| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Brank_Flack
* Dog in the Sand *
Canada
1086 Posts |
 Posted - 08/31/2025 : 14:32:33
|
I'm quite sympathetic to your arguments Trouble. A McCartney-esque setup would be best for FBF at this point, but alas as has been pointed out the financial incentives for touring with the Pixies instead are way too great. The TOTY show I saw in Toronto seemed about 2/3rd full, whereas both nights of the Pixies in Montreal seemed to be basically sold out. FB solo was playing very small venues throughout the 2000s, and was seemingly relegated to smaller and smaller music labels with physical copies of his records harder and harder to find. In comparison, anything Pixies sells.
I also completely see what you all mean about the disjointed nature between the 1.0 and 2.0 songs during the sets, and I also recognize the much, much, greater enthusiasm for anything from Doolittle, but I do have to say that in my recent experiences (Doggerel material in Buffalo and Zombies material in Montreal) the reception for the material - while certainly an ebb in the crowd's energy - wasn't as excruciating as is being painted out, the songs were at worst politely received. More importantly, the deafening applause at the end of all these shows didn't give me the impression that even those who would rather use the new songs as a bathroom or drink refill break were dissatisfied with the show as a whole. |
 |
|
|
Bedbug
> Teenager of the Year <
3288 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2025 : 18:49:41
|
For Brank, Trouble, and anyone
If your favorite 2.0 songs (say from that other thread) were the only 2.0 songs Pixies incorporated into 2025 setlists would you be good with that? Will those work with the 1.0 songs played live? |
|
|
|
natenate101
= Cult of Ray =
USA
899 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2025 : 06:11:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bedbug
For Brank, Trouble, and anyone
If your favorite 2.0 songs (say from that other thread) were the only 2.0 songs Pixies incorporated into 2025 setlists would you be good with that? Will those work with the 1.0 songs played live?
I can only speak for myself but the answer is Yes. Graveyard Hill, Plaster Of Paris, NoMatteday, what Goes Boom, Um Chagga Lagga, would fit better because they have energy and some of the Pixies weirdness and BF’s unique songwriting. Honestly I think he is using these new songs as a break in the action for his voice and the band. But even a song like Snakes that isn’t necessarily a barn burner felt more in tune with the 1.0 songs because it has a driving rhythm and some dynamic changes.
Have to agree with the idea that it might work better as FBF and his songs kinda thing. The TOTY show I went to in SF was packed and the reception was fantastic. And honestly that.crowd weren’t all nut jobs like us that listen to Fastman Raiderman, they just probably remember FB slightly and know of his association with Pixies.
I must stress that I only truly like about 2-3 songs each from the last 2 albums, but I listened to the first 3 new albums last night and the more rocking Indie Cindy songs (and maybe Um Chagga Lagga, Graveyard Hill and first part of Nomatterday) were able to scratch that Pixies 1.0 Itch for me. Would enjoy hearing those live again as they are a much better fit.
|
|
|
|
Brank_Flack
* Dog in the Sand *
Canada
1086 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2025 : 06:36:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bedbug
For Brank, Trouble, and anyone
If your favorite 2.0 songs (say from that other thread) were the only 2.0 songs Pixies incorporated into 2025 setlists would you be good with that? Will those work with the 1.0 songs played live?
For myself yes. But for the record, the more 2.0 songs the happier I am, regardless of what they are.
I'm just conceding that there is something of an awkward fit between the 1.0 and slower 2.0 songs, particularly from Zombies (for example, a Vegas Suite, Mercy Me, Kings of the Prarie run in the setlist). I'd rather hear them than not (in fact, they're what I'm looking forward to), but I recognize that the average audience member doesn't feel that way (they're waiting for Here Comes Your Man, Hey, Where is My Mind, etc.), and that a FBF show would be a better way to capture his many sides than a Pixies 1.0 set sprinkled with what are effectively slow Frank Black songs. I don't think, however, that songs like Oyster Beds or Motoroller would be out of place.
In fact, I thought that the new and old blended very well when I saw them on the Beneath the Eyrie tour, and more-or-less on the Doggerel tour. |
|
|
|
Troubles A Foot
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1068 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2025 : 07:57:47
|
| No, our issue is that these songs lose the audience and it feels genuinely uncomfortable. I am fine listening to whatever he wants to do. But most of the new songs being so tonally different than everything in the old set is incredibly jarring. Plus I find it odd a lot of new songs that would fit in better are ignored. |
|
|
|
billgoodman
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
Netherlands
6299 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2025 : 11:42:32
|
That's why playing Bossanova and Trompe Le Monde makes more sense with the new songs IMHO
Pixies 2.0 flows better with some Bossanova tunes and stuff like Moterway to Roswell and Lovely Day, Bird Dream...
