SONIC YOUTH: THE DESTROYED ROOM (REVIEW)
February 10th 2007 01:45
SONIC YOUTH
THE DESTROYED ROOM: B-SIDES AND RARITIES
(2006; Geffen)
RATING
TRACK LISTING: 1) Fire Engine Dream / 2) Fauxhemians / 3) Razor Blade / 4) Blink / 5) Campfire / 6) Loop Cat / 7) Kim’s Chords / 8) Beautiful Plateau / 9) Three-Part Sectional Love Seat / 10) Queen Anne Chair / 11) The Diamond Sea
After 2006’s rather upbeat and rather accessible Rather Ripped, The Destroyed Room (2006) is a clearing house for Sonic Youth’s more improvisational material. These are curios pillaged from as far back as 1994’s Experimental, Jet Set, Trash, And No Star, and the focus is on meandering, exploratory wank. That’s not to say it’s bad; just that most of it’s better suited to playing in the background while you stroke your chin and contemplate pomo art than it is to jumping around your room and, um, destroying it.
Don’t let this review fool you; I actually really like and respect Sonic Youth. In their earlier days they reinvented the guitar, coaxing new sounds and songs out of alternate tunings, controlled feedback, and oddball structures. Then they gradually adapted this sound for more durable songwriting, defining the archetype for the indie guitar band and influencing pretty much anyone with a guitar who’s worth listening to from the 1990s to today.
The Destroyed Room veers between genuinely striking jams where the band hit on a particularly interesting guitar sound or engaging groove, piddly unfinished electronica, and listless shit jams. At least the band are honest about the incompleteness of some of this material, and I have to respect anyone willing to give the public such a candid insight into their creative process. When this New York art combo really try, they can forge albums of eerie menace, sonic wonder, and experimental beauty. However, they also have a tendency towards directionless masturbation, which is no doubt very beneficial to their playing and exploration of new ideas. But that doesn’t mean I have to like it.
As loose as most of this stuff is, it’s the more structured works that chime the truest: like the unsettling chirp and squeak of “Fire Engine Dream”, the muted percussion and soothing tones of “Blink”, and the classic Sonic Youth ascending guitar interplay of “Queen Anne Chair”. The rest are mostly incomplete instrumental jams, bar two Kim Gordon sung tunes (the countryish acoustica of “Razor Blade” and the aforementioned “Blink”) and a hypnotic, half-hour version of “The Diamond Sea” that moves from gorgeous watery sections to catastrophic noise and back again—FOREVER! But the lack of vocal tracks isn’t so bad, because on the whole, Sonic Youth’s lyrics suck a camel’s balls through the eye of a needle.
I’ve been hard on the ol’ Sonic Youth, but with their decades of experience and the godlike adoration bestowed upon them by indie hipsters, I think they deserve some honest criticism. The truth is, this album is more for the rabid fan than it is for the casual listener who may have been lured in by Rather Ripped or earlier breakthroughs like Goo (1990) or Dirty (1992).
With its postmodern Jeff Wall cover photo and ambient tonal jams, The Destroyed Room could be the Youth’s way of pleasing the Soho bohos while they’re busy courting the fauxho bozos. I don’t even know what these two categories mean, let alone which I fit into.
***
LINKS
The original and shorter review can be found here at Tsunamimag.com
IMAGES
onicYouth-DestroyedRoom.jpg" target="_blank">The Destroyed Room: B-Sides And Rarities
(album cover used under fair dealing)
*images on this page were taken from the following Wikipedia page:
The Destroyed Room: B-Sides And Rarities
THE DESTROYED ROOM: B-SIDES AND RARITIES
(2006; Geffen)
RATING
TRACK LISTING: 1) Fire Engine Dream / 2) Fauxhemians / 3) Razor Blade / 4) Blink / 5) Campfire / 6) Loop Cat / 7) Kim’s Chords / 8) Beautiful Plateau / 9) Three-Part Sectional Love Seat / 10) Queen Anne Chair / 11) The Diamond Sea
The Destroyed Room: B-Sides And Rarities (2006)
Don’t let this review fool you; I actually really like and respect Sonic Youth. In their earlier days they reinvented the guitar, coaxing new sounds and songs out of alternate tunings, controlled feedback, and oddball structures. Then they gradually adapted this sound for more durable songwriting, defining the archetype for the indie guitar band and influencing pretty much anyone with a guitar who’s worth listening to from the 1990s to today.
