Auris Media/Topheth Prophet
aum010/tp006
“White” is an unusual, often frustrating, sometimes aimless but occasionally very beautiful recording. Essentially a single 77-minute piece (though divided into seven tracks), it’s also in some ways almost a solo effort. While the bulk of the sounds derive from Krutogolov (credited with “bass with bow”, strings, voice, keyboards, objects, flute, birds “…”), Yariv Talmor’s “rain” makes up a substantial component of the piece time-wise. Ido Azaria is also credited for bells.
But let’s back up. “White” comes in a handsomely designed package with the image of a tree and grazing horse printed in very light gray on a white background. Inside, there’s an eight page booklet with the tree on the front and back, the interior six pages…all white. Well, OK, getting twee on me here, but we trudge onward. It opens with a dreamy mélange of sounds: a sort of Riley-esque organ, rain, thunder and random scrapings, most prominently a carillon-like tone whose quasi-melody is very reminiscent of an early Art Ensemble piece I can’t quite put my finger on, maybe a portion of “The Spiritual”. A flute enters playing languidly, perhaps a mandolin, sounds of children playing--all very pastoral, settling into a space somewhere between Bryars and the Penguin Café Orchestra, though far looser than either. When an (artificially?) high voice appears, the music teeters dangerously on the precipice of sappy and it balances there for much of the first three sections, really just wallowing in the goo with nothing much happening. But just when you’re about to give in to exasperation, suddenly things congeal in the fourth track, the keyboards layering gorgeously, the accompanying chatter of flutes beginning to make “sense”. The whole thing takes on much the character of a John Cale piece circa “The Academy in Peril”, except with the richness of arrangements heard in someone like Simon Fisher Turner. It’s a very attractive combination. Audible weather returns and the work subsides a bit for the fifth portion, more or less returning to the sounds of the opening, but about midway through the sixth track, heralded by a far-off child’s cry that has been resurfacing throughout, some beautiful, ethereal strings appear, again reminding me of some of Turner’s work (say, on the “Last of England” soundtrack) but even more romantic and evocative, embedded in rain. The strings intensify and deepen, producing a strikingly effective slab of sound until Krutogolov suddenly pulls out the rug.
The final section takes up fully half the disc, some 38 minutes. After a little bit of the by now familiar ringing tone and the odd tootle of a flute, we’re left with almost only the rain, which continues pretty much through the concluding half hour. There is a very faraway voice singing, you hear the flute now and again, but gradually it’s just the rain, waxing and waning. The drops actually disappear entirely at a couple of points, returning a bit more hushed the first time, with muffled thunder the second. It’s a risky gambit as the sound itself is simply laid out there bare. Attractive enough on its own, when considered in conjunction with the music that came before, both the aggravatingly meandering and the romantically passionate, it somehow works. Not a yin/yang, black and white deal but two (or more) surprisingly related tones of gray.
If the stalwart listener can be patient, “White” offers unique rewards. Not your typical electro-acoustic mishmash by any means, it’s an eccentric offering that surprises as much as it annoys. Worth a shot.
Posted by Brian Olewnick on February 17, 2007 8:50 AMoh whoa. did uri send you promos?
haven't heard it yet, but maybe now i'll get it.
Posted by: grisha at February 17, 2007 11:54 AMYep.
Posted by: Brian Olewnick at February 17, 2007 12:31 PM"Not your typical electro-acoustic mishmash by any means"
Brian, when you talk about the general state of musical releases, it reminds me of voters discussing legislatures. They're all horrible except for the their own rep.
What I mean is almost every review you write is very favorable, so I'm wondering where these mishmashes might be? Are you receiving truckloads of discs you don't review?
Posted by: walto at February 18, 2007 3:28 PMWalto, jeez I wasn't totally crazy about this one (liked pieces of it very much, found much of it frustrating), didn't really like the Bianchi/Appelbaum, and of the others of mine currently listed on the front page of Bags, didn't care for Text of Light and a good half of the Henritzi album.
But of course, I get some discs from musicians/labels I don't otherwise know well and don't like (or can't think of anything semi-intelligent to write about) and give them a pass. Sometimes its a genre I don't really enjoy like No Fun noise or stoner improv. But if it's something from musicians/labels I've previously enjoyed, I almost always write it up one way or another.
I think anyone who hears the Krutolgolov though, will at least concede that it's pretty unusual, like it or hate it.
Posted by: Brian Olewnick at February 18, 2007 6:08 PMBut of course, I get some discs from musicians/labels I don't otherwise know well and don't like (or can't think of anything semi-intelligent to write about) and give them a pass. Sometimes its a genre I don't really enjoy like No Fun noise or stoner improv.
You say "of course," but for all I knew, you reviewed everything you received (and still don't have a sense of what the pcts are like of reviewed v. non-reviewed recordings you obtain). Also, I'm curious: will you ever not write a review of a recording you enjoy very much because of your fear of not being able to say anything "semi-intelligent" about it, or are you much more likely to have such reservations with respect to stuff you don't like? This isn't a criticism: I don't mean to suggest that this assymetry (if it exists here) is inappropriate. People who enjoy something are, I think, more likely to have something sensible to say about it than someone who, e.g., has no use for the entire genre.
