Swans
To Be Kind


3.5
great

Review

by CaptainAaarrrggghhh USER (23 Reviews)
May 13th, 2014 | 45 replies


Release Date: 2014 | Tracklist

Review Summary: To be fair...

Before any of this goes further and hardcore Swans fans jump to the conclusion “this guy just doesn’t get it” I want to make a few things clear. Or one thing, to be precise. To me, the rating of this album is not 4.0 or 5.0 not because it’s too long or repetitive. This is Swans here. Hating them because the songs are around 30 minutes in length and the instruments are playing the same few notes over and over again is like hating Elvis Presley for singing rock’n’roll songs. Rock’n’roll is what Elvis did and droning lengthy compositions comprised of hypnotic repetition of the same musical phrases is what Swans do (now, apparently). If you just don’t like that type of music then there is probably not much of constructive criticism you can offer because it’s just not your thing. Putting it simply, if you didn’t understand and like “The Seer”, you won’t understand or like “To Be Kind” as well.

I don’t find this album stellar because I liked “The Seer”. It took me some time to understand it but once I did it proved to be an extremely rewarding listen. Atmospheric, grandiose, dark and menacing, this record showed the band use an interesting combination of traditional rock instrumentation, exotic percussion and sometimes brass sections to create a sonic equivalent of a journey to Hell and back. It didn’t sound like anything Swans had done before and proved that Gira and company still had the vision and the sense of style that made them into living legends.
“To Be Kind”, though, sees Swans using the same bag of tricks and apparently trying to create something very similar.

When reviewing an album of a band with a long career-span context means a great deal. Most Swans fans would agree that “Children Of God”, “White Light From The Mouth Of Infinity” and “Soundtracks For The Blind” are the band’s best efforts. It is worth noting that all of those records have completely different atmospheres. Of course, they bear some characteristic traits that make Swans what they are but the elements that the band combines are very different in all three of the aforementioned albums. And so are the results: “Children Of God” is crushingly dark, “White Light” is spiritual and almost uplifting at times, “Soundtracks” is mind-twisting and melancholic.

“To Be Kind” would’ve been a masterpiece had not “The Seer” being released before it. The same elements that comprised some of the finest moments of the previous record are reused here in a very similar fashion. A vivid example of this is “Bring The Sun – Toussaint L’Ouverture”. It’s basically “The Seer mark 2”. That is not to say the track is bad – it’s epic, huge, atmospheric and hypnotic – but so was the title track of “The Seer”. And the instrumentation and the overall sound a fairly similar.
To be fair, though, it’s not all about repeating the formula from two years ago. The general feel of ‘To Be Kind” is punchier, more energized and more… human, should I say. There is less mystique surrounding this record and more immediate action (case in point – the spastic and neurotic “Oxygen”), which is a welcomed addition. But still, I can not shake the feeling that little progression has been made.

“To Be Kind” is not a bad album. Actually, it’s very, very good. Everything that Swans perfected over the last few years is showcased here in the best way possible. It’s just that for a band that has changed and evolved so much and made so many diverse but equally fantastic records, self-repetition seems like a bit of a drawback.



Recent reviews by this author
Depeche Mode Memento MoriFever Ray Radical Romantics
Albinoi Those Were The DaysDepeche Mode Spirit
Bonaparte Too MuchWhite Lung It's The Evil
user ratings (1699)
4.2
excellent
other reviews of this album
1 of


Comments:Add a Comment 
CaptainAaarrrggghhh
May 13th 2014


432 Comments

Album Rating: 4.0

Let the fan-hate flow

emester
May 13th 2014


8271 Comments


I actually liked this WAY more than the seer tbh.

reviews gonna get fucked sideways by hate. brace yourself

menawati
May 13th 2014


16715 Comments

Album Rating: 2.5

"Hating them because the songs are around 30 minutes in length and the instruments are playing the same few notes over and over again"



I often like that as i like a lot of space rock which has extended repeating patterns, but cant warm to these guys.

I will give this thing another go later though see if it clicks.

CaptainAaarrrggghhh
May 13th 2014


432 Comments

Album Rating: 4.0

It's just a problem that many state to have with Swans here so I wanted to adress it specifically.

VaxXi
May 13th 2014


4418 Comments


Never found anything special about the swans. This album will be the third i've listened to from them. Nice review regardless, have a pos'd.

