Pitchfork review

[mflat5]

Pitchfork review... complementary in spots, baffled in others...

http://pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/o/of-montreal/sunlandic-twins.shtml

Of Montreal
The Sunlandic Twins
[Polyvinyl; 2005]
Rating: 6.4

One drawback of being a great songwriter is that consistency is often mistaken for monotony. Witness: Of Montreal lead man Kevin Barnes, who has made his name on mirthful choruses that often sound suspiciously similar. But Barnes is anything but short on ideas, as Satanic Panic in the Attic, the band's 2004 chef d'ouvre, attests. Cumulative yet innovative, the album douses classically saccharine and vaguely psychedelic indie pop in gratuitous amounts of syrup. The key: Of Montreal handle the powerful flavors with soufflé-like gentleness.

By contrast, The Sunlandic Twins, the band's new album, is like a restaurant with multiple Michelin stars serving Sno-Cones. Missing Satanic Panic's multidimensionality, the album feels like the hollowed-out shell of something great. Barnes can sleepwalk through a book of staff paper and come away with a set of leakproof pop songs-- or, in this case, a "foray into 21st century A.D.D. electro cinematic avant-disco-- and that effortlessness lends Of Montreal's music a sort of indifference. The high-glucose diet that fueled the band's previous outings has landed them in a sugar coma. Blissfully adrift, The Sunlandic Twins lacks the essential reflexivity of Satanic Panic in the Attic's ethereally silly pop gems.

The Sunlandic Twins isn't without its share of coruscating hooks and major-key shenanigans. "Requiem for O.M.M." is powered by a galloping bass line, which draws back to let the succinct two-line chorus take center stage. Barnes' kaleidoscopic artwork (somebody give this man a larger format) complements the music, especially "I Was Never Young": both seem plucked from the overripe fantasy realms of "Sonic the Hedgehog". The song features a laid-back, strutting rhythm, onto which the instrumentation gradually builds until a trumpet fanfare calls in a tempo change. Abetted by handclaps and a bopping guitar line, the section recalls Satanic Panic's snaking, poperatic song structures.

Elsewhere, "Forecast Fascist Future" and "So Begins Our Alabee" are airy but satisfying, meeting their melody quota while managing to have some fun with synthesizers. But around its midway point, The Sunlandic Twins takes a strange turn. "So Begins Our Alabee" initiates the second act: a self-styled electro pop opera with a startling lack of, well, songs. This independent, self-contained experiment has no business intermingling with the respectable opening set. A few tracks outshine their surroundings by dint of simplicity. "Oslo in the Summertime" rescues a glistening chorus from the maw of wandering pianos, twittering drum machines, and synth glides sandwiching it. "October Is Eternal", meanwhile, is admirable only for its titular appositeness: The song milks a discordant piano dirge for nearly three minutes before fizzling out in an ululating vocal loop and cheap-o MIDI instruments.

Of Montreal have always been silly, but The Sunlandic Twins is plain daffy. "Wraith Pinned to the Mist and Other Games" and "The Party's Crashing Us" are condescendingly aloof, piling on excessive amounts of sound: On the latter, a traffic jam of synths produces the oversaturated colors of a mangled paint palette. Particularly annoying among the record's contrivances is its frivolous use of drum machines, which skip and stutter when the songs call for simple beats.

Barnes is still an impeccable craftsman, but these songs won't make your brain spongy like Satanic Panic's "Lysergic Bliss". This time, it sounds like Barnes is the one whose brain is gummed up. Of Montreal have accomplished the rare feat of honing an unusually nuanced signature sound. But with such a skilled songwriter at the helm, they should be making great records, checking the conceptual dalliances at the door.

-Sam Ubl, April 12, 2005

[vacantmoon]

he assumes kevin did the artwork just b/c he shares the same last name as david - that tips me off that this guy hasn't exactly been following the band like he says he has.

and to say 'wraith..' piles on excessive amounts of sound is completely loony. it's one of the album's most minimal tunes.

last year pitchfork gave SPITA an '8.3' and it didn't even make their top 50 of the year. frankly i was expecting them to jump on the bandwagon and give sunlandic twins like an 8.5 or something just for the fact that the sound of the record fits in more with what they usually throw excessive amounts of praise on.

i won't be surprised if it ends up in their top 50 this year, regardless of the low rating. fickle those pitchforkers are. there's nothing wrong with hating rock critics indeed ;)

[airplane]

i think he's right about how the album gets pretty aimless halfway through (although "I was a landscape in your dream" is glorious).

he overrates Satanic Panic..

