|
| |
|
|
|
Review Summary: Garbage scramble for something different, but the ideas die on the vine. You've heard it time and time again. "You can't please everybody!" Like a knife becoming duller with repeated use, the once meaningful saying has been deluded of its original point. Whereas the statement used to reassure the underappreciated accomplishments of misunderstood acts caught in the crossfire of reception and integrity, it is now used as a defense for any album that has gotten poor reception by a couple of mega fans that are unwilling to admit mediocrity. Yes, it is hard to manage a respectable, lengthy career in the music industry. Oftentimes, the wants of both critics and fans alike even seem contradictory. They want to cling to the formula that crafted the mega hits of yesteryear, while still seeking new ideas worthy of present worship. While these needs are hard to manage, they are not at all mutually exclusive. The saying more often than not is just used to divide the fanbase into two groups : those who can't adapt and those who embrace change; without even thinking about a coinciding between the two ideologies . But bands have pleased both audiences in the past. A record that accomplishes garnering future attention while still keeping a fanbase together must have nuance.
And maybe that's the problem. Garbage has never been a band of nuance, lacking any real subtlety to their sound. They either have huge sweeping brooms of chaos, meant to fill the large stadiums they frequent, or understated ballads of quiet observation. This formula has been successful, for a while, but after hearing the same old shtick, the band quickly became tiresome. To be fair they have put out some notable changes in direction, but these were few and far between and never reshaped the band, rather temporarily molding them to satisfy tired hearts. And many of these songs were even quite poor. More than the musical style, more than the lyricism, more than anything else, what keeps Garbage from metamorphosing is their linear songwriting.
So it's no surprise that even with better production, new musical elements, and a couple of radio singles, after 21 years Garbage hasn't differed enough to make their 6th LP anything remarkable or memorable. That may sound overly cynical, especially with the few brushes of paint that are meant to cover up the old withering framework. "Sometimes" opens the album on a particularly distinct note. Unlike anything from the band's discography, the song begins in style with misleading classical instrumentation, only to reveal a dark underside of pressurized heartbeats and dark swirling voids. The track really does stand on is own, and while it isn't amazing by any means, it shows Garbage rather efficiently twisting their sound.
The problem lies in the other tracks, which by comparison feel like phoned in shams. "Empty" tries for the millionth time to change the musical dynamics just enough to ward off repetition, but fails completely due to its all too similar chorus, which literally seems ripped from previous efforts. But far worse are the moments when something interesting actually hits you only to be a short illusion of bliss wankery. Look at track 3 for instance, "Blackout". It begins like a trippy hip hop beat, then grooves into a space out bass driven atmosphere, only to devolve into another waste of momentum and tedium, delving into the booming Garbage we've all heard before. What was the point of this? To have the first 30 seconds stand out before the waves of mediocrity? How long are we going to stand for small incremental changes in a twenty one year old band? This is quite consistent throughout the album, too. The first 30 seconds will make you think "Golly Jee... I wonder what interesting trick Shirley has under her dress", only to realize she played you like a damn fiddle. It doesn't make sense because even when they delve back into their old sound after experimental build ups, the punches and screams feel so muted and bland. So even taking away the lack of originality, this is lacking. The most dissapointing song? Definitely "Night Drive Loneliness", which is set up like a dramatic, vacant, rainy night with mist obscuring the bleak soroundings. And... it goes nowhere. The opening just stops, Shirley begins singing, and for the next 5 minutes you're bored as no rising or falling action occurs. Did anyone pick up a Garbage CD so they could hear a 5 minute track with literally nothing happening in it? But really, even if we ignore the music, what is up with the lyrics? I can at least understand how hard it is to make legitimate changes in instrumental sections, and the songwriting formula, but the lyricism makes Shirley seem like the same person she was albums ago. Borderline emo cries, meaningless self-parity, and recycled themes all top of the cake that is Strange Little Birds.
I may seem too cynical. After all, Strange Little Birds at least brings some of what Garbage is good at. And instrumentally, the focus on atmosphere and bleak electronics during very lean specific moments is attention grabbing. But let's be real here, if Garbage as a poppy rock band don't bring up on their promise of quality content, what's the point? Even compared to the band's other material, this feels uninspired, dull, and just doesn't pack the catchy punch they previously brang. Fans, and I mean really big hardcore fans, you'll like this. But as someone who has never fallen head over heels for over stimulating generic repetition, I can't recommend this(even if there past recs were fairly jammable). Not recommended.
| trending alt & indie albums |
|
Album Rating: 2.0
Snap
| | |
I like Garbage. I wonder how this will turn out.
| | |
I love a lot of their stuff. Queer, Stupid Girl, Only Happy When It Rains, The World Is Not Enough, Push It are my Top 5.
| | |
They have struggled since 2.0 in all honesty. I still have a soft spot for them though.
| | |
I though the first two albums were outstanding, but very hit and miss from that point on.
