portishead - third

[mastershake]

i finally got around to buying this album a couple weeks ago, and i'm quite surprised it got such outstanding reviews. this music is dreadful and uninspiring... i can't understand what beth gibbons is even saying in most of the songs, and is it just me or can she not sing? she was so much better in their first two albums. Listening to Deep Water makes me cringe. it's like her voice keeps cracking and going out of pitch, and i can't tell if she's doing that on purpose or not, but it sounds like a really bad karaoke singer.

 

her lyrics are pretty bland this go around as well. where are the classic observations on life and the world? where are songs like it's a fire or roads? i think sometimes critics who are fans of a band's previous work want their new albums to be good so much that they just give them a pass (i.e. Radiohead: Hail to the Thief was a mediocre album but it got outstanding reviews from everyone). this album is a 5/10 or lower, not 8 and above like most publications gave it. it's no where near the quality of Dummy and not really on par with the self-titled album either. i think the band lost their touch; not surprising considering they waited a decade before making a new album.

 

decent songs (but not near the quality of any of their previous work) - the rip, we carry on, magic doors

 

mediocre to terrible songs - every other song on the album.

[lamradio]

I wouldn't go as far as to say the album sucks, but it's definitely not as good as their old stuff. But "The Rip" and "Plastic" are bad ass tunes.. I don't care too much for "We Carry On".. The high pitched drone gives me a headache. The rest of the album is mediocre. Compared to their self-titled album where every single song is excellent, this album is definitely weak.

[embiggen]

maybe the name of the album should be 'turd'

[solace]

I wouldn't go as far as to say the album sucks, but it's definitely not as good as their old stuff.

 

yep.

 

maybe the name of the album should be 'turd'

 

[embiggen]

 

 

 

glad to be of service.

[lamradio]

glad to be of service.

 

Once again, you have made me spit coffee on my monitor.

[lost highway]

Everyone I know that has spent a lot of time with Third has been pretty mesmerized by it. I can't describe the album as something I "enjoy", but like some dramatic films it conjures emotions, and puts out an atmosphere that is intense, and somewhat disconcerting. It is definitely not a trip-hop album. I would say listen to it when you're going somewhere with headphones on. That isn't a command to like it, (or anything that ridiculous) but more to give it a chance as something that is not a "piece of shit". I think it's amazing IMHO.

[ryann7739]

Wow guys, this is my favorite release of the year so far, I'm shocked to see so much hate

[embiggen]

I was just joking around with my post. I've heard very little from this album, but have liked what I've heard so far. I would like to give it a good listen.

[yermom]

I was really disappointed by it too. I'm a fan of their old stuff, and this one just seemed to lack the same punch.

[Azzurri]

is there any band out there in which someone says, "man, their new stuff is so much better than the old albums..."? i can think of one band that gets better - Radiohead. In Rainbows is amazing -right up there with OK Computer. I am hoping the new U2 will be a return to glory. i've heard some clips on youtube and it sounds promising, but the audio quality is pretty poor (recorded outside Bono's villa in France)

 

i haven't heard all of the Portishead album, but the few that i've heard are good - somewhat of a departure from their distinctive sound.

[Panther]

I think its an amazing record , its just not the type of record that can be played on repeat unless your really depressed.. but seriously I think the peaks are so worth the lows and evreysong sorta builds that way their old records are great but you know backround music this is more intense though machine gun wore thin on me

[Orkie]

is there any band out there in which someone says, "man, their new stuff is so much better than the old albums..."? i can think of one band that gets better - Radiohead. In Rainbows is amazing -right up there with OK Computer.

 

 

You have to be kidding me. Radiohead's last great album was Kid A, when they hit their 30's. They've only gotten worse with time, and their tour has been a huge disappointment(largely because of the IR material).

 

Bands that stayed great in terms of studio while aging:

 

Neil Young and Crazy Horse(up until Ragged Glory/Sleeps With Angels).

Pink Floyd(up through the Final Cut).

 

That's it.

 

As for Portishead, they are incredibly boring and largely overrated by a zealous internet fanbase.

[augurus]

Bands that stayed great in terms of studio while aging:

 

Neil Young and Crazy Horse(up until Ragged Glory/Sleeps With Angels).

Pink Floyd(up through the Final Cut).

 

So, by providing examples of bands that stayed great as they aged, you have to provide limiting factors that contradict your argument.

 

You have to be kidding me.

[mpolak21]

I dig this album, it's not as good as Dummy, but I wouldn't say it sucks.

 

--Mike

[mpolak21]

Bands that stayed great in terms of studio while aging:

 

Neil Young and Crazy Horse(up until Ragged Glory/Sleeps With Angels).

Pink Floyd(up through the Final Cut).

 

That's it.

 

Why do think so many bands end up burning out? Jon Brion has a theory that eventually bands or artists start making albums that sound like what people expect them to sound to like instead of trying something new. Also eventually when a band has more than one songwriter, it's rare that they're able to maintain a long stretch of good records without severing ties. With the exception of Radiohead, almost every great band that's made more than a few records in the past decade has run into this problem: The Jayhawks, Wilco, The DBT's, even the Flaming Lips lost perhaps the most interesting guitarist of the nineties in Ronald Jones. This isn't exactly a new trend either The Beatles imploded, The Stones sacked Brian Jones, Lou Reed and John Cale couldn't work together after a year, The Talking Heads moved away from Eno. Your thoughts?