[Edited on 4-12-2005 by airplane]

[vacantmoon]

personally i don't think you can overrate SPITA - it's without question in my OM top 3

[kartoonz]

Yes, they are wrong about Wraith, but some good points are made. Not necessarily ones I agree with, but some I do, like the comment on excessive use of drum machines. On some songs, like "I Was a Landscape in Your Dream", the drum machine accentuates the song perfectly. In fact, this is the case most of the time, but there are a few songs, like "So Begins Our Alabee" where there's just too much.

However, I don't understand the dislike for the second half. I think the last 5 songs are the high point of the album. I guess that wouldn't be a point, so much, since it's over a third of the album, but you get what I'm saying.

[call me hi]

"One drawback of being a great songwriter is that consistency is often mistaken for monotony."

i very much agree with the opening line. and i've never met a drum machine i liked.

[vacantmoon]

yeah the 2nd 1/2 had to grow on me more than the 1st half. the reviewer makes me think he hasn't listened to the record more than 2-3 times at this point. it hasn't had a chance to sink in yet. that's why i think sunlandic twins will end up on the top 50 list - time will be kind to this album.

oh who am i kidding, the day pitchfork (or any rock critic for that matter) puts OM on a best-of year-end list we'll know they've officially hit the big time.

[vacantmoon]

the local music rag here in atlanta (stomp and stammer) is mostly run by some right wing losers, and in their little blurb about the album in the 'locals' section sunlandic twins was panned as being 'sexless indie-disco' or something, and you'd need to drink a 12 pack before the live show to get anything out of the music or actually have any fun.

this is a pretty typical reaction OM gets from the press here, if they get any press at all. except the Creative Loafing ran a nice article on them before their show last week which is the first time i've ever read anything positive about OM in this town.

[the_sleeping_friend]

it's so sad, but true.... athen's flagpole isn't bad, from what i can tell. i need to read it more... i dunno, they had a nice feature on OM

[vacantmoon]

the flagpole usually is pretty glowing on OM it seems, although the cd release article had a few blunders - it said OM formed in the early 90s (?!?) and it had the release party listed on the tuesday following saturday's show at the 40 watt.

[the_sleeping_friend]

yeah, i was up in athens last monday and saw that issue... i was tempted to stay an extra day but quickly realized that it was a misprint. the sunlandic twins also took up the whole cover of another publication i read, though forgot the name

[tackledspoon]

The problem with pitchfork is that you get ONE MEMBER'S opinion of the album. I've noticed that there's pretty much no standard for scoring albums. It's still the best review site out there, but sometimes they miss.

[ollie]

Originally posted by tackledspoon
The problem with pitchfork is that you get ONE MEMBER'S opinion of the album. I've noticed that there's pretty much no standard for scoring albums. It's still the best review site out there, but sometimes they miss.

I really wouldn't call it the best review site. It may be one of the most thorough sites at least in terms of how much music it covers and how well it covers them. But its opinions are too one-sided to really matter. I, too, dislike that they only have one member's perspective. The idiot that gave Belle and Sebastian's "The Boy With the Arab Strap" a 0.7 should have had his article scrapped for someone who actually listened to it, for example. They don't get it right often enough, even accounting for differences of taste.

[patman?]

It's obvious. The problem with Pitchfork is Jason Josephes and Brent DiCrescenzo.

[the_sleeping_friend]

I wouldn't even say its the most thorough in terms of its variety of genres. So it does hip-hop and folk, what's new? What's interesting about pitchfork is how creative its writers are. They are sometimes able to articulate what is occurring in an album or for a band. Another thing about Pitchfork that many review sites overlook is the career and history of a band. Granted, they miss the cup several times, but it is good for what it does.

The power pitchfork has is incredible, however. They can propel a band to obscure superstardom. Take for instance, Broken Social Scene. A terrific band, pitchfork still brought them the success and international acclaim they have today. Brendan Canning, the bassist for the band, recently wrote in a TimeCanada article that pitchfork is comparable to Rolling Stone Magazine in it's capabilities.

I don't think it’s the most diverse review site either. I read 5 review sites daily: Pitchfork, Junk Media, Stylus, Splendid Zine and All Music Guide. Pitchfork has to be one of the least diverse of all of them.

Anyway, those are my two cents, take it or leave it.

[patman?]

Someone just made an incredible post on another board about Pitchfork. I'd post it, but I'm afraid that he'd take offense to it.

[ollie]

Originally posted by the_sleeping_friend
I wouldn't even say its the most thorough in terms of its variety of genres. So it does hip-hop and folk, what's new? What's interesting about pitchfork is how creative its writers are. They are sometimes able to articulate what is occurring in an album or for a band. Another thing about Pitchfork that many review sites overlook is the career and history of a band. Granted, they miss the cup several times, but it is good for what it does.

