Patterns, Brighton, Sun 1st Sept
I saw Santiago psych band Follakzoid three years ago, and was much enchanted by their trance-out tracks. But somehow I skipped their return visit to Brighton. So I had to be told, in the few minutes before the band came on, that they had changed round their methods. And, rather than playing more or less tracks from their CDs, they now gave their set over to one gig-long freeform track. Which had induced a somewhat Marmitey reaction in the audience.
It turns out the band have reduced just as they’ve elongated, going down to guitarist, keyboardist and drummer. It’s the guitarist who takes things to the edge. Hands are off the strings for longer than on, mostly putting in short bursts which are fed through loop and delay. The playing part of music becomes a mere raw material.
Though the guitarist opens the set the drummer is given the role of holding it together, stopping it becoming too shapeless. The keyboardist often aligns with the drummer, and it becomes like a multi-coloured etch-a-sketch - they providing the frame while the guitar lines constantly overwrite themselves. Two work while one plays, the others standing workmanlike behind their assigned instruments while the guitarist arm-flailingly freaks.
But the keyboards play both sides, sometimes taking over the proceedings, at others providing distorted voice samples. As well as dynamism and intensity the sound levels range wildly, sometimes thumping you in the chest.
This does have the downside that at times you are waiting for inspiration to re-strike, making it something of a rough-with-the-smooth affair. But it’s become a kind of impro music and that’s often the deal you need to make. No kissing frogs, no princess transpires.
It feels like they’ve gone beyond being a human playback machine, and have worked out to do something live which could only be done live. And it holds to the band’s schtick, a paradoxical combination of depersonalising machine repetition with ecstatic states. Was it Marmitey? Me, I like Marmite.
Meanwhile, on new release ’I’ (purchased at gig) they’ve done something which could only be done on record. Previous releases were recorded old-school, the band playing together in one take. They sounded driven, pressing ahead, even as they also sounded ethereal. No longer. This time… well, I’ll let them explain…
“This record took three months to construct out of more than 60 separate stems – guitars, bass, drums, synthesizers, and vocals, all recorded in isolation. Producer Atom TM, who was not present for recording, was then asked to re-organize the four sequences of stems without any length, structural restrictions or guidelines.”
Their mission statement has long been “with each record to fill longer spaces of time with fewer and fewer elements”, and this really pushes that along. It’s as minimal as any minimal techno.
The feeling’s less ghost in the machine than ghost of the machine. Imagine that, as is supposed to be happening with cars, all ships became automated. They filled the seven seas, with only the trace of human presence about them. Then imagine they all became ghost ships anyway.
Jack Bray has described the effect of this as “at once ominous and tranquil.” To which I’d add, it seems at once an unmappably shifting space and strangely homely.
This does mean there’s only a loose connection between the band live and on CD. I mention this only because it’s the sort of thing which seems to matter to some people. (If pressed, I’d probably prefer the CD to the gig. But I’d prefer not to be pressed.)
There doesn’t seem much footage of this tour, and perhaps because you would need to hear the whole gig, so here’s the final track of the album…
MCLUSKY
Concorde 2, Brighton, Fri 13th Sept
But they who liked the band tended to love them. They originally reformed as a benefit for a threatened local venue, but the bug re-bit. The asterisk added to the name signifies this is not the exact original line-up, with a new bass player. But the focus of the band was always Falco, so that scarcely matters.
This is a punk gig and, fittingly, the first word spoken on stage is “fuck”. People associate punk with rage. and it’s true to say there’s much to be angry about in the world. But punk also contained a fair amount of disdain, derision and scathing black humour. Think of the Sex Pistols. Or, for that matter, Mclusky. The word acerbic could have been coined to describe them.
With album titles such as ’My Pain and Sadness Is More Sad and Painful Than Yours’ and ’The Difference Between Me And You Is That I’m Not On Fire’, they tend to position themselves outside the frame of their songs, pissing in. It’s like a role reversal in which through their songs they heckle the audience. (Falco is known for a merciless way with hecklers, not a skill he needs tonight.) They, in their own words, “introduced me to the joys of doubt”.
I am not sure their songs are about very much. They’re more a clutch of aphorisms, waspish witticisms and strung non-sequiters held together by venom and spittle, individual lines like prongs of barbed wire clumped together but pointing off in different directions. (“Keep your passport near/ There is no other disappointment here”). Sometimes they seem to luxuriate in language for its own sake.
I mention this only as it may be a problem for those to whom punk means the song against nuclear weapons being followed by the song about why you should become vegan. I cannot say I am terribly bothered myself.
Their music is punkishly minimal. Starting as a three-piece, live it’s noticeable how they can drop down to two players for quite long periods. But less commonly for a punk band, they’re musically inventive, giving each song it’s own identity. They know how to pack a catchy tune, and can come up with what sound simultaneously like harmonies and taunts. Their default mode is a kind of nihilistic chirpiness, the energy of punk songs with crafted precision of the best pop songs, normally coming to a neat close in under four minutes.
