If anyone is around and has recording from t'internet equipment to hand, the Jarvis album is about to be reviewed by a few journos on todayfm in about 2 minutes. I would tape it on the stereo at home but I'm frantically finishing an assignment in college.

Anyone?

Frisko2000 wrote:

---

allmusichttp://allmusic.com/ has Jarvis has its featured album this week. critics are really loving this thing off. are we all silly Pulp purists and this album is really that good? or is Jarvis Cocker just super trendy suddenly?

---

clodia wrote:

---

I wish I could love this album. I really do.
But whenever I hear of people loving it, I feel excluded.
It is by no means a bad album, and I like it and listen to it sometimes.
But, it doesn't grab me.
If I heard a song of it on the radio (without knowing who it was) or on a mixtape, I wouldn't want to find out who it is, I wouldn't get excited or curious or even interested.

(and it is not at all a problem, that it isn't "pulp". My tastes have long progressed from that.)

---

I never worry when a lot of people like something I don't.   Right now Jarvis is on my 512MB player, so it comes up every now and again, but it's not as engaging as other stuff like Sam's Town or the Peel Sessions.  I enjoy the odd track like Fat Children, From A to I and Cunts, but overall find it hard not to skip through a lot of it.

I wouldn't say I'm a Pulp purist, more of a Separations to WLL Pulpist, and listen to plenty of stuff that is as far away from Pulp as possible, but I'm of much the same opinion.  I like the album, but don't really love it, and once I get round to reloading my MP3 player, I'm unlikely to listen to it again.

clodia wrote:

---

It's just that when people who appreciate the same band/artist than I do then rave about a new album is the greatest he ever did (admittedly not the case here) and I feel like the only one thinking that the emperor is naked

---

Reading between the lines on the reviews, the impression I get is that Jarvis is not quite up with Pulp at their best, but is better than Pulp's last outing and a welcome return.  It isn't an opinion I agree with.  I think We Love Life was a very good album, but probably should have been released a couple of years sooner (or later) with a different producer.

I think there is a lot of goodwill towards Jarvis and the sound of the new album is more approchable than Pulp post-DC.  The test that Jarvis has to pass is will people buy it.  Right now, the sales appear respectable and the single release in the new year could make it more popular.

My belief is that the audience for Jarvis isn't the commited Pulp fan, but the involved Pulp fan. 

ruling the world, yeah. how to lose credibility in a review... just get title wrong.

andy wrote:

---

someone mentionned i will kill again being about a so called serial killer. cant find that quote. what was his name again ?

---

Thanks for the review Sturdy! Can't believe you are just now listening to it.

Having given it some time to sink in, I think it's a passable album with a few moments of greatness. If Jarvis plans to put out more records with greater frequency then I'm willing to forgive this album for it's weaknesses. However, I will not be waiting around for another 3 years for another record like this.

At this point, I figure I like about 1 in every 3 songs that Jarvis puts out. So if he can put out one album a year, then I should end up with an album's worth of good material every 3 years. Wishful thinking?  

Sturdy wrote:

---

For months now I've been mostly avoiding this album because I had a nasty feeling I'd be crushingly disappointed.

---

Sturdy wrote:

---

Also, the first bit of A to I sounds very much like a double-speed To The End by Blur doesn't it?

---

Reminds me of the intro to 'Slight Return' by The Bluetones.

still cant really like cunts, its poor musically

but the rest, one month on, is quite... magnificient.

great record.

I've lived with the album for a while now, and still love it, though I'd say for me it really picks up with "Black Magic" and then dips a bit on the last three, not counting Cunts of course.

Scores a la Eurovision:

1. Don't let him waste your time : 5/10


2. Black Magic : 6/10


3. Heavy Weather : 8/10


4. I Will Kill Again : 10/10


5. Baby's coming back to me: 6/10


6. Fat Children : 7/10


7. From A to I : 9/10


8. Disney Time 10/10


9. Tonite: 5/10


10. Big Julie : 4/10


11. Quantum Theory : 5/10


12. Running the world : 8/10

I am fond of DLHWYT as an induvidual entity, but compared to the rest of the material I think its a strange choice of opener, let alone single. The oddness continues with the feeling that it does not match up to Nancy Sinatra's version in general style or production, stranger still is the fact that the video for the song literally puts it "on the back seat". Obviously far closer to Jarvis's heart then mine!