I don't think you need to play 8 Doolittle songs every night and 8 from you latest album, but if Frank wants to do that: I'm all in.
It's a thrill to see some Bossanova and TLM tunes making it to regular setlist. I wish some 2.0 would be in rotation too.
It would make more sense if you want to play all your new songs.
But I don't really care, I will keep buying tickets.
Still.
Ride or Die
---------------------------
BF: Mag ik Engels spreken? |
|
|
|
Bedbug
> Teenager of the Year <
3288 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2025 : 12:40:10
|
So a yes from nate, a yes from Brank, and a no from Trouble
For me it would be a yes also.
But I'm good with what he's been doing as 2.0 has moved along.
I don't see why people being uncomfortable during a pixies show is such a big deal?
When this next album comes out there will be more 2.0 than 1.0. I doubt they could ever do a 2.0 heavy show, but I'd be for it. Maybe some people wish they were still just doing Surfer and Doolittle, with no concern to hear something new and slow? |
|
|
|
natenate101
= Cult of Ray =
USA
899 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2025 : 13:54:10
|
I’d be fine with them playing more of the 2.0 songs that sound like og Pixies. It’s not just about tempo but about many of the slower, less dynamic songs being kinda uninteresting to anyone not already roped into a deeper BF support overall. We’ve always enjoyed seeing what he does next. I think we have a clouded view of some of these songs to be honest.
I cared about the crowd response at my show mostly because of my sister and her friends knowing how much I love the band but then seeing a show I felt was very underwhelming. I wanted them to love it, and gain a better appreciation for the band.
I will again say that Joey sounded great, and BF destroyed the 1.0 songs. Funny that Motorway was mentioned alongside the 2.0 songs because that was played amongst that slower portion mid-show.
|
Edited by - natenate101 on 09/01/2025 14:18:31 |
|
|
|
Bedbug
> Teenager of the Year <
3288 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2025 : 15:58:16
|
I hear you brother
I’ve said this before, I’ve got some very close friends who know the Pixies only as far as WIMM goes. They wouldn’t really be the kind of people who would appreciate Broken Face or The Sad Punk.
One evening I played several of the slower 2.0 songs for them, specifically The Lord Has Come Back Today, Thunder and Lightning, Primrose, Mercy Me, and Vegas Suite.
They are now “Pixies fans” of those songs, and one of them said they listen to those tracks a lot and even “tear up” during some of them.
Maybe that’s the kind of reaction that some people are having at 2.0 shows. They’re not bouncing around and moshing / passing the guy, but they’re showing their tears.
I think the expectations on Charles have been unrealistic for a long time. I don’t know what his mindset is towards it these days. I would hope he’s playing the songs he likes to play. (And that may mean playing Wave for the 700th time, as we see he sometimes plays the big hits during intimate solo shows when no one would be expecting that) |
|
|
|
Troubles A Foot
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1068 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2025 : 20:38:14
|
It's not just about tempo or slowness with the new songs, though that is certainly a very noticeable factor in these live shows.
It's about their tone. Their feel compared to the attitude of old Pixies songs, even ones from Trompe.
There's just a wild intensity and strong personality in the old songs that is not present in the new material. Even the new material that is more upbeat or rocking.
It's something I find hard to quantify or define, but it's an attitude. |
|
|
|
Skatealex1
* Dog in the Sand *
1715 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2025 : 21:14:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bedbug
For Brank, Trouble, and anyone
If your favorite 2.0 songs (say from that other thread) were the only 2.0 songs Pixies incorporated into 2025 setlists would you be good with that? Will those work with the 1.0 songs played live?
For me for sure. I think some of the songs that upper tier 2.0 could still fit in nicely.
Baals Back (live version), Graveyard Hill, Daniel Boone (one of the slower songs maybe but still dynamic), Graveyard Hill, Talent (not totally a favorite but I feel like it has a fun style to it that can fit in), etc..
Also as a side note while they don't play them live- I feel like plenty of the BTE demos could potentially blend into a set nicely too. |
|
|
|
Bedbug
> Teenager of the Year <
3288 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2025 : 07:42:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by Troubles A Foot
It's not just about tempo or slowness with the new songs, though that is certainly a very noticeable factor in these live shows.
It's about their tone. Their feel compared to the attitude of old Pixies songs, even ones from Trompe.
There's just a wild intensity and strong personality in the old songs that is not present in the new material. Even the new material that is more upbeat or rocking.
It's something I find hard to quantify or define, but it's an attitude.
I hear this sentiment and don't necessarily disagree, but I also remember hearing it when both Bossanova and TLM came out, and FB, and Catholics, and etc. |
|
|
|
Brank_Flack
* Dog in the Sand *
Canada
1086 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2025 : 10:24:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bedbug
quote:
Originally posted by Troubles A Foot
It's not just about tempo or slowness with the new songs, though that is certainly a very noticeable factor in these live shows.
