yeah yeah yeahs album on soulseek

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

some of it might be demos - vocals very toward front, especially on the subtle songs. kareno's knobhead behaviour (see the faces she pulls? queen of the student union) contrives to create something interesting - the lack of subtletly in the artful/newwave approach seems pointless unless youve got the pure religious force of the stooges, which yyy's certainly do'nt have. so theres this enormous, inarticulate schism between intent and article which is where the entire appeal lies. there's more tragedy in failed confident creations that worked sucesses. 's a gripping record.

― matthew james (matthew james), Sunday, 23 March 2003 18:05 (twenty-three years ago)

cf in!-yr!-face orgasming in 'black tounge' seen before in 'bang'. it's not remotly arousing! it's irritating to see someone strutting with confidence an so plainly pleaing for a gaze. and blunt moments on secret track like "i know you've been fucked with" much too blunt. that drunken inarticulacy! stumbling around when it's late and home is very very far away, and you've enough money for fags or to get home but not both, they unwittingly describe it to the letter.
it's because they're shit - because they so knowingly do everything correct, frontwoman/sex/no bassist/impeccable influences, but do it slightly unawares of themselves. and it makes them brilliant.

― matthew james (matthew james), Sunday, 23 March 2003 18:10 (twenty-three years ago)

I think the album is boring. It has a few very good songs on it, but the record has no shape and no real identity, just a collection of rock star poses that seem knicked more from bad fictional writing about rock bands than any 'impeccable influences'.

― Matthew Perpetua (Matthew Perpetua), Sunday, 23 March 2003 20:16 (twenty-three years ago)

i meant impeccable to get in the NME influences. it's so off-puttingly correct, pressiong all the right buttons. but it doesn't press those buttons right. its sucess is not quite in spite of itself, but in its own vast failings. some of it is downright stupid, look at that subversion on 'black tounge', "boy you're just a stupid bitch and girl you're just as stupid dick!" but there's a charm in its desperation.

― matthew james (matthew james), Sunday, 23 March 2003 20:38 (twenty-three years ago)

I hate the lyrics, especially that "Black Tongue" line you just quoted - it's just cheap gender bending that's easy fodder for lazy writers to write about it. It sounds like it should mean something, but it doesn't. I don't get hung up on sincerity very often, but I'm really bothered by it in the context of the YYYs if just because Karen O seems so utterly devoid of personality. She's playing dress-up rock star, that's all. She's fulfilling people's expectations of what a rock girl in 2003 should be, but not challenging or expanding on them.

― Matthew Perpetua (Matthew Perpetua), Sunday, 23 March 2003 20:44 (twenty-three years ago)

I still find them completely charmless. They're the worst hotshit press sensation band in ages.

― Arthur (Arthur), Sunday, 23 March 2003 20:49 (twenty-three years ago)

perpetua, exactly! but i find that chasm fascinating.

― matthew james (matthew james), Sunday, 23 March 2003 20:54 (twenty-three years ago)

a harbinger of doom. I actually miss Faster Pussycat.

― roger adultery (roger adultery), Sunday, 23 March 2003 21:15 (twenty-three years ago)

I've not heard the album yet, I think I might actually buy it.

Not impressed greatly with the EP I've got but they were great when I saw them live even if the singer is a total poser.

Remember it's stupid to like something just because everyone else does, but also stupid to dislike something because everyone else likes it.

― mei (mei), Sunday, 23 March 2003 21:58 (twenty-three years ago)

what does that have to do with anything? Insinuating iconoclasm here is a hefty accusation to make my friend - I like the new White Stripes album, like The Streets, like Warlocks, like Radiohead, and until he started spiraling into a Mellancampian abyss, I liked Ryan Adams. I even like Renee Zelwegger. I'm not averse to hype as long as there is substance behind it. YYYs are one of my least favorite 'hyped' bands in a long, long time. It's just so overtly obvious to me what posers they are. You can throw Mooney Suzuki on the fire while you're at it too. Dreck.

