Drowned in Sound

Search



GoodBooks album

GoodBooks: Control

no votes
?
by Dom Gourlay

There's something about Sevenoaks quartet GoodBooks that, frankly, doesn't quite manage to send the pulse racing. Whether that be their look-at-us, aren't-we-the-clever-ones name, or indeed the title of this record, everything about the whole package seems so quietly - if fluently - average.

Sure, there are moments ('Beautiful To Watch', 'Passchendaele') where the bar is raised, but for much of its running-time Control feels like the safest 45 minutes of your life, somewhere even the most intrusive neighbours wouldn't dream of trespassing into.

Which is as much of the problem as it is a distinction, really. You see, for all the feted words that have been written about this four-piece, GoodBooks really don't sound that different from any number of their peers from the last five years, and despite their allegiance to the trendy London scene and Transgressive record label, the peers we're talking about here fall comfortably into the Coldplay / Snow Patrol pigeonhole. Indeed, listen again and this could be the new Athlete record, particularly as Max Cooke's vocals bear more than a passing similarity to those of the said act’s Joel Pott.

But enough griping, for now at least – let’s concentrate instead on the positives. Despite its clichéd 'Money For Nothing'-esque intro and a heavy emphasis on the word "Beau-TIFF-fullll" delivered in a Chris Martin style, 'Beautiful To Watch' does actually take off quite rapidly in a totally unexpected way compared to the band's previous output. As introductions to albums go, this is as compelling a start as you'll hear all year, even if the rest of the record doesn't quite manage to keep up.

'Passchendaele', hopefully, you'll already be familiar with by now, and it will probably come as no shock that this is by far the crowning glory of Control. Elsewhere, 'The Curse Of Saul' sees GoodBooks edge fairly comfortably into dance-friendly territories, something they've obviously practised with fellow remix associates The Teenagers and Crystal Castles, while Walk With Me', one of the band's oldest tracks, still sounds as fresh as it first did back in 2005. Here, backed by a choir of fellow South London indie acolytes such as Blaine from The Mystery Jets, alongside members of Fields and Cajun Dance Party, it actually manages to attain Actual Anthem Status. As good as this is, though, it does suggest that GoodBooks are far from brimming with new ideas at present.

The rest of the album: much of a muchness. While a positive mention must be made of Dan Grech-Marguerat’s oh-so-polished production, there is still a degree of raw intensity missing that surely renders radar-buzzing artists like this noticeable in the first place. Maybe I'm missing the point, but in a year where the likes of Klaxons, Kubichek! and even the White bleedin' Stripes have set exceedingly high standards, average just doesn't seem that acceptable any more.

  • GoodBooks 6 / 10

no

mention of the brilliant guitar work? the use of dischords against the pure melodic vocal give a great haunting effect.


i listened to this album non-stop on last.fm

probably going to buy a CD and a vinyl too, if only to support bands not afraid to do something a little different.

anyone remember that thompson twins LP which had a ZX Spectrum game on it?


yes

and you could killer them in the first move by directing to walk into the sea. good times.


well I haven't heard

the album, but I think that Leni is one of the best pop songs this year, its like upbeat yet tragic, a combination which they seem to achieve often -

Start/Stop is a masterpiece to my ears, The Illness is wicked, and Turn it Back has great guitar work and drips with vocal hooks.

This is a rambling way of saying I love goodbooks! and hate bands of the snooze patrol/athlete ilk, they are overflowing with ideas, textures and melodies and this review doesn't hit the nail on the head for me at all


I'm really quite taken by this band,

and I have absolutely no idea why.
But something, perhaps the literate lyrics and inventive production, really sets them apart from the dirge of generic indie bands of late.


More than a 6, surely.

I was really surprised by this when I first heard it. I was expecting an album full of previous singles scarped about in various places, but it all flows and the material isn't half bad either. But as you always manage to do Gourlay, you've justified your opinion very well.


i really don't understand

the appeal of this lot.


Are you listening

to the same album I am?
Because It's spent the last week on repeat and i've not touched the rest of the new stuff I was meant to listen to while on holidays. It's in my top 3 of the year to date, no question.


i reckon hes

listening to a different album you know.


clearly is.

problem with goodbooks from a lot of reviewers eyes will be that there's no stick thin emaciated smack addled girl for them all to dream about, and therefore their only response is to slag them.


My problem

with GoodBooks is that their sound is not really that different from any number of Radio 2 friendly dinner party indie bands, and despite the subject matter of some of their songs being a tad more interesting, there doesn't seem to be that much going on that hasn't been done a hundred times before.


Name these other 'Radio 2 friendly dinner party indie bands' please :)

I trust you listened to the whole thing?

They don't even sound like your typical indie band. Put down the ecstasy pipe and listen again, sire.


He did name them in the review.

