#1 SOUND OF SILVER / LCD SOUNDSYSTEM [taste] [buy]
key tracks: the whole darn thing
when i first heard 'sound of silver' last january, i said it would be hard for any album top it. well, here we are in december and 'sound of silver' is still the king of the mountain. does that make me a prophet? i'm not sayin' i'm a prophet, i'm just sayin'. or is it all simply a case self-fulfilling prophecy? i dunno. does it even matter? not a bit.
i've thought long and hard what it is about 'sound of silver' that sets it apart from every other album i listened to this year. why did i like this one the most? why did i play it the most? why did it resonate with me as much as it did and does? i don't know if have the answers and maybe that's part of the allure. maybe it's the same reason some women tend to throw themselves at those 'mysterious' guys. who knows. about all i do know is that james murphy is some sort of secret genius.
if i had to hazard a guess, however, as to why i love it, it's this: not a single song on 'sound of silver' is terribly complicated. they really aren't. in fact, a big chunk of the songs rely on one--ONE--chord change. listen to 'get innocuous,' 'all my friends,' and 'time to get away' and you won't hear more than two chords. 'north american scum?' three. 'someone great?' four. 'us v. them? ONE. one friggin' chord over eight plus minutes. it's absurd. i mean really, really absurd. 'watch the tapes?' three. it's remarkable because there's no way it should work as well as it does--which is to say, perfectly.
most electronica, hip hop, or dance rock, or whatever you want to call it, relies on bringing the hook straight to the forefront. it's the single most important ingredient, and in dance music you better hear it pretty quickly, especially when most folks have an attention span of about 3.5 seconds. well, james murphy and co. throw that maxim out the window. in fact, only one song on 'sound of silver' comes in under four minutes and most of them come in at over six minutes. but despite the length of the individual tracks, they never sound repetitive. murphy and co. use that time to give the songs room to breath, build momentum, and seduce you before knocking you over the head with a chorus beamed straight from a party in outta space. there's something to be said for a song that doesn't even try to wallop you right from the beginning. that's part of 'sound of silver's' beauty. sure, it's a party album, but it's never rushed. i mean, geez, you don't even hear james murphy's vocals until 2:10 seconds into the album. but by that time 'get innocuous' has so fully hypnotized you that resistance is futile. he wins. he owns you. and for the next hour you are his. you can try to fight it, er, well, actually you can't, so forget it. don't even try.
'sound of silver,' spitcake's not-at-all-coveted favorite album of the year, is an incredible testament to what you can do with inventine percussion, programmed rhythms, catchy riffs, and superb knack for melody. i guess just admire so much how talented these guys are. i wish i were one of them. maybe james murphy, and not me, is the prophet. that would make a lot more sense. i wish that we could talk about, but there lies the problem...
Posts
4 shout outs:
Ha, when you started this list, I knew this would be #1. Prophesy indeed! Good call. Though not quite my FAVORITE of the year (it probalby sits comfortably around #4 on my list), from an overall artistic achievment standpoit, this is probably, for all intents and purposes THE album of the year. Well said, well reviewed. Well prophesied.
I'm gonna bust out my end of year list soon as I hear about 4 more albums I haven't got a hold of yet (too many to hear this year!)
I'm sorry, you are probably sick of me.
But, can I just mention how refreshing it is to see a GOOD list that is completely absent of the pretentious devotion to the critical "ideal" and/or the "majority cool." You have a deep enough interest in modern music to posses a well educated opinion, and then you simply list what YOU like without concern to what you "SHOULD" like.
I have a buddy who has a well educated opinion, yet he always chooses to list what SHOULD be listed, as opposed to what he himself enjoys most. He maintains a strong seperation from the "Best" and his "Favorites." I see the logic of his seperation, yet I fail to see why the focus is on his "Best" list, given it's just his opinion in the first place. I debated this point with him earlier today stating it's all subjective and wondering why it would matter to him anyway to make such a strong seperation. What is any publicatios "best of" list but a collection of various "favorites" anyway? No list is the same, and that's how it should be.
Anyway, sorry this was long you can delete it if you want. Just wanted to commend you on your great list of YOUR favorites, and not a regurgitated list attempting to create a "common cool" of assimilated opinion, the likes of which I will see printed over and over for months. I'm done ranting...I'm gonna go check me out some High Violets.
i absolutely agree with you. i have had this conversation/debate with a couple of friends over the years and to a person they're hell-bent on declaring something the 'best.' i really think it appeals to their own sense of music elitism and superiority [don't get me started on that!]. however, it's inherently problematic because you can't PROVE one album is 'better than another.' go ahead. try. it can't be done. so in stating that one album is 'better' than another is nothing more than that person's opinion. it's all subjective since there are no hard and fast rules governing music criticism. i've yet to see any publication show the factors that figure into a 'score.' let's just call it what it is: arbitrary.
that's why i have such a problem with pitchfork. it's bad enough to assign a numeric 'score' to what's basically opinion [and not even offer an explanation as to how said score was even arrived at. you might as pull a number out of your rear end], but to break it down into tenths of a point is just so asenine, ridiculous, and just reeks of elitism. it's not enough to have whole numbers, no. we have to break it down further. how silly can you be? what makes a 7.4 album 'better' than a 7.3 album? why is a 6.4 album 'better' than a 6.3? what was it about album 'a' that made it a TENTH OF A POINT 'better?' in the end all you're getting, as you said, is some dood's opinion, in this case pitchfork's. yet i see SO many people worshipping at 'the altar of pitchfork' as if they're some sort of god pronouncing judgments on what's worth and what's not, as if they're the end all be all and ulitimate deciders of 'good music.' they give music fans a bad name. pure and simple. sometimes i wonder if they even LIKE and ENJOY music over there. :)
i think too many people get caught up in 'the best' and overlook the fact that music, art, literature, film or whatever should be ENJOYED. at least i think it should. sure, there's something to be send for originality, artistic achievements, style, etc, but that doesn't mean you can't enjoy something simply because you enjoy it. it should about the emotional response, not a silly score. didn't anyone watch 'dead poet's society?'
thanks, chris, for chiming in again. well said! :)
Exactly! So good to know there are still those that see it for the ART that it is.
Emotional response! That's the ticket!
Pitchfork...pssh...
Post a Comment