― roger adultery (roger adultery), Sunday, 23 March 2003 22:08 (twenty-three years ago)

their name is terrible, too. difficult to say in conversation without derailing what you're saying.

― matthew james (matthew james), Sunday, 23 March 2003 22:14 (twenty-three years ago)

For me, it's not the "poser" issue that has me at odds with YYYs. I just think they're a vapid band. And for all the sexual traipsing that Karen O does, she leaves me dry. I find them and their music very cold. Too superficially chic and clique-y. Zzzzzzz.

― Jeanne Fury (Jeanne Fury), Sunday, 23 March 2003 22:44 (twenty-three years ago)

how does being chic and cliquey exclude someone from making a good record?

― matthew james (matthew james), Sunday, 23 March 2003 22:53 (twenty-three years ago)

It doesn't. I'm talking purely my personal taste.

― Jeanne Fury (Jeanne Fury), Sunday, 23 March 2003 22:58 (twenty-three years ago)

"Our Time" is classic. That gives me enough reason to keep a watch on them and see where they go.

― Carey (Carey), Sunday, 23 March 2003 23:03 (twenty-three years ago)

there are cold moments. but the peel session of 'maps' is bare naked, "wait... they don't love you like i love you.. they don't love me like they love you."
you know, i'd be tempted to agree with most of the things said here, but i have to contend with the fact that a great swathe of these songs are excellent. so all these vague accusations of coolness and clique don't really amount to much. i mean, some of these things are there, but how do they operate? what do they do to the music?

― matthew james (matthew james), Sunday, 23 March 2003 23:07 (twenty-three years ago)

"Our Time" is "Crimson and Clover" updated, and the sentiment "It's our time to be hated" is about as washed-up punk rock as it gets. While you (Matthew) made the claim that they do "it slightly unawares of themselves. and it makes them brilliant," after seeing them live, I thought they were hyper-aware of themselves. I dunno, people are crazy about them and that's fine, but "brilliant" is not a word I'd associate with them. Their image precedes the music. Just my opinion.

― Jeanne Fury (Jeanne Fury), Sunday, 23 March 2003 23:16 (twenty-three years ago)

and for those that loved "Crimson and Clover" when Tommy James did it and then Joan Jett, can't say that this is a crime. "It's our time to be hated" doesn't have to be punk anything. It's a sentiment that could still mean something for a Richard Hell-erati to someone that has a cd of the Distilllers next to their Britney. But, I do find Karen O grating.

― Carey (Carey), Sunday, 23 March 2003 23:27 (twenty-three years ago)

they're thoroughly image conscious, but i don't think they're aware quite of the tension it causes in their music. all the things that make them are beyond their control - hence pressing the right buttons, but in the wrong way.so maybe not quite unawares of themselves, but misreading or mis-applying themselves. something beautiful and tragic in an approach as classicist as oasis.

― matthew james (matthew james), Sunday, 23 March 2003 23:34 (twenty-three years ago)

Roger Adultery's Major Moment of Foresight Fritz: I saw YYYs open for Dead Moon a ways back, to about ten people. I whispered over to my friend Tovah and disgustedly prophesized "they're going nowhere." True story.

― roger adultery (roger adultery), Monday, 24 March 2003 03:33 (twenty-three years ago)

don't get me wrong, I like 'em just fine

but i'm a mouthbreather

― mosurock (mosurock), Monday, 24 March 2003 04:17 (twenty-three years ago)

"Bang" is still really fun (which surprises me) and I liked the first two "Machine" EP songs, but the rest, including the new album, is pretty errr... to me. I once wrote something to the effect that I didn't think they'd still be a band in five years because it's an art project at heart, but I don't think that's true anymore (and it's not like I particularly mind that aspect of any band anyway). Now, I think they're getting more sincere about wanting to be a great band but don't quite have the stuff to take it there.

