Showing posts with label josh pyke. Show all posts
Showing posts with label josh pyke. Show all posts

Saturday, October 10, 2009

2009 ARIA Awards: Nominees!

As shiny as the Oscars, as confusing as the Grammys, as lucrative as the Nobels? No, the ARIA Music Awards are something else – Australia's own. And the 2009 nominees have been announced!

However, I have some questions:

1. How can there be "nominees" for the "Highest Selling Australian Single/Album"?
This has always confused me. Shouldn't winning this award be about statistics, not nominations? It generates competitive interest and publicity, I know – but surely anyone could figure out the winners right now, just by looking at the sales figures?

(Moral of this story: music journalists cannot be bothered to look through sales figures.)


2. What does "Adult Contemporary" mean?
Nominees this year include Bob Evans, Josh Pyke, Little Birdy and Paul Dempsey – all indie mainstays, each one loved and supported by youth radio stations (especially Triple J). So has "Adult Contemporary" become a replacement for the abandoned "Alternative" category? The teenagers of the 1990s "alternative music" boom are getting into their thirties now, so maybe the ARIAs are growing up, too. (Either that, or Triple J is actually a station for contemporary adults. Hmm . . .)


3. How come 2009 includes AC/DC's first ever ARIA nomination, and not their 50th?
Because the ARIAs only began in 1987. And let's face it, AC/DC have released only two albums since 1987 that are arguably better than "adequate": Black Ice (this year's nominee) and The Razors Edge (1990). Razors Edge does include "Thunderstruck", one of their best hits, but it was disqualified due to the lack of apostrophe in the word "Razor(')s". You can't rock out without appropriate punctuation, and I commend the Australian Recording Industry Association for their strong and principled stance on this issue.


4. Do the ARIA nominations violate their own guidelines?
This year, C. W. Stoneking was nominated for "Breakthrough Artist – Album", despite being ineligible (because his previous album was nominated for a 2007 ARIA). He's since been stripped of this nomination – but he's still nominated for "Best Male Artist", "Best Independent Release" and "Best Blues and Roots Album", so he's doing all right.

Another odd nomination is Ladyhawke (Pip Brown), who's nominated in 6 categories despite being a New Zealander. (Not that we aren't happy to claim her as an honorary Aussie, of course.) ARIA fine print indicates that artists are eligible if they've lived in Australia for more than six months and applied for permanent residency, which may or may not be the case – I'll keep you posted . . .


5. How many nominees have an exclamation mark in their song or album title?
Answer: At least four!!!!

It's good to see a strong field this year – I don't think there are any "what the?!" nominees making up the numbers. Award ceremonies are often controversial (one way or another), but their real purpose is to celebrate the industry and create publicity for deserving nominees. On that count, the 2009 ARIAs are already a success.

What do you think about giving awards for high sales, "Adult Contemporary", AC/DC or Ladyhawke's fair dinkum kiwi-ness?

Saturday, February 21, 2009

Rage Roundup @ Feb '09

Back back back to the front, to the top! Lap it all up, folks. It's been a little while since last we sat down to watch some Rage, but that's cool. I'll make this post a little too long, just to compensate. Right now is now right now! And 2009 is rushing in bold and fresh, burning our lips like millionaires' toothpaste.
Brusha brusha brusha!


When I Grow Up – Fever Ray
I'm still not sure if I like the music, but it's a neat video. The whole "suburban shaman" costume design is excellent. It's zeitgeisty too, I think; you could mistake her for a background dancer from an MGMT clip. The more I listen, the closer I am to liking it. Worth paying attention to, for sure...


A slow burner, this one. The quiet vocals (almost whispered, in parts) build excellent tension. The music goes in some interesting directions, too... the synth tones and percussion choices remind me a little of Pivot.
Visuals are neat – it's a clever and amusing idea to do a shoutout to retro vector graphics like this. It's specifically referencing this old game, I think (I was too young for the original, but I distinctly remember playing 90s shareware knockoffs that were near-identical).
Good stuff! Not spectacular, but I think it's on the right side of boring.


