Topic: New Decemberists (Read 22601 times)

valley_parade · « **Reply #50 on:** 10 Mar 2009, 05:09 »

Oh man, good freaking album. I am pretty sure my favorite track is "Won't Want for Love". Or "The Abduction of Margaret".

iamiam · « **Reply #51 on:** 10 Mar 2009, 16:51 »

So today I finally got the chance to take a couple hours to sit outside in the sunshine with no distractions and just listen to this album all the way through a couple times. I am still really confused about the story. As far as I can tell there is a forest queen who saves a baby and turns it into a shape shifting fawn. The fawn impregnates Margaret who is William's lover. Then there is a rake who abducts Margaret after killing all his kids. William goes to save her and on the way crosses a river, promising that if he gets there safely the river can kill him upon his return. He and Margaret end up dying in a shipwreck on the way back.

I didn't really get how "The Wanting Comes in Waves/Repaid" really figures into the whole thing. Also, I am probably totally off - I am no good at figuring out this kind of thing. Did anyone have any better luck?

With all that being said this album was amaziiing. It is so far off from their older stuff, and I wasn't sure how I really felt about a "rock opera". It seemed like it could be pretty cheesy but I really love The Decemberists and it's the only reason I decided to try it out. I am glad I did. This was so so good. 'Wager All' alone made this worth it for me.

DarkAvenger · « **Reply #52 on:** 10 Mar 2009, 17:48 »

Well from what I can tell the Rake may be the shape shifting villain who kidnaps Margaret. Then he whisks her away and the Queen sees him. I suppose the Queen saved him as a child and he is indebted to her, but he wants one night to himself (this is where The Wanting Comes in Waves/Repaid comes in) then from what I heard she is happy to let him have his freedom for one night for taking Margaret away from William. Then she helps them cross the river. The rest has really already been told. I guess it won't make much sense until we get the full lyrics.

ListenToTomWaits · « **Reply #53 on:** 12 Mar 2009, 12:00 »

Quote from: DarkAvenger on 10 Mar 2009, 17:48

Well from what I can tell the Rake may be the shape shifting villain who kidnaps Margaret. Then he whisks her away and the Queen sees him. I suppose the Queen saved him as a child and he is indebted to her, but he wants one night to himself (this is where The Wanting Comes in Waves/Repaid comes in) then from what I heard she is happy to let him have his freedom for one night for taking Margaret away from William. Then she helps them cross the river. The rest has really already been told. I guess it won't make much sense until we get the full lyrics.

hmmm i don't see it that way.

When the rake kidnaps margaret, the queen flies him to other side to aid his escape because she wants margaret away from her "innocent son" who is tempted by margaret. She tells the shapeshifter if she gives him his life for the night she will take it in the morning and that will be his debt to her repaid.

the rake is just simply a villain for villainy's sake as i see it.

also i want to make love to Shara Worden's voice.

Inlander · « **Reply #54 on:** 20 Mar 2009, 18:01 »

Okay so this just got released (finally) in Australia so naturally I rushed out and bought it.

Five tracks in and I'm wondering when it's going to start getting good. Still, it does answer an important question: What's worse than a pseudo-prog rock-opera concept-album? A wan, lifeless pseudo-prog rock-opera concept-album! I guess the ugly and boring packaging should have tipped me off.

Maybe it will get better. I'll let you all know what I think when I've finished listening to it (because I'm sure you're desperate to know).

UPDATE: Okay, so the chorus of track eight finally got me interested and excited for the first time in this album. But just when I'm starting to get into it and rock out OH FUCK WHAT THE HELL IS THAT GODAWFUL GUITAR SOLO WHAT THE HELL IS THAT EFFECTS PEDAL BURN IT BURN IT BURN IT.

Oh, and while I don't mind Colin Meloy's singing voice, backing it with harpsichord is a really bad idea. Take the most nasal man in rock and back him with the most nasal keyboard instrument in music history! Genius!

(Only half-way through this album and I'm starting to get snarky. This is not a good sign, guys. And I love the Decemberists!)

UPDATE: So somewhere in the middle of track twelve I paused the album so I could YouTube Smiths songs to try to figure out if I really hate them or if I'm actually starting to like them. This suddenly struck me as much more important and interesting than listening to this album. The problem isn't that the album's bad. It's that it's so fucking dull.