― M Matos (M Matos), Monday, 24 March 2003 06:22 (twenty-three years ago)

I just think the songs are lousy. And Karen O is awful.

― Arthur (Arthur), Monday, 24 March 2003 06:51 (twenty-three years ago)

i really fucking love this album.

― toby (tsg20), Monday, 24 March 2003 10:57 (twenty-three years ago)

i love this album. how could you *not* love a record that splices 'death valley 69' onto 'heart of glass' ('date with the night'), that rips off liliput just to collapse into a mess of giggles and foolery, that transposes led-zep swagger into the new wave idiom ('man'), that finds space for a serrated torch-song along the way ('maps'), that canters like a grimy John Hughes teen flick ('Rich')...

i love this album, play it constantly. they take skronky, askance influences and (mis?)interpret them into accessible slabs of rock'n'roll. most of the criticisms here seem to be angled from the point of view that Karen O shouldn't be so confident and so burbling full of herself on the record. which betrays a total lack of irony on the part of those listening, and also a fair amount of bitter envy, i'd bet. or maybe you prefer your female performers maudlin and meek and unthreatening?

― stevie (stevie), Monday, 24 March 2003 12:51 (twenty-three years ago)

I've never heard them.

― Pashmina (Pashmina), Monday, 24 March 2003 13:09 (twenty-three years ago)

Haven't heard them either, but they apparently make noises, Pash. I don't know if this is enough.

or maybe you prefer your female performers maudlin and meek and unthreatening?

Wait, you're accusing ARTHUR of only liking simpering female singers? HAHAHAHAHA!

One of the worst rhetorical moves of the past fifteen years -- accusing anyone who expresses even a brief and/or low-key dislike of a band with a loud-'n'-up-front female singer of being some sort of open or repressed sexist who thinks women should only sound like Sarah McLachlan or the like. Is it somehow so hard to think that someone might just not like the band, period?

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 24 March 2003 14:58 (twenty-three years ago)

fair point as ever Ned, but i was responding to stuff like THIS:

kareno's knobhead behaviour (see the faces she pulls?

the singer is a total poser

for all the sexual traipsing that Karen O does, she leaves me dry.

for me - and the album is key evidence of this - Karen O's onstage persona (and it is just a persona) has levels of irony to it beyond simple sluttishness (or what NME described as 'Crazy! Sexy! Drunk!' and 'Oversexed' on its totally enlightened front-cover headlines the last few weeks. i guess i just don't understand why she stirs such hatred in people when she's only having fun (and then i just assume that that's the exact reason why people have such a problem)...

this is my first post using HTML... allah preserve me...

― stevie (stevie), Monday, 24 March 2003 15:30 (twenty-three years ago)

i was responding to stuff like THIS

Which is quite valid and worth analysis or critique. And to be sure Arthur wasn't saying that, but was just expressing annoyance...

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 24 March 2003 15:43 (twenty-three years ago)

(I should say, your impulse to respond was valid, the statements in question worth analysis etc. Yay typing too fast!)

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 24 March 2003 15:44 (twenty-three years ago)

stevie, that's a completely decontextualised quote as far as the knobhead stuff goes. it is entirely reasonable to find someone's behaviour ittirating.
and you can't say "it's just a persona" to deflect any of the criticism aimed toward her! we're already dealing with the persona, and are aware there's some ironic level to her rockstar posing. my point is something beyond their own conscious irony makes them appealing. because their irony isn't total disapproval of rockstar cliche (the guitarist i saw praising shout at the devil sometime, for which he ought be applauded) - there's something a little desperate in the irony they attatch to their posing. a little tragedy. which, blended in a song as naked as 'maps', is great.
i think their noticability, largely in karen-o's jumping up and down and puling silly faces, belies a huge complexity in them.

shouldn't be so confident and so burbling full of herself on the record
do you really think hewr bahavious is that confident? would a genuinley confident person want to put themselves about so much?

― matthew james (matthew james), Monday, 24 March 2003 15:47 (twenty-three years ago)

apoligies if that didn't mak emuch sense. i'm a bit drunk.

