Panda Bear

[bastowe]

I kinda dig the retro pastiche elements. Or at least they certainly don't bother me. What does strike me as somewhat limiting about this record is the sameness of the songs. They just go nowhere (slowely) emotionally different from track to track. It's certainly a singular sound and a distinctive sonic universe, but unlike say Loveless, an album it certainly resembles, what you hear is what you get--it's all upfront and very one-dimensional, if still very, very charming.
(This is my very first attempt at commenting on this here forum so if I've committed some appalling breach of etiquette, please pardon me! Oh, and hello.)

 

[Chris]

Hey Bastowe!

Yeah, I don't have any problems with the "references" in this album either. I thought Panda's uncanny evocation of Brian Wilson was kind of a clever offset to the weirdness of his post-everything, schizophrenic synthesis. It adds a bit of comforting warmth, and what better signifier is there in psychedelia for warmth and sentimentality than Pet Sounds-era Beach Boys? But instead of just sounding somewhat influenced by Wilson, Panda practically samples his spirit, like he's singing possessed by "the ghost of Brian Wilson's late 60's past". Kind of post-modern voudou if you will.

 

[Chris]

What does strike me as somewhat limiting about this record is the sameness of the songs. They just go nowhere (slowely) emotionally different from track to track. It's certainly a singular sound and a distinctive sonic universe, but unlike say Loveless, an album it certainly resembles, what you hear is what you get--it's all upfront and very one-dimensional, if still very, very charming.

I hear ya on this too... Person Pitch and Loveless are both aesthetically rich while emotionally (and aesthetically) consistent throughout, but Loveless comes across as a little "deeper" to me too. Maybe it's PP's sunny disposition that makes it seem more light-weight. Loveless has this moody, ambiguous, emotionally-confused feeling to it, whereas PP is has a joyfull, lush, green, sunny-day aesthetic. Loveless is teenage and in love and feeling a profound mix of bliss and sadness, PP is childlike and care-free and playing indians in woods. I'm not trying to say that the albums are equals (Loveless is an all-time favorite for me), though I already consider PP pretty brilliant. But it's like the way sad movies always win the awards. Sadness and seriousness just have a way of seeming more "deep" and "artistically relevant", whether they are or not. Joyfull art sometimes seems shallow or less significant in comparison. Maybe part of it is because people get jaded about life as they get older...?

 

[don_quixote]

haha edith bowman had some actor being interviewed on her show today and he said he really loved animal collective and she didn't have a clue. it was quite embarrassing.

 

[noel emits]

There was a contestant on The Weakest Link some time back who foolishly declared his admiration for Maher Shalal Hash Baz.
That presenter woman obviously didn't know them but she knew how to make him look like a tit.