The Destroyed Room veers between genuinely striking jams where the band hit on a particularly interesting guitar sound or engaging groove, piddly unfinished electronica, and listless shit jams. At least the band are honest about the incompleteness of some of this material, and I have to respect anyone willing to give the public such a candid insight into their creative process. When this New York art combo really try, they can forge albums of eerie menace, sonic wonder, and experimental beauty. However, they also have a tendency towards directionless masturbation, which is no doubt very beneficial to their playing and exploration of new ideas. But that doesn’t mean I have to like it.
As loose as most of this stuff is, it’s the more structured works that chime the truest: like the unsettling chirp and squeak of “Fire Engine Dream”, the muted percussion and soothing tones of “Blink”, and the classic Sonic Youth ascending guitar interplay of “Queen Anne Chair”. The rest are mostly incomplete instrumental jams, bar two Kim Gordon sung tunes (the countryish acoustica of “Razor Blade” and the aforementioned “Blink”) and a hypnotic, half-hour version of “The Diamond Sea” that moves from gorgeous watery sections to catastrophic noise and back again—FOREVER! But the lack of vocal tracks isn’t so bad, because on the whole, Sonic Youth’s lyrics suck a camel’s balls through the eye of a needle.
I’ve been hard on the ol’ Sonic Youth, but with their decades of experience and the godlike adoration bestowed upon them by indie hipsters, I think they deserve some honest criticism. The truth is, this album is more for the rabid fan than it is for the casual listener who may have been lured in by Rather Ripped or earlier breakthroughs like Goo (1990) or Dirty (1992).
With its postmodern Jeff Wall cover photo and ambient tonal jams, The Destroyed Room could be the Youth’s way of pleasing the Soho bohos while they’re busy courting the fauxho bozos. I don’t even know what these two categories mean, let alone which I fit into.
***
LINKS
The original and shorter review can be found here at Tsunamimag.com
IMAGES
onicYouth-DestroyedRoom.jpg" target="_blank">The Destroyed Room: B-Sides And Rarities
(album cover used under fair dealing)
*images on this page were taken from the following Wikipedia page:
The Destroyed Room: B-Sides And Rarities
| 41 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by yonicsooth
You mentioned giving the public a candid view into the creative process, which sounds 'nice' but it also seems like a waste of time. Why would I listen to a band figuring their shit out when I could hear a good album proper?
Comment by Hellvis
Earache Hotel
A buzzword yes, but one that is pertinent to the work of Jeff Wall. This particular piece was originally presented as a transperancy on a lightbox, mimicking the format of advertising found in public places like bus shelters. It's also a reconfiguring of a 19th century artwork by Eugène Delacroix.
Both his subversion of capitalist strategies to present more intimate and personal situations and his pastiche of styles from different eras are very postmodern. I admit I wasn't thinking of all of these aspects while reviewing the album (this is Earache Hotel, not Arthole Hotel) but I was aware that his work is considered pomo (buzzwords ahoy!).
As for bands releasing everything they do, I dont think it's such a bad thing. A view into a band's creative process can be gratifying for fans who would like a more intimate experience of their heroes (this might explain the use of the cover) and it makes them seem more fallible and human. It could be considered a more honest portrayal of the band, rather than the highly considered, and some might say sterile, environs of the studio album.
Comment by yonicsooth
That explains what I do not enjoy about idolisation, where 'fans' need something shitful as a reminder that people are people. Sure they make music you love but, still people. Obviously.
If we just remembered this to start with, we wouldn't need to wade through junk.
....
The original Delacroix, Death of Sardanapalus, has about 17 more people and a horse in the frame, so you know why I didn't recognise it. Also, I'd never seen it until four minutes ago when I searched da Wikipedia. Thank you for explaining.
YS
Comment by Hellvis
Earache Hotel
I am sometimes fascinated by the myth and mystique surrounding artists as much as the music itself. This is hard to define but a band like Sonic Youth are like gods to a lot of people. What they seem to have done here is try to let the fans get closer, making their creative process a little more transparent and if not shattering their myth, then at least chipping away at it a bit. Whether or not the results are as successful as the band may have intended is beside the point. They’ve presented something that hasn’t been subjected to rigorous editing and second guessing (at least not as much as a studio album usually is, because there was a selection process to decide what would go on here just like any release).
