Midlake – The Courage of Others
I don’t know why I don’t hate this album, but I don’t. I’ve seen it given a right slagging, and I can’t argue with any of the reasons – it’s just like the last one, but without the incredibly infectious tunes, there’s no real progress, no ambition, just a fairly straightforward reproduction of a previously successful recipe with pretty much nothing added to really merit us spending our money on something which they basically did better about three years ago.
I don’t hate this, however, because the above comments may lessen my objective regard for this album, but they don’t seem to have much impact on my subjective enjoyment of it. One of the benefits of not pushing on from the Van Occupanther template is that this retains a lot of the charms of the previous record, so it’s lush, dreamy and has that lovely vocal and electric guitar sound. The whole thing just lulls me into a relaxed and comfortable frame of mind, and where often that would annoy me in a record, in this case I rather enjoy it.
I can’t honestly recommend anyone buy this. It’s enjoyable and all, but if you already have Van Occupanther you don’t need this, and if you have neither you should really buy Van Occupanther. Nevertheless, I find it difficult to harbour any real grudge against The Courage of Others because it’s just a good listen. I can, however, entirely understand why some people are so irritated with it.
Oh, and Bring Down has a rather surprising patch of Radiohead in it for some reason. Which is nice.
It’s been an odd week on Song, by Toad, for me surprisingly liking some very ‘pleasant’ albums. Maybe it’s just the mood I’m in, or maybe it’s a case of early-onset middle aged listening habits, but recently I seem to have been surprisingly welcoming of music which is just plain nice, without being all that challenging, or in some cases even all that interesting. Oh well, probably nothing in it, just don’t think I’ve gone all Radio 2 on your asses, I promise it’s not permanent.
Midlake – Acts of Man
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.
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 last album was a grower and from what i’ve heard coupled with this review and other i’m assuming this will be a grower also.
but i don’t understand your ‘no ambition’ comment, how would ambition materialise itself in someone’s music?
I don’t mean ambition to become famous or successful or anything like that, I mean artistically ambitious.
Basically I am looking for some semblance of an inclination to challenge their established sound. Whether or not it’s correct, I work on the assumption that if someone is artistically ambitious they will keep evolving, and push the boundaries of what they produce, change their sound, alter what they’re doing, explore new avenues, new collaborations, new instruments, recording styles, whatever it might be that they feel pushes them.
This sounds like they haven’t challenged themselves technically or artistically, and hence feels to me like it lacks the ambition to develop their art form, and are happy just to reproduce something they have already nailed.
I’ve read in other interviews that they see this as really pushing on from Van Occupanther, so maybe they are trying to develop and challenge themselves and I’m just not hearing it. But to me this is all so familiar that, even if that inclination is actually there, it really doesn’t seem to have manifested itself in their music at all.
Does that sound fair enough, or am I reading too much into it and making mean-spirited accusations?
You should never take a Pitchfork review seriously these days. A few years ago they were really credible but seemingly unaware of the fact, and thus gave exposure to a lot of great bands. These days they just seem to want to play king maker too much and most of the time the writers are just so up there own arse it reads like the NME for uni students. A lot of pseudo intellectual bollocks….
As for the album itself, I agree with ya. I think it’s nice, certainly different to Van Occupanther, but ultimately not quite as good as a very good record. Still have plenty of time for Midlake though, as there are few bands that have such a winning way with a good tune.
There is definitely something fundamental in their sound – not sure if it’s the vocals, the guitar playing, the general dynamics or what the hell it is – that I really like, so even though I don’t think this is up their with VO, I’ll still enjoy it, I think.
I’ve never really read Pitchfork, so I can’t comment on what they were or have become. But basically, you should never take any single review too seriously whatever it is. So if they are being held up (whether or not it’s through any fault of their own) as being righter than anyone else then that’s just silly.
