| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Don Eduardo
= Cult of Ray =
Australia
403 Posts |
 Posted - 09/24/2003 : 04:09:07
|
5.4 out of 10
Pixies! Do not reunite! Please! Think of all that you have to stay dead for: four legendary albums, ever-strong legions of adoring hero-worshippers, and maybe the single most firmly entrenched reputation in the history of alternative music! Just consider it... it doesn't need to end this way...
But maybe it's no use; without even knowing for certain if the rumors of a supposed reunion will become a reality (the band and label have neither confirmed nor denied our inquiries), it's almost a truism in rock that matters of a band's sterling reputation inexorably descend to the lowest depths of the lowest common denominator. The worst part is that, with his latest misstep in the company of The Catholics, Show Me Your Tears, it's hard to think that lowest common denominator isn't Black Francis himself, sitting at the bottom of the barrel, waiting for the rest of the Pixies to finally arrive (Joey, as a member of The Catholics, would seem to be a shoo-in). It's bad enough that Frank Black can't seem to work hard enough these days to encourage what little confidence his name still instills in the hearts and minds of his few resolute followers; the Pixies shouldn't have to gently follow him into that good night, too.
But there's no need to even bring the Pixies into the picture; the scene presented by reality-as-we-know-it is grim enough. Good ol' fashioned Catholic guilt ought to have set in on Black by now for coasting on the fumes of his reputation in the baffling quest to reach some bland ideal of jangly, Midwestern shit-rock, but no such luck. He's still belting out bar-ballads for the type of bars he and his peer group are old enough to frequent. And there's no end in sight, either; any songwriter of Black's caliber could churn out homogenized roots-riffs and schmaltzy sentiment to last call and beyond. Heed the keen insight he offers on "Horrible Day": "It's a good day/ No, it's a horrible day/ And for the first time in my life I just don't care." In the battle of Frank versus the bar, my money's on the bar, and Frank's is, too, evidently; the next round's on him.
Now, it might be fair to suspect that I'm holding Frank to artistic standards that he never held for himself. First of all, even if that's true, why shouldn't we expect artists (in general) to perform to their demonstrated ability rather than sincerely offering up pieces of the comfortable little rut that they've been apathetically carving out over the past few years? If it was just a question of failing to live up to the Pixies, no one would need a review to predict the obvious, but it's so much worse than that; paling in comparison to the Pixies is expected (and it would be unrealistic to expect otherwise), but Tears isn't even a good Catholics album.
The excellent first half of Pistolero-- particularly the dazzling crescendo of "Western Star"-- is everything that the Catholics can and ought to be: rock as large, expansive, and over-romanticized (like right now) as the western skies hanging over the rural-route honky-tonk dives whose atmosphere they so readily evoke. Considering how little has changed in their dusty, trail-worn aesthetic between then and now, the listless songs on this album don't indicate maturation, or evolution of the band's sound, just lack of interest.
Only "Everything Is New" offers any sort of highlight by (not without some irony) most readily harkening back to some of the pent-up energy and easy melody of earlier Catholics material. It's comparatively slight next to the blustery faux-rockers on Tears, and flatter than the cloying sentiment of the more somber tunes, but that's because it may be the only track that doesn't need to compensate for the simple desire that, in all other cases, just isn't there. The elegance of the melody is superbly understated; it doesn't seem like much at the time, but it does its work like any good pop song, and you may well be humming it long after the final coda. Even if there's little more to recommend, it's better to light a candle than curse the darkness. Still, it's the single, tiny bright spot on all of Show Me Your Tears, almost insignificant in the long twilight of Frank Black & The Catholics, and it's getting pretty dark down at the bottom of the barrel.
-Eric Carr, September 24th, 2003
|
|
|
Wowee_Zowee
- FB Fan -
Belgium
81 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2003 : 04:27:02
|
"5.0-5.9: Mediocre; not good, but not awful" - Hey, at least they don't think it's awful!
Even if you're Michael or Janet: it's a sad, sad planet. |
 |
|
|
billgoodman
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
Netherlands
6012 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2003 : 04:39:48
|
the death penalty, the death penalty
it would help so good
''it's not a box, it's a submarine'' |
|
|
|
Broken Face
-= Forum Pistolero =-
USA
5155 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2003 : 04:51:28
|
pitchfork is WAY too cynical - i like their news, hate their reviews
-brian
 - "I joined the Cult of Frank / And they tried to cut off my nuts and make me put on a blue jumpsuit"
|
|
|
|
Ten Percenter
- FB Enquirer -
United Kingdom
1733 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2003 : 05:13:08
|
Crap review. Nearly all the reviews I saw for Pitolero were negative, now it is being held up as some sort of standard (well, its first half in this case) which Frank and the Catholics are now failing to reach. I have found another shite review online - I will post it when I have more strength.