UPDATE: OH THANK FUCK THAT'S FINISHED. I'll admit, the last two tracks were good - though why it took them four fucking goes at the title track before they nailed it is beyond me - or rather, why they chose to put the three dud versions on the album is. So the album ended on a high, but just because you find a diamond after sifting through turgid crap for almost an hour doesn't mean you're going to go down into the sewer again every time you want something pretty, if you see what I mean. Especially when the sewer has a track-skipping function . . . okay that metaphor got away from me, but you got the point. Ultimately I feel like I've wasted my money on an album I'll only ever listen to again when I get that "but surely it can't be that bad" feeling.

In hindsight I should've heeded the warning from my acquaintance in the record store when he made sure to remind me, when I bought the album, that C.D.s could be exchanged after purchase.

Koremora · « **Reply #55 on:** 20 Mar 2009, 19:59 »

I actually thought the album was very good. It flowed nicely and to me there wasn't a bad track on there. The guest vocalists just added another layer. I suppose nothing will appeal to everyone though. Such is life.

the_pied_piper · « **Reply #56 on:** 21 Mar 2009, 12:12 »

Quote from: Inlander on 20 Mar 2009, 18:01

I love The Decemberists but i really didn't like this album.

This seems to be the gist of half of the responses to the album that i have seen while the other half have really liked it, it just seems to make people want to give an opinion. Personally, i loved it and i know that it has actually made more people listen to The Decemberists' other albums aswell so it can't be a bad thing.

pwhodges · « **Reply #57 on:** 21 Mar 2009, 13:45 »

A review in today's ~~Guardian~~ Times* gave it 5/5 stars and said it was the most exciting album he'd heard for twenty years...

* Sorry - got mixed up.

A Shoggoth on the Roof · « **Reply #58 on:** 21 Mar 2009, 13:53 »

Sounds like he either doesn't listen to enough music, or is prone to hyperbole.
I do think it's a decent album though.

BlahBlah · « **Reply #59 on:** 21 Mar 2009, 13:57 »

Quote from: pwhodges on 21 Mar 2009, 13:45

A review in today's Guardian gave it 5/5 stars and said it was the most exciting album he'd heard for twenty years...

Yeah, The Times gave it 5/5 as well.

I heard a track in the local record store today, it sounded pretty good actually.

Tom · « **Reply #60 on:** 21 Mar 2009, 15:33 »

It's a Decemberists album that just superseded my expectations.

Inlander · « **Reply #61 on:** 21 Mar 2009, 17:43 »

Quote from: pwhodges on 21 Mar 2009, 13:45

A review in today's Guardian gave it 5/5 stars and said it was the most exciting album he'd heard for twenty years...

Really? A review in Friday's Guardian gave it 3/5. Key paragraphs:

Quote

There is a certain kind of music fan who will read the above with a solemn expression: what we have on our hands here, gentlemen, is a potentially fatal outbreak of Jethro Tull, and we can only pray, for humanity's sake, that the emergency services act swiftly to contain it. But there are things here that could convince the most prog-phobic listener. Meloy has long been acclaimed as an original and brilliant writer, and there's ample evidence of both his idiosyncratic lyrical eye (at one point it rests on a newborn baby's "crinkled little fingers") and ability to come up with melodies that sound as though they might have existed for centuries. The Hazards of Love 2, Annan Water and Isn't It a Lovely Night? are utterly glorious, while The Rakes' Song is that rarest of things, a comical rock track about infanticide.

Oddly, it's not really prog that's the problem with The Hazards of Love so much as another genre born in the late 60s. Meloy is clearly fascinated with the way British hard rock intersected with folk. It's an interesting point - you could argue that Fairport Convention and Black Sabbath were both aspects of rock's post-psychedelic back-to-basics impulse - but the influence of nascent heavy metal on The Hazards of Love proves to be ruinous. It's fair to say that you only have to look at a photograph of the Decemberists to know that this is a band unlikely to be much cop at swaggering cock-rock, in much the same way that you only have to look at a photo of Led Zeppelin in their bare-chested, squeeze-my-lemon-baby pomp to know that wry, bookish indiepop probably wasn't their forte.