It's about their tone. Their feel compared to the attitude of old Pixies songs, even ones from Trompe.
There's just a wild intensity and strong personality in the old songs that is not present in the new material. Even the new material that is more upbeat or rocking.
It's something I find hard to quantify or define, but it's an attitude.
I hear this sentiment and don't necessarily disagree, but I also remember hearing it when both Bossanova and TLM came out, and FB, and Catholics, and etc.
The big difference between the two periods stems from a mix of what I've identified as Charles' abundance of nervous energy as a young man (I mean, listen to the demo disc of Frank Black Francis - he's practically jumping off the walls, and that manic energy is infused into the songs themselves), and what Charles has identified as a loss of naivite. It's unrealistic to hold out for either of those (at least to the same degree) in his mature songwriting. It's amazing though that he's still able to channel it live on the 1.0 songs. |
|
|
|
Skatealex1
* Dog in the Sand *
1715 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2025 : 12:50:10
|
| I don't know what era Bluefinger/Svn Fingers would count as but that feels as good to me as any FB era of music even that late in the game.. admittingly that's quite some time ago at this point though. But it had a bit more of that off the cuff kind of feeling that I think seems to benefit his music sometimes. Same with the BTE demos- that others here seem to dig also. |
Edited by - Skatealex1 on 09/02/2025 12:50:34 |
|
|
|
Brank_Flack
* Dog in the Sand *
Canada
1086 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2025 : 13:51:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by Skatealex1
I don't know what era Bluefinger/Svn Fingers would count as but that feels as good to me as any FB era of music even that late in the game.. admittingly that's quite some time ago at this point though. But it had a bit more of that off the cuff kind of feeling that I think seems to benefit his music sometimes. Same with the BTE demos- that others here seem to dig also.
Great era, but in the "lets-start-campaigning-for-a-20th-anniversary-tour" territory! (So I guess, late-middle period?) I would also reckon that if those albums were released as Pixies albums they would have met a similar fate to Indie Cindy. They're all great examples of Charles synthesizing the FB and 1.0 songwriting styles, but that wouldn't be what people clamoring for Surfer Rosa/Doolittle 2.0. |
|
|
|
Bedbug
> Teenager of the Year <
3288 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2025 : 14:47:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by Brank_Flack
quote:
Originally posted by Bedbug
quote:
Originally posted by Troubles A Foot
It's not just about tempo or slowness with the new songs, though that is certainly a very noticeable factor in these live shows.
It's about their tone. Their feel compared to the attitude of old Pixies songs, even ones from Trompe.
There's just a wild intensity and strong personality in the old songs that is not present in the new material. Even the new material that is more upbeat or rocking.
It's something I find hard to quantify or define, but it's an attitude.
I hear this sentiment and don't necessarily disagree, but I also remember hearing it when both Bossanova and TLM came out, and FB, and Catholics, and etc.
The big difference between the two periods stems from a mix of what I've identified as Charles' abundance of nervous energy as a young man (I mean, listen to the demo disc of Frank Black Francis - he's practically jumping off the walls, and that manic energy is infused into the songs themselves), and what Charles has identified as a loss of naivite. It's unrealistic to hold out for either of those (at least to the same degree) in his mature songwriting. It's amazing though that he's still able to channel it live on the 1.0 songs.
I'm with you here too...
But I distinctly remember seeing them in the 1.0 era and when they went from Something Against You straight into Ana, the crowd had a reaction that was, shall I say, similar to what we are talking about now in the 2.0 era when they go from a random 1.0 song into Death Horizon, et. al.
Again, not trying to be difficult, but I can't help wonder if because we are now so far removed from 1.0 we perceive it as being more monolithic than it truly was, and that further, 25 years hence the Gen Alpha fans who never got to see them live or who barely got to see them live will not make the 1.0 / 2.0 distinction that we are making now. |
|
|
|
Brank_Flack
* Dog in the Sand *
Canada
1086 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2025 : 16:07:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bedbug
quote:
Originally posted by Brank_Flack
quote:
Originally posted by Bedbug
quote:
Originally posted by Troubles A Foot
It's not just about tempo or slowness with the new songs, though that is certainly a very noticeable factor in these live shows.
It's about their tone. Their feel compared to the attitude of old Pixies songs, even ones from Trompe.
There's just a wild intensity and strong personality in the old songs that is not present in the new material. Even the new material that is more upbeat or rocking.
It's something I find hard to quantify or define, but it's an attitude.
I hear this sentiment and don't necessarily disagree, but I also remember hearing it when both Bossanova and TLM came out, and FB, and Catholics, and etc.