In fact I could believe that in some parallel universe Falco, after receiving some evil-inducing blow to the head, went on to write conveyor-belt hit singles. And is now lazing beside a private swimming pool rather than standing on the Concorde stage before us herberts. Lucky for us if not him.
From Dublin. Following the code of the asterisk, the poster has titled this track ’Lightsabre C*cksucking Blues’…
TEETH OF THE SEA
Green Door Store, Brighton, Fri 6th Sept
Teeth of the Sea say of themselves: “Taking on board influences like Morricone, Eno, Delia Derbyshire, Goblin, and the Butthole Surfers, they’ve arrived at an incendiary sound that marries the aural enlightenment of an avant-garde sensibility with the reckless abandon of trashy rock & roll.”
Is there such a genre as post-rock-but-also-dance? It seems there is now. At a time when you imagine every instrumental combination must have been tried out, Teeth of the Sea marry trumpet to electronic beats. And the combination’s a virtuous one, like watching a glider soaring effortlessly above crosstown traffic. It’s then made more virtuous still by their sampling the trumpet and drawing it down into the body of their sound, only for it to take off again later.
Then just when you think you’ve got their sound pegged, the finale abandons the trumpet altogether in favour of a bass and the trio go into full sonic assault mode.
There is perhaps something about it which is either proggy, aloof or some combination of the two. In other words, I’m not sure whether this came from the music or the attitude of the musicians. Of course this is what everyone always says about this type of music, that you don’t even get let into the venue until you’ve convinced the doorman you completed your PHD. That doesn’t stop it being sometimes true. And this tendency isn’t held back by the guitarist’s curious decision to throw in rock God moves.
But overall, much like the trumpet and the beats, it makes for a virtuous combination - something which hits your ears and stirs your feet at one and the same time. I might even go off and trademark ‘post-rock-but-also-dance’. I know a catchy term when I hear one.
Three tracks from Lille…
I have never heard any of these music groups - just posting here because I don't know where you might want me to post and I don't want to clutter Mr. Rilstone's already extremely cluttered comments section.
ReplyDeleteThere is myth-making by the Democratic Party that, in 1964, all the pro-segregation Democrats moved to the Republican Party. This falls under the rubric of the "Southern Strategy" of the Republican Party (forgive me if I occasionally lapse into calling the Republican Party the GOP). This is a way of pushing the sins of segregation/voter suppression/etc. onto the Republicans. It is completely untrue. George Wallace and the other pro-segregation Democrats virtually all stayed in the Democratic Party even after the 1964 Civil Rights Act (passed principally by Republicans, especially Minority Leader Everett Dirksen, a conservative Republican who wrote most of the bill, though also with the support of Northern Democrats and President Johnson).
There was one major exception - Strom Thurmond. In order to become a Republican, the GOP forced him to give up his pro-segregation views, which he did. He later became the first Southern Senator to appoint an African-American to his staff, voted for an extention of the Voting Rights Act, and voted for Martin Luther King Day to be made a national holiday. I don't say this to defend Strom Thurmond, who I have no interest in defending. I am just pointing out that there has never been a major pro-segregation/voter suppression Republican ever. Those sins have always been the Democratic Party's.
Over the next thirty or forty years, the GOP eventually came to dominate the South and I certainly don't deny that some of them, more than I ever suspected, were probably attracted to it for racial (since Barry Goldwater chased virtually all black voters to the Democrats in 1964) rather than economic or foreign policy or social reasons, but it was an extremely gradual progress. Very few people in the South ever jumped parties; the new voters just grew up as Republicans.
As for North Carolina's "admission," they were standardizing rules across the state and pointing out that nobody else received extra Sunday voting anywhere in the state except these heavily black, Democratic counties. Now I may very well have agreed with the courts that this was permissible due to North Carolina's history in order to encourage use of the franchise by black voters, even if it was opposed to my own political interests. But this wasn't a question of giving blacks less access to the franchise - they would still have had just as much as anyone else, even if the Court had sided with the GOP (they did not) - the proposal was to remove special dispensations which were not available to white voters in other counties.
ReplyDelete"Politically one-sided" means that California is completely dominated by the Democratic Party, just as the South used to be. Republican candidates aren't even allowed to run against Democrats in the general election in Senate races (in 2016, Kamala Harris defeated fellow Democrat Loretta Sanchez in the general election). Clinton defeated Trump in California by 4.3 million votes, basically 2-1. This has never happened before - the complete domination of the country's largest state by a single party - and it means Democratic votes are inefficiently distributed. In general, despite what people say, the Banzhaf Power Index tells us that the most powerful voter in the system, theoretically, is a California voter. But because California is so one-sided and always votes overwhelmingly for the Democrats, there are a large number of "wasted votes" there.
An "unconstrained plurality" is a system which allows for multiple candidates and the person who gets the most votes wins, e.g. a national popular vote. This is a horrible system since it would encourage dozens of candidates running for President and would allow a candidate to be elected with, say, 30% of the vote. We can have a plurality winner in our current system, but it is constrained since the candidate must win a majority of the Electoral College in order to be elected. So you can't have someone win just by piling up votes in a single place (like California or the South). Abraham Lincoln was elected in 1860 with only 39% of the vote, but he had a broad-based coalition and won a majority of votes in almost every Northern state, a much broader-based coalition than the Democrats who piled up huge margins in the South (where Abe frequently got zero votes since he wasn't even allowed on the ballot) and won virtually nowhere else.
By the by, you probably missed the whole talk of the "Blue Wall" in 2012. It was believed that the Electoral College favored the Democratic Party at that time and, frankly, it probably does. In any event, nobody is playing by the contest of the national popular vote. I think it's absurd to argue that, if they were, Republicans would never win. That's just wishcasting.
For the record, I favor mandatory voting like they have in Australia. People, either on the right or left, who think this would lead to permanent left-wing majorities are just being silly. In fact, I think it would favor the GOP by removing this issue as one the Democrats can demagogue on and would allow them to finally compete for the votes of black conservatives. Not that I particularly wish to favor the party of Trump, of course. Though when it was Trump v. Clinton, it's basically six of one, half dozen of the other. I don't think it mattered much which reckless grifter got elected.
ReplyDeleteThis debate starts (more or less) from here, should anyone be wondering. In fact, let’s start with a point which came from there…
ReplyDelete”Marx went off the rails… there is no grand spirit of history motivating anything - history is always contingent”
True about history. In fact, I agree with this guy…
“History does nothing, it “possesses no immense wealth”, it “wages no battles”… “history” is not, as it were, a person apart, using man as a means to achieve its own aims; history is nothing but the activity of man pursuing his aims.”
Thanks for explaining the Southern Strategy. Still not sure where it comes in though, as what we’re discussing is whether voter suppression exists now. And, as I’ve already pointed out, in at least one case (North Carolina) they have admitted openly in Court it does. Saying now…
”I am just pointing out that there has never been a major pro-segregation/voter suppression Republican ever.”
…is a little like saying someone must be innocent of something because his Grandfather was. After he’s already admitted he was guilty. It would make for a bold defence strategy, I’ll grant you. But not necessarily a successful one.
In fact, I’d have to say that particular way of framing history is not just irrelevant (at least here) but actively pernicious. It reminds me of when Ann Coulter wrote some stupid book about this. And YouTube was full of ‘debates’ between her and some Democrat suit over which party won Civil Rights.
But who really won Civil Rights for black Americans? Of course it was black Americans. They marched, staged sit-ins and strikes, for which they were routinely beaten up, arrested, driven out of their homes and in a not inconsiderable number of cases killed. I’m completely uninterested in who signed off the Civil Rights legislation. I’m interested in who pushed their arm into doing so. Attempts to distract from that I consider to be always deliberate, even if they’re not always conscious.
”this wasn't a question of giving blacks less access to the franchise - they would still have had just as much as anyone else”
And where would a right wing argument be without a false equivalence? Try a thought experiment. They bring in an administration fee for voting. Let’s say they pick $10. It’s a flat fee, it applies evenly to everyone. The only difference is that it’s going to be a lot harder for a poor voter to find a spare ten dollars than a wealthy one. Most right wing arguments rely on some less blatant equivalent of this. Every single argument about ‘access to the market’ does.
This stuff about California, can we just cut to the chase? If the same argument was applied in Britain then London (which currently elects 73 MPs) has become “one-sided” so should have no more than, say, Guildford. And that fact that London routinely elects a high number of Labour MPs (unlike Guildford) is just a co-incidence. That’s basically it, right?
”when it was Trump v. Clinton… I don't think it mattered much which reckless grifter got elected.”
This is more the sort of thing I’d expect some kiddie in a black hoodie to say - “they’re all the same, man”. And it’s actively dangerous. Of course Clinton would have made for a terrible President. Worse than Obama, even. But to take one obvious example the chances are Heather Heyer would still be alive. And probably other people. Those far right nuts would still be there. But it was the Trump Presidency which encouraged them out from under their rock.
I’m aware how many card-carrying Republicans actively dislike Trump. But the worst possible way to see him is as an aberration. Like some rash you’re convinced will just go down, so you don’t need to bother the Doctor about. With Trump (and, I suspect, Brexit) something didn’t just change in politics, it broke. And it’s not likely to get unbroke by itself.
PS If music groups of the current day (m'lud) are not your sort of thing, you might be more interested in posts coming up over the next couple of weeks.
ReplyDelete