Portishead - are we fickle or did they deserve to become dated so quickly?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

I can't make up my mind. It just doesn't seem like very long ago that I thought they were simply the band I'd been waiting for all my life. Nowadays I never reach for a Portishead CD. Should I blame myself or do they only have themselves to blame for their public's disenchantment? They spawned so many imitators that it's become almost a swearword to say that someone sounds like Portishead; cf recent Lamb thread. Is it the natural course of things that they should date quickly or is it an indictment of our times?

― Daniel, Saturday, 16 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

They don't really sound all that dated to me. I still listen to Dummy quite frequently.

― Melissa W, Saturday, 16 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

And I never much liked them in the first place. So maybe it's not that they've become dated, but that you've changed.

― Ian, Saturday, 16 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I don't listen to any |P| much anymore, but that's only because of my personal listening habits (the more I like, the less I listen). That they seem to have become passé I attribute to the lack of any new material for the past 5 years and going -- naturally, if a band's last studio output was in 1997, one would think that they or their sound remained in that year.

― Lee, Sunday, 17 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I agree that they don't really sound dated. I don't ever listen to it anymore either, but in terms of the style/sound, I think this kind of downtempo stuff will be active for a long time to come.

― Ron, Sunday, 17 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I think it's because they have a very specific style that they hold to in all of their songs, and it's so identifiable/classic/influential that it's become a cliche. It's still great music, even if it's easy to make really bad imitations of.

― Jordan, Sunday, 17 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

As others have said i rarely listen to them but i think their 'sound' was stolen pretty quickly by everything else. I still can't wait for the dvd release of live nyc, only 4 more weeks to go...

― el wanko, Sunday, 17 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

i remember steve mackay from pulp saying in about 96 or 97 that Portishead might sound tired now but to somebody listening in 20 years time those songs will sound beautiful. like soul music.

― Wyndham Earl, Sunday, 17 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I pulled out _Dummy_ for the first time in a year last week and wound up listening to it for three days straight. It didn't sound dated at all, merely perfect. I did the same thing this weekend with Curve's _Pubic Fruit_.

― Dan Perry, Sunday, 17 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

What 'el wanko' said. The style was debased by so many other people copying it. As a result John Barry stabs, sleepy filtered samples and neurotic female lead vocals become just another cliche. One other thing....I think the lyrics might have been a bit weak (not that I can remember any of them but I did think that at the time).

― David, Sunday, 17 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Weird. We were actually out at a restaurant tonight and they were playing Dummy, and it sounded a lot better than I remember it. I still dislike the second album immensely, though, because I can't stand her (for want of a better term) singing on it.

― Sean Carruthers, Sunday, 17 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

they always struck me as being just a bit too melodramatic. Not that I have ever been one for the reserved irony of the late 90's, but they seemed a bit too obvious. They were one of those bands that deserved to do well, they had all the obviously correct elements tied into a really well constructed image. Portishead are one of those bands that I can understand why they made it, but it was because their ideas were so populist and appropriate for the time in which they were working.

I really do not know if their work will date or not. Personally, I really cannot stand their music. Not because it is bad, but just because it is so obvious. It is like they are working really hard to make me realize that they are smack dab in the middle of some profound existential crisis. It is not like they are creating some strange melange of conflicting or interesting feelings, it is just this very singular, monotone/manical crisis mood.

Blond Redhead's last album had a sense of crisis, but they mixed that feeling with some many other moods that you are not really sure where you stand. The emotional ambiguity is something that I absolutely love in music. Portishead just when for the kill, they bang you over the head with the same mood over and over. I like brooding music, but PH were such a Johnny Note kind of group.

― mt, Sunday, 17 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

mt, that is dead right and very perceptive.

― David, Monday, 18 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I think the melodrama, though, is part of the appeal. Nothing against ambiguity (or Blonde Redhead, though I can't say I've ever cared much), but when you consider that Portishead are essentially a goth band, it all makes sense.

― Ned Raggett, Monday, 18 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Just responding to the subject and bait of the original question: I had no idea Portishead were dated... If there's a backlash against them, count me out. Lamb, on the other hand... that new album has bored me on a number of tries. I see nothing wrong with Portishead, and I quite like how they've developed as a band and in their side projects as well.

― Tim DiGravina, Monday, 18 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

What about Hooverphonic? Lame imitators or better than the orig?

― Tracer Hand, Monday, 18 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

While I don't agree that Dummy sounds dated, it has proven to be a sort of dead end. Portishead themselves have never been able to move beyond it any more than their imitators. As usual when the hordes pounce on a sound, I felt the most promising take was the crassest - Sneaker Pimps, the Stone Temple Pilots of trip-hop - until they self-destructed.

― Curt, Monday, 18 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I agree completely with Ned (although I'd qualify that Portishead's status as "goth band" lies specifically in the general overtone of their music rather than embodying a specific sound). I don't think it's appropriate to critique a band whose very existence is centered around one particular idea on the basis of not being diverse enough. Sure, Utley and co. "bang you over the head with the same mood over and over," but both the lyrical content and the music explore this theme in a number of different ways.