From a purely market and influence-based perspective, though, they have a lot more influence than anyone else (by some distance, it appears to me, without really looking into it) so in that sense their reviews can become self-fulfilling prophecies. If Pitchfork say a band aren’t going to cut it, their influence is probably sufficient to make that prediction much more likely to come true just by virtue of the fact that they have come out and said it, which I find a little frustrating. It’s hard to blame Pitchfork themselves for that though.
These things are all circular though. Pitchfork have peaked in their popularity, and I get the feeling something else will come along and replace it…In the early noughties it was Q magazine that seemed to be well respected and look where that has gone. NME before that is more or less a national joke…Drowned in Sound is ok, but wishes it was Pitchfork, Mojo haven’t featured anyone who is under 40 on it’s front cover in seemingly ten years. I take your point that a spread of clippings is always the best way to go, and is sound advice.
You just feel the standard of music journalism is getting worse and worse, which is weird seeing as everyone has an opinion now through blogs etc. The big sites/magazines seem to have to be so reactionary, be on the next big thing so early, that they seem to have missed the point of just keeping a little objectivity in what they do. I used to like the Observer music monthly, but even with that, the Paul Morley articles came across as such repulsive self congratulation on how clever and arty they were that it got used as toilet paper pretty quickly. Where has the simple joy in music gone…
Which is why your review is good, you don’t know why you like something, but you just do, and that is often good enough. There is no need to write an essay on it’s intellectual worth in our current pop climate.
wait til euan reads this….he was trying to get me to buy this the other day having not been familiar with their music. guess I’ll go for the other one instead now.
Matthew. What do you mean by “established sound”. Try not to forget the mess that was Midlake’s debut record. Lots of ideas but no real direction. Are you claiming that on the back of Van Occupanther’s 11 tracks they established their sound? Also, why do they have to challenge their established sound off the back of such a good record? You already admitted that you like this album even though they don’t do what you want them to do. So I’m with Jim on this, maybe something can just be good cause it is good. And maybe you don’t know why you like it simply cause it’s catchy, it makes you smile and it’s…..erm, good?
I’ve not even heard this record yet, but I’ve heard the single and it sounds much more sombre than anything on VO.
Also, you’ve just told people not to buy this record cause it’s not as good as VO. That’s ridiculous.
I am suggesting exactly that, Euan, that with VO they established a sound and that they have not pushed on from that at all, and that’s valid because the debut barely registered and VO was big enough to be what most people would recognise as being what Midlake sound like.
They don’t have to challenge their sound, of course, and for this one album that’s fine because this is a perfectly pleasant listen. But if they just trotted this out again I would lose all interest because that would be boring for everyone.
And yes, given the existence of VO, there really is no need to buy this, because pleasant as it is it’s a long, long way from being necessary or compelling.
i think critics just have to find something to write…..
liked it a lot – can’t agree with your assessment – this is a progression from vo imho (altho i’m not against bands repeating a good ‘formula’ myself) – i agree with the person who suggested it’s one you need to spend some time with before you really ‘get it’ – if pitchfork was the only music blog on the planet, i still wouldn’t read it
’
I think that was Euan, and I definitely agree with him that Midlake stuff does generally need time to sink in, so shouldn’t be judged too hastily. It’s definitely more comforting music than gripping music in general, and I don’t mean that as a criticism, I really do think they have great warmth.
Chutters just exploded my Irony Meter.
all reviews should be written in the bullet point format…..
I understand what you are saying Matthew. But I genuinely can’t think of many bands who constantly challenge their established sound. Can you? I reckon you’d manage to name most on 1 hand. Even if Midlake came back with a really bleak record I would imagine the things that made VO special would still be in tow. Lovely harmonies and melodies etc. Just like Broken Records 2nd album might be different, I would imagine it won’t be a sombre affair or be lacking strings, trumpet or ballsy vocals. Does that mean you’ll criticise it or say don’t buy this? I would hope not.
But this month is all about Fionn Regan and The Unwinding Hours. Next month I’ll come back to Midlake!