But you too must notice that the totality of reviewed (not by you, but by everybody) releases have a very important element in common with the children of Lake Woebegon. ;>}
Posted by: walto at February 19, 2007 5:55 AMGod bless them, those Horn-rimmed spectacles sometimes carry the inquisitory intensity of a magnifying glass aimed at an ant hill on a sunny day. But perhaps a pulpit with much greater visibility than the meager one offered here is necessary to properly advance a “review reform” agenda. Maybe an editorial over at AAJ (which receives several million “hits” a month, I believe) is in order?
Nearly every one of my reviews here at Bags carries at least some sort of positive spin, two new discs from Smalls being the latest examples. The last predominantly “negative” piece that I distinctly remember writing (outside of the pages of Cadence, where the ratio is higher due to an absence of control over what’s assigned me) was this one, and even there I tried to find a bit of silver lining amidst the tangles of rusty steel wool. The “I liked it” or “I didn’t” punchline of a review is obviously important, but it’s not the only source of useful information, IMO. Brian usually does a great job of describing what he hears right along with his reactions to it whether the latter are laudatory or lukewarm.
Posted by: derek at February 19, 2007 6:41 AMI do feel a certain sense of obligation to write about things sent my way and I do *try* to do so. Sometimes I just have to give up, though--nothing comes. Happened last year with three For4Ears releases that I was lukewarm-to-negative about but (this comes up for me with several of that label's musicians from time to time) it was hard for me to get a handle on anything about the music other than a blow by blow description of the sounds and, at least at that time, I wasn't up to it. Still feel a little guilty...
When it's the genre itself, as mentioned above, it doesn't bother me so much as it's usually the case that I just don't think I'm in a position to make decent criticism. This also applies to certain things in the pre-60s classical tradition that seem to me to be out of my league (and I've turned down in advance when asked).
As to not writing a review of something I like a lot without having something half-intelligent to say about it--I'm having a little bit of trouble at the moment in that way with Hal Rammel's wonderful new 10" on Crouton. In a way, it's very simple and just *there*. I think it works beautifully though. I blogged a little about the personal memories it evoked and, at the moment, that's the way I'll go when I write it up. But, yes, if I think something's really good, I feel obliged to at least get the word out there (as to my opinion) even if everything else about the write-up is banal. As I've said before, what minimal "value" people can derive from someone's review is, at the least, "He likes it, I'll probably like it too." Or, of course, the reverse.
Posted by: Brian Olewnick at February 19, 2007 7:12 AMi'm interested in this genre of "stoner improv" brian mentioned. i'm not sure i've ever heard anything there - can you point me to some labels/ releases?
Even though i'm a teetotaler myself, for some reason i tend to enjoy music that can be dubbed 'druggy.'
The Starving Weirdos disc on Azul Discografica I wrote up a couple months back would fit in nicely to this genre (I don't know if anyone else uses the term, btw). Ray Off, a band out of New Zealand that has a disc out on Black Petal would be another. Some bands split the difference between stoner and no fun, like Talibam! [sic].
Posted by: Brian Olewnick at February 19, 2007 3:27 PMTalibam kick ass. Brew up a pot of tea Steve and let this one rip:
http://www.paristransatlantic.com/magazine/monthly2006/03mar_text.html#8
New Talibam disc also out (and to be reviewed shortly). Sorry if I forgot the ! in the band name. Ever since Godspeed! You! Black! Emperor! I've had trouble remembering where to put the damn thing. See what! I mean?
It's easy Dan. Originally it was
Godspeed You Black Emperor!
and then they changed it to
Godspeed You! Black Emperor.
Glad to help your ageing braincells out.
Posted by: Alastair at February 20, 2007 11:32 AMThanks umm what did you say yer name was again? Where's me teef? With or without the sodding exclamation mark, GYBE is (was?) a pretty dull band.
Posted by: Dan Warburton at February 20, 2007 9:30 PMThey went off after "Slow Riot For New Zero Kanada" but their live shows were pretty powerful in those early days.
Posted by: Alastair at February 21, 2007 4:27 AMThat's the whole point.. those early days.. A lot of the post-drone free form noodle jam bands seem to have a pretty limited shelf life (except the dinosaurs like NNCK and Nihilist SB who seem to go on forever). Anybody remember Labradford? What's happened to Jackie O Motherfucker? Anyone want to take bets on where Sunburned will be five years from now? Not me.
Posted by: Dan Warburton at February 21, 2007 7:18 AMI take your point, but must say that Labradford were excellent and did evolve over the course of their "career". That they've moved on to other things now suggests that they were aware of the limitations of their chosen form.
Posted by: Alastair at February 21, 2007 9:01 AMAnd Labradford were not a "post-drone free form noodle jam band". Most of their stuff was pretty tightly put together.
Posted by: Alastair at February 21, 2007 9:04 AMNo of course, I'm lumping all sorts of different folk together.. and I used to like Labradford very much too.
Posted by: Dan Warburton at February 21, 2007 9:14 AMI think its safe to say that if a group actually could be described as a "post-drone free form noodle jam band" Alastair would absolutely love them all the same :D ;) :D
Posted by: Richard Pinnell at February 21, 2007 9:38 AMI think Richard has me confused with someone else.
Posted by: Alastair at February 21, 2007 10:28 AM.................................................. © 2003 - 2006 bagatellen ..................................................