|
| |
|
|
|
Review Summary: Dance-Punk At Its Finest, Political Commentary At Its Most Intrusive. This album is a crying shame. Rising from the midst of the awful punk scene of the 70's, "post-punk" bands like Gang of Four basically took the sound of early punk bands (loud, fast and incompetent playing) and added an "artistic" side to it (read: pretentious stuff music critics like). Although on paper it sounds bad, there's a surprising amount of post-punk bands that don't suck as much as the music that inspired it and that don't exactly come off as the pompous Prog Rock bands of the 70's.
Cue in Gang of Four's debut album Entertainment! Noted for its emphasis on bass and dance rhythms, the album is now largely revered for expanding upon the limitations of the punk genre. Adding elements of funk and dub, the album has some absolutely stunning dance track.
Seriously, this album just rocks and could get any alternative party with hot hipster bishes started any day. Be it "Ether," "Damaged Goods," or even "At Home He's a Tourist" all of these tracks are so danceable and catchy it's amazing. Some of these could potentially be remixed today and make great club songs.
Jon King's vocals are pretty much what you would expect out of the punk scene. They sound VERY British, abrasive (it isn't really pleasant) to the point of almost spoken and generally monotone. Still, that doesn't really detract from the songs themselves. If anything it just adds to the weird vibe, making the songs seem a bit fresher, even if they do limit how accessible they are.
But there's a catch. Like most punk bands at the time, Gang of Four were "politically conscious." While in punk rock the politics are usually absurdly stupid (they promote anarchism for crying out loud) and are often as immature as the sound itself, this album was obviously made by liberal college students who took a poli sci class. That's not entirely a bad thing. 5.45 for example does have an interesting take on the war images that were broadcasted on TV about the Vietnam War (although, rather ironically, many historians believe that these very images helped stop the war as public sentiment changed once they saw what war actually looks like. Take that you socialist scum!). For the most part though, the album is making cryptic, overly abstract political statements.
I'm really not sure what made the band think that anyone into funk influenced dance-punk would even care about Britain's military actions or the influence of the media on society. Shouldn't you guys be, oh, you know, be having fun to the music you're playing with instead of being pissed off at the world? The gripe I have is that while a song or two about politics can spice things up, a whole damn album dedicated to writing your political manifesto just gets tedious. Even when they focus on the personal, such as in "Anthrax" they're way too cynical. "Love will get you like a case of anthrax, and that's one thing I don't wanna catch" says King in passion. Come off it bro, you could be attracting a bunch of hot girls if you would sing about getting drunk or having fun!
As it stands, the album truly does get weighed down by the oppression of the politics and the fact that they're barely even relevant today (lol @ socialism). It's just a shame to see such great dance music gone to waste by pretentious college students. Thankfully Franz Ferdinand would come along and actually make an album that saw the potential in post-punk and gave it the treatment it was asking for decades earlier.
| other reviews of this album |
|
rules
| | |
gay review u r gay
| | | Album Rating: 3.5
Thank you for your articulate, thoughtful response bro.
| | |
ok a lil tip
this review would be good if it didnt suck
| | | Album Rating: 3.5
Wow, you really showed me!
| | | Album Rating: 4.0
neg
| | | Album Rating: 4.5
album rocks
| | | Album Rating: 3.5
Is there a glitch in my computer? 'Cuz the question reads "Do you think this review was well written? Y/N" not "Do u agree w/ the reviewer? Y/N" or even "Do u leik the reviewer? Y/N"
inb4 B.S. explanation about how your personal views are somehow involved into the quality of the review.
| | | Album Rating: 5.0
oh no you didn't, good try though.
also the political lyricism is one of the strongest aspects of this album, not a bad review not sure why people are negging it .
| | | Album Rating: 3.5
Thanks for staying objective man, appreciate it! People dislike it because they disagree with my opinion.
I mean, yeah, I totally understand where people who like the political lyricism are coming from, but for me at least, dance tracks are always best when they're just used to have fun and let loose. Doesn't make much sense to incorporate a political agenda to this, at least from my viewpoint.
At any rate, I dislike politics in any kind of music. Like, I concede the dudes making this music are pretty smart and had good points to make at times, but like anything else political, it's just too complex to NOT make your songs too general, lulzy or outdated when making a statement.
| | | Album Rating: 5.0
well, post-punk and punk are heavily influenced on political turmoil at the time example: 80s era with Reagan, both in post-punk (Mission of Burma), punk (take your pick, Bad Brains, Black Flag, Minor Threat). I agree that these tracks have an odd electricity to them because the bass is just so damn wonderful, but I disagree with the emphasize on dance heavy tracks, listen to latter type Gang of Four and you'll understand. Entertainment! is by far their most creative and groundbreaking work as a band because of their the political commentary they employ within their music, not only is well orchestrated for any type of genre, but for post-punk albums this one is quite energetic and direct.
| | | Album Rating: 3.5
Well yeah, later on the band became kinda lame and moved away from this kinda sound. As it stands,
every time I listen to this album I just hear potentially great dance music.
I'm just not inclined to give a band props for their political commentary. Is it really ground-
breaking to criticize Reagan (or, given that they're British, Thatcher)?? How relevant are the
politics anyway, let alone how accurate and on point? I mean seriously, I'm not even old enough to
understand everything here since I never even lived in Reagan's time.
It just feels odd to put lavish praise on random people expressing their political views on music. I
have a hard time swallowing academic political commentary, let alone a bunch of drunk collegebros
(the album's notes say they were mostly drunk when discussing ideas for the album, srs) ideas on how
things were. Way I view it is, just because the movement was influenced BY the politics of the time
doesn't mean that the politics are any good. Kinda like the homeless people I always see getting
upset about something or other. Very much influenced by what's going on but still clueless.'