The big difference between the two periods stems from a mix of what I've identified as Charles' abundance of nervous energy as a young man (I mean, listen to the demo disc of Frank Black Francis - he's practically jumping off the walls, and that manic energy is infused into the songs themselves), and what Charles has identified as a loss of naivite. It's unrealistic to hold out for either of those (at least to the same degree) in his mature songwriting. It's amazing though that he's still able to channel it live on the 1.0 songs.
I'm with you here too...
But I distinctly remember seeing them in the 1.0 era and when they went from Something Against You straight into Ana, the crowd had a reaction that was, shall I say, similar to what we are talking about now in the 2.0 era when they go from a random 1.0 song into Death Horizon, et. al.
Again, not trying to be difficult, but I can't help wonder if because we are now so far removed from 1.0 we perceive it as being more monolithic than it truly was, and that further, 25 years hence the Gen Alpha fans who never got to see them live or who barely got to see them live will not make the 1.0 / 2.0 distinction that we are making now.
Yeah, that's mostly fair (although I think Gen Alpha will listen to Bossanova/Trompe Le Monde but not necessarily 2.0, and furthermore, that they'll be similarly more interested in Surfer Rosa/Doolittle than Bossanova/Trompe Le Monde, just like the millennials/Gen Z before them).
Just to make sure I'm abundantly clear, for me personally, the more 2.0 in the setlists the better, jarring changes be damned. I think one way they make it work is, as I believe you mentioned earlier, through experimenting with loud-quiet-loud dynamics to the setlist itself. While I empathize with those who might tune out during newer songs, I don't particularly care - they'll get their HCYM and WIMM to take their phones out to, and the shows are still selling well enough even with years of touring new albums that I think they should stick to their guns and continue playing the new material (I think you might also be surprised about just how niche the appeal of the new songs is. In Montreal I was next to an "Indie Cindy" type woman who was to my pleasant surprise singing along to the new songs). My main agreement is that a solo-revue would be the best fit for these changes, but I understand why Charles would rather receive the recognition that comes with playing with the Pixies. |
|
|
|
Troubles A Foot
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1068 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2025 : 17:22:51
|
I never said there were not differences between albums and styles in the 1.0 era. Of course there are.
But they all still encompass a kind of attitude that is mostly absent in the 2.0 era. I've tried many times to define it. I'll try again. This is in regard to lyrics, music, and more:
Angular, weird, discordant, scary, body horror, dynamics, intimidating, sexy, forceful, dreamy, nightmarish, structurally unusual, strange rhythms and timing.
And this is different from Frank's solo work (nerdy/poppy/alternative), or Catholics work (folk/country/alternative.) This to me is what Pixies is.
And this covers Pixies 1.0 from Come On Pilgrim to Trompe Le Monde.
I was not a fan back then, I only have the overarching perspective that I have now. It's the only thing I can work with.
Fans back then were not wrong for noticing that Ana is different from Something Against You. But we are also not wrong for noticing that Ana, Something Against You, and everything else in 1.0 is essentially different from all the newer material. Even Ana which is kind of "mellow" is a very unusual song, no chorus, Joey's guitar parts emulating Frank and then not emulating Frank, the timing is strange, Frank's whispered layered vocals are atmospheric and kind of aggressive, the lyrics are extremely sparse. It's not the same fairly pleasant poppy "verse chorus make a hit single Dalgety" vibe that Pixies have now.
Also Talent rules and I'd be happy to see that in a set. It's still got a generally pleasant and cheery vibe though that isn't like the majority of Pixies 1.0.
And why is it a big deal if they lose the crowd? I don't know, man. I'm not in the band, but if I was, it would bother me. I think if he was playing to a crowd of his solo fans that sort of thing wouldn't happen because that kind of extreme variety in tones across all his eras is part of the fun.
|
|
|
|
Bedbug
> Teenager of the Year <
3288 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2025 : 18:40:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by Troubles A Foot
I never said there were not differences between albums and styles in the 1.0 era. Of course there are.
But they all still encompass a kind of attitude that is mostly absent in the 2.0 era. I've tried many times to define it. I'll try again. This is in regard to lyrics, music, and more:
Angular, weird, discordant, scary, body horror, dynamics, intimidating, sexy, forceful, dreamy, nightmarish, structurally unusual, strange rhythms and timing.
And this is different from Frank's solo work (nerdy/poppy/alternative), or Catholics work (folk/country/alternative.) This to me is what Pixies is.
And this covers Pixies 1.0 from Come On Pilgrim to Trompe Le Monde.
I was not a fan back then, I only have the overarching perspective that I have now. It's the only thing I can work with.