The power pitchfork has is incredible, however. They can propel a band to obscure superstardom. Take for instance, Broken Social Scene. A terrific band, pitchfork still brought them the success and international acclaim they have today. Brendan Canning, the bassist for the band, recently wrote in a TimeCanada article that pitchfork is comparable to Rolling Stone Magazine in it's capabilities.

I don't think it’s the most diverse review site either. I read 5 review sites daily: Pitchfork, Junk Media, Stylus, Splendid Zine and All Music Guide. Pitchfork has to be one of the least diverse of all of them.

Anyway, those are my two cents, take it or leave it.

Good appraisal, but All Music Guide covers EVERYTHING which the other sites don't intend to, so I think it's a little disingenous to include as a "review site." AMG serves more as a music researching tool. Their reviews are occaisionally throrough, but more often gratuitous since they try to cover absolutely everything. It's a great resource, but I rarely go to it for "opinion" if you know what I mean. They have even less consistency of review quality than Pitchfork, and that's saying something. I visit AMG for background info before I listen to any artist because their biographies are often very well written.

Junk Media is great, but doesn't seem to cover as much ground as Pitchfork. I like their artist and label profile features. Splendid is good, but I haven't read enough to compare. Same with Stylus. I think Pitchfork is great in many ways, but is VERY flawed. They really do cover a wide range of stuff from my perspective. What is the hole in their coverage of new music? It may not be the most thorough, genre-wise, but it does look at a lot of different styles of music.

[ollie]

Originally posted by patman?
Someone just made an incredible post on another board about Pitchfork. I'd post it, but I'm afraid that he'd take offense to it.

:) just link to it. If it's a public forum, he shouldn't get offended.

[patman?]

Well it's on the GameFAQs Alternative Music Board, and I'm not sure if you can view the forums without signing up. Plus, I don't know why I even frequent the boards--there's no musical diversity there. Everyone salivates over the same 20 bands.

But if you must:
http://boards.gamefaqs.com/gfaqs/genmessage.php?board=230&topic=20385617

[ollie]

Originally posted by patman?
Well it's on the GameFAQs Alternative Music Board, and I'm not sure if you can view the forums without signing up. Plus, I don't know why I even frequent the boards--there's no musical diversity there. Everyone salivates over the same 20 bands.

But if you must:
http://boards.gamefaqs.com/gfaqs/genmessage.php?board=230&topic=20385617

thank you, that was awesome. :) I notice many of the same things there. One point he should have added about the track reviews (formerly "We Are the World") is that mainstream stuff usually gets ironically high marks. Like a Beyonce track that is obvious mainstream studio produced stuff might get a 5 because it's considered to be pop perfection (I'm making this up, but I've seen stuff like that there). Are they trying to be ironic? Nevermind that it is utter tripe compared to the worst Beatles single that ever came out.

[vacantmoon]

that was a funny post.

>>The idiot that gave Belle and Sebastian's "The Boy With the Arab Strap" a 0.7

now THAT'S hard to believe!

[robbyrharris]

Pitchfork sucks so good.

you can't wn 'em all.

the album IS amazing, however.

[ollie]

Originally posted by vacantmoon
>>The idiot that gave Belle and Sebastian's "The Boy With the Arab Strap" a 0.7

now THAT'S hard to believe!

You're right, it IS hard to believe. I just looked it up and apparently it got a 0.8. It's a terrible review too.

http://pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/b/belle-and-sebastian/boy-with-the-arab-strap.shtml


"Mediocrity is not a punishable crime, but if it was, Belle & Sebastian would be enjoying their last meal right about now."

Well guess what Jason, if writing shitty articles called for proportionate revenge, someone would have murdered you years ago.

To be fair, Boy With the Arab Strap was not nearly as good as B&S's first two albums, but it was a decent followup. Based on the score that Tigermilk got (8.4) and what I would have given If You're Feeling Sinister (9.3), Boy With the Arab Strap would get a 7.0 from me. It's not an outstanding album, but it's a good listen.

[everythingfallstogether]

belle and sebastian are horrible. if i hear people call them twee or indiepop one more time i will puke.

[everythingfallstogether]

double post!! noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

[Edited on 4-13-2005 by everythingfallstogether]

[vacantmoon]

jeez it's not their fault someone made up the annoying term 'twee' and glued it to B&S's name. it must be hard to listen to them objectively if you're that put off by a label tag.

i'm a pretty big belle and sebastian fan and 'the boy with the arab strap' has always been my favorite album of theirs since the day it came out.

