I think the Fiery Furnaces are the best new thing to happen in the past three years. Gallowsbird's Park set the stage with its rollicking set of bluesy rock songs. Blueberry Boat blew every other 2004 album out of the water with its daring wanderings and succulent hooks. Now, EP brings slightly more accessible fare but retains the playful production gadgetry and Eleanor Friedberger's excellent vocals.

There are so many bands that I like and that write great songs, but I still get that I've-heard-this-before feeling. The Furnaces are not overly experimental, but I really feel like there's something more to their music that just good hooks. There's something distinctive. Maybe it's the whimsical lyrics or off-kilter chords. I don't know. But there's something special there, and it only gets better on repeated listens.

I know there are a number of people who absolutely hate Blueberry Boat, which is my favorite album of theirs, and I can understand that. That album only reveals itself on repeated listens (like 5 or more) and not everyone wants to spend 8 hours just to like an album, though I think such time would be well spent. But how can you deny the springy (a better adjective does not occur to me) Gallowsbird's Park or the brilliant EP?

I totally wrote these guys off after hearing 30 seconds of a song from their first album off amazon. I was put off by Eleanor Friedberger's really fake blues singing. I don't know if it was a representative sample of her singing or the group in general, but it did a better job of inspiring hatred in me than a group of uppity blacks :rimshot:

quote:

I totally wrote these guys off after hearing 30 seconds of a song from their first album off amazon. I was put off by Eleanor Friedberger's really fake blues singing. I don't know if it was a representative sample of her singing or the group in general, but it did a better job of inspiring hatred in me than a group of uppity blacks :rimshot:

What exactly is "fake blues singing" and how does it differ from real blues singing?

I would characterize the Beatles' 'Yer Blues' as 'fake blues singing'. Yet...it's a really great song.

You're right. Using inauthenticity as an excuse not to go into any depth about why something sucks is being lazy.

It did sound like a white girl singing like an old blues singer, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. She did sound obnoxiously unaware of what her own voice sounds like, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. For any musical description, it can be "in a good way" or "in a bad way".

The instant recoil in horror and involutary shivers, which I swear to god actually happened, just told me "this sucks hard". I have no idea which song it was, but I'm not about to go check. If this very vague description (bluesy singing) sounds like one particular song on the album, and if the rest sounds absolutely nothing like it, then maybe I jumped to the wrong conclusion about them.

I doubt that the song you heard had a much different vocal delivery than their other songs. Eleanor doesn't vary her vocals a lot. I really like it, but I guess its not everyone's cup of tea. On the other hand, there are several tracks on Blueberry Boat that feature Matt Friedberger's vocals instead. They are nothing like his sister's. You may enjoy those tracks more.

It's interesting that the vocal delivery is what you find most irritating, as every negative review of the Furnaces music seems to assail the supposed pretentiousness of the music, the childlike lyrics, its inferiority to the Who, or poor musicianship (a complaint that seems a little odd coming from indie publications). I guess there are a lot of things people hate about them. See this very long Stylus article for an example.

Also, I'll admit that the band name is stupid, and they look like people I wouldn't like, and that this had an effect on whether I would try to find out if the first impression was wrong. I consciously decided that I would not look into their music any more, and that I would be prejudiced against everything else they'd ever do.

Arguing about why something sucks, I've found, is not that good of a use of time and effort. When something really pisses me off, it's usually because of personal values that are hard to describe being set off by subtle details in music that are also hard to describe. I listen to good music more than I listen to bad music, so my knowledge of why something rubs me the right way is more developed than my knowledge of when the opposite happens.

I really liked Gallowsbird's Bark. Ok, now the positive stuff is out of the way.

I was reading the Friedbergers' interview on Pitchfork.com a while back. Matt made a rather telling statement, I thought, in how he regards their talents, "We got $15,000, and we may never again get that amount of money to make a record [again]. And I think the record sounds like it cost $15,000. It doesn't sound like it cost $30,000, but it doesn't sound like it cost $7,000." He implicitly set out to make a record reflectent of his record advance. I fear the fuckin' day Grandma Friedberger keels over and leaves her estate to these two. I don't want to know what Blueberry Boat would have sounded like if it cost $100,000. And I think Blueberry is "charming," although not entirely likable, for the record. A 66 seems fair.