Fans back then were not wrong for noticing that Ana is different from Something Against You. But we are also not wrong for noticing that Ana, Something Against You, and everything else in 1.0 is essentially different from all the newer material. Even Ana which is kind of "mellow" is a very unusual song, no chorus, Joey's guitar parts emulating Frank and then not emulating Frank, the timing is strange, Frank's whispered layered vocals are atmospheric and kind of aggressive, the lyrics are extremely sparse. It's not the same fairly pleasant poppy "verse chorus make a hit single Dalgety" vibe that Pixies have now.
Also Talent rules and I'd be happy to see that in a set. It's still got a generally pleasant and cheery vibe though that isn't like the majority of Pixies 1.0.
And why is it a big deal if they lose the crowd? I don't know, man. I'm not in the band, but if I was, it would bother me. I think if he was playing to a crowd of his solo fans that sort of thing wouldn't happen because that kind of extreme variety in tones across all his eras is part of the fun.
Agree with a lot of this.
But still think they're also still a lot of those things in the 2.0 songs.
And I don't care about the crowd reactions either, but I thought that's what we were talking about? |
|
|
|
Troubles A Foot
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1068 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2025 : 21:31:21
|
I'm saying I do care about the crowd, because it's an uncomfortable experience, when a show just goes dead all of a sudden. It's awkward. I wish they figured out how to blend the new songs in or selected better new songs or, you know, wrote better new songs.
So which 2.0 songs would you say fit the bill of my descriptors I named? |
|
|
|
billgoodman
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
Netherlands
6299 Posts |
Posted - 09/03/2025 : 00:01:12
|
Pixies 1.0 once played a show in alphabetical order. And once started with the encore and left the stage and played their set backwards.
They are not the best in timing of their sets and showmanship in general. Actually they have been pretty awful from the start. Part of their appeal.
I like a lot of 2.0 songs btw. Most of them really. I don't like some of the production choices. The ones made on Indie Cindy too.
Pixies 2.0 are most succesful when they are goth, eerie, country surf western. BTE and the BTE demos were the best in that regard.
---------------------------
BF: Mag ik Engels spreken? |
|
|
|
billgoodman
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
Netherlands
6299 Posts |
Posted - 09/03/2025 : 00:06:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by Skatealex1
I don't know what era Bluefinger/Svn Fingers would count as but that feels as good to me as any FB era of music even that late in the game.. admittingly that's quite some time ago at this point though. But it had a bit more of that off the cuff kind of feeling that I think seems to benefit his music sometimes. Same with the BTE demos- that others here seem to dig also.
Couldn't agree more. What an energy!
I believe Frank was told (maybe by Kim) that those songs were fakey.
Which is pretty funny, because almost everything Kim does sounds more or less like something she did before. I love her for that too. But nobody's going to mistake Mountain Battles or All Nerve from Pod and Last Splash. Her new solo album finally covers some new ground.
Not sure how it affected Frank but on Zombies you don't hear a lot of manic energy that was present on Bluefinger/SVN FNGRS and also IC
---------------------------
BF: Mag ik Engels spreken? |
|
|
|
Bedbug
> Teenager of the Year <
3288 Posts |
Posted - 09/03/2025 : 03:24:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by Troubles A Foot
I'm saying I do care about the crowd, because it's an uncomfortable experience, when a show just goes dead all of a sudden. It's awkward. I wish they figured out how to blend the new songs in or selected better new songs or, you know, wrote better new songs.
So which 2.0 songs would you say fit the bill of my descriptors I named?
Ok we can forget the crowd discussion, regardless I agree with your bigger point. There has never been a 2.0 song that if we closed our eyes or were told "this was a never released track from 1991" we would believe it was from 1.0. We're together on that. One possible exception for me would be Joey on Los Surfers Muertos but I wouldn't press that.
I'm just of the opinion the 2.0 stuff still has a lot of those 1.0 qualities and if it's jarring during a show then that's just Frank.
As to your list, this is just off the top of my head. I'm not sure what you mean by "sexy" but as to the rest of your list:
Angular- Blue Eyed Hexe
Weird- too many 2.0s to name
Discordant- Might as well be gone and others
Scary- Bagboy
Body horror- Chicken
Dynamics- Get simulated
Intimidating- No Matter Day
Sexy -
Forceful- Baal's back
Dreamy - All the saints, half of TNTZC, Magdalena
Nightmarish - Los Surfers Muertos, Chicken, Caught in a dream
Structurally unusual - Ready for Love or Primrose
Strange rhythms and timing - Primrose or Indie Cindy
And wow, a bunch of my favorite 2.0s aren't even up on that list, what does that say? |
|
|
|
Brank_Flack
* Dog in the Sand *
Canada
1086 Posts |
Posted - 09/03/2025 : 07:53:45
|
I will just veer back into the crowd discussion for a second: it's a pretty universal phenomenon for general audiences to be chillier towards new material in setlists, particularly for older bands past their imperial phase. While the transition from Mr. Grieves to Vegas Suite might be more jarring than a Stones song from 2025 vs. 1975, I'd rather Charles and the band follow their muses than try to force certain dynamics or expectations of what the Pixies have to sound like (even if I too generally prefer those dynamics).
