| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| johnnyribcage |
Posted - 03/02/2022 : 14:32:26
Didn’t look like we had a thread and the old Eyrie thread was revived for this. Anyway - I love the new track. And if there are 40 tracks (or more?) waiting in the wings, I’ll make a plug for my old wish for an all over the map White Album style double Pixies LP.
https://youtu.be/l7ofPSefhyQ
I had a bad reaction to your public hobby writings. |
| 35 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| hammerhands |
Posted - 06/14/2022 : 06:00:31
quote:
Originally posted by tamefan
kindt's beautiful piano cover of human crime was used by pixies in their video trailer for doggerel! it was also recently retweeted by the official pixies account. i wonder if it's an album track.
That piano reprise has stuck the song in my head.
I like the video. |
| hammerhands |
Posted - 06/14/2022 : 05:57:30
quote:
Originally posted by johnnyribcage
Anyone know how to go about seeing if we can track down publishing documentation for these 40ish songs they supposedly have to chose from for the next album?
You can start here:
http://repertoire.bmi.com/
I didn't notice too many interesting song names except a couple like Kennedy. |
| Bedbug |
Posted - 06/13/2022 : 18:20:14
This song is REALLY growing on me.
I totally dig it now
Great job Charles and Pixies! |
| natenate101 |
Posted - 06/06/2022 : 07:19:02
quote:
Originally posted by tamefan
kindt's beautiful piano cover of human crime was used by pixies in their video trailer for doggerel! it was also recently retweeted by the official pixies account. i wonder if it's an album track.
It is not. Was a one off. |
| tamefan |
Posted - 06/06/2022 : 06:16:14
kindt's beautiful piano cover of human crime was used by pixies in their video trailer for doggerel! it was also recently retweeted by the official pixies account. i wonder if it's an album track. |
| Sprite |
Posted - 04/13/2022 : 14:07:56
Enjoying all these extended posts! I don't have so many considered thoughts but I still think Human Crime is good but definitely in a throwaway bone type of mode (e.g. like Women of War). I listen to BTE all the time on Spotify on shuffle so the demos mixed in the with main tracks, I think it's great and my favourite run of Pixies 2.0 music.
I was listening to Doolittle in the summer of '89 and for ages (~6 months) I skipped Here Comes your Man. I was like WTF when they released it as a single. But the Bsides on the 12" more than made up for it. |
| Ziggy |
Posted - 04/04/2022 : 11:48:00
quote:
Originally posted by billgoodman
Almost every song on IC is too long. The sound is way too polished for me and it misses the female vocal.
Joey's playing is superb though and all the melodies and lyrics have great potential.
HC and BTE sound more like FB and the C's to me, but are also better in my book.
Thanks to Paz it's not less "Pixies" than on IC.
---------------------------
BF: Mag ik Engels spreken?
Yeah it's bizarre how the IC songs are so long!
Several, such as Magdelena, sounded better live when sped up a bit. |
| Brank_Flack |
Posted - 04/04/2022 : 10:04:00
I was a on the critical side when the song came out but now after hearing it a few times I often find myself unwittingly singing the chorus. |
| billgoodman |
Posted - 04/01/2022 : 00:07:11
Almost every song on IC is too long. The sound is way too polished for me and it misses the female vocal.
Joey's playing is superb though and all the melodies and lyrics have great potential.
HC and BTE sound more like FB and the C's to me, but are also better in my book.
Thanks to Paz it's not less "Pixies" than on IC.
---------------------------
BF: Mag ik Engels spreken? |
| johnnyribcage |
Posted - 03/31/2022 : 09:53:35
Hey, back before Head Carrier dropped, some enterprising sleuths found mystery song titles listed on bmi for Lone Child (not sure if his stuff is still published under that title). Examples below. The links are dead now. Anyone know how to go about seeing if we can track down publishing documentation for these 40ish songs they supposedly have to chose from for the next album?