 

I think there are a few more groups and artists than just Neil Young and Pink Floyd that have aged well in terms of the studio, but how long are we talking here ten years? twenty years? thirty years?

 

--Mike

[Orkie]

Why do think so many bands end up burning out? Jon Brion has a theory that eventually bands or artists start making albums that sound like what people expect them to sound to like instead of trying something new. Also eventually when a band has more than one songwriter, it's rare that they're able to maintain a long stretch of good records without severing ties. With the exception of Radiohead, almost every great band that's made more than a few records in the past decade has run into this problem: The Jayhawks, Wilco, The DBT's, even the Flaming Lips lost perhaps the most interesting guitarist of the nineties in Ronald Jones. This isn't exactly a new trend either The Beatles imploded, The Stones sacked Brian Jones, Lou Reed and John Cale couldn't work together after a year, The Talking Heads moved away from Eno. Your thoughts?

 

I think there are a few more groups and artists than just Neil Young and Pink Floyd that have aged well in terms of the studio, but how long are we talking here ten years? twenty years? thirty years?

 

--Mike

 

 

The Lips are definitely a better example than Radiohead. Many people consider Yoshimi and the Soft Bulletin their two best albums. No doubt AWWTM was huge downturn for them, but that's natural. whereas Radiohead has never really regained the quality of songwriting they had on Ok Computer and Kid A, save for Pyramid Song and There There. In terms of sheer good songs from beginning to end, Radiohead has faded like Wilco post YHF. The DBT just released an amazing record this year so they can't be lumped in.

 

I think having two voices and two songwriters greatly enchances a bands longevity (see Pink Floyd). However, the real magician is Neil Young who managed to make some great albums at an age when most people can't. I know for many people (and me personally), the lack of vocal variety and the almost depressing mumbling vocals of Wilco, Son Volt and Radiohead has contributed to a certain fatigue(this is where the dual vocal parts come in from bands like the Beatles and so forth).

[LouieB]

I noticed that Pitchfork really digs it...

 

LouieB

[bjorn_skurj]

Why do think so many bands end up burning out?

Maybe they just run out of ideas.

[sureshot]

In terms of sheer good songs from beginning to end, Radiohead has faded like Wilco post YHF.

 

Huh? In Rainbows is arguably one of the best albums of the decade...I think its their best work, period.

 

In regards to Portishead, I dont think they make music to be "enjoyed", at least in the traditional sense. I know they completely despised what "Dummy" morphed into..here you have Beth Gibbons baring her soul, singing about the absurdness of everyday modern life, and its being used as a soundtrack for yuppie cocktail parties, the very crowd they were rallying against. So it makes sense that this time around it would sound rougher, and more in tune with the despair of the lyrics. I dont think they feel comfortable having any sort of popular appeal. And I think this album was a very conscious attempt to de-construct their sound and alienate the superficial population who latched onto their music the first time around.

[lamradio]

One thing that I have always admired about Portishead is their uniqueness, and that certainly hasn't changed with their latest album. I was just going to say "maybe I don't like their last album as much as the others because I don't really listen to that kind of music as much as I used to" but I realized that Portishead doesn't fall into any catagory. They are their own catagory.

[W(TF)]

Huh? In Rainbows is arguably one of the best albums of the decade...I think its their best work, period.

 

 

I have to agree.

 

Everyone else's angst seems so passe. Thom Yorke has found a way to turn it into a thing of indescribable beauty.

[Hoodoo Man]

Huh? In Rainbows is arguably one of the best albums of the decade...I think its their best work, period.

 

In regards to Portishead, I dont think they make music to be "enjoyed", at least in the traditional sense. I know they completely despised what "Dummy" morphed into..here you have Beth Gibbons baring her soul, singing about the absurdness of everyday modern life, and its being used as a soundtrack for yuppie cocktail parties, the very crowd they were rallying against. So it makes sense that this time around it would sound rougher, and more in tune with the despair of the lyrics. I dont think they feel comfortable having any sort of popular appeal. And I think this album was a very conscious attempt to de-construct their sound and alienate the superficial population who latched onto their music the first time around.

 

 

I'm not really familiar with Portishead, but what you've described happens to a lot of bands. It happened to Pearl Jam, Radiohead and even Wilco. But Tweedy finally figured it out and wrote about it. Musicians and artists cannot dictate who listens to or enjoys their art. Once it's given to the public, the artist loses control of the art. So I'm not sure attempting to alienate the unwanted fans is even worthwhile.

 

On an unrelated note, I see the term Yuppie used a lot on this site. Is Yuppie even a relavant term anymore? When I was in college it was a young, upwardly mobile professional. Is this still the case or does Yuppie apply to anyone who is out of college and has a steady job? I'm just too old to know the difference these days.