For what it's worth, also to their credit, the concept of inventing your own "band" whose music will never be released, but which will then be used as elements of a later project's work is conceptually fantastic.

― matthew m., Monday, 18 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

they did an album w/a symphony orchestra = they are monkeys

― Tracer Hand, Monday, 18 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I half take issue with Ned's goth characterization, in a manner that - - happily enough -- coincides with my issues with MT's. For me, the central interest on Dummy was precisely the dual reading the group offered, coming across alternately -- depending upon the listener's moods and circumstances, I suppose -- as either Ned's icy "goth" or just incredibly warm, like some sort of minimalist soul combo specializing in the sleepy and forlorn. By the latter of which I mean: "It Could Be Sweet."

The whole problem with the self-titled record was Barrows pushing toward the former, though, as probably best typified by the high note on "Morning Air." That, I think, was the moment at which the ambiguity was drained and things began to seem a little less important than they had before. Granted, the Year Trip-Hop Broke didn't help matters much at all.

They lost their ear for minimalism on that second record, too. Another ambiguity of Dummy was how human it sounded, how much you could isolate the sounds and hear individuals behind them; on Portishead, you could sort of feel the screen of editing and arrangement in there, and I think this was in the end a loss for them. *

* Okay, I realize someone will likely call this out as sounding like a particularly R-word argument -- i.e. "It was so real, man" -- but my point isn't that that realness is inherently valuable, just that it provided a particular uniqueness to the set of sounds Portishead were using. I think this was part of the idea behind such full-scale marketing of their live record and in particular video: there was a central thrill in watching them perform and realizing how much they were actually just making music that sounded that way, which completely reframed listening in a rather interesting way. And of course the later material didn't really do it live: the orchestra popped up and it seemed like a big production again.

― Nitsuh, Monday, 18 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Nitsuh makes some good points. I'm always mystified when I meet those who rate the self-titled higher than Dummy. I've found, though, that almost inevitably it's because they prefer Portishead's turn to a more aggressive sound. On reflection, though I prefer Dummy's minimalism (for instance, the delicious moments on "It Could Be Sweet" when it's just the hi-hat's whispered tick), I can see how it might have been a better turn than towards rock or overt r&b/hip- hop flavor.

But I definitely regret that sense you get, that the self-titled is more literal and less mysterious than Dummy. It's as if they felt they had something to prove.

― Dare, Monday, 18 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Portishead = Massive Attack = enjoyable until they were on every car ad/TV prog trailer going.

― DG, Monday, 18 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I don't agree with the assessment that Portishead is less mysterious than the debut -- or indeed, less focused on a sense of 'live' production. In part, this depends on the times I saw the group live for each album. The US Dummy tour was fairly calm, straightforwardly played, not very active. If anything, stiff, though inviting. The Portishead tour appearance, at least the second one in LA, got the crowd going, had the band clearly having great fun on stage even while playing some of the most majestic, powerful and overwhelming music around (from both albums, as it happens -- and no orchestra in sight) and in general had a much more worked out visual accompaniment to the proceedings instead of just screening the To Kill a Dead Man film.

I haven't yet spoken about rating one album higher than the other -- in my 136 list Dummy is in fact the winner. Make of that what you will.

― Ned Raggett, Monday, 18 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Matthew, could you explain the "inventing their own 'band'" thing?

― Jordan, Monday, 18 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

IOW they made actual songs, pressed those songs on to dubplates, and they sampled the songs that they had previously recorded.

IOW, they were a soul/spy noir band that sampled itself and reconstructed itself into a trip-hop outfit.

― mt, Monday, 18 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Hmmm starting to wonder if the word 'dated' in the original question was wide of the mark. I'm not going to try to tie all this together. Suffice it to say that I am pleased with the responses. The thread has done what it set out to - to lay into the disillusionment I've felt in recent times towards this band.

― Daniel, Tuesday, 19 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

What about Hooverphonic? Lame imitators or better than the orig?

I saw the video at the weekend, and thought it was one of those Smack The Pony (ect.) patsiches. The song was kind of alright though, maybe.

― Graham, Tuesday, 19 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I'm one of those (few) people who prefer Portishead to Dummy.

― Sean, Tuesday, 19 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

For what it's worth, I also prefer Portishead to Dummy, because I like the grating, cold, and dissonant aural aesthetic when laid atop their base Dummy-type sound. It's the only CD of theirs I own (although I probably heard Dummy about 10k times when I was in high school).

Jordan: Utley and Barrow formed a band called the Sean Atkins Experience out of themselves, their live musicians (Deamer, Baggot, etc) and studio musicians. They had written a number of lounge jazz and John Barry-esque tunes, recorded these with them, and pressed the recordings onto wax. These were then used in samples on their records. Most of what I consider to be their best samples ("Biscuit," "All Mine," "Western Eyes") come from this body of work, save the "Glory Box" string sample.