I prefer to view this album as just an early--and successful--attempt to add dance rhythms and more
complexity to punk. Everything else is irrelevant and detracts from the potential to enjoy it. Hence
why I think Franz Ferdinand is a great band. They take the awesome dance potential and add the vibe
necessary to make it fun.
On a side-note, I don't get why people like Black Flag. "Thirsty and Miserable" is one of the worst
bursts of sound I have ever heard.
| | | Album Rating: 5.0
Think of it this way. It's one thing to say you're a political band, it's another to implement it thoughtfully and creatively to connect to your audience. Look at The Clash. Their music heavily influences with politics both racially, the system, war, etc. They're still relevant today because of the way they sent that message and how they've influenced countless of other bands in their wake.
I dislike Black Flag, but for the punk movement they're undoubtedly one of the biggest and most important of that era. Their studio work completely pales in comparision to their stage performances where they would absolutely control the crowd with their intensity, and that was what the hardcore punk scene was about really - pissed off about the political system and for the first time throwing that aggression in the music and on the stage.
| | | Album Rating: 4.5
Your review was well-written, but I disagree on pretty much every statement made. Honestly, it feels like in some parts of the review you were judging the band's political views rather than their actual (brilliant) music.
As a side note, their live show is STILL insane.
| | | Album Rating: 3.5
Only reason I'm judging the politics is because they MADE it a part of the music, so I think it's fair game. I do agree that I'm on shady ground but what the hell, it's just a music review on some website, no need to get into the philosophy of reviewing post-punk albums, haha.
| | | Album Rating: 3.5
Honestly man, being Hispanic myself, I could care less about The Clash's racial commentary. I'm just entirely apathetic to bands making political statements. I still find it weird to think that a bunch of upper class white dudes pretending to be fighting for the people have so much popularity as being socialist. Hell, Sham 69 constantly criticized The Clash for manufacturing their image and I have to agree.
It WAS brilliant, but what I think matters more is that their songs are fucking great, political content be damned. That's the same reason why, despite loving the message that Crass has on "White Punks on Hope" has and even the attitude, their music is still unlisteanable and a clear example of why punk sucks as a genre.
I also don't care about a band's influence if I think they just influenced a bunch of angry teenagers with incoherent, simplified political statements, you know? Henry Rollins just exemplifies the kind of vapid, butthurt anger that doesn't really account for much. So yeah, they did provide an intense experience to their audience, but lets be real, who cares if their message was dumb to begin with?
| | | Album Rating: 4.5
Yeah, but at the end of the day, you're still discussing the music, and not the political leanings and/or viewpoints of those behind the music. And if you're going to review a work within its context in order to enhance understanding of the content, I'd be looking more at generic context, rather than solely the political beliefs of the composers.
Oh, and Anthrax is one of my favourite songs of all time, and its lyrical composition and performance is awesome, in my opinion.
"why punk sucks as a genre"
See, that's the kind of statement nobody can make about any genre, period.
| | | Album Rating: 3.5
I think it's valid to say something like that. If the point of the genre is to make music with awful sound quality, has vapid political statements, has people who can't play their instruments right and who don't amount to much in life, etc. I just don't see how it DOESN'T suck in some form or matter.
I'd rather NOT fall into the part where Dadaist works are somehow just as meaningful as The Mona Lisa. Otherwise, a website dedicated to Bill Clinton eating sandwiches would be just as meaningful as anything by Michelangelo. You have to draw the line somewhere and if the music defines itself by intentionally being awful, I have no qualms with it.
| | | Album Rating: 4.5
Nevermind the fact that it's pretty inconceivable that anyone has enough experience or knowledge within a certain genre to make great overarching statements such as "This genre is the best, objectively" or "this genre sucks, objectively", I think you're missing the point of genre.
Genres don't have any inherent 'point' or goal, they're just arbitrary groupings of similar texts based on shared characteristics or similarities. They're also not mutually exclusive, and the whole concept of genre, being inter textual, doesn't allow you to look at texts or genres in isolation. Texts don't belong to just one genre, they exist on a contiuum that only makes sense when contrasted with other texts. Thus, when compared with, say, Beethoven, Gang of Four are extremely 'punk', but when compared to, say, The Sex Pistols, they'd be less punk.
However, if we look at it from your point of view, and genres do have inherent points and purposes, doesn't that mean that the music 'defining itself by being intentionally awful', having thus achieved its purpose perfectly, should be acclaimed as a pinnacle of its genre?
Also, whether or not an artist or composer 'amounts to much in life' is irrelevant. Many famed and revered artists in their time enjoyed no shortage of scorn, poverty and disdain.
| | | Album Rating: 3.5
The way I view it is "yeah, you have achieved the point of your genre, but the point kinda sucked
anyway." I imagine it kinda like a little kid saying "my goal in life is to eat as much candy as
possible." I mean, yeah, okay, if he does spend every day of his life doing that he accomplished his
goal but even though nobody has the power to say what is and isn't the best way to spend life
objectively, the kid's goal still sucks for a variety of concrete reasons. So yeah, grey areas DO
exist, but not in ALL aspects.
I agree that genres are arbitrary to some extent but there's no denying that there was SOME sort of
collectivist movement existed among bands like Crass and Sham 69 where they shared a lot of ideals,
etc. and it's those ideals that I'm saying suck and any band that conforms to them sucks.
Same reason why I don't think Blink-182 suck despite them being rooted in the punk genre. They
actually had song-writing skills, gained competence at their instruments, etc.
| | | |
|
| |
