3.20.2004
destroyer, your blues (take two)
the title track of the new destroyer record (scroll down for previous post) is called "notorious lightning." and that about sums up the vibe of the whole thing...
most old reviews of destroyer eventually name drop david bowie as a point of reference. but just as the destroyer of albums past was not the familiar bowie -- if it was bowie at all (more "man who sold the world" than "thin white duke," i would argue)-- the "eighties" of your blues is not our familiar 1980's. and unless you've been biding your time with infomercials about the book of mormon, or if (like me) you've sat through krull several times during the past year, chances are you haven't heard keyboard effects like these in a long, long time. this is not the 80's nostalgia you might find on a magnetic fields record. in fact the only "indie" comparison worth mentioning is bobby conn, and even that only makes sense superficially.
the weird thing about your blues is that, structurally, the songs are, for the most part, similiar to "early" destroyer records. by that, i mean that the long guitar jams of this night are gone, and tight, quirky pop structures have returned. that said, they've brought with them an onslaught of affected, quasi-new-age embellishments-- fake horns, synth strings, reverby vocals... to accuse this of being "too much" seems to miss the point. it is waaaay too much, and it is an obstacle worth reckoning with.
i use the word "obstacle" because i can imagine how these songs would sound if recorded according to my expectations (basically more warm and organic, i guess). and they're really good songs, by and large. the album is structured really well, and there's no filler-- which i think scarred the second half of his otherwise brilliant thief. so the only thing standing in the way of pure, expected enjoyment is this initally disgusting production aesthetic. one could "accuse" this album of a number of things: insincerity (snore), reactionary posturing, snobbery and even bad taste. of all of these, bad taste is probably most appropriate, though it doesn't matter much. clearly the aesthetic of the album generates a significance, and that's why i've ultimately warmed up to it.
i'm a die hard fan of destroyer. perhaps the one problem with the non-hierarchical nature of independent music is that when everyone is assumed to be on the same level, it becomes far more embarrassing to admit you're a fan of something/one. but i'm coming clean about it. that said, i had a lot of sentiment going into this record, and it made for a strange mix when it clashed with the inevitable disneyland-tolkien sentiment of its garrish synth work. good, bad, right, wrong-- to someone like me, these faux-orchestrated sounds are intimately familiar. if i were to hear limahl's theme from the neverending story, i might not like it aesthetically, but it would surely "take me somewhere" in terms of nostalgia.
we are asked to suspend our disbelief more often than we assume in music, i think. take alt-country, for example. let's face it, folks-- yankee hotel foxtrot was not written by the joad family. and if it was, they'd be on their way to williamsburg, not california. so when dan bejar asks me to "warm yourself by the fiery stage" (on track 5), i'm inclined to put my suspicions aside, and do it.
ultimately, the success of the album is its ability to prey on its evocations. and its newfound content is escapism at its purest. new-age sword and scorcery. fairytale epics and endings. this is the stuff of deep, deep solipsism. as destroyer's lexicon expands to include unicorns and dragons, it includes a new pathos as well.
most old reviews of destroyer eventually name drop david bowie as a point of reference. but just as the destroyer of albums past was not the familiar bowie -- if it was bowie at all (more "man who sold the world" than "thin white duke," i would argue)-- the "eighties" of your blues is not our familiar 1980's. and unless you've been biding your time with infomercials about the book of mormon, or if (like me) you've sat through krull several times during the past year, chances are you haven't heard keyboard effects like these in a long, long time. this is not the 80's nostalgia you might find on a magnetic fields record. in fact the only "indie" comparison worth mentioning is bobby conn, and even that only makes sense superficially.
the weird thing about your blues is that, structurally, the songs are, for the most part, similiar to "early" destroyer records. by that, i mean that the long guitar jams of this night are gone, and tight, quirky pop structures have returned. that said, they've brought with them an onslaught of affected, quasi-new-age embellishments-- fake horns, synth strings, reverby vocals... to accuse this of being "too much" seems to miss the point. it is waaaay too much, and it is an obstacle worth reckoning with.
i use the word "obstacle" because i can imagine how these songs would sound if recorded according to my expectations (basically more warm and organic, i guess). and they're really good songs, by and large. the album is structured really well, and there's no filler-- which i think scarred the second half of his otherwise brilliant thief. so the only thing standing in the way of pure, expected enjoyment is this initally disgusting production aesthetic. one could "accuse" this album of a number of things: insincerity (snore), reactionary posturing, snobbery and even bad taste. of all of these, bad taste is probably most appropriate, though it doesn't matter much. clearly the aesthetic of the album generates a significance, and that's why i've ultimately warmed up to it.
i'm a die hard fan of destroyer. perhaps the one problem with the non-hierarchical nature of independent music is that when everyone is assumed to be on the same level, it becomes far more embarrassing to admit you're a fan of something/one. but i'm coming clean about it. that said, i had a lot of sentiment going into this record, and it made for a strange mix when it clashed with the inevitable disneyland-tolkien sentiment of its garrish synth work. good, bad, right, wrong-- to someone like me, these faux-orchestrated sounds are intimately familiar. if i were to hear limahl's theme from the neverending story, i might not like it aesthetically, but it would surely "take me somewhere" in terms of nostalgia.
we are asked to suspend our disbelief more often than we assume in music, i think. take alt-country, for example. let's face it, folks-- yankee hotel foxtrot was not written by the joad family. and if it was, they'd be on their way to williamsburg, not california. so when dan bejar asks me to "warm yourself by the fiery stage" (on track 5), i'm inclined to put my suspicions aside, and do it.
ultimately, the success of the album is its ability to prey on its evocations. and its newfound content is escapism at its purest. new-age sword and scorcery. fairytale epics and endings. this is the stuff of deep, deep solipsism. as destroyer's lexicon expands to include unicorns and dragons, it includes a new pathos as well.
