Yes, The Horrors' first album was excremental. The new one, however, is rather good. Somehow, they've managed to escape the 'trendy band on pushy record label' pressure to churn out more chart-friendly pap. Perhaps we're seeing a return to giving bands a second chance rather than dumping them for not producing a clone of Album No. 1. Remember: Blur were bloody lucky to get a second crack after the fun-but-derivative Leisure - then we'd never have had Modern Life is Rubbish.
6 comments:
Good spot there. I am indeed at home. I never heard any of the first album but they played a free festival in Salford. Never have I felt so old. Never. I had no idea why people were cheering. I could see what was happening but I couldn't see why it was supposed to be good. I felt like a cat watching dogs fucking.
What a delightful and apposite analogy.
Delightful and apposite indeed!
Okay. I like a group called the Noisettes. Their 1st album was totally different from their 2nd (much poppier) one, and I bought the 1st after hearing the 2nd. I know nothing about the context they come out of so I don't know if they're derivative or wot. Is my Leap of Taste justified, or are they untouchable? I need to know. To hold out on me could be construed as ageism.
I gather they're critically acclaimed but haven't yet essayed a listen. Well done, cutting edge Zoot Horn.
Right. I'm off to get a tattoo.
Post a Comment