And so it proves. The attempts at tumescent blues-rock on Repaid and The Queen's Rebuke dangle flaccid, while of all the album's recurring musical motifs, the one that grates is a lumbering, sludgy metal riff. There's something weedy and unconvincing about it, a cardboard cutout of Black Sabbath's claustrophobic angst. They might have got away with it, had the metal nods been presented with a knowing smile, but as with everything else on The Hazards of Love, the Decemberists play it dead straight.

Dazed · « **Reply #62 on:** 21 Mar 2009, 21:09 »

Just bought it, listened to it, and I have to say, I absolutely love it. Of course, I am a huge fan of prog-style bombast, old school british hard-rock riffs, and Jethro Tull, so my opinion probably has to be taken with a grain of salt. I really think the album is fantastic though, their talent for arrangement is absolutely unmatched amongst their contemporaries.

EDIT: Favorite tracks; The Queen's Rebuke, Annan Water, Margaret In Captivity.

pwhodges · « **Reply #63 on:** 22 Mar 2009, 01:09 »

Quote from: Inlander on 21 Mar 2009, 17:43

Really? A review in Friday's Guardian gave it 3/5.

Oops. Yes, I mixed up Times and Guardian (it's as simple as that section of The Times now looks like the Guardian one...).

Hat · « **Reply #64 on:** 22 Mar 2009, 02:25 »

Are people still calling the Decemberists prog because of that keyboard solo on the Crane Wife or are they legitimately putting out prog albums

Tom · « **Reply #65 on:** 22 Mar 2009, 02:54 »

Definitely more the former that the latter.

Shaolin · « **Reply #66 on:** 22 Mar 2009, 06:46 »

Hm, I just listened through it once, so this opinion is not really firm yet, but still. I thought it wasn't that good. Just like Crane Wife had only two really good tracks (Crane Wife 3 and Sons & Daughters) this is even worse it seems. I want more "July, July!", "Legionnaire's Lament" and "Clementine" awesomeness. Castaway and Cutouts was a truly great album. If this is not interrupting the topic too much - any suggestions on artists similar to that album? I'm not really in this scene and only know very few bands like this, for example The Shins and would appreciate any recommendations.

phooey · « **Reply #67 on:** 22 Mar 2009, 07:24 »

I didn't even know this was out. I'm an awful fan. However, I am giving it a first listen, and I'm about pissing myself with excitement, so envy me.

Tom · « **Reply #68 on:** 22 Mar 2009, 12:59 »

Quote from: Shaolin on 22 Mar 2009, 06:46

Hm, I just listened through it once, so this opinion is not really firm yet, but still. I thought it wasn't that good. Just like Crane Wife had only two really good tracks (Crane Wife 3 and Sons & Daughters) this is even worse it seems. I want more "July, July!", "Legionnaire's Lament" and "Clementine" awesomeness. Castaway and Cutouts was a truly great album. If this is not interrupting the topic too much - any suggestions on artists similar to that album? I'm not really in this scene and only know very few bands like this, for example The Shins and would appreciate any recommendations.

Red House Painter's first self-titled album is a similar beast except kinda slower and a little more depressing. Also, if you only want the pop side get a hold of Transatlanticism.

billiumbean · « **Reply #69 on:** 23 Mar 2009, 02:52 »

So, half of anybody loves the album, and the other half thinks it's garbage. I smell a cult classic in the works.

I'm on the "love it" side, for the record.

arkhym · « **Reply #70 on:** 23 Mar 2009, 14:25 »

I think it is a great album. I love it when groups try and do something different or new, they may not necessarily succeed. However I think have succeed with this rock opera the decemberists to some extent. It is a great album to listen but still after a few times listening to it I'm still not clear on the plot tho when I think about with most opera's I have no clue whats going on. I love the Rake's Song, favourite song on the album just the way Meloy sings it in a such a matter of fact way adds to character of the rake making him that so much more of an evil character. Other nods to songs go to Won't want for love and Isn't a lovely night. Can't wait to see what they come up with next.

iamiam · « **Reply #71 on:** 23 Mar 2009, 20:31 »

While I can definitely understand why this album is not for everyone, and why some people downright hate it, I still really like it. Like, I read some reviews and I can see where people are coming from when they say it's boring or pretentious. But I put the record on again and I just can't help not caring and enjoying every bit of it.