― matthew james (matthew james), Monday, 24 March 2003 15:48 (twenty-three years ago)

The singer _is_ a total poser. Not saying that's a bad thing. It's part of their appeal.

― mei (mei), Monday, 24 March 2003 16:22 (twenty-three years ago)

matthew, i think that's just it: that this confidence, or faux-confidence, is more complex than her just gadding about like some Student Union show off (not that there's anything inherently wrong with being a student union showoff). and, yes, the split between the troubled ebullience of 'bang' or 'rich' and the tremulous insecurities bound up in 'maps' or the hidden track are also very pleasing to me.

it should be added that i love a *lot* of seemingly-annoying frontpersons. and mei is right; karen's pose is part of the fiction.

― stevie (stevie), Monday, 24 March 2003 16:24 (twenty-three years ago)

somethin can piss you off an get you going at once. there is something inherently wrong in being the student union show off, it's downright irritating, but in this case those traits are offset by something other.

― matthew james (matthew james), Monday, 24 March 2003 16:28 (twenty-three years ago)

maudlin and meek and unthreatening female front-people? Now you're TALKING!

― roger adultery (roger adultery), Monday, 24 March 2003 16:48 (twenty-three years ago)

She sort of reminds me of Robin Johnson from Times Square. So why don't I love her? Death to false Sleaze Sister Voodoo!!

― Arthur (Arthur), Monday, 24 March 2003 17:44 (twenty-three years ago)

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3237g/images/yyy1.jpg

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Monday, 24 March 2003 18:09 (twenty-three years ago)

She excites me. Partially because she seems like she's about to fall apart at any given moment, like student union showoffs are apt to. She never does though. In a world empty of great rock singers Karen O is NOT a great rock singer - yet - but 1) she actually looks like she's having fun, which goes a long way, and 2) she sings "within herself" i.e. she doesn't go bad-American-Idol-contestant on us and stretch for heights she can't quite reach, she goes entirely the other direction into a close-miked cabaret-style voice-right-inside-your-brane singing which even when she yelps I'd venture is rather rare in roll and roll these days, maybe always (Bjork can do this - on a dime - but she's not exactly "rock" innit).

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Monday, 24 March 2003 18:39 (twenty-three years ago)

the idea that Jeanne Fury thinks any female artists should be meek and mild is so laughable it hardly bears credence

― M Matos (M Matos), Monday, 24 March 2003 20:03 (twenty-three years ago)

I didn't see that, either, Matos

also their guitar player is freakin fantastic!

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Monday, 24 March 2003 21:40 (twenty-three years ago)

Yeah, he's the really sexy one. I'll give them that.

― Arthur (Arthur), Monday, 24 March 2003 22:09 (twenty-three years ago)

she actually looks like she's having fun, which goes a long way

i remember seeing em play at SXSW 2002 from the side of the stage at La Zona Rosa, and the guys from G*vs*B and the Pattern just totally falling in love with the vaast amounts of fun she was so obviously having up there...

― stevie (stevie), Monday, 24 March 2003 22:39 (twenty-three years ago)

one year passes...

y'know, i've never actually bothered giving this a hearing. but i saw it advertised for $5.99 today. should i bother or it it not even worth that?

― frankE (frankE), Saturday, 7 August 2004 01:57 (twenty-one years ago)

Download "Date With The Night", "Y Control" and "Maps", then forget the rest. It's not even worth $6.

― AaronHz (AaronHz), Saturday, 7 August 2004 02:03 (twenty-one years ago)

I'd beg to differ. I voted it #1 on every year-end poll I participated in last year, and I still stand by that ranking. $5.99 is a steal.

― Johnny Fever (johnny fever), Saturday, 7 August 2004 02:15 (twenty-one years ago)

split the difference, just download the whole thing and buy something else

― AaronHz (AaronHz), Saturday, 7 August 2004 02:17 (twenty-one years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.