to close the thought on the trail of the dead, i think that their first six records could be definitively condensed into a 2-cd 'greatest hits' record without losing anything substantial. over that period, they produced about two hours or so of substantial, creative rock music. furthermore, that 2-cd set would be an epic, sweeping work that would rank amongst the best things produced so far this century. unfortunately, i'd likely disagree with the decisions made by the record company. yet, such a thing is deeply unlikely anyways, as they jumped around from label to label too often to make it feasible. i'm going to post them separately as youtube playlists.
cd1 - s/t, madonna, source tags & codes, world's apart (1998-2005)
1) richter scale madness (3:45)
2) novena without faith (8:24)
3) prince with a thousand enemies (3:59)
4) ounce of prevention (3:17)
5) mistakes and regrets (3:46)
6) totally natural (4:16)
7) blight takes all (4:44)
8) aged dolls (7:18)
9) invocation / it was there that i saw you (5:33)
10) another morning stoner (4:34)
11) how near how far (4:00)
12) heart in the hand of the matter (4:48)
13) monsoon (5:54)
14) ode to isis / will you smile again (8:16)
(you could maybe cut out the 'fuck you' right here)
15) the summer of '91 (3:12)
16) rest will follow (3:20)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olG2qXPkmEg&list=PL7B295036934DCABA&feature=plpp_play_all
cd2 - worlds apart, so divided, the century of self (2005-2009)
1) a classic arts showcase (5:47)
2) all white (1:50)
3) the best (4:48)
4) the lost city of refuge (3:52)
5) stand in silence (4:35)
6) wasted state of mind (5:27)
7) so divided (6:30)
8) life (5:59)
9) segue / sunken dreams (7:25)
10) giants causeway (2:39)
11) far pavillions (4:54)
12) isis unveiled (6:27)
13) halcyon days (6:36)
14) bells of creation (5:24)
15) fields of coal (3:42)
16) inland sea (4:09)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZG6WHF-ZXo&list=PLF3560CDDB0729443&feature=plpp_play_all
Monday, December 3, 2012
(this is from february, 2012)
Strong Effort (4/5)
yes. seriously.
i'll remind you again that i felt totally beyond rock music in the early 2000s. i was still listening to a few 90s rock bands like tool, the smashing pumpkins and weezer but my favourite records in 2002 were the most recent offerings from acts like do make say think, gybe!, tortoise and labradford. if you were to ask me about the trail of the dead, i would have said something about nu-metal sucking. nor did i have time for vacuous trendy stupidity like the strokes.
in time, though, the trail of the dead slowly seeped in. i began to develop a sort of muted admiration for them, without ever being able to get into anything they produced. stop the presses: i'm actually of the opinion that each record since their over-rated melodically challenged 2002 'classic' has been a step forward for the band. towards what? well, something substantial. what? i don't know. it never really seemed clear where they were going, only that they weren't using what they had in front of them very effectively.
even in 2002, they had the roar. they had the intensity, the passion, the emotion. what they never had going for them were *songs*. nor where they able to jam very well. if you were to analyze their work as existing in the post-rock sphere, you'd have to write it off as excessively lame. the drums were there, but the melodies weren't. if you were to analyze it as alternative rock, you'd have to write it off as excessively lame. no solos, no riffs; what's the use in that? i suppose it worked alright as emo, but fuck emo. slowly, though, they got better, coming to a turning point in 2009 and crossing the divide with this record, finally, in 2011. yes, i'm going to say it: this is their first substantial disc. it's also the first one not to chart in a long time...
the disc doesn't deviate substantially from their past work, or at least it would seem like it doesn't on first listen. however, if you listen to their first record and then this one you'll hear a massively improved band on this disc. see, though, that's sort of the point; it's a long, slow evolutionary process that's finally come into fruition here.
the difference is that these songs are simply better, regardless of what angle they're approached from: attention, detail, intensity, theatre, scope, coherence, continuity. the record is also largely free from the kinds of radio hits and aimless pretentious nonsense that dragged down some of their earlier records.