But yes, I think it would make sense to highlight songs from the 2.0 catalogue that would mesh the most seamlessly - What Goes Boom, Magdalena, Greens and Blues, Blue Eyed Hexe, Classic Masher, Baals Back, Um Chugga Lugga, Graveyard Hill, Los Surfers Meurtos, This is My Fate, Daniel Boone, Silver Bullet, There's a Moon On, Dregs of the Wine, Thunder and Lightning, Motoroller, Oyster Beds, etc. That being said, I'm down for any 2.0, including the songs that are more outliers in their catalogue, like Doggerel, Mercy Me, and Primrose. |
|
|
|
Troubles A Foot
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1068 Posts |
Posted - 09/03/2025 : 08:45:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bedbug
As to your list, this is just off the top of my head. I'm not sure what you mean by "sexy" but as to the rest of your list:
Angular- Blue Eyed Hexe
Weird- too many 2.0s to name
Discordant- Might as well be gone and others
Scary- Bagboy
Body horror- Chicken
Dynamics- Get simulated
Intimidating- No Matter Day
Sexy -
Forceful- Baal's back
Dreamy - All the saints, half of TNTZC, Magdalena
Nightmarish - Los Surfers Muertos, Chicken, Caught in a dream
Structurally unusual - Ready for Love or Primrose
Strange rhythms and timing - Primrose or Indie Cindy
Well, needless to say, I disagree with some of this. And almost none of these songs (except some from Indie Cindy which I've said many times is my favorite 2.0 release) have the attitude in 1.0 that I'm talking about.
You know what I mean by "sexy." Look at Frank's lyrics and the aggressive sexual nature of so many songs (Bone Machine, Break My Body, Hey, Subbacultcha, etc, etc.). Listen to Tame. Listen to Kim's vocals on I Bleed. Sex and the horrors of sex and Frank and Kim's chemistry was an essential part of Pixies 1.0.
Chicken is not "body horror." I've already said every criticism on Chicken as I could think of in these threads, I can't go through that again. That song is a country cliche used a million times in other songs. Chicken has no bite whatsoever. No "horror." Pixies 1.0 didn't traffic in overused cliches. It shocked you with lyrics you've never heard before. Often horrific, puzzling, surreal, nightmarish lyrics. THAT is what I am talking about. Not Chicken.
|
Edited by - Troubles A Foot on 09/03/2025 08:56:37 |
|
|
|
Troubles A Foot
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1068 Posts |
Posted - 09/03/2025 : 08:55:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by billgoodman
I believe Frank was told (maybe by Kim) that those songs were fakey.
Which is pretty funny, because almost everything Kim does sounds more or less like something she did before. I love her for that too. But nobody's going to mistake Mountain Battles or All Nerve from Pod and Last Splash. Her new solo album finally covers some new ground.
Gotta defend Kim here, though Bluefinger is a favorite album of mine.
Kim sounding like herself on every release isn't because she's faking anything, it's because I truly think she can't do anything else, and I mean that in a good way. She's not a chameleon being sometimes ironic and exploring the different genres of pop music like Frank is. She's just Kim Deal and she makes music like Kim Deal. Of course her new album is fucking incredible and kind of demolished the new Pixies, so make of that what you will...But I think her issue with his Bluefinger material feeling like fake Pixies is not really related to Kim's steady and consistent musical voice that carries through all her work. Or it does relate in the sense that Kim could tell Frank was forcing something and not being true to himself like she seems to be.
I'm of two minds, because if Bluefinger is Frank "forcing" it maybe he should force it more often because that album is fucking great. I kind of just care about the end result, it doesn't really matter how he gets there, in my mind. |
|
|
|
Brank_Flack
* Dog in the Sand *
Canada
1086 Posts |
Posted - 09/03/2025 : 09:11:34
|
| Just to be careful: I haven't seen any evidence that Kim called the Bluefinger material in particular too fakey. Charles mentioned that Kim called some of the demoes he shared with her as fakey, but as far as I'm aware, there's just been an assumption that the songs for Bluefinger were included in one such batch. I'm skeptical because Bluefinger was a quick and spontaneous writing-recording session taking advantage of studio time to record Threshold Apprehension as a single for the 93-03 collection. There's no evidence that those Bluefinger sessions were meant to be demoes for a Pixies album, rather than a proper BF album (though perhaps Threshold was a rejected Pixies song? This is just conjecture). |
|
|
|
Bedbug
> Teenager of the Year <
3288 Posts |
Posted - 09/03/2025 : 10:58:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Troubles A Foot
quote:
Originally posted by Bedbug
As to your list, this is just off the top of my head. I'm not sure what you mean by "sexy" but as to the rest of your list:
Angular- Blue Eyed Hexe
Weird- too many 2.0s to name
Discordant- Might as well be gone and others
Scary- Bagboy
Body horror- Chicken
Dynamics- Get simulated
Intimidating- No Matter Day
Sexy -
Forceful- Baal's back
Dreamy - All the saints, half of TNTZC, Magdalena
Nightmarish - Los Surfers Muertos, Chicken, Caught in a dream
Structurally unusual - Ready for Love or Primrose
Strange rhythms and timing - Primrose or Indie Cindy
Well, needless to say, I disagree with some of this. And almost none of these songs (except some from Indie Cindy which I've said many times is my favorite 2.0 release) have the attitude in 1.0 that I'm talking about.