But EP butchered what was left of the respect I still carried for The Fiery Furnaces. It's the most pretentious, calculated, repetitive, goofy, obnoxious, irritating, technically inferior, vomitous mass I've heard since Lars Ulrich complained about people stealing from him. You know, Spandex is a privilege, not a right. So are B-Sides and Singles records. You just don't get to release one when you've only been around 18 months. Especially one that's as bad as EP. And don't call it EP when it's not even an EP. Argh.

quote:

I was reading the Friedbergers' interview on Pitchfork.com a while back. Matt made a rather telling statement, I thought, in how he regards their talents, "We got $15,000, and we may never again get that amount of money to make a record [again]. And I think the record sounds like it cost $15,000. It doesn't sound like it cost $30,000, but it doesn't sound like it cost $7,000." He implicitly set out to make a record reflectent of his record advance.

Does his statement really mean he was trying to make an album that sounded like it took $15,000 to make? It seems to me like he's just saying that since this was possibly the only time they will ever get that kind of money to make an album they were gonna do whatever they could with it. Doesn't that make sense? If you only have one chance to do something in your life and it has to be now, wouldn't you do it?

As for your complaints about EP, I find some of the adjectives in that long list you compiled to be positive and others to be factually inaccurate.

Calculated: What isn't calculated? Improvisation? Should they have improvised this album? Contrary to popular belief, most talented artists don't just have ideas spontaneously appear and come out brilliant. It takes hard work and, yes, calculated thought. Mark Twain said something like, "It only takes me a few hours to prepare for a good extemporaneous speech." I think that sums the issue up well.

Repetitive: The CD has 10 songs and lasts around 40 minutes. That's 4 minutes per song, and several of those songs are packed with numerous ideas. The last thing EP is is repetitive.

Goofy: I would describe it as playful or childlike, but goofy is still good. I think it mostly means weird, which means it's different than most stuff out there.

Technically Inferior: Weren't you just complaining about how calculated EP is and how Blueberry Boat sounds like it cost too much money?

I will agree with you on one thing, though, leland. This CD was not an EP. It was over 40 minutes. However, it was priced as an EP, so I'm not complaining.

quote:

Also, I'll admit that the band name is stupid, and they look like people I wouldn't like, and that this had an effect on whether I would try to find out if the first impression was wrong. I consciously decided that I would not look into their music any more, and that I would be prejudiced against everything else they'd ever do.

I can understand that. There's so much music out there that no one has the time to check it all out. You have to decide which music to try by indirect means, some of which may not even make much sense, like the band name. Sometimes, though, that's all you have to go by. It does seem a bit weird that you thought they looked like people you wouldn't like, though. Too ugly or what?

I heard a few Fiery Furnaces tracks. They seem like they have some interesting ideas, and a unique signature to their music (Most bands don't). But...the songs just didn't hold very much weight.

You need to work on solid songwriting before you can successfully experiment.

quote:

Originally posted by RavingLunatic:
[QUOTE]It seems to me like he's just saying that since this was possibly the only time they will ever get that kind of money to make an album they were gonna do whatever they could with it. Doesn't that make sense? If you only have one chance to do something in your life and it has to be now, wouldn't you do it?

That's all fine and good, but he obviously meant to make a record that sounded more expensive. In point of fact, it's as inconsistent and amateur as anything they've done, and a few grand should have been used on a producer to come in one day and cut 5 minutes off half the songs. Many better albums have been made with a lot less money.

quote:

Calculated: What isn't calculated? Improvisation? Should they have improvised this album? Contrary to popular belief, most talented artists don't just have ideas spontaneously appear and come out brilliant. It takes hard work and, yes, calculated thought. Mark Twain said something like, "It only takes me a few hours to prepare for a good extemporaneous speech." I think that sums the issue up well.