so, if you were always kinda iffy on these guys but always thought they had the potential to be better, you may want to check this out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xk4v-W1_cEs
Strong Effort (4/5)
yes. seriously.
i'll remind you again that i felt totally beyond rock music in the early 2000s. i was still listening to a few 90s rock bands like tool, the smashing pumpkins and weezer but my favourite records in 2002 were the most recent offerings from acts like do make say think, gybe!, tortoise and labradford. if you were to ask me about the trail of the dead, i would have said something about nu-metal sucking. nor did i have time for vacuous trendy stupidity like the strokes.
in time, though, the trail of the dead slowly seeped in. i began to develop a sort of muted admiration for them, without ever being able to get into anything they produced. stop the presses: i'm actually of the opinion that each record since their over-rated melodically challenged 2002 'classic' has been a step forward for the band. towards what? well, something substantial. what? i don't know. it never really seemed clear where they were going, only that they weren't using what they had in front of them very effectively.
even in 2002, they had the roar. they had the intensity, the passion, the emotion. what they never had going for them were *songs*. nor where they able to jam very well. if you were to analyze their work as existing in the post-rock sphere, you'd have to write it off as excessively lame. the drums were there, but the melodies weren't. if you were to analyze it as alternative rock, you'd have to write it off as excessively lame. no solos, no riffs; what's the use in that? i suppose it worked alright as emo, but fuck emo. slowly, though, they got better, coming to a turning point in 2009 and crossing the divide with this record, finally, in 2011. yes, i'm going to say it: this is their first substantial disc. it's also the first one not to chart in a long time...
the disc doesn't deviate substantially from their past work, or at least it would seem like it doesn't on first listen. however, if you listen to their first record and then this one you'll hear a massively improved band on this disc. see, though, that's sort of the point; it's a long, slow evolutionary process that's finally come into fruition here.
the difference is that these songs are simply better, regardless of what angle they're approached from: attention, detail, intensity, theatre, scope, coherence, continuity. the record is also largely free from the kinds of radio hits and aimless pretentious nonsense that dragged down some of their earlier records.
so, if you were always kinda iffy on these guys but always thought they had the potential to be better, you may want to check this out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xk4v-W1_cEs
Listenable (3.5/5)
so, i'm still not breaking them into the echelon. however, i need to acknowledge a higher level of maturity here.
it's not really as though we can talk about returns as the trail of dead always split their records up between loud and quiet tracks. nor is the disc void of quiet tracks. however, the ratio has shifted more towards the louder material, which i'm sure pleased some fans.
personally, to me, the issue is never going to be whether or not the record is quiet or loud but whether it's creative or not and whether it's enjoyable or not. while this disc is louder, i have to admit that i'm missing the abstract songwriting that punctuated - which means jumped up at points rather than defined or saturated - the previous two. the drumming's solid, and the builds are big, and the guitars are raunchy, but there's not really any studio tricks or flat out weirdness to trip out into.
that being said, i think this is also an improvement, as a record, over their earlier stuff. it's a much more even disc, in the sense that there really aren't any brutal must-skip tracks. yet, the highs aren't quite what they were, either. please note that the grading is based on the disc as a whole rather than the strength of individual tracks on the record; this may not have any single track that is as groovy as another morning stoner, but the record as a whole is more consistent.
so, while i might be running the risk of getting mail bombed for this, i have to think of this as them closing the thought on their early period, and putting together a number of extrapolated loose ends that may have eluded them then, all in the goal of producing the disc that they really wanted to produce but didn't before they move on. whether they managed to accomplish that is another question, one that will probably mostly be answered in the negative.
http://grooveshark.com/#!/album/The+Century+Of+Self/3067030
so, i'm still not breaking them into the echelon. however, i need to acknowledge a higher level of maturity here.
it's not really as though we can talk about returns as the trail of dead always split their records up between loud and quiet tracks. nor is the disc void of quiet tracks. however, the ratio has shifted more towards the louder material, which i'm sure pleased some fans.
