The Album Review Club - Week #191 (page 1286) - Harlequin Dream - Boy & Bear

FogBlueInSanFran said:
Brilliant review. The 16th note, Modern Age as the stand-in for all, the tension-release dynamic (so important in so many of the records I love the most) — even if you didn’t like it, you as usual hit on the key dynamics that drive it.
Click to expand...
If you think I didn't like it then I wrote my review poorly (or im misreading your reply). I think it's brilliant
 
Mr Grumpy said:
Regardless of my better half's better judgement, I continue to stand behind my firm opinion of W Houston that she cannot in fact "sing" by any definition of the word. Her vocal talents are nothing more than those that all women are born with, namely, yelling loudly, constantly and without taking a fucking breath.
Click to expand...
whilst I can agree to some extent about 'some' women. There are others that that can actually hold a tune. I personally dislike Whitney's pyrotechnic vocal ability but would never tar 100% of her fellow sex with the same brush.
Billie, Ella, Aretha, Dionne, Dusty, Carol, Joni, Kate, Rhiannon and Amy.....say howdy/hi.
 
Saddleworth2 said:
whilst I can agree to some extent about 'some' women. There are others that that can actually hold a tune. I personally dislike Whitney's pyrotechnic vocal ability but would never tar 100% of her fellow sex with the same brush.
Billie, Ella, Aretha, Dionne, Dusty, Carol, Joni, Kate, Rhiannon and Amy.....say howdy/hi.
Click to expand...
And Phoebe Snow :)
 
First listen and I'm enjoying it. The only thing I can't quite compute is the importance/genre defining bit. Not a criticism of it, I just don't get why it's seen as so influential. It's does lots of things well but they don't strike me as things that are innovative as such unless (almost certainly) I'm missing something? Is it basically because some of the things they do were a bit out of fashion at the point this was released?
 
FogBlueInSanFran said:
Incidentally, re musicianship, I would argue The Strokes' bass player Nikolai Fraiture is quite talented.
Click to expand...
Is he the greatest bass player ever in the history of bass playing, probably not. Is AH Jr the the most wonderful axsman, again, probably not. The thing I’ve always liked about The Strokes is their ability across the board to do the simple stuff incredibly well and with enough flair to drag you in and not let go.
Is This It is a good example of why Nikolai Fraiture is “quite talented” - what an opener to a debut album (scratches chin for another music thread idea…..)
 
threespires said:
First listen and I'm enjoying it. The only thing I can't quite compute is the importance/genre defining bit. Not a criticism of it, I just don't get why it's seen as so influential. It's does lots of things well but they don't strike me as things that are innovative as such unless (almost certainly) I'm missing something? Is it basically because some of the things they do were a bit out of fashion at the point this was released?
Click to expand...
I guess when I look back at 2000/2001 its a bit of a desert music wise (to me). Legend has it that The Strokes re-invented rock by pairing it to low-fi stripped back simply produced music. I think it's as much as they were seen as "very cool". (@mrbelfry got that spot on in his excellent review) and appealed to the skinny jeaned, leather jacketed, NY oriented segment at that time. That's not to say this is a bad album, quite the reverse its pretty good. But its difficult to see from where I stand today why this was the NME album of the year and tops many many lists as the best album of 2001. Then you look at the competition...
 
Saddleworth2 said:
I guess when I look back at 2000/2001 its a bit of a desert music wise (to me). Legend has it that The Strokes re-invented rock by pairing it to low-fi stripped back simply produced music. I think it's as much as they were seen as "very cool". (@mrbelfry got that spot on in his excellent review) and appealed to the skinny jeaned, leather jacketed, NY oriented segment at that time. That's not to say this is a bad album, quite the reverse its pretty good. But its difficult to see from where I stand today why this was the NME album of the year and tops many many lists as the best album of 2001. Then you look at the competition...
Click to expand...
For me it's a couple of things
1) its not hard work. The album isn't complicated like Radiohead or esoteric like how guitar music was going. It is just guys playing guitars and not about depression or anxiety.
2) its pleasant. Nothing is too loud, dissonant or aggressive.
3) I'd have to check so I may be wildly wrong and I'm repeating myself. It's the 16th notes - no one else was playing them like the Strokes so would have immediately sounded different. It's pretty hard to do this because a) musicians get bored and b) it is tiring
4) its not stadium ready. Everyone was trying to play stadiums or castles in the late nineties. Everything was bloated. The Strokes could play in your house
5) 10 years earlier most people my age had been teenagers and seen the Ramones on the Simpsons. If you were cool you had a Ramones t-shirt. You probably never heard the Ramones though as you'd still be buying music at the point. The Strokes filled a space we didn't even know was there
 