No man is an island, unless he is in the bath |
|
|
|
Malax
* Dog in the Sand *
United Kingdom
1340 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2003 : 05:51:53
|
| I like pitchfork but sometimes the reviewers seem to show to much of their opinion of a band rather than reviewing albums for what they are. They dwell on the past and their own particular opinions of artists and surely they should be reviewing from a neutral point. Kerrang is the worst for that. Some reviews of singles just rely on them calling the band a bunch of names and not even mentioning the songs. Twats |
|
|
|
mdisanto
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1140 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2003 : 06:34:28
|
the only problem with complaining about this review is that anyone who isnt from this board that reads this is gonna assume were just diehard frank fans that love everything he touches. and while thats partially true, i dont know how i could possibily convince myself that this album is one of the most enjoyable records to listen to that ive purchased in a while (which it is) if it was really the piece of shit pitchfork claims. oh well i cant say i expected them to give it a good review, and its not like it really matters, cause it doesnt take away from my enjoyment of it, but hoped that maybe theyd get it right this time.
-miked |
|
|
|
Itchload
= Cult of Ray =
USA
891 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2003 : 07:36:33
|
| Yeah, I figured since this is one of Frank's more acclaimed albums, like Dog in the Sand (which they liked), it would get a good review, in the 7's at least. Not the case though. |
|
|
|
anazgnos
= Cult of Ray =
USA
381 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2003 : 08:12:47
|
very little criticism of music at all contained in that review. He makes one brief reference to "Horrible Day" in which he gets the lyrics wrong, and then Everything is New gets a paragraph. It's not a particularly well-wrought or toothsome shitcanning.
In the spirit of showing tears, however:
Let it be noted that "they" didn't like Dog in the Sand, it was "I" that liked Dog in the Sand. I feel the need to publicly apologize for my review of that album. I can't believe I was allowed to review that album before even owning a copy of "Some Girls". By way of excuse, I forced myself to review the album after having listened to the mp3s of the album only about 4-5 times in late 2000. I wanted to be sure my review got in before anyone elses. My whole subtext for (very very briefly) joining Pitchfork was getting in a good review for Frank. Unfortunately I didn't allow myself the slightest time to let the album sink in and didn't have even the barest sliver of insight into it at the time I wrote it. (a real shame since that album was such an obvious turning point in the Catholics career, and there were so many 'angles' that became apparent after I actually bought the album & lived with it a while.) Alot of the tone comes from me trying to anticipate what I thought 'they' at Pitchfork wanted from or might accept in a Frank Black review, and for whatever reason at the time I didn't feel I could justify a flat-out ectastic endorsement. Oh well. I failed in that instance as a Frank Black fan, but I will drown in regret for my past transgressions no more!
 "Join the Cult of Frank / more fun than a trip to the Black Lodge" |
|
|
|
Cult_Of_Frank
= Black Noise Maker =
Canada
11674 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2003 : 08:22:21
|
When you start a review talking about a band the founding artist was in a decade ago and all but admit that you're really comparing the current record to previous efforts and could-have-beens, you pretty much forfeit any integrity for the review, the reviewer, or the publishing agent. If I wrote a review stating, albeit a little more directly, "I'm biased, but I hate the direction FB's music has gone and this new album is an example of that and so I hate it as well. 3/10" I would shake my head and reconsider my review before submitting it, and I would hope my editor would lay the smack down on me and certainly not publish it.
I don't think that really liking the bulk of someone's work (and therefore being a 'fan') means that you are unable to judge their work. We did judge it, we loved it or enough of it to want to discuss it with others and join a forum, end of story. I admit that I liked his sound in the early solo era a bit better than the latest stuff, but this album is its own entity and doesn't deserve to be judged against them any more than it deserves to be given a 5 because I don't care for country twang as much as a good rocker or some new wave magic.