All Lone Child music:
ALL THE SAINTS
http://repertoire.bmi.com/title.asp?blnWriter=True&blnPublisher=True&blnArtist=True&keyID=20615706&ShowNbr=0&ShowSeqNbr=0&querytype=WorkID
BAALS BACK
http://repertoire.bmi.com/title.asp?blnWriter=True&blnPublisher=True&blnArtist=True&keyID=20615857&ShowNbr=0&ShowSeqNbr=0&querytype=WorkID
I had a bad reaction to your public hobby writings. |
| Brank_Flack |
Posted - 03/28/2022 : 11:59:04
I agree that IC is the most "Pixie-ish", particularly the Bossanova/Trompe era, and that Head Carrier marked a return to a more natural/perhaps less self-conscious form of songwriting. I do think, however, there is something to be said about Beneath the Eyrie returning to some of the dark undercurrents of side 2 of Doolittle without being reducible to that era (I can imagine Birds of Prey fitting well along There Goes My Gun and Silver), and that after listening to the podcast I think Tom Dalgety's contributions were quite positive in that regard. The decision for Charles to play mostly acoustic, and Joey's choice to go in a noir/western direction. |
| TheScooper |
Posted - 03/28/2022 : 00:00:24
Was just listening to IC the other day, it does genuinely feel like a Pixies record. The songwriting is definitely part of it, but also Norton actually understands the band, even if the mixing sucks. Tom Dalgety is just the absolute worst match for the band (I know, well worn territory).
Wish they'd do another record with Gil (or anyone that's not Dalgety) now that Paz is integrated into the band |
| Troubles A Foot |
Posted - 03/26/2022 : 08:26:08
Um Chagga Laga sounds like a Catholics song to me. Most of the Cindy songs sound like Pixies songs to me. Cindy sounds like the natural offshoot from Bossanova or Trompe Le Monde, layered, atmospheric and heavy. Catholics were the "raw" one, remember?
Even specifically Frank's singing sounds like like the young Black Francis on Indie Cindy than it does on anything they did later, and Joey's guitar feels more wild and less...TAAAAAAME as it does on Head Carrier. The melodies and rhythms more unpredictable on Cindy, more weirdness, the lyrics are stranger and more aggressive. I'm not sure I LIKE it the best (maybe due to the mastering), but I do think it sounds the most like the Pixies. Head Carrier felt like a "return to form" only in the sense of oh, after purposefully invoking the Pixies songwriting style, Frank's now just gonna write songs his way and have the Pixies be his backup band now, ok cool. |
| billgoodman |
Posted - 03/26/2022 : 04:09:02
It sounded more raw than Indie Cindy in some places
Most notably Um Chagga Laga
---------------------------
BF: Mag ik Engels spreken? |
| Troubles A Foot |
Posted - 03/25/2022 : 22:16:30
Finally SOMEONE is!
I was scratching my head to death when Head Carrier came out and tons of reviews both professional and from fans were like "the Pixies return to form!"
I was like huh? This sounds like a pleasant poppy Catholics album compared to Indie Cindy. |
| johnnyribcage |
Posted - 03/25/2022 : 20:50:04
By the way , Trouble - I’m with you in the “indie Cindy is the most ‘pixies’ new ‘pixies ‘ album in this era.
I had a bad reaction to your public hobby writings. |
| johnnyribcage |
Posted - 03/24/2022 : 14:29:56
quote:
Originally posted by pot
I think the video is cool - better than any of the 2.0 videos so far. Just find them all boring but this one's quite creative - love the indie pixie girl in it I'd like to go to a club like that although maybe a little less burlesque? Actually I had the idea to do an illustration or something of the Pixies as actual pixies and couldn't really come up with anything and there's the actual Pixies there doing it (at the end with the 4 grafiti pixies) The bits where she's walking through doors into the grafiti and stuff
I liked the video as well. As for 2.0 videos they’ve been hit or miss for me, mostly miss, but I thought Blue Eyed Hex was pretty awesome. Great song too. Probably my favorite 2.0 track.
I had a bad reaction to your public hobby writings. |
| pot |
Posted - 03/23/2022 : 16:32:21
I think the video is cool - better than any of the 2.0 videos so far. Just find them all boring but this one's quite creative - love the indie pixie girl in it I'd like to go to a club like that although maybe a little less burlesque? Actually I had the idea to do an illustration or something of the Pixies as actual pixies and couldn't really come up with anything and there's the actual Pixies there doing it (at the end with the 4 grafiti pixies) The bits where she's walking through doors into the grafiti and stuff |
| Troubles A Foot |
Posted - 03/18/2022 : 14:49:43
This really proves I haven't listened to BTE enough as I had to listen to know what you're referring to (on looking at that track list...it IS a REALLY solid album...)