Rice303
May 13th 2014


385 Comments


"Hating them because the songs are around 30 minutes in length and the instruments are playing the same few notes over and over again"
Must admit, this is the problem I have with the band, I found The Seer overlong and simply don't have much patience when it comes to this sort of music

HenchmanOfSanta
May 13th 2014


1994 Comments

Album Rating: 4.5

Good review, but punctuation goes inside quotation marks. It drives me bananas how often people get that wrong.

SeaAnemone
May 13th 2014


21429 Comments


I don't see this as repeating The Seer whatsoever
I mean looking at it on paper, "really long songs," "tribal percussion," etc. maybe, but listening to it, it's pretty easy to differentiate from any song on The Seer and any song on here, they have a pretty different style

SeaAnemone
May 13th 2014


21429 Comments


I don't see how not "getting it" is a bad thing.

Surely, if you as a reviewer "don't get it", it's a good criticism about what the band are doing and how it is actually impacting upon you? Idk, I just don't see why you couldn't have written a review about not understanding it


uhhhh because more likely than not that speaks more to your experiences and understanding as a listener than it is a reflection on the band

"Why did this band choose to record drone music?!?! I've never heard that before!! 0/5 legitimate review"

menawati
May 13th 2014


16715 Comments

Album Rating: 2.5

no-one needs a defence for not liking some music or a valid excuse for liking some other music

SeaAnemone
May 13th 2014


21429 Comments


well that's when you explain yourself and explain what you expected coming into it, why, why it didn't live up to those expectations, provide some criteria for disliking it... relying on an excuse like "I didn't get it" as a basis of a critique is so weak and shitty... if you didn't understand it whatsoever to the point where that really took away from the record, then why are you the one writing a review on the record, telling others about it? let that to someone who knows that they're talking about

SeaAnemone
May 13th 2014


21429 Comments


no-one needs a defence for not liking some music or a valid excuse for liking some other music


sure but it's really nice to have on, you know, a music discussion site and, more importantly, when one chooses to write a review and explain why they didn't like something and then say "I didn't like it because it's not good because I didn't like it because it's not good!"

SeaAnemone
May 13th 2014


21429 Comments


I could certainly see a legitimate review in someone arguing not liking this based on the fact it's an amelodic, 2-hour droning guitar album


legitimate in the sense of "wow that's some adequate use of grammar in spelling in paragraph form!!" but not in the sense of "wow that reviewer gave an insightful look at the album and added something interesting to the discussion"
standards for reviews are so fucking low here nowadays smh

SharkTooth
May 13th 2014


14921 Comments

Album Rating: 5.0

I found the Seer to be lame, this was a huge improvement

Pizzahut
May 13th 2014


113 Comments

Album Rating: 4.0

I might prefer The Seer as a whole.



Bring the Sun is just mind blowing.

SeaAnemone
May 13th 2014


21429 Comments


I'm not saying write a whole review just saying "I don't get it", but certainly people could muster up legitimate reasons as to why they don't "get" it


legitimate as in:
I haven't heard this genre before!
I didn't want to spend very long listening to this!
or like:
it bored me
it made me sleepy
... which basically circle back to the first ones...

what type of "I don't get it" criticisms are you talking about?... let's assume we're talking about music that a lot of people are into, like Swans, and not some "jars of shit" comparison.
I can't imagine any good criticisms that are a reflection on the band and not just the fault of the listener when someone gives a critique of "I don't get it!"

SeaAnemone
May 13th 2014


21429 Comments


read the staff reviews from 2004-08, they're some of the worst reviews here and are definitely not better than most reviews you read here now.


agreed. then 08-12 or so they were great.

menawati
May 13th 2014


16715 Comments

Album Rating: 2.5

"I can't imagine any good criticisms that are a reflection on the band and not just the fault of the listener when someone gives a critique of "I don't get it!"



There are loads.

ILiveInNetherlands
May 13th 2014


512 Comments

Album Rating: 4.5

Is the kickass 320 true 320 Swans 'To Be Kind'?

SeaAnemone
May 13th 2014


21429 Comments


ugh nothing in there is inherently bad whatsoever

how dare a band write something that caters to a listener with different experiences than I!



You have to be logged in to post a comment. Login | Create a Profile





STAFF & CONTRIBUTORS // CONTACT US

Bands: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z


Site Copyright 2005-2023 Sputnikmusic.com
All Album Reviews Displayed With Permission of Authors | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy