The (Future) King of Scotland – The Complicated Honest Truth
This record has sort of dropped into my lap out of nowhere, and I’ve spent a long time listening to it before writing this review. It has a somewhat sprawling feel, despite being only three-quarters of an hour long, but that’s because it’s composed of twenty-one snippets of ideas, sprinkled through with digressions and interludes, and barely alights on any one thing long enough to pause for breath before veering off to sniff around something new.
It’s an album straight out of Fife, I have to confess. I get annoyed with these generalisations myself, but when you think of the confessional, rough and slightly oblique take on low-fi music which has clustered around Fence Records in recent years, this record sounds very much at home in these surroundings.
The Complicated Honest Truth is a distinctively Scottish title, and the album itself has that archetypal tendency to turn relationship failure and everyday disappointment into something optimistic and oddly chipper. It’s like there’s a grim enjoyment of the misery in the humour because, well, it’s dark, rainy and shit here so why not get pished and rip the shit out of our ordinariness.
For all the really good bits on this album, there are nevertheless patches where I think it loses its way a little; where the succession of thoughts lurches a little too much, and sometimes when the songs themselves perhaps don’t capture the rough sparkle of some of theirimmediate neighbours, and there is a slight tendency for the low-fi production to bog things down just a little.
This isn’t the case all that much however, and the plucking on the superb Girl Bites Boy and the bizarre but splendid piano at the beginning of You Are All, and the abrupt flatline transition between songs later on show a musician with a knack for bringing unusual sounds into a meandering ramble, and using these sonic interruptions to crack the texture of the album enough to make sure that everything is absorbed.
Scott has already received considerable plaudits for his previous album, I’m Not Angry, it’s Just You Broke My Heart, but this is the first I’d heard of him, and I’m glad I did.
The (Future) King of Scotland – You, Me: it’s Love
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
The (Future) King of Scotland – You Are All
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
MySpace (The album should be available to buy here – it’s announced as released – but I can’t find the link, so good luck.)
I reeeeeally like this.
that first song is shocking, the second one is lovely tho.
anyway what i popped in to ask was this, what is it that makes ‘The Complicated Honest Truth’ a distinctively Scottish title?
Every honest truth is complicated. Well, the truly honest truth is – the truth behind what someone really feels about you and how you feel about them; the truth of why and how; the truth of even though you think you’re certain, nothing ever can be; the truth that even while you don’t get the truth you still kinda do deep down; the truth that the truth is fucking shite; the truth that knowing the truth is condemning and a complete and utter drag from what your expectations were; the truth that for all of what the truth is worth its just the truth, who want’s the truth?
And every scot only knows it too well.
I think I chose a rather complicated way to honestly describe the truth. Ignore me.
Is ‘low-fi’ production a synonym for shite production no-a-days?
Yes, to a degree, but it often creates a sound which I really enjoy.
So do I.
But ‘You, Me; It’s Love’ just sounds a bit shitty and contrived, much akin to the Lightspeed Champion EP – I Wrote And Recorded This In Less Than Five Hours.
Gonnae stop sayin’ truth?
Heheh! I like these!..
I like the Rolf Harris bassline on the first one.
Daniel – well some people achieve that low-fi or under-produced sound with great care and deliberation, and some through genuinely not knowing what they are doing. Sometimes the accidents produce great results but there are definitely times when people play up to it too much as a way of deflecting from their lack of control over their recorded sound.
I’m not saying this is one of those, of course, but the guy has two albums and an EP under his belt now, so I assume it must be deliberate to a degree.
Some people, I suppose, just don’t care about recording.
I get the feeling the work here is fairly deliberate, there’s actually a fair bit going on in terms of arrangement there. It’s not exactly a Trevor Horn production, but it’s not a completely random accident either.
I understand what you’re saying about people who don’t seem to care about recording though, they certainly do exist and they’ve appeared on these very pages in the past. They’re the ones who should perhaps try their hand at something else. Gardening maybe, or watercolours.
I don’t really know what you’re getting at with the gardening, watercolour chat really Dylan. Are you saying that if musicians don’t pay enough attention to recordings (or if they’re simply not very good at recording) that they should just give up?
If so I’d have to say that I strongly disagree with that. I was having a similar conversation to this last night and I think that one of the lads put it perfectly when he said that the quality of song within the recording was the important factor as opposed to over producing a mediocre song and achieving a well polished turd.