Really neat video: deminiaturised stop-motion-animation, 1960s-ish off-brand toys, visuals that remind me of that old Gumby tv show. The video fits & synchs really well with the sound, too. But for some reason, I couldn't find the music as interesting as the images; it's a fizzysour indierock guitarbuzz, fun but nothing special. The melodic hook is catchy enough, and the lead guitar break is pretty nice? That's about it, I guess.


Cool video – constructed from authentic old fairytale animations, maybe? If not, they've totally nailed that old look. The narrative metaphors are a bit obvious & hackneyed (a common Bloc Party tic – they're very earnest musicians, politics-wise), but they're still well done. The songwriting is a little obvious, too... come on guys, a dramatic key change near the end? You can do better than that.
The guitar solo bit is mighty fine, even if it only goes for a few bars. The sound overall is a nice, interesting mix of guitars and dancey stuff – there's nothing else around at the moment that's quite like it. Punchy, energetic sound: I think it's good.


Damn it Pyke, every time now you're doing it to me. Do I have to buy your whole album? Is that what you're trying to make me do? With the subtle production touches, the songwriting that's never as dull or predictable as it should be, the sugarfree nostalgia stabs? Damn you, Pyke! So good, always so good. Always better than it seems. Prick.


Groovy band name, but the song didn't grab me until the chorus energy kicked in. Hnn! A decent bit of vocal kick – that's how you stop an indie song from being another dull sopfest. The video is annoying, but maybe I just don't like clowns & sparkles enough. The singer has a pretty look, tho...


So the zeitgeist is totally all echo-vocals, echo-percussion and 90s synths, now. (Half the songs in this post feature at least two out of three.) New Rave, or not. How did this happen? Who knows?
Synthesizers are drugs. You think you can control them... use them only on special occasions, for specialised effective uses... and when that goes well, you start using them more often. Even when they're not a good idea. And then, before you know it, the synths are everywhere all the time and everybody is doing it, all the time, and now you just can't stop it! Can't stop!

Still, the music grows on me. This is a rave(ish) epic, exceptionally well-constructed: overlapping vocals, overlapping rhythms. Shift your consciousness into some kind of trance state, nod your head repeatedly.


Surprisingly well-played punk-metal; the vocals give it a kind of a late-80s underground proto-grunge feel*. Metal guitar (& even a little percussion & acoustica near the end!), and vocals that are neither deathmetal scream nor emo whine. It's not especially original, but it's got a sweet, honest charm that suits my mood...
When it comes to metal, it's usually the vocals that tip me one way or the other. This here, I think I like it.

*There's an entire subgenre hidden in that description, spiralling around pre-fame Nirvana among others... I only discovered it a few years ago myself, but there's some great stuff in & around that scene.


I think I've figured out what's up with music. See, when I first wrote songs (being in a rock band in high school), there was something amazing about figuring it out, about being able to write a song and play it and Wow! It sounds just like a real song! And I think that's what most music groups and songwriters go through, at least at first. The problem is, I think, they're so excited that what they've written is just like a real song – it's good enough! – that they don't think beyond that. And that's why the vast majority of songs can sound so dull, so predictable. (Or that's how they can sound to someone who's been listening broadly and deeply enough, for a long enough time, I guess...)

The vast majority of songs are just using variations on the same old melodies, the same obvious chord progressions. That's not a bad thing in itself. It's not even that they're entirely unoriginal, because they're not. But if it sounds just like a real song, that's probably because it sounds like something you've heard before. There's a certain obviousness. Expectations are fulfilled. 

So, there's nothing bad about it. It's good enough in the context of "hey! it sounds like a real song!"; that's why the musicians did it in the first place. But I think it might be that the musicians aren't thinking themselves beyond "good enough". They're not expecting or believing that they need to be better than adequate, that they need to be brilliant, that they need to be spectacular and genius and new. I think they're thinking: Hey, this sounds as good as something else – that's great!