Also, I think someone said above that they just ended up sounding like their imitators, and I'm not sure how that pans out. Portishead doesn't sound even remotely like the Sneaker Pimps to me. Did someone else address this already?

― matthew m., Tuesday, 19 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Add another to the Portishead over Dummy pile. The reason is indeed that it's more overt and explicit; I imagine a vague filmic narrative: the first is shot in b&w (duh) about a suffering artist, brooding and striking melancholic poses, demons in the head outwardly manifested only by the artist scratching at its own face. The second is in glorious technicolor, where the mind has exploded and the demons are running around in the ensuing shambles.

And I've never understood why Portishead are trip hop. They seem almost proto-trip hop, i.e. too much live instrumentation -- Mono seem to fit the Portishead-as-trip hop bill for me, though.

― Lee, Wednesday, 20 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Portishead doesn't sound even remotely like the Sneaker Pimps to me. Did someone else address this already?

Well, not quite. I said the Sneaker Pimps were the only imitators I had any interest in, because they were so crass, grafting trip-hop features onto various rock styles. For a while, I thought something good might come out of their opportunism - trip-bubblegum, anything. All the other PH imitators I found to be insufferably reverent.

― Curt, Wednesday, 20 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I just thought of how matt m.'s comment on how they created oric music and then sampled it is similar to how the soundtrack for Wild Style was made. Fab 5 Freddy got in the studio with some band, I believe, and recorded an album of instrumental tracks which are then used by the performers in the live performances. Different results, though, as just pretty basic DJing on the Wild style stuff.

― Ron, Sunday, 24 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

two months pass...

Well, I honestly believe that the second album of Portishead + Alpha's "Come From Hraven" + Archive's Londinium are the best trip hop albums of the 90s!!!

― Panagiotis Pileidis, Tuesday, 18 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Portishead was a very good marketing ploy, wasn't it?

― Julio Desouza, Wednesday, 19 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Ron - the band in question was Blondie...

― michael, Wednesday, 19 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

five years pass...

well, that was unexpected.

a new album.

― amateurist, Sunday, 23 March 2008 11:33 (eighteen years ago)

The thread for Portishead "Third"

― Tuomas, Sunday, 23 March 2008 11:33 (eighteen years ago)

I tried and tried with both records, back in those days over a decade ago, and I think the truth in the end was, they were not for me. I doubt this one will be either, unless they have decided to sound like a cross between the Sundays and the Railway Children.

― the pinefox, Sunday, 23 March 2008 11:53 (eighteen years ago)

"Portishead" does at least in place sound like it was actually recorded in stereo and not in mono. Now that is something at least.

― Geir Hongro, Sunday, 23 March 2008 11:55 (eighteen years ago)

six years pass...

they did an album w/a symphony orchestra = they are monkeys

― Tracer Hand, Sunday, March 17, 2002 7:00 PM (12 years ago)

YOU'RE A MONKEY TAKE THAT BACK TRACER

― j., Wednesday, 20 August 2014 01:43 (eleven years ago)

five years pass...

YOU EAT BANANAS

― j., Saturday, 16 May 2020 02:06 (six years ago)

Ahhh hoping in vain for P4

― call mr zbow that's my name that name again is mr zbow (Craig D.), Saturday, 16 May 2020 02:59 (six years ago)

Listened to Dummy last week, it was quite difficult.

Mainly because of the lawnmower going, next door.

― Mark G, Saturday, 16 May 2020 07:53 (six years ago)

I think this kind of downtempo stuff will be active for a long time to come

otm
I remember when the ultimate diss on this group was to compare them to sade which is damning of then-indie-tastes in so many ways

is fretting about whether music is "dated" a totally 90s/early-00s thing? I mean who gives a shit these days. what is time even

― What's (Left), Saturday, 16 May 2020 12:34 (six years ago)

We still harboured a few modernist assumptions about aesthetic progress back then.

― pomenitul, Saturday, 16 May 2020 13:24 (six years ago)

[rips bong] time is a flat circle

― an incoherent crustacean (MatthewK), Saturday, 16 May 2020 13:27 (six years ago)

Third was p much a perfect album imo and I was surprised by Gibbons's recording of Gorecki's 3rd.

― Feel a million filaments (Sund4r), Saturday, 16 May 2020 14:03 (six years ago)

time is fake

― megan thee macallan 18 year (||||||||), Saturday, 16 May 2020 19:48 (six years ago)

Early ILM threads:

"James Brown isBoring"
"Joni Mitchell: Both Sides Cow"
"The Beatles: Name Their Two Good Songs"
"Can Can't"
"Bjork: Women, anirite?"
"Destroy Or Dud: Hip-Hop"
"Radiohead is just Pink-Floyd for the Napster Generation"

― Soundslike, Saturday, 16 May 2020 22:34 (six years ago)

And the old standby:

"Music: Done?"

― Soundslike, Saturday, 16 May 2020 22:36 (six years ago)

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