Inscrutable

[freakytigger.livejournal.com]

I'm trying (and mostly failing so far) to work out why I like New Order for the review of their reissues I'm writing.

What are the bands you love but find hard to write about? (Or, if yr not a writer, love without being able to articulate why?).

Comments

Re: the vocals issue

[koganbot]

But "understatement as intense emoting" only works if the intense emoting manages to get evoked, which usually has to do with timing in the midst of a maelstrom or something, but NO is classic Symbol Stands In For The Effect for me, symbolizing understatement where actually nothing is being stated. Thing is, you've got strong dance beats, and then the voice comes on like a wet blanket. I can't get past that, and I don't see why anyone should. I do like "True Faith" where the surrounding sound makes the vocals effectively funereal (or effectively irrelevant, though I do think the melody is important, so I guess they're not irrelevant). What you say about Ian represented by the skeleton makes theoretical sense but does diddly for the music.

Re: the vocals issue

[dubdobdee.livejournal.com]

"I don't see why anyone should."

this seems a strange thing to say -- maybe theoretically they shouldn't, but it's obvious that a huge number of people CAN, and very easily, which either means yr point abt wet-blanketness is flat wrong as a generally proposition, or (more likely, since i never in my life met someone who said barney's singing was the thing they loved above all) that something more complicated is going on than straightforward sum-of-parts

i don't feel very well able to judge, since almost ALL vocals fall more into glenn gould territory for me -- i guess i'm arguing that the music is allowed to continue to operate somewhat as "soundtrack to an unfolding drama", which changes our response to it

(in a way i suppose i'm arguing for a kind of reverse of the "twee music over scenes of murder" effect in cinema, where deliberately unsinister music is used to score something awful, and makes it doubly awful... the emotional content of NO music is being "scored" by this small-viced limping ghost of JD music to intensify how it's become something else; ie whatever the something-else is being intensified by barney's vocals failing to be the wet blanket they seem to be delivering; just like musicbox chimes over a triple slaying, by not making the scene cutesy, actually make it more chilling)

Re: the vocals issue

[dubdobdee.livejournal.com]

signal example: the lex is a hard-to-please h8ta when it comes to limp indie singing, yet he is an NO fan... hence by logic the singing is not simply a ruin-all additive for him (even tho it's of a type that he is particularly allergic to)

i have decided to call my theory POLYPHONIC HOMEOPATHY as greek-sounding terms are poncey and magisterial

Re: the vocals issue

[alexmacpherson.livejournal.com]

I've never thought of the New Order vocals as typical "limp indie singing", even though I've often seen them characterised as such...I haven't listened to NO in AGES (and wouldn't call myself a fan by any means! in fact I only know about four NO songs, tops) but I don't think I ever actually particularly noticed the vocals, they always seemed kind of functional, carrying the melody, just there but not the focus. Like the Booka Shade vocals on their new album. But the NO vocals don't actively annoy me at all, despite the lack of character (and indeed the dreadful lyrics) - I think it's because they don't make a big deal out of their passiveness, they're like that only to get out of the way of the music. I might have to go back and listen with fresh ears.

I'm definitely interested in your ref to "a brit cultural taste for understatement as a mode of intense emoting" though, I've been thinking a bit about British vs American cultural preferences (and specifically the frequency with which I fall on the American side) but haven't got to a point of articulating it yet. Is this why Poptimists (the UK branch, anyway) seems so immune to my r&b divas? :(

Re: the vocals issue

[koganbot]

Well, British preferences will be all over the place, and there's always been a taste for American soul, for instance. And Britain helped invent a form of over-the-top America in the '60s that America then copied from the Brits. But I'd say, very loosely, that among some Brits some of the time there's more of an attempt to declare oneself in control of style, as if image were one's creation while a part of oneself stayed back as the mind behind the creation. Whereas America, which is supposedly the land of new beginnings, people are more likely to want to appear as if they're throwing themselves into style. A smart comment years ago by Steven Sherman in my fanzine was that Bruce Springsteen has had more image changes than Bowie. But w/ each image change w/ Bruce it's, oh yes, Bruce is being so real. Whereas Bowie is the alleged genius shape shifter.

If you take my favorite romantic hair-raising* extremists of the '60s and '70s, Dylan, Velvets, Stooges, Dolls on the American side and Stones, Kinks, Sex Pistols on the British, the British always seemed to have a comic analytic overview even while sounding just as much like the maelstrom itself. While the Americans, who could be plenty comic themselves, still came across as totally committed to the anguish and catastrophe and romance. (But that's not really a statistically significant sample I'm referring to, is it? And the Animals, who were just as good, just not as consistent, sounded as committed as the Americans, and the Dolls did seem to have a sense of perspective in their lyrics, at least.)

However, I don't think this has anything much to do with the relationship in the '80s between, say, British oi bands and American hardcore punks.

*In its time; now it sounds perfectly normal.

Re: the vocals issue

[dubdobdee.livejournal.com]

yes as frank says, it's a MUCH more complex relationship in actuality, everyone constantly swapping clothesand borrowing moves: and how it would add up if you could nail it down in the "final analysis" and treat it statistically i have no idea (one of the oddities about rock is that it's so unclear if it's an american music, or an american reworking of a british misundterstanding of an american music-- who invaded who!?)

