fleet Foxes who supported Elbow at the RFH a couple of nights ago, as part of Massive Attack's Meltdown. (<a href="http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/music/2008/06/meltdown_fleet_foxes_vs_elbow.html";>Guardian review is here</a>.) Ooh look, a Judee Sill cover!

Just playing the album for the third (or maybe fourth) time, and really feeling it right now. Beatific, yes. "White Water Hymnal", GOD yes. But then soppy beatific pastoralism does go quite a long way with me...

Bloody BBcode...

I enjoy this band. They were really great live. Spot-on harmonies and a great handle on dynamics.

But I snickered when I saw someone call them Crosby Shins Nash and Young.

No 8 in the midweeks.

This is terrible music

The METASCORE for this disc is 88/100 on 25 reviews. Apparently, the ILXSCORE for this disc is somewhere around 32/100 on around 30 reviews.

with a slight diffrence in the scores, you could post yr post on 99% of the (good) indie records thread in ilx.

thouugh, at least in this case, im with ilx.
easy come,easy go, this record.

This sounds like an American version of Cast.

You're mental.

I like it, personally. A bit overhyped, but seriously - that shouldn't matter. People are a bit quick to hate on overhyped bands that are actually pretty good - form your own damn opinions.

Anyway, this is what I thought Grizzly Bear were going to be like when I first heard "Knife." Then Grizzly Bear put me to sleep with every other fucking song. I like these guys. And I don't even like the Beach Boys either, per many opinions above.

grizzly bear's yellow house is pretty amazing. so is fleet fox's e.p. this album, though, snooze

The METASCORE for this disc is 88/100 on 25 reviews. Apparently, the ILXSCORE for this disc is somewhere around 32/100 on around 30 reviews.

Someone should really set up a program or app so we can do this.

I seriously do not get how someone could go for the EP but not the album, it's not like there's any sudden stylistic variation or drop-off in quality. If you swapped the EP tracks with any tracks on the album neither would be qualitatively altered for the worse or the better.

I've also still seen no hype about these guys which I guess helps.

I'm sick of Beach Boys affectations. I want people to affect you know uhhhh, something else. I don't know, what's there left to affect?

I don't like The Beach Boys much. I like these guys. I don't think they sound like The Beach Boys that much.

I haven't heard them, but the only thing I read about them involves the Beach Boys

nick, to my ears, the e.p. has more dynamic songs. the album is slower and more meditative. i get sick of it after a while. disappointment plays a part. also, i think they sound more like my morning jacket and band of horses than the beach boys

"If Assholes.." is right, this shit is awful.

skygreenleopard? were/are you in the band Sky Green Leopards...?

Metacritic is not a good gauge of quality at all, either in movies or music. The best music and movies, in my opinion, are typically highly polarizing and would have scores of between 60 and 80. Seriously, look up your favorite albums in there and I bet you'd find them in that section and not in the shitty 85+ section, where most everything's this "acceptable" rock shite that doesn't really offend anyone and doesn't push any sort of boundaries. The high scoring stuff is almost uniformly made up of boring "critical faves" that no one actually likes in a really passionate way.

Metacritic is not a good gauge of quality at all

Actually, what I meant was that a high score is not a good gauge of quality

rock shite that doesn't really offend anyone and doesn't push any sort of boundaries

why is it important for music to offend anyone and/or push boundaries?

I mean that's some seriously "rockist", received wisdom type of crap about the "purpose" of music

res kind of OTM, RECORDED music should always attempt to push boundaries, live music should instil a fucking mood. and most high-scoring Metacritic albums are kinda shite

RECORDED music should always attempt to push boundaries

but... why? To a certain extent, boundaries are inevitably pushed by technology and the passage of time, no artistic/aesthetic input is really necessary. One could note that the advent of digital technology has "pushed the boundaries" - but one could also argue that its enabling of dynamic range compression has been incredibly detrimental to recorded music in general.

also what are these boundaries... are they aesthetic or technological? (the latter will happen inevitably as I've noted, the former begs the question of who establishes those boundaries and what is the point of their constantly being moved)

aesthetic, dude. technology can help with this but it doesn't have to. i just don't think people should record shit that's already been done.

what qualifies as "already been done" (for example, see memphis minnie vs. Zep "When the Levee Breaks" on the LZ IV poll thread, etc.)

do you only enjoy like 1 album a year then louis?

NO RULES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

my point is that most people record shit that's "already been done" in one sense or another. Even so, the combination of changes in recording technology and any given artist's personal foibles inevitably make any ostensible "copying" kinda impossible, unless yr talking note-for-note slavish traditionalism like the Squirrel Nut Zippers or Combustible Edison or something. Even then I think there's something to be said for such cases where those kinds of artists help to keep a given thread of musical tradition alive, which can be a virtue in itself.

I think the only real instances where doing something that's "already been done" gets out of hand and inevitably produces unsatisfying results is when you have bands trying to actively ape their contemporaries (like with, say, She Wants Revenge basically doing Interpol) - but in those cases it has more to do with the copier being lazy craftsmen rather than their taking an inherently bad approach. She Wants Revenge might be better than Interpol at their own schtick if they happened to write better songs (which they don't).

What I meant was that high scored records on Metacritic are typically inoffensive and cater to pre-existing notions of what music should be-- which is how so many critics all agree on it-- and great music rarely re-treads old ground. Not saying that everything coming out should warp all your expectations, but originality is a virtue, and music that pleases everyone isn't usually the stuff that greatness is made of. Just my opinion.

pre-existing notions like "music must push boundaries" (just like, say, "Sgt Pepper" or "Kid A" "pushed boundaries"? lolz)

having a pre-existing notion doesn't automatically invalidate it.

anyway as I've gotten older the entire concept of "originality" increasingly seems completely unrealistic/irrelevant to me. Everything is part of a continuity and inevitably has precursors and reference points - an artist being identified as "original" usually just means the listener can't identify who the artist in question is drawing from.

x-post

having a pre-existing notion doesn't automatically invalidate it.

well then why did you refer to it as a negative? also why should music be offensive and who should it offend

originality doesn't mean not drawing on anyone else-- it's more like having a unique quality that impresses itself on you in a positive way and which can't be confused for anyone else.

well then why did you refer to it as a negative? also why should music be offensive and who should it offend

Your rebuttal is creating a straw man that I'm not arguing. It's not the expectations or pre-conceived notions by themselves that are bad. It's when they are applied over a large scale by our interpretation of dozens of critics with different tastes-- and how we look to an averaged score of reviews to assess how good an album is. To me, this implies a middling effect over the large scale.

I would say it's more akin to, say, how mediocre politicians are given frontrunner status because they appeal to the widest demographic of people. This, of course, does not make them the ideal candidates. But over the large scale, the most people liked them.

"also why should music be offensive and who should it offend"

Does It Offend You, Yeah?

(sorry about that)

I love this album.

otm

My second favorite track might be "A Long Way Past the Past".

Back to Crack-Up for the past couple of days and have just now put on Shore for the first time in several months. Crack-Up makes a lot more sense (and sounds better) in retrospect, but wow Shore really is a damn fine record. I've always understood their records to be the kind that will most likely get better with time and Shore definitely feels like another one of those. He really is mining that late 60s Capitol studio vibe for all it's worth and I absolutely love it. Not sure if I'd consider it their single best album, but it's definitely in contention.

For sure, Shore is great
I can never revisit enough

Missed this. Wish there was more with the choir. The albums have become such huge productions that I've forgotten how good of a guitarist he is. Nothing revelatory, but still quite nice.