Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Definitely better than on record.
Still lacking a little something.
yes...its all about fancy arrangements/production and notable hats, but she could really do with writing a few great songs.
There's a lot of that (style over content) about at the moment, imho.
She has great songs! What's a Girl to Do is so beautiful and sad, and...well so many more! Tahiti has as memorable a hook as most pop songs...they are all great! I think out of the current "scene", she's probably one of the least concerned with image over content - true, she has a certain mystical image, but it seems pretty natural, as if she's always been like that - it's not a sudden "hey, Topshop/NME says do this" change. Bat For Lashes = wonderful, and an album of last year.
but certainly not enough to fill an hour...
"it seems pretty natural, as if she's always been like that"...that just means you 'buy' her affectation. I saw her, and it was boring, and surprisingly unmelodic. Really Kate Bush-lite
There are some people who obviously have changed according to fashion/record label demands/etcetc, but I don't think she's like that - her image is hardly that eccentric or forced...it might be a part of her sound, adding to the mysticism of it all, but I don't think you can say that it takes precedence over her sound. And Kate Bush lite is a very lazy comparison...
mmm, but just cos her schtick doesn't come from a label or manager, doesn't mean it isn't affected. It's still kinda annoying. Have you seen her live yet? I have, and she doesn't even pull off the hat/weird instruments stuff that well. Believe me, I WANTED to like her stuff, because of the unusual instruments etcetera, but without songs its all meaningless frippery. I honestly hold out hope for a great second album. It's definitely possible!
btw-why is Kate Bush lite a lazy comparison? I'd say it's fairly accurate from what I've heard of her stuff...like Kate Bush, only without strong songs
and it's very difficult to compare people generally to Kate Bush because her style shifts so much anyway.
What's wrong with affectation anyway? I hate music fans' obsession with "keeping it real" or whatever. sure you can dislike the affectation, but affectation in itself is definitely not bad.
there's a difference between 'affectation' and 'right on! keeping it musotastic and real'
I'm not really surprised you don't object to affectations in music given TIHATC!
no one bats an eyelid when artists and authors affect characters, narrators, whatever, but everyone gets pissed off when a musician does it. why does music have to be a true reflection of ones self to be good?
that's not what its about at all...
It's not the easiest thing to explain. There is a fine line, for me between 'a good idea' and pretention...
It's been a while since I saw her, but the other day I saw a band who were really fucking good, when you listened to them, and when you looked at them they were a bunch of Hoxtonites pulling stupid ironic dance moves, which REALLY detracted from the fact their music was brilliant.
I don't think Bat for Lashes needs to stop using a giant bass drum and the other strange instruments I seem to recall her using, but there needs to be a balance between the amount of effort put into executing her performance, and the quality of the material. Third rate material with too much effort put into the appearance.
I guess I think its about the ratio with her.
but i guess that's my problem...
Yes- try the circus perhaps?
(and more than a little hott?) but..yeah, needs something more than just 'sairhairraaahh' ( to quote an example) in the way of choruses.
not kate bush-lite, she struggles to even be tori amos-lite. annoying boho affectations abound, lack of songs...not good live. amusingly though one of her band looks like jasmine pearson.