Yeah that is interesting, it sounds like a Beatles nod or possibly it's the Heavenly gates opening up...The transition from Daniel Boone to Death Horizon is one of the more poignant, sweet, sad, nice things on any Frank album. I wonder if the podcast made reference to this anywhere. |
| Bedbug |
Posted - 03/18/2022 : 11:55:13
Trouble I meant to ask you about your take on the opening chord of Death Horizon. What’s going on there? Another Beatles nod? (Maybe to Dig a Pony, my all time favorite Beatles song). Or just a nice way to intro the BTE closer? |
| Troubles A Foot |
Posted - 03/18/2022 : 11:45:37
Really enjoyed that post Johnny! And thanks for listening to my album, I hope you check out my new (and better) one which is coming out hopefully in a few weeks!
Yeah, the reason I'm so obsessed with Frank is in part because of his metamorphoses and also the consistencies and the surprises. That's why I can talk about Pixies 2.0 or Catholics or the solo Black Francis era forever. It just really fascinates me. Like would Bluefinger have been the best Pixies album? Would BTE been a great Catholics album? Are the Catholics songs with Joey on them sorta Pixies songs...even the one that literally was a Pixies song? Why are the BTE demos so much better to me than BTE? Why do I think Indie Cindy is super underrated and sounds more like the Pixies than anything else they've put out after that gets way more acclaim? Is Frank ever gonna perform his solo material ever again ever? What if the Pixies started doing some of it?
These keep me up at night.
Yeah, I agree with Bedbug, "challenging" is a good description. I listened to Human Crime 3 times today while walking around doing errands. It's really enjoyable and I like it. But.....(etc) |
| Bedbug |
Posted - 03/18/2022 : 10:22:10
Nice post Johnny, appreciate the effort and agree with your big points
I wrote somewhere on this forum that I stopped thinking in terms of “the Pixies” and just think of the whole thing as our man making music with various support groups. I don’t think 2.0 is the Pixies anymore than I think anything during the other projects is the Pixies. And I’m sure there is someone who saw the Pixies in 88 who would tell me that when I saw them in 92 I didn’t *really* see THE Pixies, and I might agree with him.
Having said that, Frank hasn’t made a challenging song since Bagboy. I love all the 2.0 material (a lot less than a lot of his other catalog obviously) and the only song that reminds me of 1.0 is Paz’ Surf Epic. But there is something about FBF that keeps me into it all, even though the new stuff only goes so far. If he revived the Pixies name just to cash in, good for him, they should have been bigger than Prince but they were born out of due time. My two cents on your good post Johnny Ribcage |
| johnnyribcage |
Posted - 03/17/2022 : 19:50:55
Here comes basically an article, inspired by the conversation around this song, but not necessarily about Human Crime. It’s more of a dissertation to explain my fandom of FBF.
I haven’t posted here much in years, but since this dusty old forum seems to be showing a spark of life (big thank you to whoever the hell is keeping lights on around here!), and I’m a few beers deep and feeling a deep FBF kick coming on soon, I’m gonna unleash. For those of you who weren’t around here back in the day, this is an old school forum.frankblack.net post like back when we used to go deep on the daily around here. AND!… I’m a verbose MFer, and the Actual Bagboy, so what can I say.
Great commentary, Trouble. I dig it, and I dig where you’re coming from. Especially your perspective on how it might feel like Charles is saying “here’s some throwback stuff for you.” I can understand it, and your take on it. Also, I knew you were a practiced songwriter and amateur engineer-type like myself - that’s why I made that comment - I’ve listened to your album! And really enjoyed it! Apologies for the amateur label if you’ve transitioned to professional status in the last few years.
Anyway, let’s get down to Brass Tacks. Regarding the idea that Charles is trying to somehow hip The Youth to his stuff by varnishing it with the Pixies brand… I don’t buy it. This is at the core of what I’ve been trying to say in other posts on this thread, and I mentioned it in Bedbug’s “better than Pixies” thread: I see all things Pixies and FBF as one big old continuum.
This is my perception of it, subjective as it may be, but I see it all as this artist and visionary, epic songwriter, Charles Thompson, writing songs throughout his life, and they’re just filtered through, and in real, artistic collaboration with, the people he’s working with at the time to make them real. He seems to purposefully pursue genres, themes, and has a vision of how he wants things to be perceived, as any artist does, and stacks the deck to push the final product one way or another, but at the end of the day it’s all still just his songs. They resonate and hit us all in different ways, and inspire praise or loathing in the recipient’s mind based on that recipient’s perception, as all good art does.