You know what I mean by "sexy." Look at Frank's lyrics and the aggressive sexual nature of so many songs (Bone Machine, Break My Body, Hey, Subbacultcha, etc, etc.). Listen to Tame. Listen to Kim's vocals on I Bleed. Sex and the horrors of sex and Frank and Kim's chemistry was an essential part of Pixies 1.0.
Chicken is not "body horror." I've already said every criticism on Chicken as I could think of in these threads, I can't go through that again. That song is a country cliche used a million times in other songs. Chicken has no bite whatsoever. No "horror." Pixies 1.0 didn't traffic in overused cliches. It shocked you with lyrics you've never heard before. Often horrific, puzzling, surreal, nightmarish lyrics. THAT is what I am talking about. Not Chicken.
I understand.
I think our area of agreement is that we both say there's a difference between 1.0 and 2.0.
The disagreement pertains to the degree of difference we say we see, no?
And this works out in the practical world where (said sincerely and humbly) I am enjoying the 2.0 albums and the 2.0 songs played at concerts, and you are (for the most part) not enjoying the 2.0 albums and the 2.0 songs played at concerts, correct?
And further, that I would gladly enjoy 5 or 10 more 2.0 albums that were in the vein of TNTZC and you would rather that those 5 or 10 hypothetical 2.0 albums in the vein of TNTZC not be recorded in the first place, correct?
Let me know if I'm expressing things accurately. |
|
|
|
Troubles A Foot
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1068 Posts |
Posted - 09/03/2025 : 11:55:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by Brank_Flack
Just to be careful: I haven't seen any evidence that Kim called the Bluefinger material in particular too fakey. Charles mentioned that Kim called some of the demoes he shared with her as fakey, but as far as I'm aware, there's just been an assumption that the songs for Bluefinger were included in one such batch. I'm skeptical because Bluefinger was a quick and spontaneous writing-recording session taking advantage of studio time to record Threshold Apprehension as a single for the 93-03 collection. There's no evidence that those Bluefinger sessions were meant to be demoes for a Pixies album, rather than a proper BF album (though perhaps Threshold was a rejected Pixies song? This is just conjecture).
Interesting. I think we know wasn't stuff like Last Night The Wolves Came Out what Kim may be referring to?
I imagine what Kim heard were pretty awesome songs. But I also believe her instincts. I think there's no argument that Frank trying to write a Pixies song, decades after he had moved on, is "fakey." The question may be, does that matter, if they're cool songs...?
It all leads back to my original thesis which is...he should just be a solo artist, so he's not being "fakey" nor is he confusing the matter of what Pixies, in my mind an extremely specific thing, even is anymore. |
Edited by - Troubles A Foot on 09/03/2025 11:55:46 |
|
|
|
Troubles A Foot
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1068 Posts |
Posted - 09/03/2025 : 11:59:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bedbug
And this works out in the practical world where (said sincerely and humbly) I am enjoying the 2.0 albums and the 2.0 songs played at concerts, and you are (for the most part) not enjoying the 2.0 albums and the 2.0 songs played at concerts, correct?
And further, that I would gladly enjoy 5 or 10 more 2.0 albums that were in the vein of TNTZC and you would rather that those 5 or 10 hypothetical 2.0 albums in the vein of TNTZC not be recorded in the first place, correct?
Let me know if I'm expressing things accurately.
Yeah. I think TNTZC is a terrible album. A massive disappointment for me. I don't want more of that. It's very likely I will never listen to it again.