If music wants to be remembered or to be truly huge, then it needs to be genuinely new & different, and to sound NOT just like any other song. It needs to be exciting. It needs to make you feel something profound. It needs to sound new.

(I know, I know, "new" is not new; 99.99% of everything sounds a bit like something else, of course. And there's nothing wrong with that, that's not the point I'm trying to make. It's not a question of uniqueness, it's a question of obviousness. It's a question of predictability. Good enough isn't good enough.)

So yeah, the Sunpilots have a song called Drones. It sounds like a real song.

(Good band name, though – The Sunpilots! Cool name...)




Anyhow, that's it for this roundup. Bit of a downer to end on, huh? And it's a bit of a clumsy rant there attempting a slightly complicated idea, but I'm tired and I don't feel like cutting it out just now. Let's watch Lily Allen's latest single again, instead. It's still good.
Here's hoping I can keep up with the future
--the Musical Thoapsl

Monday, October 27, 2008

Rage Roundup - @ October 2008

Back again, like it never left. Except for the fact that I was out of the country for weeks & weeks, so I haven't done one of these Rage posts since August. But like whatevs, man, who wants to dwell on the past..? And more to the point: what interesting new singles were on Rage this week? Not counting the latest Fleet Foxes single, because if you aren't aware by now of how awesome they are then you haven't been paying attention to me. Or to, um, Pitchfork, or to any of the other thousands of folks singing their praises this year...
No, let's start instead with Josh Pyke.

I keep on expecting to dislike Josh Pyke – he's too MOR, too wishy-washy, too nice, isn't he? – but it's not always easy. He keeps on making songs like this: disarmingly simple at first, but they're built from deceptively strong structures and great arrangements, good lyrics and subtle hooks. The video is fairly dull & twee, but it's well edited so as to intensify the song's momentum (and that's an incredibly useful thing for it to be doing). Once again, this is disconcertingly good stuff from Pyke...


Other singles from this band have suffered from a common indie affliction : monotonous dynamics and a complete lack of tension. But this tune, luckily, has some real momentum to it. It's largely due to a not-especially-original songwriting move – tension from slow-falling semitone chord changes – but there's enough interesting music built around it to keep me satisfied. The bridge between descents is actually great. In fact the arrangement is really very good overall; it sounds like it'd be especially crowd-pleasing live. Like the Wild Beasts' video (see below), the visuals are all variations on a simple visual effects trick; as with the music, however, it's the subtleties of the arrangement which avert monotony. It should be repetitive and unsatisfying, but instead it works really well. Good stuff. 


(Don't be fooled by the first 30 seconds of the clip, btw, it's not what it seems).
I love Deerhoof. I saw them live shortly after their Friend Opportunity album came out, and it was one of the most enjoyable and musically impressive gigs I've ever been to. They're probably be an acquired taste... but go on, make an effort. I say they're worth it.


Dude NBA JAM. NBA JAM. Pomo indeed. I think there's probably an air of trying-too-hard about all of this – the chorus which shouts "you're just an ad for yourself", the werewolfs, the early 90s arcade game references – but there's still something fundamentally decent about it. The synths are great, and the song is energetic as hell. It might be the vocals which are grating on me; they're more shouty and abrasive than they need to be. Or maybe they're not quite tuneful enough. But I think this is some worthwhile stuff here, anyhow – worth checking out.