personally, to me, the issue is never going to be whether or not the record is quiet or loud but whether it's creative or not and whether it's enjoyable or not. while this disc is louder, i have to admit that i'm missing the abstract songwriting that punctuated - which means jumped up at points rather than defined or saturated - the previous two. the drumming's solid, and the builds are big, and the guitars are raunchy, but there's not really any studio tricks or flat out weirdness to trip out into.
that being said, i think this is also an improvement, as a record, over their earlier stuff. it's a much more even disc, in the sense that there really aren't any brutal must-skip tracks. yet, the highs aren't quite what they were, either. please note that the grading is based on the disc as a whole rather than the strength of individual tracks on the record; this may not have any single track that is as groovy as another morning stoner, but the record as a whole is more consistent.
so, while i might be running the risk of getting mail bombed for this, i have to think of this as them closing the thought on their early period, and putting together a number of extrapolated loose ends that may have eluded them then, all in the goal of producing the disc that they really wanted to produce but didn't before they move on. whether they managed to accomplish that is another question, one that will probably mostly be answered in the negative.
http://grooveshark.com/#!/album/The+Century+Of+Self/3067030
Listenable (3.5/5)
on the first few listens, the disc actually comes off really well. sure, it's front-loaded, but that's expected. and, there are a couple of really awful songs, but that's also expected. one of the more startling things that is noticed on first listen is the change in the singer. all of a sudden, he sounds like perry farrell - a pretty heavy curveball. he even had a dad, apparently. but, seriously, there's a big change in confidence here, and a lot of technical improvement, meaning that it may no longer be fair to hit him on his vocals. good for him.
the second track, the one after the pointless introduction, modulates between a farrell-emulating rockout and a pastoral section that sounds indebted to mid 70s mike oldfield. the third track merges 60s jangle and psych pop with a menacing, almost thirlwellian, piano riff and some african percussion, eventually fading out into some accordion playing. sounds like erratic, abstract pop, right? fun? eh?
well, the quality falls off at track four and the fifth is just as bad. it picks up a bit, but....
while the first couple of tracks hold up better than the rest of the disc, the disc as a whole really *does* lack a certain sense of urgency and, as a result, becomes a rather disengaged listen. the disc meanders along in a sort of a haze, refusing to define itself as much of anything one way or the other. but, on repeated listens, that disengagement all of a sudden makes sense. the pitchfork reviews have talked about this point. it's an excellent observation. being disengaged is taboo in indie rock; it's a massive insult. yet, it ought not to be. if you're not engaged, you're not engaged; art works with real feelings, not manufactured ones. i'd rather hear an expression of that disengagement than a manufactured connection. perhaps that may turn people off, but not everything is for everyone.
ironically, once you recognize just how disengaged the band is from the process, the disengagement becomes engaging - it's the disengagement itself that becomes the emotionally compelling content of the disc.
radiohead. yeah, that should shut you up.
i'd like to give the disc a higher mark, but the songwriting is admittedly weak at points.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q19nTsKF3LI
on the first few listens, the disc actually comes off really well. sure, it's front-loaded, but that's expected. and, there are a couple of really awful songs, but that's also expected. one of the more startling things that is noticed on first listen is the change in the singer. all of a sudden, he sounds like perry farrell - a pretty heavy curveball. he even had a dad, apparently. but, seriously, there's a big change in confidence here, and a lot of technical improvement, meaning that it may no longer be fair to hit him on his vocals. good for him.
the second track, the one after the pointless introduction, modulates between a farrell-emulating rockout and a pastoral section that sounds indebted to mid 70s mike oldfield. the third track merges 60s jangle and psych pop with a menacing, almost thirlwellian, piano riff and some african percussion, eventually fading out into some accordion playing. sounds like erratic, abstract pop, right? fun? eh?
well, the quality falls off at track four and the fifth is just as bad. it picks up a bit, but....
while the first couple of tracks hold up better than the rest of the disc, the disc as a whole really *does* lack a certain sense of urgency and, as a result, becomes a rather disengaged listen. the disc meanders along in a sort of a haze, refusing to define itself as much of anything one way or the other. but, on repeated listens, that disengagement all of a sudden makes sense. the pitchfork reviews have talked about this point. it's an excellent observation. being disengaged is taboo in indie rock; it's a massive insult. yet, it ought not to be. if you're not engaged, you're not engaged; art works with real feelings, not manufactured ones. i'd rather hear an expression of that disengagement than a manufactured connection. perhaps that may turn people off, but not everything is for everyone.