And justified his opinions very well.

He disagred with you. Big deal - that's what reviewers do.

It really pisses me off when people aren't able to accept people might have different opinions to their own, especially when they make stupid comments like people don't likethem 'cos "there's no stick thin emaciated smack addled girl for them all to dream about"

Have you read Mr Gourlay's other reviews? Have you acutally read this review? If you did you'd clearly see his reasons for not liking it are well laid out and fuck all to do with any lack of a girl, emaciated and smack-addled or otherwise.

Clearly you're a fan of the band and that's absolutely fine if you are but you should probably accept not everyone will be and not wade in making really childish ill-thought out responses to someone whose made a well-argued and rational argument as to why they're not over-enamoured with something.


get a life!

and a username.

jd


Exactly my point.

You can't engage in an objective discussion, you can't take any form of reasonable criticism of a band you like (or yourself it would appear) and you resort to cheap petty insults rather than trying to argue your point intelligently.

Why post on any kind of discussion forum if you're so determined not to get into a discussion?


i pwned you and you know it.

i don't know what your name is, so i'ma call you kevin. clearly, kevin, you don't know anything about the world. this isn't a discussion forum, it's a comments form.

secondly, your 'higher than thou' comments like 'clearly you're a fan' and such just make you look like a dickhead.

thirdly, i can fight a bear, and thus could take you. meet me outside yahoo.co.uk in fifteen minutes, you square.


You didn't pwn me.

You used the most predicable omeback ever like a little kid trying to be all macho on the internet. Everybody who reads this is either laughing at or pitying you. Personally I'm going for the pitying option.

If you could "take me", you wouldn't be hiding behind the internet making pathetic threats.


I'm not hiding behind the internet

Apparently, you are too stupid to understand basic English.

How does one hide behind something that is only a concept?


You're hiding behind a computer screen then Mr Pedantic

It doesn't make your threats any less comical.


By the way Jonathan

My name really isn't hard to find out.


Kevin

Please stop. You're upsetting your mum.


?


Actually forget that

I don't care what you meant. I'm bored now.

Bye!


*hugs*

Call me later.


jdesmond..

are you charley from big brother?


6/10

seems about right. They're good but there is something lacking live and on record.


I suspect it's time.

They're very young and I think they've maybe been signed a little too early.

I've not heard the album but I did have the feeling when I've seen them live that they're not yet the band they could be given another year or two to develop.


Says it all

Not even heard the album.

Lame.


Not really

given none of my comments have been regarding the album whatsoever, more your inability to handle criticism.

Everything you post is proving me right and making you look a tool. I'd stop now if I were you.


nah

you're the tool, mate.


I'm not though so you're clearly wrong.

And really, really, really shit at comebacks.

Anyway I'm bored with this now I'm gonna go and do something far more useful with my time. I don't want to give you more chances to make yourself look even more silly than you have so far.


Bye kevin

I still love you!


jdesmond

so so narrow minded. i like many bands frequently panned to crumbs on here, the minute i show an opinion i get lambasted.

cunt.


and by the way

jugding by your profile all you listen to is good books?

maybe you're only listening to ONE record.

cunt.


jdesmond

is a prick.


i like your opinions

not narrow minded, just new to the site.


your comebacks/insults

are awful.

"i pwned you and you know it"????

lolz0r m8, lolz0r

x


And all because

I happened to remark that the GoodBooks album reminds me of Athlete, Snow Patrol, Coldplay et al....


PWNNNNNNNNND

.


yeah, he knows it.

thankfully, tomddf is a cool guy and i am liking him a lot.


I'll keep trying....

but I don't get it yet.....


I bought it

on the strength of Passchendaele and a demo of Turn it Back I found ages ago, and to be honest they're the best things on it. I loved Athlete's first album and even quite liked their (albeit seriously Coldplay-ified) second, though not nearly as much. First thing I thought when I heard GoodBooks was that it was something new from Athlete due to the similarity of Cooke and Pott's vocals, but hey, you can say the same of Thom Yorke and Matt Hales, and Radiohead and Aqualung are pretty different.

I'll keep listening, I reckon it's a grower.


no it's not

been playing it non stop for a week now, and still it is lame


Dissapointing

I have to say, when I first heard The Illness ep I thought it was an amazing song and that the group had really set a high benchmark; but the lack of similarly spine tingling tracks on the album is a let down. I was hoping for more songs like I Will Find You which is full of the invention I think they are certainly capable of and the fact that so many tunes on the album are a 3/5 means at least they can only improve for album No. 2


Like them live...

...but the album is over-produced dirge. Judging by their Field Day performance, the live side is slipping too. When did the singer become such a wanker?





© DrownedinSound.com | From the Archive - Sleight Of Art: Malcolm Middleton on why we've got him all wrong, sort of