The dividing lines between songs like Debaser, SuperBound, Whispering Weeds, Lone Child, Captain Pasty, The Flower Song, Bagboy, Silver Bullet, Human Crime… I could list them all, but that line is so blurred as to be nonexistent as far as I’m concerned. The guy is just one of the most prolific and multifaceted songwriters ever, and I simply cannot see Human Crime as being anything else other than yet another great song in one of the most wildly diverse, rewarding, and exploratory songbooks of the last 70 years of popular music.
Currently, the people he’s working with to bring what he’s always done to life happen to be 2 original Pixies and a newer one that fits right in and brings her own awesome sensibilities to the table to boot. He’s what… 56? 57 years old? I’m 42 and have changed and grown so radically in these years that it’s daunting to think how much I’ll change and grow in the next 15-16 years. It’s hard to imagine so many decades as a professional artist and entertainer, and to just keep moving forward in, whether you want to admit it or not, fresh, possibly controversial, conversation-provoking ways. He’s never rested on his laurels.
Say what you will about Pixies 2.0, but I think in hindsight it’s going to be viewed as some cornerstone music in a career of cornerstone music. And that’s not intended to take anything away from what all the incredible collaborators he’s worked with through the decades have added to this awesome stew.
The other Pixies bring a mountain of their own experience and ideas to the table, and they’re a real BAND, just like the other bands he’s worked with. It’s not all Charles, it’s the people and the time and place and circumstances that make it all pure magic. I could write a similar “article” on each iteration of the bands he’s been in, and they’re all worthy of a rock documentary. Anyway, I’m trying to dig it in the moment, not 20-30 years from now when it’s all re-evaluated. You know what I mean?
As a huge Bob Dylan fan, the idea of this continuous obsessive approach to reframing and reinventing is the single most compelling thing about the best musicians. Bob was destroyed by fans and critics alike for going “mainstream” or reinventing as various versions of himself, even if it seemed like a devolution or a less-than kind of thing to some listeners.
The fact that he keeps plowing ahead is astonishing, as it is with all prolific artists to me. And he’s a genuine working musician, the type that loads their own gear. The few times I’ve been lucky enough to shake his hand, I was always surprised at how callused and rough they were - like the hands of my old mechanic uncles.
What I’m getting at is, quite frankly, I don’t give a rats ass about the Pixies “legacy” or whatever, 1) because it’s not MY legacy, it’s his, 2) all of the above that I wrote, because the Pixies are just part of a larger picture, and 3) I’m so infatuated with the music this guy comes up with, that I don’t care what label is slapped on it. I guess I’m a “fanboy,” for lack of a better term.
And that’s the context for my explaining why I think Human Crime is great, and my reason for wanting more, whatever the hell it sounds like or whatever moniker it’s under.
Ribcage, out.
I had a bad reaction to your public hobby writings. |
| Troubles A Foot |
Posted - 03/17/2022 : 17:11:01
I've written hundreds of songs over decades too...A lot of mine are also inspired by other bands but then that gets lost in translation. I'm not disputing Charles said that about the song, as I said, I know he did. But I don't understand how anyone can hear it and think it sounds like Talking Heads. I sincerely don't, and I've tried many times, ever since seeing he said that about the song. I'm just surprised you think it's so obvious as to be clear and apparent on a first listen. I can't get there even after 100 listens. Of both bands. I could probably name Pixies songs that sound more like Talking Heads if I think about it.
BTE may be seen as middle of the road conventional (I would't necessarily use those words to describe it) because of the overly polished production (painstakingly documented on the wonderful podcast), a lot of the melodies not taking you in unpredictable directions, a lot of the timing and rhythm being fairly standard compared to older Pixies (or even Indie Cindy songs.) Like I just feel when I hear a Pixies song I shouldn't be able to predict what the next chord or song section is going to be so easily. I've thought this about every album since after Indie Cindy. I do think BTE has pretty good lyrics though, but not as head scratching as early Pixies/Indie Cindy stuff. BTE feels a lot more understandable and heart on its sleeve compared to other Pixies, which is fine and doesn't necessarily = "middle of the road" (if anything it evokes his Catholics work, which I adore), but it is a more accessible approach.