ironically, once you recognize just how disengaged the band is from the process, the disengagement becomes engaging - it's the disengagement itself that becomes the emotionally compelling content of the disc.
radiohead. yeah, that should shut you up.
i'd like to give the disc a higher mark, but the songwriting is admittedly weak at points.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q19nTsKF3LI
Listenable (3.5/5)
so, is the opening track proof that selling your soul for success doesn't work?
yes, i'm ranking this higher than source tags. in fact, i'm going to rank everything since then higher than source tags. like it or not, this is the first record that represents an attempt at a characteristic sound, meaning it's really reasonably acknowledged as their first record. you can love source tags if you really want, but you can't deny that it's not in any way a creative record, nor was anything before it. take a little sonic youth, a little pumpkins, a little nirvana, a little radiohead, a little explosions...it was a constant cut+paste job, with essentially no innovation. you might hear a sense of immediacy that i don't, but that's probably because you're comparing it to radio rock and i'm comparing it to gybe! and sonic youth. if you want immediacy and passion from 2002, check that out. you'll throw your precious source tags out the fucking window as commercialized radio-directed tripe.
so, yes. i'm going to claim that the trail of the dead took an artistic turn after source codes and it's philistine audience wasn't able to pull the shit out of it's ears for long enough to acknowledge it. mad yet? good. go in the corner and cry with your favourite emo band.
so, the shift is for the better, then. next question: did they manage to accomplish what they set out to accomplish? well, no. not even close.
however, there are few glaring missteps. true, the title track shouldn't exist. russia is not my homeland, and the whole idea of including that track with that title deserves a healthy wtf? yes, it's front loaded. but, besides that, this is a decent abstract pop record that can be enjoyed more or less from start to finish without cringing, and that's something that can't be said for any of their previous output.
overall, this places the disc as a transition record into the string of records that, for better or worse, will define the trail of dead as an independent entity unto itself rather than a substandard post-mortem adjoin to the alternative rock movement. gone, thankfully, are the excursions into rank screamo. it might not be perfect, in fact it's not even that good, but it *is* a step in a more creative direction.
so, this is not where they end but where they begin.
sorry, kids.
http://grooveshark.com/#!/album/Worlds+Apart/1244875
so, is the opening track proof that selling your soul for success doesn't work?
yes, i'm ranking this higher than source tags. in fact, i'm going to rank everything since then higher than source tags. like it or not, this is the first record that represents an attempt at a characteristic sound, meaning it's really reasonably acknowledged as their first record. you can love source tags if you really want, but you can't deny that it's not in any way a creative record, nor was anything before it. take a little sonic youth, a little pumpkins, a little nirvana, a little radiohead, a little explosions...it was a constant cut+paste job, with essentially no innovation. you might hear a sense of immediacy that i don't, but that's probably because you're comparing it to radio rock and i'm comparing it to gybe! and sonic youth. if you want immediacy and passion from 2002, check that out. you'll throw your precious source tags out the fucking window as commercialized radio-directed tripe.
so, yes. i'm going to claim that the trail of the dead took an artistic turn after source codes and it's philistine audience wasn't able to pull the shit out of it's ears for long enough to acknowledge it. mad yet? good. go in the corner and cry with your favourite emo band.
so, the shift is for the better, then. next question: did they manage to accomplish what they set out to accomplish? well, no. not even close.
however, there are few glaring missteps. true, the title track shouldn't exist. russia is not my homeland, and the whole idea of including that track with that title deserves a healthy wtf? yes, it's front loaded. but, besides that, this is a decent abstract pop record that can be enjoyed more or less from start to finish without cringing, and that's something that can't be said for any of their previous output.
overall, this places the disc as a transition record into the string of records that, for better or worse, will define the trail of dead as an independent entity unto itself rather than a substandard post-mortem adjoin to the alternative rock movement. gone, thankfully, are the excursions into rank screamo. it might not be perfect, in fact it's not even that good, but it *is* a step in a more creative direction.
so, this is not where they end but where they begin.
sorry, kids.
http://grooveshark.com/#!/album/Worlds+Apart/1244875
Hit and Miss (3/5)
so....
