It's been a week or so since first hearing the albums in their entirety, and I've come to the conclusion that I have been not only let down, but nearly despised. Few of the songs actually end; most just seem to taper off like a drunk who forgot he was speaking. There is no love or passion on these albums, merely a fascination with doing everything the exact opposite of the way they would imagine anyone would appreciate. There are plenty of parts sprinkled throughout that I genuinely love, but not a single song that I can play and not feel frustrated about at some point. Richard Edwards & Co. do not have a bone in their bodies that cares about anyone who listens to their songs. How else can you explain actions like their approach to "Broadripple is Burning": their fans fell in love with it when it first started popping up in setlists, but Margot's reaction was to take it, fuck around with it for a while, publicly express their dislike for it, and finally release - on the label's insistence, no less - the least-inspired version possible. Wait, I take that back: second-least inspired. First place would have to go their live performance of the song. You figured if a band hated a song, they just wouldn't play it (see Radiohead, "Creep"). But Margot goes one step further and plays the song in a pathetic, reluctant way - at most shows, as far as I know. Their indifference bordering on animosity seems to extend to the inner workings of the band as well. Seeing them play on the day their albums released, half of the band wore animal masks, I imagine to tie in to the imagery. The other half didn't have masks, or carried them in their hands. Of the ones that arrived with masks, half (including Edwards) removed them before even playing the first song, while the drummer alone kept his on for the first part of the set. It was confusing, but it also wasn't intentional as far as I could tell - they really just couldn't care less.
Margot has always excelled at evoking moods and atmosphere better than anything else (including songwriting), but their new albums seem to mainly evoke the attitude, "I really don't give a shit." At this point, trying to like Margot & the Nuclear So and So's is like having a crush on a lesbian. It's not that they don't like you; it's that they don't like you or anybody like you.
P.S. - Also their artwork choices are the absolute worst I have ever seen.
12 comments:
I've found that I like Animal quite a lot more than Not Animal. Do you concur? Have you listened to both? I think that there are moments when Margot almost becomes Damien Rice when they are doing the two songs: Mariel's Brazen Overture and There's Talk of Mine Shafts, which I actually like a lot (although it's quite different from their first album). I also like My Baby Shoots Her Mouth Off. But, other than that: FAIL. So much for their sophomore release... maybe next time.
Oh, also, writing about music is like dancing about architecture.
But what about writing ABOUT writing about music?
Eric,
I see that you did actually listen to both. Apologies for not reading more carefully.
Writing about writing you haven't read about music.
Also: does this count as their sophomore release? Or their sophomore and junior release? Or is this like when you fail sophomore year and have to take it again, and then you fail again, but they're sick of having you, so they go ahead and pass you anyway?
It's like a sophomore year when you take all the classes you're required to take (Not Animal) but also take a bunch of classes that you want to take, because you're stubborn (Animal!). But at the end of it you're just a tired sophomore who everyone is tired of hearing about.
Writing about writing you haven't read about music is like playing a song about music you didn't hear that was written about a book.
Having not heard the albums yet, what is really disturbing is that we haven't yet heard the standard impassioned defense from Mikkelle that happens anytime someone says something bad about Copeland, DCFC, Margot, or another mellow indie band in this space. Mikkelle not liking a Margot album would be like me not liking a Pearl Jam album; it would have to be completely fucking terrible by any objective standard.
Writing about others who are not writing about music they should normally be defending (therefore signifying that it is, in fact, godawful) and that you haven't even listened to, is like ... journalism protesting the lack of dancing about architecture about a building that ...
... damn, that just got too complicated.
Just?!?
okay first of all, ek is right. i love margot, and i hate that they don't care about their fans, but it doesn't change the fact that they play really awesome music. i am still in love with their sound from the first time i saw them play 3 years ago at the subterranean or the first time i heard skeleton key sitting in la spiaza. the kids have talent, and they have an interesting sound that you don't hear a lot right now, but is still accessible, unlike a lot of indie bands these days that put together weird disconnected sounds and call it art. what i'm reading in your argument is one or two points (which i don't even necessarily agree with) drowned out by a general anger at the band for not caring what you think. i completely agree with you; they don't care about their fans, which sucks and does make me want to punch richard in the face. but for someone who isn't so analytical about music, i think they released great albums that i really enjoy listening to.
and i like the artwork. "the absolutely worst you've ever seen"? that's a little strong, don't you think? how about these: http://rateyourmusic.com/list/djlanda/the_100_worst_album_covers_ever/
second of all, ek, i don't just like "mellow indie bands in this space"-- death cab, margot, copeland, sufjan, all have very distinct characteristics and sounds that draw me to them.
I admit that most of these are half-formed thoughts, but I think they're backed by a fair degree of analysis. Really I just wanted to get something down in writing before over-thinking it.
One other thought:
For how much they fought Epic records, you think the two albums would be worlds apart; but, as already covered by numerous people, the albums are largely indistinguishable, and not just because of the overlapping songs. I anticipated Animal! being a much more thought-out album, but it seems as disjointed as its step-sister.
Thanks Mikelle. Those album covers are awesome, and now I have some hope that the albums are not completely terrible, although no hope that they are not inaccessible (whoops, I just didn't avoid using double negatives)...
I was kind of searching for a term to describe the bands that I know you like collectively...and as far as I know, they all fall into what the Exleys and I would consider the lighter side (as opposed to what Eric called "music that gets the blood pumping"), all of them could still legitimately be called 'rock' bands, and most of them owe their success more to word of mouth and internet buzz than conventional channels. Its like how Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, and the Beatles are all put under the "classic rock" umbrella even though they sound nothing like each other and all had unique strengths and weaknesses. If there is a better term feel free to use it.
Post a Comment