Pitchfork is crazy. This album freakin rules.

The first 30 seconds or so of "Won't Want for Love" is quite possibly my favorite moment in music for years. "Gentle leaves, gentle leaves/Please array a path for me/The woods are blowing thick and fast around." It's amazing how well the extra vocalists are incorporated without sacrificing the sound of the band in the slightest. Certainly better than "Crane Wife."

quote:

Pitchfork is crazy. This album freakin rules.

The first 30 seconds or so of "Won't Want for Love" is quite possibly my favorite moment in music for years. "Gentle leaves, gentle leaves/Please array a path for me/The woods are blowing thick and fast around." It's amazing how well the extra vocalists are incorporated without sacrificing the sound of the band in the slightest. Certainly better than "Crane Wife."

Yah, when I heard that same line, I knew that the Decemberists were on to something special. I really love the fact that there's more than one vocalist here, too. It adds a whole new layer of intrigue to the music, hearing the interplay between characters; this is like a broadway musical for indie-kids.

Or, like I said before, it's the medieval Tommy. I hope more bands come out with ideas like this; although many bands don't have the right style to pull it off as efficiently as on Hazards (Hold Steady, maybe?).

Far and away my favorite album of the year so far, and rapidly becoming my favorite Decemberists album. It's interesting, because individual tracks on previous albums presaged this move for them. I hear the germs of this in California One/Youth and Beauty Brigade, Odalisque, the Bagman's Gambit and others. These were never my favorite Decemberists' songs. The move became more explicit in the Tain, of course, which, though released earlier, was actually recorded after Picaresque. And Crane Wife, which, in retrospect, was HoL lite. As I follow the progression, I like each of the above works more in retrospect. I see HoL as the full flower of that potential. I love the multiple vocalists, and I think they bring some needed variety to an album that could be somewhat "same-y" at times otherwise.

Interestingly, the P4k review reads like an OK review, with a bad score. I'm not sure I think that Marc Hogan really "got" what they were after, and I especially agree with AML, that P4k is so into lo-fi, neo-shoegaze, and lollipop noize (like Dan Deacon, or the Ponytails), that this album was going to strike a dull chord with them. (Before anyone stands up to defend those genres, I like some of that stuff, too)

In the end, I think this album has its niche, and is going to do well with literary geeks, aging fans of prog, and theatre nerds like me.

I've really enjoyed this album, I had gotten tired of them before this album came out but I think this album will definitely revive my interest. Extremely well produced, great guest vocals (especially by Shara Worden of My Brightest Diamond), and the Rake Song might be my favorite song of the year. Meloy once again does an excellent job with lyrics as usual with his literary storylines.
On a separate note I don't ever listen to pitchfork so their review had no bearing on my expectations of this album.

I really love this album. I have one hesitation. Can't Meloy write just one album that does not have a song about a woman being raped and dying?

I'm going to have to agree with pitchfork's review (as dismissive and underhanded as it actually is) because they do at least point out that this album isn't nearly as catchy as previous works. I'm not a huge fan of the Decemberists (too pretentious in my view), but this album is off the radar in terms of pretense. Sure, it's a purported "rock opera," which calls for a lot of pretense (see "Tommy" for example), but the Decemberists, and especially Colin Meloy, play it too straight-faced to pull it off. Tommy worked because it knew that it was outrageous, whereas this album feels like Colin Meloy actually believes people will follow the story-line of an album about god-knows-what. The best thing that can be said about this album in my opinion is that it is actually an "album" in the classic sense of the word, but even Tommy worked all cut-up and strewn across mixtapes of solid-gold oldies. This album, not so much.

I'm actually going to liken this album to the new Mastodon, which also has some borderline absurd storyline, but at least Mastodon tempers that story with songs that engage the listener, and hell, you can even make sense out of some snippets of the plot (if it can be called that).

That said, I do think that the p4k review was overly dismissive, but this album easily could've been trimmed substantially.

I don't think you need to follow the storyline to enjoy the album, but it does make it a little more interesting I suppose.

Nonetheless, music doesn't have to be catchy to be good. That said, this abum actually is pretty catchy. See: track 2, 4, 8, 10...most of them really.