Going back to Nancy; her version of "Baby's coming back to me" is really brilliant, I think. It captures the 60's girl group schmalz beautifully, and sounds like a genuine lost nugget of a by gone era. while his version has its charms, it just doesn't match up - oddly I did always prefer Mott the Hoople's version of All the young dudes too....

It beats me why "Heavy Weather" (why not Stormy?) wasn't a lead off single, Radio 2 were even playing it before the album was out! The real gem for me on this album is Disney Time, which I expect Jarvis saw as a kind of Blue Print for the sound he wanted to explore on this record. The choral singing is inspired, and the song builds beautifully, yet simply to a wonderful end, clocking in at under three minutes (I think).

The drum production on Black Magic is inspired, indeed this is more of a sound based work than a bona fide song, not that there's anything wrong with that as an album track per se, but why track 2? The pacing of the record seems rather strange, for want of a better way to put it.

Tonite, pleasant production aside, reeks of filler. And this is where it goes a bit off - "the future". He says something like "Pasteurize the future" on this song, then on the follwing "Big Julie" he goes on about how "you can almost see the future shine" - too much lyrical similarity too close together, on two songs that really don't cut the mustard.

"Big Julie" is the sole track on the album I just can't stand. I'm usually not one for skipping as I tend to try and listen to an album as it was intended, but no. The subject matter, for a writer of Jarvis's stature is piss poor; a song about a lonely girl who finds comfort in a song on the radio - its all a bit latter day Brett Anderson in its language - recalling a Suede b-side called "Duchess" who:

"Sits alone over 13 stone, by the telephone etc..."

Even the bloody Corrs have a song about listening to the radio.

the musical arrangement seems similarly bland and clumsy - not hitting the nail on the head like "Black Magic"'s intentional simplicity or having the flute tinged grace of something like "I will kill again". It also recalls the Divine Comedy, not that that need be a bad thing, but its just another artist on the list of "sounds like" , when the song should sound like Jarvis.

For all its clever clever musical touches, "Quantum theory" has a similarly tedious (and lazy) ending refrain of "everthing is gonna be alright". It sounds like it was written in a hurry specifically as a "end of album" song, and being told that everything is gonna be alright is like something off an Oasis album, or a killers one.

Then there's the salvation, after three sub standard tracks comes in running the world, thank fuck! Why the half hour gap?

When its good its really good, but when its bad I go to pieces.

Fuss Free wrote:

---

I've gone and rejiggered the album slightly and made it more to my liking. How so?

First step, I eliminated Fat Children altogether. Although I like that song on it's own, something about it feels strangly uncomfortable and a bit slapdash when placed in context with the rest of the album.

Second, I flipped the order of Tonite and DLHWYT. The latter never felt right to me, but putting it farther into the album makes it seem less annoying, and in fact gives the second half of the album a much needed kick in the arse. Tonite makes a great lead off track, and sets the mood for the rest of the album. It works well. Try it.

Finally, and this is the most dramatic and contraversial change, I've replaced Fat Children with Jarv's collaboration with Alpha "This is Where I Came In". It fits flawlessly with the overall 60's lo-fi vibe of the solo album and the misanthropic lyrics work well in context with the rest of the album. On my redux, it actually stands out as the album's torchsong.

Try it out on your iPod and see what you think before you judge me.

---

Fuss Free wrote:

---

 

This is what I ended up with:

1- Loss Adjuster 1

2- Tonite

3- Black Magic

4- Heavy Weather

5- I Will Kill Again

6- Baby's Coming Back to Me

7- THis is Where I Came In

8- From A to I 

9- Disney Time

10- Don't Let Him Waste Your Time

11- Loss Adjuster 2

12 - Big Julie

13- Quantum Theory 

 

I just like it better this way. As I said before, I find DLHWYT too jarring and awkward to be the first (real) song, and Fat Children just doesn't work for me. So I moved DLHWYT to the second side and replaced Fat Children with This is Where I Came In because I like that song and I think it fits the overall mood of the album.

---