Pitchfork gets their wanking hand limbered up for the release of Interpol's next album by jizzing all over the Arcade Fire, yet another Canadian orchestral snooze-rock band in the vein of Broken Social Scene.
Over the past few years, I've found myself increasingly disinterested in pop-oriented indie rock, and the spate of would-be ELO-revivalists, making bombastic, yet utterly dull, symphony-rock is one of the trends that's been most responsible for this lack of caring.
Not that I don't think bands can't successfully work in lush instrumentation. A few that come to mind, who've accomplished this feat, are the aforementioned ELO (at times), the Beatles, the Beach Boys, and more recently, Elliot Smith and Pulp.
Rather, it's that these contemporary bands seem to somehow think that they can compensate for a lack of decent songwriting by adding more instruments. As if throwing in a French Horn or two is going to somehow make up for a song being bland as instant coffee.
Anyhow -- another brief, Pitchfork related item (yes, like most people, I hate them, yet I read them anyway - I've been told that this was the attitude a lot of people had toward Rolling Stone, back when it actually sort of mattered, in the late-60s/early-70s): For once, they actually pay attention to a band worth paying attention to, and even manage to give them a good review.
Initially, when I saw that they were reviewing Gang Gang Dance's album, I assumed that they were going to trash it, given that it doesn't really meet either of the two criteria that merit Pitchfork's approval, those being 1) referencing the "right" bands (for example, a year ago, it was Gang of Four; I'm not really sure who it is at the moment - which I take as a positive development; I welcome any signal that we're moving away from early-millenial retro-itis) or 2) having all the trappings of a "great" album (lush instrumentation, long, complicated songs) - this then forcing their reviewers to give it the thumbs up, no matter how mediocre it in fact is, presumably out of a fear of other critics calling them out for not recognizing said album's "great"-ness (I call this Emperor's New Clothes Syndrome - the aforementioned Arcade Fire album is one example of this; The Fiery Furnaces' album is another).
But, no, they actually lavish it with quite a bit of praise (giving it an almost Trailofdeadian 8.6 rating). Which I'd like to second. From the first time I saw them in January 2003 (I still have the flier even), when they just absolutely floored me, GGD has been one of my favorite bands, and are one of the things I miss most about New York (they are, at least at the moment, somewhat averse to touring). And the thing is, as good as this record is, it's really nothing compared to what they have coming up. I say this because in May, I used my minidisc to record one of their shows, and the CD I made of it has rarely left my stereo in the intervening months. And according to one of the people at their label, the show was a warm-up for a studio session, which should result in a record that'll see the light of day sometime in 2005. So, you know, keep your eyes peeled. God knows when it comes out I'll be blathering about it here.
Here's a link to more music from GGD
Holy shit, I'm so glad I found this entry. I'm a fellow Seattlite. Were you at GGD's show? GOD. Incredible.
What are the chances I could have a listen to (or copy of) your recording of that warm-up set?
Posted by: Nick | January 13, 2006 at 12:55 AM