Of course these are extreme examples but nevertheless I must say I do agree with Matthew, I really enjoy roughly produced music, I always feel like there is a sense of urgency in recording the song as quickly as you can, not paying too much attention to the quality of the recording.
But thats just my opinion, and I apologise as it wasn’t even asked for and apologise again if that wasn’t at all what you were saying and I just jumped in. I’d better do some bloody work!!
I’ve not re-read Dylans comment and realise that he was probably being sarcastic and that I have, once more, come across as a twat on the internet. Oh well.
Sarcastic? Moi?!
I think there’s a rule somewhere that says you can say whatever you like on the internet on your birthday, Dav.
Anyway, I don’t think you come across as a twat (You could probably level that arguement more solidly at me, if I wasn’t so urbane, witty and helplessly charming with it!) but actually make a good point well.
I don’t mind people who use the recording equipment, whether it’s a four-track box in their living room or Abbey Road Studios, as almost another instrument, to explore the sonic possibilities of how to present their music. Experimentalism should be encouraged.
What bugs me, at the same time tohugh, and often it’s a contradiction, is when someone wilfully makes a much worse job of the recording than they could of done, and obscures what otherwise might have been a good song. The people who you have no idea if they’re a talented songsmith or not because you can’t hear a fucking thing that’s going on.
They’re the ones who, if they’re not interested in how their music sounds, should go and try something else.
It’s like that Tracy Emin messy bedroom argument, even though it’s presented as art and it’s in a posh gallery and intellectuals are debating it until they’re blue in the face, you can’t escape the notion that someone somewhere is just taking the piss.
Could of done?
Fuck me.
Of course the work is deliberate (!) however the sound is not ‘contrived’ – why would someone go out of their way to sound rough? – its just a consequence of spending fuck all time worrying about levels, mic positions, buttons and knobs, mastering… The lyrics are the only thing that time is spent on because that’s really the only concern. I don’t care how palatable something sounds as long as it means something.
Just for clarification.
For once. I agree with Dylan.
And by that I’m referring to the art thing. not the music recording thing which i think is a different ball game.
why would someone go out of their way to sound rough?
That’s the key question for me, Scott, but some people seem inclined to do precisely that.
For me there’s nothing wrong with presenting a rough-around-the-edges sound, there’s a lot to be said for just getting some ideas down and putting them out for people to make of them what they will.
To go back to visual art for an anology, rough pencil sketches are often more intriguing, intimate and revealing than the famous great masters.
I get annoyed with people who – conversely – seem to spend time and effort wilfully obsucring their recordings; as you said, to go out of their way to make it sound rough. It’s like taking those interesting pencil sketches and then deliberately tipping a tin of paint over them for the fun of it.
Scott – I don’t think it’s fair to say ‘of course’. There are plenty of people who produce rough-sounding recordings for a great variety of very different reasons.
Yours makes sense, but it could have been because you genuinely preferred it to sound that way, or because you were trying to make it sound smooth but just didn’t know how.
That makes it hard to use words like contrived in this context because it’s verging on impossible to know what was going through the artist’s mind when they were recording it, so you can call it contrived if you want, but you really have no idea until the artist comes and actually tells you what they were trying to achieve and why. It makes it very tricky to review things, because it’s really easy to infer a deliberate decision and then pronounce judgment on it when in fact there was no such decision made, or when it was caused by something totally separate, or when it was just an accident.
Fucking hell, Dylan, no it bloody isn’t. Some people deliberately make rough recordings because they like the way they sound. Just as some of the best pencil sketches are achieved (often by the great masters themselves) by deliberately using a loose hand and a quick, rough style for very conscious aesthetic reasons.
Fucking hell, Dylan, no it bloody isn’t.
What isn’t whatever you’re saying it is?
The stuff we’ve got here is a ‘rough’ recording, and yet it sounds good.
As Scott says, you can still spend “fuck all time worrying about levels, mic positions, buttons and knobs, mastering” and provide a rewarding experience for the listener. This stuff hasn’t been polished, but you can still hear what’s going and get an idea of where is Scott is coming from as an artist.
We’ve seen examples before where people have taken their recordings and then appeared to have deliberately obscured them, so it’s no longer possible to tell if they actually have any skill or talent as a musician or songwriter. That for me is a crucial part of my listening experience. I like to listen to artists whom I respect as craftsmen/women, Not hopeless chancers dicking about for their own self-indulgent gratification.