....what if i claim that it sounds like oasis?
i don't have much of a memory of this thing. i remember it showing up frequently in usenet tags, specifically in alt.fan.smashing-pumpkins, mostly by the same kids that were into hum. remember hum? so, i was a bit cautious. yes, i remember the legendary pitchfork review. i remember checking out a few samples and thinking it sounded like nu-metal. in hindsight, i think it's prudent that i retreat from that association; although it does have a fair bit of aimless screaming, it's definitely from a hardcore/punk tradition. see, in 2002 all mainstream rock music sucked because it was either garage rock or nu-metal. so, why frustrate yourself? if it had a buzz it must be awful....
the disc is really a combination of the bigger, more epic sound on the first and the poppier sound on the second. are they repeating themselves? well, that's not always a bad idea, especially when you can improve on it, and they arguably do that here. while there's a conscious attempt at making the vocal melodies the center of the disc, the guy's just not a good enough singer to do it. it's really more about largely monotone vocal *syncopation*, and if the lyrics weren't cheesy that might work out ok, but they are and it doesn't. also, if i'm going to complain about it being shitty 00's rock then the garage association is stronger than the nu-metal one.
as was always the case with the trail of the dead, the disc has some very high points. but, as was always the case with the trail of the dead, the high points on the disc are buried within it's over-riding mediocrity. unfortunately, this might truly be amongst the best mainstream rock records released in 2002, but that says more about how bad the era was for mainstream rock music than it does about how good the disc is.
another common theme with the trail of the dead is that their discs are front-loaded; the first two tracks almost reach the highs described in the pitchfork review, which makes me wonder, but the record drops off instantly and never gets close to that point of intensity again. as a 1/2 single, i might list this as the classic some kids want to pretend that it is. a little more could be salvaged,, however; 1,2,5,6,7,9,10 constructs a very listenable ep.
http://grooveshark.com/#!/album/Source+Tags+and+Codes/1231957
so....
....what if i claim that it sounds like oasis?
i don't have much of a memory of this thing. i remember it showing up frequently in usenet tags, specifically in alt.fan.smashing-pumpkins, mostly by the same kids that were into hum. remember hum? so, i was a bit cautious. yes, i remember the legendary pitchfork review. i remember checking out a few samples and thinking it sounded like nu-metal. in hindsight, i think it's prudent that i retreat from that association; although it does have a fair bit of aimless screaming, it's definitely from a hardcore/punk tradition. see, in 2002 all mainstream rock music sucked because it was either garage rock or nu-metal. so, why frustrate yourself? if it had a buzz it must be awful....
the disc is really a combination of the bigger, more epic sound on the first and the poppier sound on the second. are they repeating themselves? well, that's not always a bad idea, especially when you can improve on it, and they arguably do that here. while there's a conscious attempt at making the vocal melodies the center of the disc, the guy's just not a good enough singer to do it. it's really more about largely monotone vocal *syncopation*, and if the lyrics weren't cheesy that might work out ok, but they are and it doesn't. also, if i'm going to complain about it being shitty 00's rock then the garage association is stronger than the nu-metal one.
as was always the case with the trail of the dead, the disc has some very high points. but, as was always the case with the trail of the dead, the high points on the disc are buried within it's over-riding mediocrity. unfortunately, this might truly be amongst the best mainstream rock records released in 2002, but that says more about how bad the era was for mainstream rock music than it does about how good the disc is.
another common theme with the trail of the dead is that their discs are front-loaded; the first two tracks almost reach the highs described in the pitchfork review, which makes me wonder, but the record drops off instantly and never gets close to that point of intensity again. as a 1/2 single, i might list this as the classic some kids want to pretend that it is. a little more could be salvaged,, however; 1,2,5,6,7,9,10 constructs a very listenable ep.