Also... hey, so William is the fawn! Right? It all makes so much more sense now.

MobyDickhole · « **Reply #72 on:** 28 Mar 2009, 16:31 »

This should be helpful:

Lyrics!
http://www.decemberists.com/downloads/Dcmbr_WebPDFBook.pdf

TheFuriousWombat · « **Reply #73 on:** 28 Mar 2009, 16:45 »

I mean...I guess.

GMM · « **Reply #74 on:** 28 Mar 2009, 18:55 »

So.

I've now listened to this a few times and I must say I do not like it much. Which saddens me because I love The Decemberists but basically all the "THIS IS A GUITARRRR" bits and the proggyness make this A Thing I Don't Like.

(That said: Hazards of Love 2 and The Rake's Song and The Wanting Comes In Waves (Reprise only because dear god do I ever hate Repaid) and Hazards of Love 4 are really, really good songs.)

Retrospectre · « **Reply #75 on:** 02 Apr 2009, 23:17 »

I dig it.

I can't make heads or tails of the "story" but I dig it.

Hat · « **Reply #76 on:** 03 Apr 2009, 06:01 »

Bought this yesterday, played the first few tracks in the car on the way to Ikea but had to turn it off because I couldn't get into it, so I might get stoned and listen to this while I wait for my washing to go through a cycle and see what its like.

Report pending

Hat · « **Reply #77 on:** 03 Apr 2009, 06:22 »

Oh god, up to track five, this album is so fucking wanky and ridiculous I love it I love it I love it

Track 7 started out and I thought "I bet this is the track that I get bored of the album with" but then it got really interesting but then it turns out I was right and I tuned right out again. Nice little accordion+slide guitar ditty though.

Track 8 pros: harpsichord, nice rhythm, has a nice drum build. Cons: this is the song where Colin Meloy is just WAILING at you and you want to tell him to shut up. However this only appears to be the start of a longer song ala the Island, etc. it opens up into a really rocking refrain and then it kind of mellows into a more bluesy thing but then oh no it is rocking again. I approve. The lady doing vocals in this song is kicking it very real.

Really this whole thing flows together pretty well. Cbfed sitting down with the lyrics and figuring out the story at this point but its got a really good coherency to it, I guess you could get sick of the repetition of musical themes but come on you knew this album was a rock opera before you listened to it what were you thinking.

I think the low end of this album really stands out, actually. There's some really well articulated bass lines and a fucking boss as cello in there somewhere, as well as some really excellent drum sounds.

Objective judgement pending at a later date when I'm less trashed, this is a really nice album full of pretty sounds that are held together by interesting rhythms and the syntax of the lyrics is deliciously archaic and sometimes this album rocks but these parts where they rock do not feel kitschy, possibly because they are carefully camouflaged in an entire album made out of kitsch and so as a result I do not feel quick to judgement to say that this album might 'rock' in casual conversation. There is even something resembling a ripping guitar solo which is impressive considering the other times I have seen the dude from the Decemberists solo.

Ok so we're up to track 12 and this is a really rocking track. Seriously. You might need to like Deep Purple for real or something to dig it but it really does 'kick ass'

Track 13 is a really nice ditty that reminds me of running down a narrow vine pathway, that was ruined by a really bad vocal duet over a church organ. It's like you're running down this path, just running and running and you're feeling you're going to get somewhere important and you empty out into a courtyard where the obesely decadent royalty are all just fucking and shitting on each other.

So track 15 is kind of like an underwater level in super mario bros 1-3, starts out all harpsichord like 'aw yeah we doin this again' but then it just becomes married to this random discordant noise that builds into a melody that sounds more like something Trent Reznor would put out in a fit of rage at the music industry. Good track!

Track 16 is a Resolution Track! of sorts, all triumphant flourishes and it tells me that we are at the end of the album and I feel bad for not paying closer attention to the story but I feel that everything has been resolved, regardless of my participation in it, so hooray! It kind of gets sucked out into track 17 however which is a downtempo number with Meloy singing over a guitar about something or other of a pleasant and/or anguishing nature.