That applies as much to any aspect of recording a song though, including the playing and the choice of instruments.
When people use the method of recording as an instrument itself, they do it do achieve very specific effects. It doesn’t become self-indulgent dicking about the minute you don’t like it, any more than using effects pedals on a guitar does.
You can like the results or not like then, but there is no fundamental difference between deliberately posh recordings and deliberately de-tuned recordings. Both can be used well or badly, done subtly or over-egged, and each can definitely be used to mask a basic inability to write songs as well the other.
The knack of successfully de-tuning a recording and using noise and distortion and feedback is craftsmanship, for Christ’s sake. Like anything, it can be done badly, but it’s as crucial to the sound as being able to play the bloody guitar, it can’t be dismissed as just dicking around.
You both make good points. about various things.
My only real point was: its not a contrived sound, or wilfully rough. Its just what happens when when your focus is elsewhere, you concern yourself with what matters to you and everything else connected occurs organically. I do like a home made sound but I’ve not gone out of my way to achieve it. That’s just what it sounds like as a result of the manner in which I record.
So saying it’s shit is ok by me, I don’t mind that, but implying the music has been given a deliberate fake DIY sound or made rough just to be wilful or whatever (which I’m not saying is necessarily disingenuous) is incorrect. Hence my laboured point. Hope this makes sense.
Thanks Scott. Sorry, we went off arguing about somehing rather different there, but talking a slightly silly tangents does happen a lot on this site.
It’s interesting what you say about the recording being a vehicle for the lyrics, though. I’m surprised to hear that from someone who has interjected a lot of strange noises into their music in surprising places. I would have thought that someone who takes that much care over constructing their sound would take just as much care over how those sounds came acros to the listener. It doesn’t sound like the music made by someone who cares chiefly about lyics to the extent you imply, but I could be reading that wrong.
I’m not really getting this argument.
It’s really a combination of both: they just aren’t really that bothered about the recording and that for all it takes it sounds pretty darn cool in the end. The Microphones are a perfect example. The music, the lyrics, the atmosphere… everything that’s created makes you lose yourself and you forget that it was recorded in his bedroom with a shitty mic and a shitty guitar.
And I resent the whole dicking around thing.
I don’t think Dylan and I were arguing about T[F]KoS music, I think we were re-hashing an old disagreement which this discussion raised. As you point out, and as Scott himself has pointed out, this sound is more by-product than contrivance, so the whole discussion above doesn’t really apply.
Yeah, I just wanted an excuse to bring up the Microphones. I’m in love with that man.
“surprised… strange noises into their music in surprising places…”
I understand what you’re getting at – please don’t take those sounds to be carefully constructed/arranged. The lyrics/melody form the structure and then everything else is just thrown at it and whatever sticks sticks. I’m not overly concerned in what form. A lot of the time things are added just to paper over the cracks. Placement of a strange noise is added as instinctively as a cymbal crash or a chord change. Little thought goes in. I’m not a technician.
but “vehicle for the lyrics” is precisely how I treat the music. It may be an idea to make the vehicle more road worthy, however as long as it has heart, and the spirit of how I’m feeling at the time has been captured, I’m happy.
I felt compelled enough by this to head to MySpace and listen… Found this lyric
Don’t think you care who is right,
Just another way for you to start a fight
In which you can talk utter shite
i think Scott’s been on SBT before!
Very enamoured with this too Matthew!
i love Shonagh
everyone loves shonagh. and everyone loves ‘the microphones’. anyone who doesn’t love these things is clearly not human.
…and is therefor a massive cunt.
3..fuckin…post…fuckin….mentalism….baby!!!!
Oh dear.
I don’t love Shonagh, I hate her. She makes me want to punch dogs.
Oh wait, sorry, I was thinking of someone else. No, Shonagh’s fine.
Mr. Bear pull yourself together.
as it turns out…if you drink enough miller beer you do get drunk…hmmm….who’d have thought?
It not only gets you drunk, it gives you a colossal headache.
I love everyone, and the microphones back!
How much Miller did you have to drink to get that drunk?
Is there any Miller left in the world?!
Hope not.
Yes, please tell me you finished all the Miller. Please let there be none left.