[everythingfallstogether]

twee was made up long before belle and sebastians existance if i'm not mistaken, bands like heavenly and all of amelia flethchers projects i think started the term twee. and there are some great twee bands out there. belle and sebastian certainly are not one of them.

[kteberry]

Ehh, Pitchfork gave "In the Aeroplane Over the Sea" an 8.something. (the album, in my opinion, is the best thing to ever come out of the E6 camp, followed by Coquelicot, the Circulatory System, and then the Olivia Tremor albums.)With the exception of the Olivia Tremor albums and the Circulatory system album(they allgot 9.somethings? think the Pitchfork people really like E6 bands. It's not really that they are against them, I just dont think that the appreciate them as much as the E6 fans appreciate E6 bands.

E6 bands are pretty die hard. Something about the bands speak to us, but not to everyone. At one point, I realized that pitchfork does a pretty good job reviewing most albums. I'm pretty sure they base a new albums score on 1. how good it is, and 2. how it compares to the bands other albums. Sunlandic Twins is a really good album, It just doesnt compare to the older ones. The scores for E6 bands usually dont end up as high as I'd like to see them, but I really like the music. I dont think that Pitchfork does.

The moral of this story is, if you want to know how a new E6 album is, ask the people on this board. If you want to know how anyother new album is, ask the people on this board, chances are you have similar musical taste. Pitchfork, though, is a good tool to get some sort of feel about albums.

[ollie]

Originally posted by everythingfallstogether
twee was made up long before belle and sebastians existance if i'm not mistaken, bands like heavenly and all of amelia flethchers projects i think started the term twee. and there are some great twee bands out there. belle and sebastian certainly are not one of them.

yeah, i would not consider B&S twee. they are indie pop though. maybe not the most traditional sort of indie pop, but a lot of their stuff (especially from 2000 onward) is definitely indie pop.

i love them so much, unlike you though. :)

[vacantmoon]

i love heavenly and related bands but i've never heard that kind of music described as called 'twee', although i try to steer clear of labels clouding my vision. i don't remember labels dominating everything until like the mid-late 90s when 'emo' first started rearing it's head behind every corner.

you could call heavenly, belle and sebastian or tons of bands whatever trivial word comes to mind but in the end it either sounds good to you or it doesn't.

but i must admit i have a soft spot for such outspoken b&s haters - i always picture them as beet red with smoke coming out of their ears, possibly wearing a black leather jacket and wincing like the Fonz ;)

no offense.

[call me hi]

i don't know what twee or emo implies but i hate it already. don't know why.

[pierrecoghill]

i do this weird thing where i form my own opinion rather than read pitchfork and have someone tell me what is good.

[ollie]

Originally posted by call me hi
i don't know what twee or emo implies but i hate it already. don't know why.

the unfortunate thing about those labels is that they are so derogatory. there is some music labeled as twee which is actually quite good. there is some music labeled as emo which is actually quite good. but for both, not much of it, at least to my ears. has less to do with the labels and more to do with the artists that happen to have those labels put on them (sad for them to be pinned like that though).

[burano]

Message original : kteberry
Ehh, Pitchfork gave "In the Aeroplane Over the Sea" an 8.something. (the album, in my opinion, is the best thing to ever come out of the E6 camp, followed by Coquelicot, the Circulatory System, and then the Olivia Tremor albums.)With the exception of the Olivia Tremor albums and the Circulatory system album(they allgot 9.somethings? think the Pitchfork people really like E6 bands. It's not really that they are against them, I just dont think that the appreciate them as much as the E6 fans appreciate E6 bands.

recently, in the aeroplane over the sea was named the 4th best album of the 90s, just behind ok computer, loveless and the soft bulletin
In my opinion, in the aeroplane over the sea is the best of the decade

http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/top/90s/index10.shtml

[Edite le 4-15-2005 par burano]

[kartoonz]

After a few more listens, I retract my previous "too much synth drums" statement.

[tackledspoon]

Originally posted by ollie

I really wouldn't call it the best review site. It may be one of the most thorough sites at least in terms of how much music it covers and how well it covers them. But its opinions are too one-sided to really matter. I, too, dislike that they only have one member's perspective. The idiot that gave Belle and Sebastian's "The Boy With the Arab Strap" a 0.7 should have had his article scrapped for someone who actually listened to it, for example. They don't get it right often enough, even accounting for differences of taste.

Yeah, giving TBWTAS that rating always seemed ridiculous to me. Then again, giving Tigermilk an 8.4 seems low to me.