The other 2.0 albums have all grown on me a bit, and despite hating a song or two, I have a fondness for Doggerel. I don't know what Doggerel is, but I listened to it many times (skipping There's A Moon On) during a specific period in my life and I have nice feelings towards it. I love Indie Cindy, I wish they did more like that. |
|
|
|
Brank_Flack
* Dog in the Sand *
Canada
1086 Posts |
Posted - 09/03/2025 : 12:14:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Troubles A Foot
quote:
Originally posted by Brank_Flack
Just to be careful: I haven't seen any evidence that Kim called the Bluefinger material in particular too fakey. Charles mentioned that Kim called some of the demoes he shared with her as fakey, but as far as I'm aware, there's just been an assumption that the songs for Bluefinger were included in one such batch. I'm skeptical because Bluefinger was a quick and spontaneous writing-recording session taking advantage of studio time to record Threshold Apprehension as a single for the 93-03 collection. There's no evidence that those Bluefinger sessions were meant to be demoes for a Pixies album, rather than a proper BF album (though perhaps Threshold was a rejected Pixies song? This is just conjecture).
Interesting. I think we know wasn't stuff like Last Night The Wolves Came Out what Kim may be referring to?
I imagine what Kim heard were pretty awesome songs. But I also believe her instincts. I think there's no argument that Frank trying to write a Pixies song, decades after he had moved on, is "fakey." The question may be, does that matter, if they're cool songs...?
It all leads back to my original thesis which is...he should just be a solo artist, so he's not being "fakey" nor is he confusing the matter of what Pixies, in my mind an extremely specific thing, even is anymore.
Yeah, I listened to Doggerel last night and found that it's aged well. A warm, inviting, and consistent record that brings up nice memories of seeing them play the Artpark Amptitheatre in Lewiston, NY, overlooking the Niagara Gorge on a beautiful late-August evening. They played most (if not all?) of the album and it went down well. (Fwiw, I wasn't a fan of There's a Moon On as a lead single, but really like it's placement on the record.) |
|
|
|
Bedbug
> Teenager of the Year <
3288 Posts |
Posted - 09/03/2025 : 12:58:55
|
Would you choose to live in an alternate reality where the last Pixies thing ever done was TLM and they never did reunion stuff?
I imagine that their myth / legacy would be off the charts in that universe |
|
|
|
Troubles A Foot
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1068 Posts |
Posted - 09/03/2025 : 17:37:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bedbug
Would you choose to live in an alternate reality where the last Pixies thing ever done was TLM and they never did reunion stuff?
I imagine that their myth / legacy would be off the charts in that universe
Yep. Bingo.
I wish Frank was primarily solo (even with Santiago still playing with him like he used to on his solo work) but still did some Pixies shows now and again. Maybe a single here and there. I don't think these new albums, even when I like some songs on them, are doing their legacy any favors.
And even about the songs I do like: I'd still like them MORE without Dalgety's production choices, I bet. So if there were Frank solo songs I feel like something special may come out of them. |
|
|
|
billgoodman
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
Netherlands
6299 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2025 : 00:52:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by Troubles A Foot
quote:
Originally posted by billgoodman
I believe Frank was told (maybe by Kim) that those songs were fakey.
Which is pretty funny, because almost everything Kim does sounds more or less like something she did before. I love her for that too. But nobody's going to mistake Mountain Battles or All Nerve from Pod and Last Splash. Her new solo album finally covers some new ground.
Gotta defend Kim here, though Bluefinger is a favorite album of mine.
Kim sounding like herself on every release isn't because she's faking anything, it's because I truly think she can't do anything else, and I mean that in a good way. She's not a chameleon being sometimes ironic and exploring the different genres of pop music like Frank is. She's just Kim Deal and she makes music like Kim Deal. Of course her new album is fucking incredible and kind of demolished the new Pixies, so make of that what you will...But I think her issue with his Bluefinger material feeling like fake Pixies is not really related to Kim's steady and consistent musical voice that carries through all her work. Or it does relate in the sense that Kim could tell Frank was forcing something and not being true to himself like she seems to be.
I'm of two minds, because if Bluefinger is Frank "forcing" it maybe he should force it more often because that album is fucking great. I kind of just care about the end result, it doesn't really matter how he gets there, in my mind.
Yeah, I don't know.
If Kim could have been a part of Bluefinger, and Joey and Dave too, but choose not to, they are fools.
But it's all speculation, because we don't know for sure.
---------------------------
BF: Mag ik Engels spreken? |
|
|
|
billgoodman
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
Netherlands
6299 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2025 : 00:53:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Brank_Flack
Just to be careful: I haven't seen any evidence that Kim called the Bluefinger material in particular too fakey. Charles mentioned that Kim called some of the demoes he shared with her as fakey, but as far as I'm aware, there's just been an assumption that the songs for Bluefinger were included in one such batch. I'm skeptical because Bluefinger was a quick and spontaneous writing-recording session taking advantage of studio time to record Threshold Apprehension as a single for the 93-03 collection. There's no evidence that those Bluefinger sessions were meant to be demoes for a Pixies album, rather than a proper BF album (though perhaps Threshold was a rejected Pixies song? This is just conjecture).
You are right.
---------------------------
BF: Mag ik Engels spreken? |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
2025 North American Tour