"Join the Cult of Frank / And you'll be enlightened"
[EDIT] The above was written before anazgnos' post and no offense was intended... yet. |
Edited by - Cult_Of_Frank on 09/24/2003 08:31:02 |
|
|
|
mereubu
= FB QuizMistress =
USA
2677 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2003 : 08:36:46
|
Eric Carr is headed straight for the same place as Matt Allen from Q.
Definitely no lube!
(Sorry guys. This just isn't going to get old for me any time soon. So sue me.)
"I joined the Cult of Frank / And all I got was this lousy icon" |
|
|
|
Kirk
= Cult of Ray =
USA
633 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2003 : 09:11:56
|
Pitchfork doesn't give time for albums to absorb, and that's important.
They love the eccentrics, failed projects or not.
The Pitchfork kids are too cool for me.
-Kirk |
|
|
|
Malax
* Dog in the Sand *
United Kingdom
1340 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2003 : 10:04:21
|
| But they like mclusky so we should all let them off. |
|
|
|
Dave Noisy
Minister of Chaos
Canada
4496 Posts |
|
|
speedy_m
= Frankofile =
Canada
3581 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2003 : 11:46:00
|
Pitchfork is looking for a different kind of sound than what Frank provides. Hence, they love the Blood Brothers and Lightening Bolt and the such, but honest, sincere, classic songs are not fresh enough. There's nothing there for them to label, no new genre to define, no opportunity for them to be the first one's to tell us all about the great new wave of music coming so we all remember who the kings of hip are. This review is like the catty homosexual style reviewer doing the "best/worst dressed list" after the Oscar's. For anyone who has had the misfortune of watching ET lately (what a god awful waste of time), "Cojo" is the perfect human representation of Pitchfork at the momment. As much as I love the 'fork, I'm really tired of this type of review.
And of course I mean no offense to our resident rainbow flag waving folks! You know I love you!
 ixies |
|
|
|
Itchload
= Cult of Ray =
USA
891 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2003 : 11:58:47
|
I think the biggest misconception Pitchfork has been making about Frank Black lately is that he isn't recording indie rock music anymore. I'd even consider teh White Stripes (who kind of are like the Catholics) indie rock, but Frank just isn't. So I think a lot of their reviews approach his albums from the wrong context.
However, the last couple Pitchfork reviews of his albums very gladly sidestepped all the Pixies-trappings and seemed genuinely complimentary. The review for DW/BLD, the guy wasn't crazy about the albums but he still respected Frank's new direction and clearly loved the guy. I really really got the impression that Eric Carr didn't listen to the album more than 4 times and also that he didn't get the memo that it's not longer "hip" to diss Frank's solo career (in the same vein as it's no longer "hip" to say the Velvet Underground are overrated). Finally, SMYT is a pretty big departure from previous Frank Black albums, but he would have you believe it sounds exactly the same. |
|
|
|
interloper
= Cult of Ray =
440 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2003 : 12:40:50
|
| To hell with Pitchfork, their sleeve tattoos, and backpacks. They make all the typical moves as far as what they like. Remember being 23? Speaking of Pitchfork, has anyone noticed how popular capri pants are with guys nowadays? |
|
|
|
frank_black_francis
= Cult of Ray =
Canada
895 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2003 : 16:03:05
|
What a loser .... is it me, or does his non-stop put-downs seem a little too contrived. We all know that sometimes a reviewer gets more response from his bad reviews and that its part of the whole review schtick.....but this guy even sucks at that. 'I hate it, I hate it, I hate it.' What a fuckhead.
Remember, if you can, Teenager of The Year got a lot of bad reviews. |
Edited by - frank_black_francis on 09/24/2003 16:04:26 |
|
|
|
brank flack
- FB Fan -
USA
32 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2003 : 16:17:22
|
why get mad at a review? it is just one person's opinion which is valid even though you don't like it.
i don't agree but i can see what the guy means...except for always comparing catholics to pixies....2 very very different bands that never had the intention of being the same. |
|
|
|
Dave Noisy
Minister of Chaos
Canada
4496 Posts |
|
|
Omer
= Cult of Ray =
275 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2003 : 17:11:27
|
| Well, yeah, not the world's greatest review. I liked how he decided "in advance" that it could not be as good as the Pixies. |
|
|
|
ingersoll
- FB Fan -
USA
85 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2003 : 19:50:51
|
| I fucking hate Pitchfork. They give SMYT a 5, but they have a huge picture of Pink on their front page. Bleh. |
|
|
|
Stuart
- The Clopser -
China
2291 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2003 : 00:53:43
|
'It's bad enough that Frank Black can't seem to work hard enough these days to encourage what little confidence his name still instills in the hearts and minds of his few resolute followers.'