Catholics to me felt like Frank being honest and like hey I'm done with this hip youthful rock stuff, I'm older now, I'm now in my older guy music phase. Like a classic sort of rootsy sound more for world weary adults. Now it sounds to me like he's kind of traveling back in time a bit, hey kids, here's some youthful cool music for you...It's a little strange?? There's lots of great songs, but it's the approach I find odd and something I keep analyzing and thinking about whenever they put out a new release.
|
| johnnyribcage |
Posted - 03/17/2022 : 15:58:14
As a casual Heads fan, my impression was, from the first time I heard it, “Hey, cool, kind of sounds like they’re trying to do a Talking Heads thing!” My analysis doesn’t go far beyond that. And given that Charles has admitted as much, I’m not sure what else there is to say. I get it, I hear it, and I don’t think it was supposed to be a direct imitation like a tribute band or something. It’s still a Pixies song. And one can fail at an attempted band emulation and still kind of land in the ballpark. Teen Spirit was supposed to be a Pixies ripoff too…
I’ve been writing songs for decades and have written hundreds of them. At least half came after hearing something else and saying, “hey, I wanna pick that vibe up and try to do something like that in my own voice.” You’re a songwriter - you know what I mean, right?
Anyway, would you care to elaborate on what’s so middle of the road conventional about BTE?
I had a bad reaction to your public hobby writings. |
| Troubles A Foot |
Posted - 03/17/2022 : 15:49:37
Sure, but to obsess and get very nerdy about Dig For Fire:
The vocal delivery sounds like Charles speaking/singing a number of Pixies songs. I don't hear a tiny bit of Byrne in there at all. Not in the speaking part and especially not the singing part.
The beat doesn't sound like a Chris Frantz beat to me at all but like the fairly typical Lovering Pixies beat. Frantz did a very specific beat on Little Creatures and True Stories, and his beats on the albums before that were more unusual or minimalist and manic to go with Byrne's strange songwriting structure. Or extremely repetitive on Remain In Light/Speaking In Tongues to go with the loop construction of those songs.
The chord progression shares no similarity to any Talking Heads song I can think of, and I mean all eras: the wacko dark weird chord progressions of the first 3 albums, the one-or-two-chords-only vibe of Remain In Light or Speaking In Tongues, or the Americana pop stuff of Little Creatures/True Stories, or world-music-influenced Naked (ok, maybe a LITTLE of that, actually.)
So all I can agree on is maybe it sounds a bit like the guitar noodly vibe of Naked (which much of that was what Johnny Marr brought to those songs), but that album in no way defines Talking Heads' sound as most people know it...
So...?? Care to elaborate? |
| johnnyribcage |
Posted - 03/17/2022 : 15:32:09
Trouble, I think you and I just have a fundamentally different take on a lot of things, and there ain’t a damn thing wrong with that! :)
I also listen to a lot of Talking Heads, although I wouldn’t call myself a connoisseur or scholar. I hear a ton of influence, particularly in the vocal delivery, the beat and drum production choices, and chord structure.
As for there being a current trend of Pixies putting out stuff that seems to pander to a non Pixies, radio friendly crowd… man, again, we just have a different take… I’m trying to find all these radio friendly conventional songs on BTE… that’s a weird-ass, unconventional album (if conventional = mainstream sounding) loaded with stuff that I can’t imagine appealing to anyone outside the Pixie fan base.
All good man, it’s nice to have some considered discussion on this old neglected backwater forum.
I had a bad reaction to your public hobby writings. |
| Troubles A Foot |
Posted - 03/17/2022 : 13:20:31
quote:
Originally posted by johnnyribcage
I have to call you on this one as well, Trouble. I'd encourage you to read the wikipedia entry on Here Comes Your Man. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_Comes_Your_Man
It's not about subverting anything, in my opinion. Now there could be some quote from Charles somewhere that refutes that statement and if there is I'd stand corrected. But 'subverting' implies there was something to subvert in the first place.
I'm not saying the writing of the song was meant to be subversive, but Charles and the Pixies know that it IS a subversion of Pixies expectations, even among their cult following at the time, which again, is why the Beatles chord at the start. It's a little wink. That's all I'm saying. It's an outlier on Doolittle and most of their material before that too and it's not like the band wasn't aware of that (and as the 33 and 1/3rd book quotes Santiago saying, they refused to play Arsenio Hall because the show wanted Here Comes Your Man and they wanted to play Tame.)