Okay, but i think people would agree that "pop" music (which this is) lives and dies by its hooks, which aren't as good here than on previous albums. I feel like this album just fails on so many fronts that the band has explored before: epic prog ("The Island"), cheese-metal ("The Tain"), whimsical-folk-pop (Pretty much all of "Castaways..."), and even a narrative that stands up ("The Crane Wife"). That's just my opinion, and this album may or may not reveal itself to be something great, but I'm a bit offput by it on my first several spins.

I hate discussions of pretense because who really has a fucking clue about a band's internal feelings when they make an album. And of course, crying "pretentious!" is claiming omniscience of some sort.

But even more than that I hate how publications qualify there reviews with, "Pretentious is ok...but only if we decide that the band is being tongue-in-cheek or self-aware" in whatever vague way a publication claims to be able to detect self-awareness.

That said:

I do not love this one. And I did not love the last one. They are not catchy enough and they do not sustain my attention span,

Picaresque FTW: it's catchy, musically brilliant, diverse in the pacing of the songs, has fun, "picaresque" lyrics, and epic songs. I think this album is a little underrated and still their best.

I greatly regret that I'm going to have to agree with Clevername on this one.

I love the Decemeberist style of music. I love them as a band because of their ambition to make things bigger than the typical rock band songs and albums. I love songs that tell an interesting story. And I adore albums that take advantage of the medium in order to build something larger than the sum of it's parts. I even appreciate when albums are a hour long or longer.

But something bad happened here. I've listened to it several times from start to finish, and I have no sense of characters or how they link together. I can feel the variation in mood, and I can hear the different character's themes, and I really think that the band has developed themselves musically in a grand way, but if it is at the expense of clever narative and songs with character and heart I fear I'm going to have to jump ship this time. And it pains me to say this because I really wanted to like it.

I will keep listening of course. And I will pour over the lyrics sheet until I know the over all story and how each song relates, and maybe then it will all start to come clear. But I've never had to do that with Decemberists in the past. The story has always been way out in front and the music was secondary and supporting it. I think they reversed this formula this time around and it just doesn't work for me.

I don't have to tell you how much it hurt to put my current album rating into my rating spreadsheet and have it shuffle everything around to show me that it is currently tied with Goblin Cock.

With the Decemberists, you have to check your disbelief at the door. They are known for writing and performing quirky, hyper-literate, epic songs. They are refreshing because virtually no one writes music like this.

Because of their style, you either love them or you don't. While some might see their music as intelligent, engaging story telling, others will view it as pretentious. It is highly improbable for the band to be as popular as they are. What has saved them in the past is that they also craft excellent sounding songs, full of hooks. It's easier to suspend your disbelief when your songs are as good as those on Picaresque and Her Majesty . . .

I'm one that really buys into their style. The lyrics are extremely well written and clever, and I happen to enjoy their odd stories about Chimbley Sweeps and ancient mariners. And, I love that their style is getting more epic. I thought The Crane Wife was brilliant, and I'm really enjoying The Hazards of Love.

I will agree that the songs are not as hooky as their earlier works, but there are a few gems. I like the interplay of indie-folk and folky-metal in "The Wanting Comes in Waives/Repaid." The guitar riff really sets the urgency for the excellent guest vocals by Shara Worden. "The Rake's Song" is toe-tapping, horrifying, and funny all at the same time. While the music may not be as hooky as previous efforts, they are all intricately woven songs.

I think it is useless to try and understand the story by just listening to the songs. You have to read the lyrics. The story goes like this - Margaret comes across an injured faun in the forest. When she stops to help it, it turns into a human and they get it on. She becomes pregnant. It turns out that the faun (I think his name is William) was rescued from death by the Forest Queen, who changed him into this shape-shifting character and told him to stay away from humans. He disobeys her by falling in love with Margaret, and the Queen gets pissed. She gives him one more night to be with his love, then she will own his life forever. Meanwhile, the Rake (who killed his children so he could be a bachelor again) comes across Margaret waiting in the forest for William, and he abducts and rapes her. As he is trying to escape from William, he comes to a river that cannot be crossed. The Queen helps the Rake to the other side because he has taken Margaret away from William. The Rake's dead children come back to haunt and kill him. Somehow, William rescues Margaret, but when they attempt to cross the river, they drown.