http://grooveshark.com/#!/album/Source+Tags+and+Codes/1231957
Meh (2.5/5)
this is one of those frustrating discs that features a collection of songs that almost all have interesting sections, but are almost all ultimately tedious and boring. it really makes you scratch your head and wonder why their taste is so uneven. the disc is still mostly indebted to sonic youth, but there are sections that are obviously lifted from nirvana, u2 and the smashing pumpkins. that sounds ok, right? except that the bulk of it is rooted in something much less interesting. i don't real know what to label it as besides generic rock music of the post-punk era, and by that i mean everything from springstein to crappy punk to emo. so, yes, it's pretty diverse, but it's mostly a diversity of blah.
and a lot of awful vocals. did i mention that yet?
as i've mentioned repeatedly, the isolated sections in the disc that are awesome are actually really awesome. they just don't win the fight against the blah. i wish they did . as it is, a decent little ep can be salvaged from the disc by isolating the front-loaded 2,3,4 tracks, as well as track 10.
ultimately, it's too bad that trail of the dead circa 1999 didn't release an instrumental disc because it probably would have been pretty good.
http://grooveshark.com/#!/album/Madonna/1288091
this is one of those frustrating discs that features a collection of songs that almost all have interesting sections, but are almost all ultimately tedious and boring. it really makes you scratch your head and wonder why their taste is so uneven. the disc is still mostly indebted to sonic youth, but there are sections that are obviously lifted from nirvana, u2 and the smashing pumpkins. that sounds ok, right? except that the bulk of it is rooted in something much less interesting. i don't real know what to label it as besides generic rock music of the post-punk era, and by that i mean everything from springstein to crappy punk to emo. so, yes, it's pretty diverse, but it's mostly a diversity of blah.
and a lot of awful vocals. did i mention that yet?
as i've mentioned repeatedly, the isolated sections in the disc that are awesome are actually really awesome. they just don't win the fight against the blah. i wish they did . as it is, a decent little ep can be salvaged from the disc by isolating the front-loaded 2,3,4 tracks, as well as track 10.
ultimately, it's too bad that trail of the dead circa 1999 didn't release an instrumental disc because it probably would have been pretty good.
http://grooveshark.com/#!/album/Madonna/1288091
Listenable.
the vocals are awful at points, and the post-rock builds are pretty generic. i mean, they get the mechanics right, but the execution is a little tepid. a lot of the songs modulate between interesting sections and awful sections. the songwriting is out of the box, at least - they deserve credit for that. ultimately, it sounds like a demo and probably is one.....
yet, there's this late 90s sonic youth influence in here that's hooked me slightly. lots of bands start off sounding like somebody else, i guess. i think the most interesting thing i'm pulling out from listening to this is the realization that, had they taken a slightly different path, particularly in the vocals, they might not have taken almost fifteen years to produce a substantial record.
http://grooveshark.com/#!/album/And+You+Will+Know+Us+By+The+Trail+Of+Dead/3568764
the vocals are awful at points, and the post-rock builds are pretty generic. i mean, they get the mechanics right, but the execution is a little tepid. a lot of the songs modulate between interesting sections and awful sections. the songwriting is out of the box, at least - they deserve credit for that. ultimately, it sounds like a demo and probably is one.....
yet, there's this late 90s sonic youth influence in here that's hooked me slightly. lots of bands start off sounding like somebody else, i guess. i think the most interesting thing i'm pulling out from listening to this is the realization that, had they taken a slightly different path, particularly in the vocals, they might not have taken almost fifteen years to produce a substantial record.
http://grooveshark.com/#!/album/And+You+Will+Know+Us+By+The+Trail+Of+Dead/3568764
i'm going to do a detour into quick write-ups of each of these trail of dead records because i'm rather liking the newest one and am looking forward for the new one, apparently out soon. i've heard each one a few times and remember thinking the early early stuff was alright but generally lacking, the point where they went mainstream was pretty iffy and the art-school detours were a bit better but overall generally unlistenable. i was really surprised by the 2011 disc and need to give the older stuff one last chance and to put it in context...
Saturday, June 16, 2012
Friday, May 4, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)