Saddleworth2 said:
I guess when I look back at 2000/2001 its a bit of a desert music wise (to me). Legend has it that The Strokes re-invented rock by pairing it to low-fi stripped back simply produced music. I think it's as much as they were seen as "very cool". (@mrbelfry got that spot on in his excellent review) and appealed to the skinny jeaned, leather jacketed, NY oriented segment at that time. That's not to say this is a bad album, quite the reverse its pretty good. But its difficult to see from where I stand today why this was the NME album of the year and tops many many lists as the best album of 2001. Then you look at the competition...
Click to expand...

I've just had a quick look and relatively slim pickings that year. In the same way it's hardly Pete Sampras's fault he didn't play in a time of giants it's not their fault the competition was Nickelback.

Coatigan said:
First (re) listen on my morning commute, after what must be 20 years since I last heard it.

Now stuck trying to work out whether it is the album, or me, that hasn't aged too well :(
Click to expand...

It's not them it's you :-)

Personally, I've long since resigned myself to the fact that musically I'm becoming my Dad. The only remaining question is whether I continue down the exasperated sigh route he maintained or do I go full tilt old man shouts at clouds?

I can even remember when the process started for me and it must have been round about the time of this album because I was taken to see Interpol and it would be fair to say for me they didn't live up to the hype and in the space of an hour I morphed into my Dad.

Now I find myself listening to the baselines on this and thinking they're nice but nothing that the likes of Rocco Prestia would get excited about. So I took myself off to the bathroom to shout in the mirror "you're missing the point Dad" and the increasingly lined face smiled back at me but he resisted the temptation to say "if you say so, Son".which I suppose is something.

Fortunately I have no baggage to contend with on this pick so though there's nothing astonishing about it I can find it pretty enjoyable. Envisaging them with sensible middle aged hair is helping too, but once again I think Dad is missing the point.
 
Last edited:
mrbelfry said:
For me it's a couple of things
1) its not hard work. The album isn't complicated like Radiohead or esoteric like how guitar music was going. It is just guys playing guitars and not about depression or anxiety.
2) its pleasant. Nothing is too loud, dissonant or aggressive.
3) I'd have to check so I may be wildly wrong and I'm repeating myself. It's the 16th notes - no one else was playing them like the Strokes so would have immediately sounded different. It's pretty hard to do this because a) musicians get bored and b) it is tiring
4) its not stadium ready. Everyone was trying to play stadiums or castles in the late nineties. Everything was bloated. The Strokes could play in your house
5) 10 years earlier most people my age had been teenagers and seen the Ramones on the Simpsons. If you were cool you had a Ramones t-shirt. You probably never heard the Ramones though as you'd still be buying music at the point. The Strokes filled a space we didn't even know was there
Click to expand...

Thank you for that very clear explanation of why it was so well received which makes perfect sense and is a lot clearer than some of the tosh I had a quick flick through last night justifying this albums pre-eminence. Your last sentence makes total sense and I guess ultimately is just repeated in cycles across generations.

This pick has got me thinking about albums or music that on first listen left me astonished but that's probably for another thread.
 
Consulting my list of favourite 100 albums or so, there are none from 2001 (although a couple from 2000 and a massive 4 from 2002).

I also notice that Is This It is the top album for 2001 on the https://www.besteveralbums.com/ website.
The competition is nothing I'd ever listen to so again, probably says more about me than the album.

A note that I've made in my in-progress review: Whether they were something new, or at least new for the decade, or were just a variant of what else was going on at the time will be interesting to listen out for on the Rock Evolution thread as we move through the late 90s.
 
Streamed from YTM via headphones(HD650)/amp/dac.

"Is this it?"

Such an apt title for the album.

I vaguely remember "Last night" from a few decades ago. This song and the band disappeared from my lugholes not long after they appeared. On startup of the album and the lead track, i was instantly transported back, Which was my 1st disappointment. I didn't expect Song 1 to be a facsimile of song 7 and not so obviously as I'd last heard "Last night" yonks ago.