...and a Garbage review was never destined to generate much attention on Sput'
| | |
Dammit, this is sitting on my hard drive, in FLAC, just waiting to be Un-RaRed. Now you may have made me leave it alone.
| | |
It has some moments, but is pretty flat overall.
| | |
That was the exact moment I was thinking of tbh
| | |
Heard this album last week, and man, do these songs drag on a long time.
| | |
Nice review
Also nice quintuple comment.
| | |
Always meant to get into Garbage... What's a good starting point?
| | | Album Rating: 3.0
HOLY SHIT.
CONGRATS ON THE FEATURE ALA!
Awesome rev, pos'd
| | | Album Rating: 3.0
Yeah, not a fan.
| | |
the world is not enough is still my fav song of theirs
| | |
Yes, it is a hard to manage a respectable, lengthy career in the music industry.
Take out the "a". Also, I'm pretty sure this is a sentence fragment.
Often times, the wants of both critics and fans alike even seem contradictory.
Oftentimes is one word.
They want to cling to the formula that crafted the mega hits of yesteryear, while still seeking new ideas worthy of present worship. While these needs are hard to manage, they are not at all mutually exclusive. The saying is, more often than not, just used to generalize the desires of many, and put listeners into two distinct camps : those who can't adapt and those who embrace change, without even thinking about a coinciding between the two ideologies . A record that accomplishes garnering future attention while still keeping a fanbase together must have nuance.
Honestly, the rest of this paragraph is a mess. It's very wordy, and a lot of doesn't make sense. Stuff like this "The saying is, more often than not, just used to generalize the desires of many, and put listeners into two distinct camps : those who can't adapt and those who embrace change, without even thinking about a coinciding between the two ideologies." reads awkwardly and could be more concise and easier to read. I would suggest something like "More often than not, the saying was used to divide the listeners into two distinct camps; those who can't adapt and those who embrace change without even thinking about the two ideologies coinciding." It's still a bit clunky, but I didn't want to change your writing TOO much.
Your second paragraph starts with another another fragment.
"Sometimes" opens the album on a particularly distinct note. Unlike anything from the band's discography, the song begins in style with misleading classical instrumentation, only to reveal a dark underside of pressurized heartbeats and dark swirling voids.
You could probably combine these two sentences. Using "distinct" as a lone descriptor is too ambiguous. I'm assuming pressurized heartbeats describes the percussion and dark swirling voids, is some kind of bass-y effect? Either way, putting them together would be much more efficient.
...fails completely due to its all to similar chorus...
It should be "all TOO similar".
| | |
The fourth paragraph is full of really awkward phrasings, run-on sentences, stuff like "meaningless self-parity", which should "self-parody".
Your conclusion paragraph is an absolute mess.
I may seem to(too) cynical. After all, Strange Little Birds at least brings some of what Garbage is good at. And instrumentally, the focus on atmosphere and bleak electronics during very lean specific moments is attention grabbing. But lets(let's) be real here, if Garbage as a poppy rock band don't bring up on their promise of quality content, what's the point? Even compared to the bands(band's) other material, this feels uninspired, dull, and just doesn't pack the catchy punch they previously brang(brought). So even if this was Garbage's 2nd or 3rd album, it still wouldn't have the catchiness needed for it to shine. Fans, and I mean really big hardcore fans, you'll like this. But as someone who has never fallen head over heels for over stimulating generic repetition, I can't recommend this(even if there past recs were fairly jammable). Not recommended.
There's more, but you get the point. I hope you don't take this as a personal attack, or me trying to be a dick. You seem to care about your writing, but it also seemed like you rushed this and didn't bother to proof it at all. I was (actually, still am) the exact same way. Luckily, I also used to have people pick apart my reviews just like I did here. The reason I say luckily is because thanks to them, my writing dramatically improved. I would recommend using the review proofreading thread in the forums, or asking some other users you're friendly with to look over your material before posting. If you don't want to do that, give yourself a few hours between writing and posting so you can come back to look it again with fresh(er) eyes. Reading it out loud is also a pretty good tip that I got. We tend to catch a lot more mistakes doing that. Hopefully this didn't discourage you at all. Some of your ideas were very good, it's just the execution that needs some work.
| | |
Good review, I'm not going to check this.
| | |
Dreadful album cover, good review. Only know bits and pieces from their first 2 albums, which are good, dunno if i should spin this one.
| | | Album Rating: 3.3
It's a solid album.
| | |
Hey man, as long you got something out of it, in happy. You don't need to agree with all my suggestions, it's okay
| | | |
|
| |