Calculated in the manner Les Savy Fav's Inches was calculated. I know a thing or two about creative work. Don't patronize me.

quote:

Repetitive: The CD has 10 songs and lasts around 40 minutes. That's 4 minutes per song, and several of those songs are packed with numerous ideas. The last thing EP is is repetitive.

The schtick gets tiring after the third song; I suppose this ties in with "goofy"…

quote:

Goofy: I would describe it as playful or childlike, but goofy is still good. I think it mostly means weird, which means it's different than most stuff out there.

Good, we agree. Monkey crap is slightly different than dog crap.

quote:

Technically Inferior: Weren't you just complaining about how calculated EP is and how Blueberry Boat sounds like it cost too much money?

When did I say Blueberry Boat sounds like it cost too much money? Back on point: occasionally artists who aren't particularly skilled with their instruments create something groundbreaking. The Ramones did it. Throbbing Gristle did it. Jackson Pollock did it. The Fiery Furnaces haven't, and obviously remain committed to masking average ability by adding layer upon layer until the random tempo change. That's very prog-rock, they hear.

I've stayed out of this one, but I have a thing or two to add/ask. I liked the first album well enough although I didn't pay for it. I haven't heard anything at all from the last two. There seems to be a real strong love 'em or hate 'em here at the site.

Now, leland, what I want to know is what did you mean, exactly, by comparing Les Savy Fav to Fiery Furnaces in the use of the words "calculated" and "creative work"?

Another thing:

EP stands for "extended play" (thank you whichever of the webzines brought this fact to my attention). It's not an EP in the sense that it's a single with a few extra songs on it, but it's some added entertainment for those fans who have both albums but don't have the means to hunt down all their nonalbum stuff. A low price (which I'm taking ravinglunatic's word for) adds weight to this theory.

I suppose I'm not a rock historian, so I can't comment on the how groundbreaking the Furnaces music is. I've never listened to any of the bands you mentioned. I suppose that makes me a bad music fan, since I haven't memorized which bands are "groundbreaking" and which ones are mere ripoffs.

I can understand why people value and praise artists that create music that is a significant departure from the music that came before them. Without pioneers like them music would stagnate, and we would probably see much less variety. As much as I agree with praising artists that stray from the beaten path, I think that some "groundbreaking" music sucks. On the other hand, I think most of us like bands that are in no way "groundbreaking," but just put out music that we really like.

As I said, I suppose I'm not qualified to assess the historical significance of their music. All I know is that it sounds different from anything I've heard, and that I like it. Maybe it is just "adding layer upon layer until the random tempo change." I don't really care. Maybe it sounds like prog-rock. Does it really matter?

Also, it seems like you're more concerned with the motives of the band than their actual music. You assail them for being too calculated, for trying to mask their playing ability, and for trying to sound like prog-rock. I'd like to think that all the artists I listen to have noble motives, but if they don't should I stop liking their music? I know there have been books that are now considered classics that were only written because their authors needed money. Does that detract from the brilliance of their work?

I will agree with you that a few songs off Bluberry Boat could stand to have some time cut off of them, namely the beginnings of "1917," "Inspector Blancheflower," and "Wolfnotes."

Also, mleland, sorry if my first reply sounded like I was impugning your knowledge of creative work. I didn't mean it that way, but maybe it sounded like it. Poorly worded I guess.

quote:

Originally posted by RavingLunatic:
I doubt that the song you heard had a much different vocal delivery than their other songs. Eleanor doesn't vary her vocals a lot. I really like it, but I guess its not everyone's cup of tea. On the other hand, there are several tracks on Blueberry Boat that feature Matt Friedberger's vocals instead. They are nothing like his sister's. You may enjoy those tracks more.

Her voice is exactly the reason why I find the Furnaces insufferable. The rest of the stuff (the childlike lyrics, the musicianship) is fine with me. A little shambolic, but fine. But her voice, for me, is like nails on a blackboard. I've never heard any of the Matt-sung songs. I might like them better. But I've resigned myself to the fact that the Furnaces are just a phenomenon that I'm unable to enjoy.