80s amerindie groups like pavement and yo la tengo often seemed (to me) to be opting into the part of "brit" demeanour that's all cooled out and recessive expression, as a counter to and distancing from the "brits freak out" mode of earlier invasion rock: ie deriving their part of their meaning (and haha means to mean) from our being aware that they were choosing between two "non-american" modes of stance; the choice acting as a scrim through which you interpreted what they did

the interesting question is really - can you ever see (hear) anyone not through some sort of scrim; it's bslutely true that if you "just listen" and pay no mind to the hubbub of context and promo claim and unthinking critical assumption, that soundwise the relationship between x and y (bowie and springsteen, say) is exactly not what everyone says it is... this is an approach chuck eddy and dave q are masters of, for example, and it can be revelatory (but does it reveal what bowie and springsteen are "really" about; bcz surely PART of what they're about is their engagement with the scrim)

new order's achievement - at least in the british context -- was their ability to render the JD-shaped scrim an asset (an early mountain-climb no club dance group ever had to face): does that or doesn't sound "purely in the music"? it depends, once you take understanding the music to be a reading of the choices made at any point, how you weight the choices made before the track starts against the choices made as the track progresses (weighting towards the first would be "rock culture", VERY loosely; towards the second, dance culture: NO were a massive portal for brit listeners towards a "dance culture" aesthetic; second summer of love and after... and some of that is bcz the "skeleton at the feast" move WORKED; a whole section of the audience but the tragedy of curtis behind them and got on with enjoying the moment...)

oddly enough i always like springsteen best when he's being most bowie-esque: when the story of the song is about having to wear masks, and the (real) consequences and feel of this ("candy's room"; a couple of the somngs on "nebraska")

Re: the vocals issue

[alexmacpherson.livejournal.com]

ok I'm relistening now and Frank's right, these vocals are pale and enervated, but they're not making a virtue out of this in the slightest - they're completely subservient to the music, the groove, and they're adequate enough to hold the basic tune. Which means I don't mind the vox at all but they're also the reason that I love 3-4 NO songs without really ever having been moved to hear any more - my connection is with the songs, not the band.

Though I'd only heard four NO songs! ('True Faith', 'Regret' and 'Blue Monday' I love, 'Bizarre Love Triangle' not so much.) There are three I've never heard in my itunes, I'm listening to 'Ceremony' right now and it's DREADFUL, I now see why people hate on his voice! There are no big synth rushes to prop it up, no propulsive groove, no particular melody.

Re: the vocals issue

[dubdobdee.livejournal.com]

haha well ceremony was a joy division song, really, set up as if curtis were singing, except with barney instead, depping -- ie they hadn't yet worked the thing out where the massive obvious problem somehow becomes a bonus instead

i actually think my three alternative reasons for this working (instead of not working) appeal to different kinds of NO listener -- their fanbase was much larger than just JD fans who stayed out of loyalty

Re: the vocals issue

[freakytigger.livejournal.com]

I think it's really interesting how on the first album they hadn't decided who was going to do the vocals - so Barney and Hooky swap over (and Hook is really not noticeably worse!) (god I wonder how rub Stephen Morris must have been to not even get a go). Definitely suggests that vocals weren't a priority.

The "rub lyrics" issue is an interesting one as well - Sumner has always been very keen to preserve the idea that he doesn't think about them, that he writes them all at the last second and they're not meant to mean anything. I'm sure this is true to some extent but there's also an ethic of accidentalism to NO that the lyrics (and vocals to a degree) fit into - which ties in with the whole "I shouldn't even be DOING this" response to Ian's death thing...

Re: the vocals issue

[freakytigger.livejournal.com]

(Anyway some of his lyrics really are awful - some are rather good.)

Re: the vocals issue

[dubdobdee.livejournal.com]

yes there's definitely a cageian random-walk element to the words -- which they've been pretty rigorous about, come to think of it

(i think i probably actually give them points for this, unconsciously -- as part of a secret war against words in music; well, not quite that, but definitely a feeling that they're over-observed) (this would surely be part of the reason they're hard to write about? words breed more words, but wordlessness and quasi-wordlessness are a block on them??)

Re: the vocals issue

[petronia.livejournal.com]

I really agree with all of this (apart from the fact that I've never had trouble writing about New Order XD).

Re: the vocals issue

[koganbot]

Well, you're right of course that obviously people can and do like it, though people actually do like, say, Don McLean's lyrics, and I think they're falling for a shuck. Also, I wonder if, were I ever to have actually heard the albums rather than just catching the singles, I might get more of how they're really an "instrumental" band - which is to say I can imagine* albums being full of voice melding into overall sound. Whereas the singles were more along the lines of American '80s club music - at least one of 'em was by Baker & Robie iirc - which means that you expect voices not to meld but to complement, but instead there was this sudden weariness that superseded the dance as soon as the singing started.

*Notice that I'm inventing a sound that I never heard.

Re: the vocals issue

[petronia.livejournal.com]

I like Barney's voice a lot; the tonality of it. There's no forced macho-ness, no nasality, no over-singing, which are my huge turn-offs when it comes to indie dude vox. For most of NO's career he sounded very young, which combined with the facts that 1) he's just able to carry the tune 2) one-syllable word rhyme lyrics creates an effect of... childlike primitivism? It's so blank and stupid it's arty. But the tune he's just carrying is frequently beautiful, and the music is shimmering, creates spaces.

EDIT to add - to clarify this more I think what I particularly like here is the juxtaposition, half idiot-savant clumsiness half ethereal sound architecture.

I don't think Barney's singing is what I love above all about NO, as dubdobdee writes it's more than sum of parts, but I actually prefer indie vocalists who sound like Barney. A lot of the Teutonic/Scandinavian dudes do, to my ears (only they sing better XD).