And I think that's an entirely different concept than a lot of their new material which seems to be more sincerely trying to be liked (which I don't think is horrible, but I do find it less INTERESTING.) My point is, me saying it seems all of their songs now are these accessible not-scary poppy ones that want to be liked, it doesn't make sense (to me) to point to only one or two past songs like that to discount it, because I am saying what once was a rarity among their material is now the status quo.
It's like if they put out an album with a string section and I said oh, what a weird, surprising thing for them to do, and then it was pointed out Monkey's Gone To Heaven has one. Well yeah, ONE or two songs before doesn't exactly negate the point that it's new and different for the band, by and large.
I also still don't think Dig For Fire is very accessible (I note that it may be my favorite Pixies song, by the way), and La La Love You is blatantly joking around about Silly Love Songs so it doesn't make sense to me as an example. Alison to me is still a bit too punky and short to count, though it's obviously very enjoyable and catchy and I'd put it on a Pixies mix tape to convert someone. But a more intense stab at a mainstream single would have seen more verses and choruses added, I suspect. |
| Troubles A Foot |
Posted - 03/17/2022 : 13:11:32
quote:
Originally posted by johnnyribcage
Talking Heads were a phenomenon in the 80s and Dig for Fire is very Talking Heads-ish, albeit pretty pedestrian in its weirdness compared to some of the big Talking Heads hits. It was also one of the two singles from Bossanova, so they or 4AD had to have been smelling some commercial potential on it.
I have seen Frank say the song is a Talking Heads ripoff several times, and I swear on my life, I don't hear it and I never have. The song sounds nothing at all like Talking Heads to me. Like my two favorite bands are Talking Heads and Frank's music, I feel like this is something I'd be able to hear... |
| Bedbug |
Posted - 03/17/2022 : 11:17:05
quote:
Originally posted by johnnyribcage
quote:
Originally posted by Troubles A Foot
quote:
Originally posted by johnnyribcage
And the Pixies have plenty of sunny sounding tracks - even back in the day. I know Human Crime is something new, but other happier, kind of radio-friendly tracks come to mind - Here Comes Your Man, La La Love You, Allison, Dig For Fire... it's not unprecedented.
I had a feeling someone would say this. My argument against that is Here Comes Your Man and La La Love You, their entire conceptual point is subverting what people expect from the Pixies and doing a catchy, accessible song. That's why Man begins with the cheeky Hard Day's Night chord and that's why La La Love You is over the top goofy nonsense.
I have to call you on this one as well, Trouble. I'd encourage you to read the wikipedia entry on Here Comes Your Man. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_Comes_Your_Man
It's not about subverting anything, in my opinion. Now there could be some quote from Charles somewhere that refutes that statement and if there is I'd stand corrected. But 'subverting' implies there was something to subvert in the first place.
The Pixies, at the time Doolittle was recorded and released, were pretty much still completely unknown outside of some indie circles. They were big in the indie charts in the UK.
To summarize some key points from the wiki entry - the song was written when he was 14 or 15 before the Pixies were even a twinkle in Charles' eye. They didn't include it on Pilgrim or SR because Charles was embarrassed that it was too commercial sounding. Gil Norton loved it though, and Charles 'threw him a bone' and reworked and recorded it for Doolittle.
It was chosen as the second single from Doolittle, and was their second music video ever (after Monkey). It was their first breakthrough and first actual 'hit,' outside of the UK reaching #3 on the US Billboard Alternative chart. The band continued to be embarrassed by it for some time apparently and rarely played it live.
All of this demonstrates - to me anyway - that not only were they not trying to subvert some conventional idea, they were doing the exact opposite, albeit somewhat kicking and screaming. They (or mgmt and label anyway) were hoping it's commercial nature would catch on and build an audience that didn't exist in the first place.
As their first hit in the US, there wasn't a public perception of 'what a Pixies song should be' because they'd only released an album and a half of material and nobody knew who the hell they were anyway.
I had a bad reaction to your public hobby writings.