What the fuck??? Does this guy realise that Frank has been releasing an album a year for the past 3 years??? This guy is a dick who doesn't seem to know what he is talking about.... he also gets the lyrics for Horrible day wrong.
Who's the man that won't cop out when there's danger all about? |
Edited by - Stuart on 09/25/2003 00:55:44 |
|
|
|
Malax
* Dog in the Sand *
United Kingdom
1340 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2003 : 04:55:26
|
When I was just discovering Frank I looked through reviews of his albums to see which I should buy first, something I realised was stupid afterwards. Anyway, the only album that had any decent reviews was FB. I was on Q's website and considered skipping all the middle albums and getting Dog In The Sand, thats how poor all the reviews were. TOTY got 2 *'s.
Oh yeah on the subject of pitchfork, both the first 2 FB albums appear in their best 100 albums of the 90's. They're somewhere in the 50's if I remember correctly. |
|
|
|
Steak n Sabre
* Dog in the Sand *
Uzbekistan
1013 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2003 : 14:10:59
|
I think the line-up with Eric Carr was worst version of Kiss.
The Cult of Frank: Today, Tomorrow, Together... |
|
|
|
jbstevens
- FB Fan -
United Kingdom
102 Posts |
Posted - 10/01/2003 : 08:36:56
|
"It's bad enough that Frank Black can't seem to work hard enough these days to encourage what little confidence his name still instills in the hearts and minds of his few resolute followers."
Funny how many of the tour dates are sold out (certainly here in the UK anyway). I wish that he DID only have a few resolute followers, I might have been able to get tickets for the Oxford Zodiac then. (My own fault for leaving it so late 
 "I joined the cult of frank / and all I got was this lousy t-shirt" |
|
|
|
VoVat
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
9168 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2003 : 14:58:02
|
I agree with a lot of what's been said about Pitchfork reviews. I haven't read a whole lot of reviews there, but most of the ones I've seen seem to be more the reviewers' attempts to sound cool ("cool" in this case meaning "really pretentious and sarcastic") than to actually review the albums.
-Nathan
And how does lemur's skin reflect the sea? |
|
|
|
Wowee_Zowee
- FB Fan -
Belgium
81 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2003 : 13:59:49
|
The funniest reviews are when the rating and the review aren't really in report to one another - like, I think, was the case with "Sumday" and "Hail To The Thief"... too lazy to look those up though.
Even if you're Michael or Janet: it's a sad, sad planet. |
|
|
|
Kirk
= Cult of Ray =
USA
633 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2003 : 18:15:28
|
The only good attribute I see in pitchfork is they're able to identify which bands carry facades. Other than that, they can't get past the accused superficiality.
-Kirk |
|
|
|
blarg007
= Cult of Ray =
USA
493 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2003 : 10:21:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by speedy_m
Pitchfork is looking for a different kind of sound than what Frank provides. Hence, they love the Blood Brothers and Lightening Bolt and the such, but honest, sincere, classic songs are not fresh enough. There's nothing there for them to label, no new genre to define, no opportunity for them to be the first one's to tell us all about the great new wave of music coming so we all remember who the kings of hip are. This review is like the catty homosexual style reviewer doing the "best/worst dressed list" after the Oscar's. For anyone who has had the misfortune of watching ET lately (what a god awful waste of time), "Cojo" is the perfect human representation of Pitchfork at the momment. As much as I love the 'fork, I'm really tired of this type of review.
And of course I mean no offense to our resident rainbow flag waving folks! You know I love you!
ixies
there is something you have touched on here that explains the dismall
music scene and that is it seems bands try to have a sound as opposed
to creating one IE: audioslave sounds like soundgarden (same singer for all i know)a LOT of bands trying to sound like nine inch nails etc. -and then there seems to be a slew of 'we'll sound like a cross
between 9"nails and nirvana' bands.
etc. adnauseum -i have to admit a song i like that is on modern radio is that one by 'outcast' that is sort of modern beaty with a lot of retro attitude (kind of like '70s zappaish mashed with beasty boys beats).
and it blows my mind how obvious it is that certain songs get air to satisfy 'genre' groups. pathetic.
something like that outcast song is refreshing though as it seems to have it's own territory squeezed in between disturbed and coldplay.
r |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
Topic Locked