Like I said, I’ve not heard the Midlake record as yet. And I might not like it. But if it just follows on from VO then at this stage in their career I really see no harm in that, or view it as a reason not to buy their record.
Also, you are asking a band to change the sound that made them successful after one album. Lets be honest. VO is an album that is well loved but they’re not a massive band as such. Surely it’s perfectly acceptable to solidify your position as an established act before you go challenging your sound. They could have done something entirely different and not only not attracted new fans but lost old fans.
Sorry. I’m off on one cause I really do think saying don’t buy a record cause you’ll like it of you liked the last one is mental. Whilst I appreciate what you are saying and why. It’s still mental.
I am saying that, whilst I enjoy this album, it is in a fairly passive way and I am not sure that I really see it as a crucial purchase by any means, so no, probably not a worthwhile use of limited music budgets this particular month.
I assume there’s no need to add the usual caveats about this site being no more than my opinion, and it’s all about personal taste etc etc because I assume everyone has already figured that out for themselves.
But in terms of challenging and evolving your sound, no I would agree that it doesn’t always have to change radically every single time you make a record, and a lot of the similarities (as I say in the review itself) are things like the vocals and the guitar sound, which I really like. But those are elements, and specific elements can be used in many different ways to create very different sounding music.
Basically, I guess the songwriting just isn’t as captivating for me this time around, and for all the style is still warm and lovely and a joy to listen to, I find the tunes really do fail to stick in my head properly. If you played me a random two minutes from a random song on this album I couldn’t for the life of me pick out the song, or even where on the record it was from.
And if Broken Records just release Until the Earth Pt.2 next time around, which having spoken to Jamie sounds extremely unlikely, then I will indeed criticise them for it. Unless the tunes happen to be incredibly strong, which in the case of this album they aren’t. Early Dylan evolved incredibly slowly as well, but his actual songwriting was always immense, so it was less of an issue.
Having said that, in the long run, I genuinely do believe bands have to evolve their sound, otherwise it suggests to me that they have little interest in actual music, surely? Even lyrically, I got frustrated with David Gedge, who is one of my legends, because even as he himself approached middle age he was still writing songs about what could easily be teenage/early twenties betrayal.
you know what i hate it when i agree with Euan!
Given how often both of you are wrong I’m surprised it doesn’t happen more often.
At least we don’t spout mental nonsense like you!
That’s right Euan. Not once have you or Chutters ever spouted mental nonsense.
That last couple of exchanges has made my day!!!
Ha ha
Pub!
Fuck sake.
I like Midlake. I’m willing to let them do what they want. If I like it, great. If I don’t, there’s always other stuff to listen to. Either way is fine.
I think Euan’s right that it’s the rare band who truly challenges themselves consistently, or even has the capacity to do so. It must be hard to make a living if you’re constantly upsetting your audience’s expectations. Bowie managed it mid-career, but his record sales suffered hugely as a consequence. Wire managed it with Pink Flag-to-Chairs Missing-to-154. Radiohead managed it with OK Computer and Kid A. Who else?
Wilco managed it I guess with YHF and AGIB. But then pissed off those people who fell in love with them because of those records by changing that sound again with Sky Blue Sky and Wilco (the album).
Blur? I don’t really like them as a band but I’m pretty sure you could never acuse them of having reproduced the same thing from record to record
Tom Waits constantly evolves I think whilst retaining an established sound.
But I genuinely really don’t think there’s anything wrong with not challenging your established sound. If it’s good it’s good. Well I think so anyway.
And no Matthew. Neither Tom or I spout mental nonsense on the same level as you.
I agree it doesn’t have to be radical, but if you’re not evolving your sound it comes across to me that you don’t really care enough about music to actually explore the process of making it, the process of discovering new sounds and what you can do with them, or even just learning new ways to express yourself.
“And no Matthew. Neither Tom or I spout mental nonsense on the same level as you.”
The. Mind. Boggles.