Improvisation is always going to be hit or miss. Part of what makes it really good when it clicks is the possibility that it might've sounded crap. My appreciation for the good stuff comes from hearing the not-so-good stuff too. It’s not so much that some of these tracks fail, it’s that the band has been prepared to fail and let anyone who’s interested watch them do it. I still find that a pretty brave move.
On the other hand, being all experimental may be the band trying to keep their hand in the art world. What's more likely is that they just had a bunch of unreleased shit that they wanted to slap on a CD. Whatever their motives are, the Destroyed Room includes enough of the good stuff to make it worth hearing, hence the acceptable three star rating.
Comment by yonicsooth
As Isaac Brock sung on Other People's Lives, "other people's lives seem more interesting cuz they ain't mine." He says seems because he knows that their lives ain't so much different. People have a lot of the same shit to deal with, just different variables (hence the constant iteration of themes such as love, death, coming of age &c). Obviously.
Because I like myself so much, I dislike when people feel escaping (into becoming another person - or 'rock god') to 'solve' their identity issues. It all becomes unrealistic disillusionment, when if they accept the potential for their own awesome, they could get to it already, and not waste away pining for a god status that will never come unless they do something about it.
This might turn into a discussion where at the start I assert something and later on it reveals a deeper issue, like this time I argued with some dude about his rejection of home-schooling. He spoke for ages about the home-schooled child not having the ability to meet any friends, which I refuted by mentioning extra curricular activities, when his real problem with home-schooling arose as his wanting the fictional child to have an alternate male role model, because the dude hated his dad.
For this discussion, I envision unloading my dissent towards escapists and poseurs who stain with annoying the things I hold dear. Fortunately, I can ignore a bunch o' folk, but in turn this makes me hostile. I don't wanna hate, Hellvis. By no means.
Comment by yonicsooth
REVEALING: YS dislikes 'pretending' or 'posing' to create mystique &c. Something to do with questing for truth -- but then he lies by omission frequently to retain diplomacy. What a hypocrite.
Comment by Hellvis
Earache Hotel
I should get the Sonic Youth issue out of the way first, because I feel we’ve gone beyond it. My arguments are basically for why this album is not a waste of time, although I can see why you might think that way. And I can see why you wouldn’t want to spend time listening to a band ‘figuring their shit out’, but I think as a music fan questing for the good stuff, that is unavoidable. You can spend your life listening to what others consider to be great albums, but I think a knowledge of what else is out there is imperative in deciding what you think is great: great for you, whether it is universally considered great or not.
If you are only presented with the best of the best, how do you know it’s the best? Do you start to find the absolute best out of those best, and then begin to dismiss those albums that are not quite as good. Nothing can be understood without comparison.
A band like the Frou-Frou Foxes are figuring their shit out, and that can be a really exciting and vital time for bands and fans alike. It’s when a band is at their most vulnerable and honest I think, trying to find themselves rather than already having found it and then trying to maintain that. A lot of bands are really cool until they figure out what they’re doing and then they just seem to be going through the motions. I think Dinosaur Jr are a good example of this.
Now on to other matters…
Comment by Hellvis
Earache Hotel
I would raise the point that wanting to become your own hero is just as escapist as living vicariously through others. Art, and music in particular, provide a platform for reinvention, and the act of striving to be more than you are is an escape from your current situation. I agree that trying to do this by your own deeds seems far more admirable and worthwhile than just bemoaning your life and wishing for something else, but life can be tough you know. Sometimes that dreaming of ‘god status’ or whatever is the catalyst to get off your arse and do something about it.
Ah, there’s so much more to say, but these kind of ranty online discussions tie my headybone in knots. I keep going back and editing things to try and express myself as clearly as possible. Sometimes things lose their fire and meaning that way, become sterile and lifeless (just like studio albums sometimes do).
Have we come full circle?