I am most of the way into track 17 as far as I can tell which mostly involves soothing slide guitar noises? and so I am finishing the review here because I think I have gotten the gist of it.

I think that the Decemberists have basically over the years produced stronger and stronger albums as a whole, with tracks that more and more come to lack distinction as compartmentalised pieces of work in themselves but this album has a few tracks I could come to really love on their own but that still slide really easily into the album as a whole so that is a really nice thing. Also this album definitely kicked ass! and rocked! so good job there, guys. I guess as a fan of the Decemberists I liked this Decemberists album, not surprising really.

the_pied_piper · « **Reply #78 on:** 03 Apr 2009, 09:14 »

Thumbs up for the review there Hat.

Not sure whether this can be counted as a spoiler seeing as the album is already released but if you don't want to see other interpretations of the story's lyrics look away now.

So, i think i have pretty much sussed out the story behind the lyrics but I'm not completely sure. However, here goes:

Margaret is working in the fields when she wanders away and encounters the shapeshifter who i think is William and becomes pregnant after the encounter. Next the pregnancy becomes obvious and she returns to the spot where the baby was conceived to give birth. William arrives while she is in labour and is there for the birth.
The Queen, who rescued William as a baby, arrives and is angry over the birth of the child but agrees to let William stay as a man for that night. However, she threatens to remove the spell that makes him a man in the morning after.
Interlude
Next enters the Rake who proceeds to kill his children after the death of his wife and then abducts Margaret afterwards. The Queen helps the Rake to cross the river to keep Margaret from William whom she claims troubles him.
William proceeds to chase after the Rake and Margaret and offers his life to the river if he is allowed passage to save her. Meanwhile, the Rake is taunting Margaret as she calls for William in captitude.
Unthought of by the Rake his children appear as ghosts and take revenge on him for their deaths thereby freeing Margaret to go to William who is now there to save her. However, he had offered his life to the river and as such he must give it therefore he is drowned. But being true lovers Margaret enters the river alongside William and drowns along with him.

Hat · « **Reply #79 on:** 04 Apr 2009, 02:49 »

Yeah after reading that I'm pretty glad I didn't bother at the moment because that seems too complicated for my simple drug addled brain

A Shoggoth on the Roof · « **Reply #80 on:** 08 Apr 2009, 17:48 »

is there a reason it say I don't have permission to post w/ spoiler tags?

no, the ghosts don't take revenge, William kills the rake (at least, it's implied he does between those two songs), and then the rake joins his children in death.

the_pied_piper · « **Reply #81 on:** 08 Apr 2009, 18:02 »

I don't think the spoiler tags are working at the moment, i can't seem to get them to do so either.

Where is it implied that William kills the Rake? The song featuring the children is called 'Revenge' therefore i would say there is more implication there that it is the children who actually kill the Rake.
For example, in Revenge each child implies they have come back to life for revenge: Charlotte, "But father don't you fear, Your children are all here"; Dawn, "But papa here in death, I have regained my breath"; Isaiah, "And buried in an urn, But father ,i return" all followed by "O, the hazards of love".

A Shoggoth on the Roof · « **Reply #82 on:** 08 Apr 2009, 18:31 »

To start, "but Papa here in death" suggests they're all, well, in death. And it was definitely established beforehand that William was coming to save Margaret, and then the Rake threatens Margaret in Margaret in Captivity, I figure it'd make more sense for William to kill him, as opposed to the ghosts of his children. I mean, William's in love and desperate to save Margaret, the Rake is definitely threatening to kill her or at least hurt her, and, William's actually got a physical body to kill the Rake with. Ghosts are good for haunting and all, but actually killing? I can't see the Rake committing suicide because some ghosts haunted him, he seemed pretty cool and guilt-free with the whole killing his children thing. It just seems much more logical.

the_pied_piper · « **Reply #83 on:** 08 Apr 2009, 18:34 »

True, but you could think about it not in real life terms as it is a story and in stories things like ghosts coming back for revenge can and do happen.

A Shoggoth on the Roof · « **Reply #84 on:** 08 Apr 2009, 18:39 »

It's not really real life terms regardless. the dude can shapeshift. and there's anthro sex, a murdering male prostitute, and a forest queen. But yea, either interpretation works.

THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Author Topic: New Decemberists (Read 22601 times)