Good thoughts Johnnyribcage. I forgot how old "Your Man" was. I would be curious to learn if anybody who was reviewing Doolittle back when it came out had that subverted expectations take on it. |
| johnnyribcage |
Posted - 03/16/2022 : 10:14:25
quote:
Originally posted by Troubles A Foot
quote:
Originally posted by johnnyribcage
And the Pixies have plenty of sunny sounding tracks - even back in the day. I know Human Crime is something new, but other happier, kind of radio-friendly tracks come to mind - Here Comes Your Man, La La Love You, Allison, Dig For Fire... it's not unprecedented.
I had a feeling someone would say this. My argument against that is Here Comes Your Man and La La Love You, their entire conceptual point is subverting what people expect from the Pixies and doing a catchy, accessible song. That's why Man begins with the cheeky Hard Day's Night chord and that's why La La Love You is over the top goofy nonsense.
I have to call you on this one as well, Trouble. I'd encourage you to read the wikipedia entry on Here Comes Your Man. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_Comes_Your_Man
It's not about subverting anything, in my opinion. Now there could be some quote from Charles somewhere that refutes that statement and if there is I'd stand corrected. But 'subverting' implies there was something to subvert in the first place.
The Pixies, at the time Doolittle was recorded and released, were pretty much still completely unknown outside of some indie circles. They were big in the indie charts in the UK.
To summarize some key points from the wiki entry - the song was written when he was 14 or 15 before the Pixies were even a twinkle in Charles' eye. They didn't include it on Pilgrim or SR because Charles was embarrassed that it was too commercial sounding. Gil Norton loved it though, and Charles 'threw him a bone' and reworked and recorded it for Doolittle.
It was chosen as the second single from Doolittle, and was their second music video ever (after Monkey). It was their first breakthrough and first actual 'hit,' outside of the UK reaching #3 on the US Billboard Alternative chart. The band continued to be embarrassed by it for some time apparently and rarely played it live.
All of this demonstrates - to me anyway - that not only were they not trying to subvert some conventional idea, they were doing the exact opposite, albeit somewhat kicking and screaming. They (or mgmt and label anyway) were hoping it's commercial nature would catch on and build an audience that didn't exist in the first place.
As their first hit in the US, there wasn't a public perception of 'what a Pixies song should be' because they'd only released an album and a half of material and nobody knew who the hell they were anyway.
I had a bad reaction to your public hobby writings. |
| johnnyribcage |
Posted - 03/16/2022 : 09:03:10
quote:
Originally posted by Troubles A Foot
quote:
Originally posted by johnnyribcage
And the Pixies have plenty of sunny sounding tracks - even back in the day. I know Human Crime is something new, but other happier, kind of radio-friendly tracks come to mind - Here Comes Your Man, La La Love You, Allison, Dig For Fire... it's not unprecedented.
Dig For Fire is extremely weird and not mainstream at all to my ears.
The only thing I would say to that is that Dig For Fire sounds extremely contemporary for late 80s to pre-grunge ‘90 pop rock. It’s only weird to me in the context that it doesn’t sound like Pixies that came before it. But it fits right in with a ton of stuff that was big on MTV at the time - the production, the chorus, the arrangement.
Talking Heads were a phenomenon in the 80s and Dig for Fire is very Talking Heads-ish, albeit pretty pedestrian in its weirdness compared to some of the big Talking Heads hits. It was also one of the two singles from Bossanova, so they or 4AD had to have been smelling some commercial potential on it.
Oh and there was an MTV video for it… Allison too… 
https://youtu.be/n37Bdr559to
I had a bad reaction to your public hobby writings. |
| johnnyribcage |
Posted - 03/16/2022 : 08:40:58
I genuinely think there probably isn’t a strategy at this point to the songs they’re creating in terms of targeting an audience. They’re just doing what they want to do and hoping people like it but probably not giving much of a shit if they don’t. Charles, I assume, is just writing songs like he always has and the Pixies are arranging and performing them. Which is A OK in my book. Just my gut feeling on it.
I had a bad reaction to your public hobby writings. |
| johnnyribcage |
Posted - 03/16/2022 : 07:05:46
Ah, praise be to Subjectivity.
I had a bad reaction to your public hobby writings. |
| Bedbug |
Posted - 03/15/2022 : 03:41:01
I would tend to agree with Trouble at this point, although sometimes I wonder if Frank even knows what he’s doing as he does it
For the Nth time, the 2.0 sound isn’t going to create the kind of fans the 1.0 sound did anyway, so I’m not sure who cares that 2.0 singles are radio friendly or whatever. |
|
|