I'm pretty sure I can guess the producers' rationale for teaming these two together for the new James Bond theme: Alicia Keys is perfect as a modern, credworthy version of Shirley Bassey, while Jack White channels the rockout ballsiness befitting Mr New Seriouser Bond. It doesn't quite work out that way, though. For a start, they're both singing here, even though Jack White has the most un-Bond-theme-like voice since... well, at least since Duran Duran put the nail in Roger Moore's coffin. Maybe it's me, but I just can't get into this. The horns sound tokenistic and unnatural, the lyrics are uninspired, the volume has no climax & vice versa... and Keys' wordless duel with the guitar solo made me cringe. And I'm the kind of person who sometimes likes scat.
Aw, maybe it'll work okay when it's being played over silhouettes of naked women and lava lamps. Casino Royale was pretty great, right?


Eagles Of Death Metal are kickarse fun. I'm not even sure why. It's a weird musical mix, this latest single; the vocals are in parts almost falsetto, the guitars are a fuzzy punch to the head, the percussion is bouncy and the tune a doot-de-doo, the attitude is dense rock'n'roll but it's filtered through this whole weird, post-ironic LA attitude thing... how does it work? It does. Maybe it's the mo.


I came across this and snarfed it off theirspace a while ago – in fact, looking it up just now, that was almost a year ago! But whatever took them so long, they've finally got around to making a video clip & single out of it. It's a catchy song with great momentum and a clever loopy structure; they even chuck in an unexpectedly good saxophone solo at the end. There's nothing particularly original going on, but it's all good and it's all interesting. As for the video: running around Tokyo has become a real 21st century video cliche now, huh? I guess it makes sense: you're a young band, you go and tour Tokyo, you're all like "wow! tokyo is awesome!"; how could you not want to run around the streets filming yourself? And to be fair, the video isn't all Tokyo. And the Tokyo stuff even has funny costumes and dancing, so it's not utterly dull or self-indulgent. Actually, there are a lot of neat visuals here: footage of the band playing, clever graphic cuts between black and white sets, and some great vision of the drummer which looks like it's in slow motion but isn't. Very neat.


This has a lot in common with the sort of meandery indie crap that I tend to dislike (exhibit A, bland vocals), but somehow there's enough of an edge to distinguish it. It's a good song: nice drumming, pleasant organ, a bit of dynamic variation (the lack of which is often the achilles' heel of unpolished indie bands); it's hooky. The unexpected structural turn near the end really builds it well, too. Good songwriting and worth paying attention to, I reckon.


Well, kudos for not taking the boring title route. (In a week when at least two bands release singles titled "Heartbreaker", this is a more kudos-worthy feat than it probably should be). Luckily, the music is also not boring. The vocal has its patchy moments, but episodes of ragged intensity nicely offset the twee falsetto segements. There's some nice drumming and some neat guitar patterns; bit of a post-punk feel to the whole thing. Interesting stuff, if they turn out to have more than one musical trick in their future. Their video, though, takes one visual effects trick and runs it all the way home. Luckily, it's a pretty neat trick; and it's enough.


The lead single from their new album, which has been garnering some odd reviews... but the more I listen to it, the more I think I really like it. The main difference from their earlier albums is a cleaner, more polished production sound. This might seem at odds with the Drones' edge and intensity, but it's because they've maintained that same shredded intensity in their performance that the music doesn't feel obviously "cleaner" or sanitised; it's just easier to hear, and (sonically) brighter. I guess that does make for a subtle change in the emotional direction, an inevitably greater emphasis on their sardonic rather than suicidal aspects... but it feels natural enough to me that I'm not too bothered. The songs are still excellent; of which, however, this is not the finest example. Although: Middling Drones still equal Excellent Most Anyone Else. As always it's Gareth Liddiard's voice which makes it, but the rest of the band are great too.
And as for the video – a bit dull and cheap, you reckon? I'm still not sure if the animation really works, even if it is an homage to ancient Greek pottery art. It's not as interesting as the stock footage montage they used for Jezebel, that's for sure. But then Jezebel was a substantially more impressive song overall, to be honest...


Ten songs is probably an appropriate limit at which to conclude, I think. Too much to write and/or read about, and I have no time besides. Any opinions?

-Musical Thoapsl