Comment by (embr)yonicsooth
For the most part if I know I will hear something decidedly terrible (like, visiting a supermarket, or my parents) I can use that as a basis of comparison. Within the realm of 'good music' the comparisons mount up, and of course I don't need to experience the worst to understand just how great the great can sound (also, sometimes music will still sound interesting, whether good or not, because of unfamiliar structures/styles). So with The Destroyed Room we get an instance of interesting to hear, not because of musical worth, but because of external considerations pertaining to the already established fact that some people like Sonic Youth. I probably won't listen to this record or the other half dozen 'workout sessions' of SY's I have access to because of the want to hear a genuine music, not an extraneous genuineness.
Do you rag on the 'sterile studio' only because it suggests a corporate involvement, or do you truly believe quality artists will suffer by taking that route? I know you wrote 'sometimes' but I also know that the 'sterile and lifeless' comment applies to a perception of studios generally. I don't like putting hate on repeat, or reinforcing something when it only cultivates the negativity. (if I've done this within my own text, does my hypocrisy outweigh my sentiments?)
The WSW [http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jun2002/scot-j04.shtml] has a review of Scott Walker's 1995 album Tilt, describing how in the recording process Walker rejected the use of 'click' tracks and 'guide vocals -- "while technically exact, interactions in timing and emphasis that we call “feel” or “soul” are lost. These techniques tend to homogenise the music...". Walker wanted "spontaneous musical ideas from musicians," not just automatics. In this instance, it appears the studio can make for lousy tunes but only terrible artists will accept this. Good artists, like say, The Residents, who use the studio like an instrument do not suffer in the same way.
I'd like to see the individuals who made the bad music blamed for their techniques, and not have the idea of 'studio album' carry so much dead weight. It shouldn't bear on the studio that some musicians make bad choices. The true artist's will use whatever they can to make something great.
....
I disagree with your call about self heroship as 'just as escapist' because the idea of improving oneself does not call for a reboot to commence. I can keep building upon what I think I know without wanting to exist as another.
I want to become the 'true me' by starting with the foundational self and extend the me of already (?). Maybe a discussion of absolutes will ensue, maybe not. Calling it 'just as escapist' denigrates ambition and the want to do something creatively important.
Hellvis, I think only recently I've come out of my cynical slump of the past twenty years, and it makes me touchy to hear the iterations of yore. I've given up on preferring to acknowledge the dirty side of coins as the prevailing side -- I now quest for the good.
Full circle indeed.
Comment by Hellvis
Earache Hotel
There's so much here to digest, and I think I needed to step away from it for a bit because it was getting stale and overchewed. Perhaps we can start afresh.
I'm not anti-studio. I actually prefer studio albums to live documents. The small amount of live events I attend these days would suggest that studio albums are all I need to appreciate music, but this isn’t the really the case either. In defending this album, I was perhaps trying to equate its hit-or-miss experience with that of a live show, which is something I’ve been subconsciously missing of late. While the album doesn’t fulfill that role (it comes from a studio), there are some similarities (the improvised nature suggests the elements of chance found in a live setting). I’m clutching at straws here, but some of them have little fizzy droplets of truth in them.
As someone who is questing for truth in my own way, I want to know and understand and experience everything that music has to offer. If that means listening to an album that isn’t so great, I will try and find the good in it, being fully aware that it doesn’t stand up to my favourites and my own ideas of what constitutes quality art. I have this romantic notion that the greatest things can be found surrounded by trash and filth, which is maybe overstating things, but this helps to keep me balanced when confronted with things that aren’t immediately to my liking. I’m sorry if this led me to attack ‘the studio’ and if it seemed like I was blaming it for poor artistic decisions. I was just trying to see the good in the improvised, the unfinished, and the mistaken: that ‘good’ being the honest, unfettered, and somewhat free picture that emerges. I agree that for some people the album probably isn’t worthwhile for the exact reasons you are stating (which were touched upon in the review), but then again there are moments in it that others might find appealing. As a reviewer I thought it important to acknowledge both, which I feel I have done.
I didn’t mean to denigrate ambition or the want to do something important. While I agree that these are worthwhile things (perhaps the only such things that anyone has in life), I acknowledge how hard they are to achieve, which I suppose only makes them even more worthwhile and important. I agree with what you’re saying, and was probably only trying to find a slightly different definition of escapism that could be positive, rather than purely pejorative. Once again, trying to look on the bright side, and see beauty in ugliness.
Quest for truth my good man! You're a fine individual with a lot going for you. And I really enjoy these discussions because you question me and that helps me question me. Hoorah!