As i got through track 1, i had to pause and check my equipment. Was a cable loose? Were my headphones broken? No, the track is recorded in low resolution on purpose. Ah well, lets see what happens on track two...

Track 2, more of the same. In fact the whole album is recorded in the same manner.
I say "recorded", and i know it was likely on purpose to give it a grunge edge, but fuck me, this is the worst sounding recording I've ever heard. Demo tapes would put it to shame. It is a mastering that is only fit for a greasy cafe transistor radio.
On completion of song 1, it is obvious why this has been recorded in this way. The band is crap and the singer can't sing. It is a 2K version of autotune.

I put that to one side, and tried to move on however the shit recording just ruined everything about this album. Really, it is an album to hear, not to listen to. The side effect of this sonic massacring is that everything sounds the same and the words get lost in a fuzz of microphone overdrive and deadspace. The second track "modern age" tried to mix it up by doing the beetles mono-mike thing but just ruined that with as much professionalism as it was doing to the recording.

Driving forward, straining for something to pull its foot out of this audio mudbath, "Barely legal" pops up. The 1st song that actually got my attention but as quick as it rose out of the quagmire, it was pulled back in again. Shame, i think this one had potential.

"Last night" drove past, belching its audio smoke and smog in exactly the same way the other previous songs had. It all began to meld into a soup of sameness.

"hard to explain" woke me up, finally a bass drum you could pick out from the rock n roll droning. But then that two was sucked into the grey fuzz of mastering tragedy.

Not much else to report on the way to the end of the album. rinse repeat.

Personally, this album should have been left in its grave to rest in peace.
What little promise it had (Some rhythms, verses, etc) were just drowned out by the mastering, which in itself was a consequence of the band just not being very good.

It is a recording fit only for the Saturday market £4.99p single speaker transistor radio that your grandad would have used for listening to the city commentary in the kitchen on a Saturday afternoon. It would be lost an onything of more merit. It is genuinely, the worst sounding recording I've ever listened to.

I can just hear the album's record exec putting this on in his car stereo cassette player, on the way home, to listen to the final cut before its release.

"Is this it?"

2/10.

1 point for being short
1 point for being so bad i had to listen to it all.
 
RobMCFC said:
Consulting my list of favourite 100 albums or so, there are none from 2001 (although a couple from 2000 and a massive 4 from 2002).

I also notice that Is This It is the top album for 2001 on the https://www.besteveralbums.com/ website.
The competition is nothing I'd ever listen to so again, probably says more about me than the album.

A note that I've made in my in-progress review: Whether they were something new, or at least new for the decade, or were just a variant of what else was going on at the time will be interesting to listen out for on the Rock Evolution thread as we move through the late 90s.
Click to expand...

I think the context of an album should always cover at least a year either side of it. Music takes time to write, record and release, and then reach an audience particularly as a debut. So while it is obvious to compare it to albums only of that year, I think it is fair to compare it to 'the early teenies' as I did previously.

2001 was hardly a wasteland either way, there were some great albums out. Fugazi, Tool, JeW's Bleed American, SoD's Toxicity, Muse's origin of symmetry, Tenacious D debut, all were grrat albums that year. None really comparable, but even with this type of niche 'indie' pivot, Elbow and The Shins had their debuts, Travis were actually good back then, the Beta Band had their second album, so there was a lot going on. I think it is a disservice to this album to try portray it as 'the best of a bad bunch', as that's hardly true, but also it had qualities of its own.

I think if anything, the roughly simultaneous emergance of bands like Interpol, Doves, Block Party and other such 'simplified', 'lads with guitars' style bands, made this feel too quickly superceded. At least I felt that at the time. Might see how they have all aged, and that might tell me whether it really IS maybe me.
 
threespires said:
Thank you for that very clear explanation of why it was so well received which makes perfect sense and is a lot clearer than some of the tosh I had a quick flick through last night justifying this albums pre-eminence. Your last sentence makes total sense and I guess ultimately is just repeated in cycles across generations.

This pick has got me thinking about albums or music that on first listen left me astonished but that's probably for another thread.
Click to expand...
It's probably a little reductive and took about 5 minutes of thought so please apply a large pinch of salt. I'm not sure how triggering the Ramones comment will be for @FogBlueInSanFran
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top