How could anyone find that pretentious?

quote:

I think it is useless to try and understand the story by just listening to the songs. You have to read the lyrics. The story goes like this - Margaret comes across an injured faun in the forest. When she stops to help it, it turns into a human and they get it on. She becomes pregnant. It turns out that the faun (I think his name is William) was rescued from death by the Forest Queen, who changed him into this shape-shifting character and told him to stay away from humans. He disobeys her by falling in love with Margaret, and the Queen gets pissed. She gives him one more night to be with his love, then she will own his life forever. Meanwhile, the Rake (who killed his children so he could be a bachelor again) comes across Margaret waiting in the forest for William, and he abducts and rapes her. As he is trying to escape from William, he comes to a river that cannot be crossed. The Queen helps the Rake to the other side because he has taken Margaret away from William. The Rake's dead children come back to haunt and kill him. Somehow, William rescues Margaret, but when they attempt to cross the river, they drown.

How could anyone find that pretentious? Wink

I got that, and don't have the lyrics sheet in front of me. Why are people having such a hard time putting this story together? Granted, this isn't Andrew Lloyd Webber, but it's certainly not difficult to figure out which characters are doing what after a few listens.

Anyways, thanks to Troy for putting it all together for us, even if he doesn't quite do justice to the poetic drowning at the end, death in eachother's arms.

Oh, how I love this album.

Thanks for the summary. Personally, I had the gist of the story figured out, but it's nice to have it summarized with some of the gaps filled in. But really, every element of this story they have used before. And that story is not interesting enough to really warrant an entire album devoted to it.

Anyway. "The Hazards of Love 4 (The Drowned)" is a beautiful song. And I love "The Hazards of Love 2 (Wager All)". And Shara's pieces alone make this far better than being lumped equal to the likes of Goblin Cock, so I'll have to really spend some time with this before I give it it's next rating.

Ummm ditto - this is album of the year so far for me, it kind of took the baton from Trail Of Dead's latest, which i had previously not stopped spinning, and filled in the reservations i had with it.

I think that this is an album that will be a real grower for most people. There are many tracks that stand out on their own, independent of the narrative structure, and Meloy still writes some of the most descriptive, literate lyrics of any songwriter today. I think that a good amount of people may come to love this album with the passing of time.

In regards to pretentiousness, it is kind of odd that any band that takes a more literate approach to music is seen as pretentious. Personally, I think this kind of approach to labeling bands is kind of silly. I think a lot of people saw Green Day's writing an opera as pretentious because it seemed like they were departing from what they usually did in order to seem more important. This is not so with the Decemberists. They've been writing this kind of music for a long time, and an opera seems like it was a logical step for them to take. Just my two cents on that issue though.

quote:

Originally posted by Avid_Music_Lover:
I think that a good amount of people may come to love this album with the passing of time.

I hope you are right, because I really respect the band. But I think it will be the opposite. I think you are right to say that this album is a "grower", but I forsee it getting stale relatively soon, in the long run.

I feel like listening to The Hazards of Love is a pleasant way to spend an hour, but I have yet to walk away from that hour with any memories whatsoever.

And yet, it still makes for a good hour so I'm going to keep coming back to it for a while.

I tried again to get into this album and failed miserably. The opening stretch is really bad to be honest. I like the Decemberists, and I don't really care how "hyper-literate" a band is [especially when it's at the expense of good songs]. But honestly, this album bores me to tears. "The Crane Wife" had songs that stuck with you for days, but I can't even think of a single track on this album that even left a mark on my "wow-this-is-good-ometer."

It's a shame to be honest, because I had some high expectations.

I want to bump this thread because I'm curious what people think about this album. I still think it's a turd, but I'm looking for a reason to revisit the album without feeling stupid.

quote:

It's a shame to be honest, because I had some high expectations.

Maybe you should go in with low expectations next time you listen to it. :P