Sunday, March 8, 2020

Interpol: Marauder

INTERPOL: MARAUDER (2018)

1) If You Really Love Nothing; 2) The Rover; 3) Complications; 4) Flight Of Fancy; 5) Stay In Touch; 6) Interlude 1; 7) Mountain Child; 8) Nysmaw; 9) Surveillance; 10) Number 10; 11) Partyʼs Over; 12) Interlude 2; 13) It Probably Matters.

General verdict: An attempt to repeat an attempt to get back where it all began, but at this point, things start REALLY getting tedious.


I just cannot resist this, sorry — "if you really love nothing", you will probably enjoy Interpolʼs sixth album, whose only reason for existence, the way I see it, is Paul Julian Banksʼ stubborn refusal to switch to a safe and fruitful career in teaching English and Comparative Literature and his insistence on continuing to make a living as an artist. I checked it out of the usual sense of duty — to see if, perchance, there might be an occasional sign of life and development; after all, Paul Banks is only two years younger than myself, and... oh wait.

Ahem. Anyway, here is a brief lowdown: Marauder is a collection of eleven mid-tempo pop-rockers (plus two brief smudges of grey cloudy noise called ʽInterlude 1ʼ and ʽInterlude 2ʼ) that all sound the same and all sound slightly inferior to anything on the bandʼs first three albums. Is it better or worse than El Pintor? It is difficult for me to say because, having written about El Pintor one week ago, I already remember next to nothing about that record, and I am sure I will remember even less about this one tomorrow. If you want another bunch of variations on varia­tions on variations on monotonous post-punk riffage, and another bunch of monotonously depressed and permanently desensitized Weltschmerz vocals, be their guest.

I do have to admit that at this point nothing irks me more about the whole thing than the hideous production. I could see, for instance, that opening riff to ʽThe Roverʼ as playfully immersive, but even when it is played solo, it is crippled by thin tone and alienating reverb, and as soon as the rhythm section and the vocals come in, it is buried alive under a gruesomely compressed rhythm guitar — the only thing that could make this song worthwhile killed off in a matter of ten seconds. (Also, on top of that Paul Banksʼ voice begins sounding more and more like Ozzy Osbourne with each passing year, and an Ozzy-like tone atop murky, boring music is hell.)

I guess this is the best I can say about the album: Banks and Kessler are still trying to invent new guitar melodies — other than ʽThe Roverʼ, distinctive guitar riffs are to be found on ʽStay In Touchʼ, the slightly reggae-ish ʽComplicationsʼ, and a couple other songs. But the guitar tone is always the same, thin and drenched in reverb, and they always seem to come up with an idea only to have it go under as soon as the band kicks in, in favor of general atmosphere — and that general atmosphere has not changed ONE SINGLE BIT in SIXTEEN YEARS. I mean, goddam­mit, even AC/DC happened to change their production style once or twice in sixteen years (not to mention their lead singer, though this was more of an act of Godʼs will). Question: Why did Interpol record six albums which all sound the same? Answer: Because we live in a wonderful world where you can actually allow yourself to record just one legendary album (even one as deeply flawed as Bright Lights) and then spend the rest of your life coasting on its glory. 

11 comments:

  1. That albums "all sound the same" is just about the laziest throwaway comment a critic can make when they personally view a band's output as lacking evolution rather than being consistent or refining certain elements. I'm frankly surprised you'd set yourself up for such an easy rebuttal. There are tracks on this album that sound like nothing else they've ever recorded. Is this album an earth-shattering leap forward that will change the whole musical paradigm? Absolutely not. Is it a shift in the band's discography, albeit with very mixed results? Yes. You could talk about that. Use your words, George. I know you've got plenty of them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "You could talk about that."
      So could you. You could begin with giving just one example of "a track on this album that sound like nothing else they've ever recorded" and point out what makes it sound like nothing else. You might even spark my interest. Now I think it telling that you don't even try, but saddle GS with a task he already declared to be unfit for.

      Delete
    2. What do you think it indicates exactly? My frustration with the laziness of a review from a skilled writer whom we know can painstakingly make a point using an internally consistent rubric of his own devising? The point is that George *isn't* unfit for the task, and while I agree with a portion of the content I was frankly annoyed by how rote this post was. It reads like it was written by a pretentious teenager who regurgitates Youtube comments as their own opinion.

      The direct-to-tape recording and degraded production alone sets this apart from this band's other albums; it's an approach they've never used before (this is easily verifiable information, so the weird AC/DC comparison here rings false). But sure, I can talk about a song: Party's Over. A dirty, driving beat introduces the track and is quickly accompanied by stream-of-consciousness falsetto rambling which then rides on top of an intricate military band drumming pattern, underpinned by a snarling riff stretched between two harmonizing guitars. Interesting thick and loping bassline throughout, and in the bridge there's a dreamy interlude where the the tone of the song turns to pleading and the vocal reverb is bounced between plucked notes and drum beats. All that married with the paradoxically compressed yet spacey production evokes the narrator's sense of deep disorientation. The lyrics are hilarious. People tend to really love or really hate the song, but it's still a unique entry in their catalog.

      What do you think about the album?

      Delete
    3. "A dirty, driving beat introduces the track and is quickly accompanied by stream-of-consciousness falsetto rambling which then rides on top of an intricate military band drumming pattern, underpinned by a snarling riff stretched between two harmonizing guitars. Interesting thick and loping bassline throughout, and in the bridge there's a dreamy interlude where the the tone of the song turns to pleading and the vocal reverb is bounced between plucked notes and drum beats."

      Throw out "intricate military band drumming pattern", which is indeed atypical of this band, and the rest of this passage describes a good 50% of all Interpol songs. I would rather be a pretentious teenager regurgitating Youtube comments than waste my time trying to come up with such descriptions for painfully generic indie-rock melodies. Also, I don't know what "degraded production" is, but it sure as hell smells degraded.

      Interpol fans have a perfect right to seek out minuscule nuances that distinguish their songs from each other, but I am not a fan, though I've honestly tried to be one.

      Delete
    4. "I would rather be a pretentious teenager regurgitating Youtube comments than waste my time trying to come up with such descriptions for painfully generic indie-rock melodies."

      You would? Really? Is that to say you'd like to stop writing reviews altogether then?

      Delete
    5. Fuck off, anonymous. Get your own blog.

      Delete
    6. Language, please! No need to get riled up about an interpol album, of all things.
      As to Anonymous' question, let me phrase it this way:
      Given the choice between writing a lengthy, detailed, in-depth review of the sixth album of a band that has essentially refused to evolve, musically and emotionally, over almost two decades, in order to specifically please its tiny core of dedicated fans, and not writing a review at all, I would certainly choose the latter. In such cases I choose the middle ground - a brief blurb that states that I have listened to the album and found it unworthy of attention for specific (though predictable) reasons. Period. If you have a different perspective, you are free to share.

      Delete
  2. Crazy ass stuff!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Nice title though.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well, at least the awful production helps distinguish this one from their other albums.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ten minutes into this one and you can tell these guys are finished

    ReplyDelete