If you haven’t listened to Portishead’s Third yet, well, why? It’s one of the most arresting albums of the year, full of sounds and twists that don’t reveal themselves until the 20th or 21st listen, and “The Rip” is one of my favorite songs on it–its picked guitar gives way to a Krautrockish hum, with Beth Gibbons’ immediate vocals tugging the proceedings along. The video is a pencil-sketched fever dream full of flying and falling, as well as many up-close ruminations on the nostril. (There’s a higher-quality version of it at their official site, but you’ll need to enter an e-mail address.) [YouTube]
videodrone
Portishead Pulls The “Rip” Cord
Categories:
videodrone
videodrone
@djp: deepest of apologies, for my ignorant use of “atonal” to roughly mean “not pleasing to the ear” and for falling asleep during your music theory lesson.
@djp: Even if we stay with DP’s definition of atonal (instead of “makes me want to listen to Dummy“), every song does not have “a tonal center” and is not “built off of an unambiguous chord progression firmly rooted within the context of diatonic harmony” — far from it.
We Carry On is a perfect example — you have a bunch of different instruments that aren’t even close to the same pitch/key (which is obviously the goal, and that’s fine). The intro synth isn’t even in key with itself. When something is that far out of key with the other instruments, you end up with notes that are well out of the “twelve-tone formula” and sure as hell leaves the song without a “tonal center.” Hence, atonal.
If you disagree, please tell me what the tonal center of We Carry On is, specifically when the guitar comes in at 1:45.
It’s fine if you like it, but it’s atonal, and I happen to think it doesn’t work. Actually, it makes my ears hurt, and every time you play it, an angel dies.
There are two synth lines at the beginning of “We Carry On”, the first of which is playing the root note of the song on a fluttering pitch up an octave while the second is playing the root down and a fifth, then shifting up a half step and back down in a rhythmic pattern.
At 1:45, the guitar is playing a flat 7th, then a 5th, then a 7th, then back to a 5th, all of which are pretty standard notes when looking at building chords.
I don’t really care that you don’t like it but don’t make up things to make yourself look smarter.
@chim_richalds:and for falling asleep during your music theory lesson
Hey, you’re the one calling yourself ignorant.
@ Ned Raggett
…and you’re the one unable to detect a dense fog of sarcasm.
So, has anyone watched the video then? With or without the audio, it’s amazing.
“We’re sorry, this video is no longer available.”
BOO
@chim_richalds: Very dense, yes.
@djp: thanks so much for the enlightening wiki entry on atonality (twice). perhaps you noticed the section titled “controversy over the term itself” or the countless phrases that would perfectly describe many passages on this album? no? in any case, i’ll be sure to pass it on to the literally thousands of people like myself who recklessly deviate from your strictest of definitions when describing portishead (google “portishead atonal” for a good time. or just google image search “obtuse” for some pictures of angles, it worked for dickdogfood).
seriously though, if you collected some of the most ridiculous stuff from above - reveals itself on the 21st listen; gut-churning, so full of ugly juxtapositions and audio disconnections; the uncertainty of the finger-picking underscores the themes of the song - you have the makings of a hilarious fake review from the onion mocking the too-cool-for-school set for the pride they take in listening to “difficult” music.
@EnsignMilkshake: I’m sorry that you’re tone-deaf, but there are strong octaves and fifths going on throughout that entire song. It is one of the simplest songs on the album in terms of harmony and chord structure. These are facts supported both by rudimentary analysis and by the definitions of the musical terms you’re throwing around and no amount of stupid chimp videos will change that.
As I said before, don’t make up things to make yourself look smarter.
cherry-picking words from comments (”ignorant”, “dense”) and using them out of context in childish comebacks. nice.
(note: ned, i’ve conveniently used “childish” above so that you can use it for your next lame comment. or “cherry-picking,” both are pretty good)
@djp: Jet Monkey finds your analysis interesting, but ultimately wrong, since none of the instruments are tuned to each other (deliberately… I don’t think they’re idiots) and hence très atonal.
So it’s official. Prog is back. With a vengeance. The musical landscape has been so bare, so predictable lately that all can say is “we had it coming.”
Every new cycle of the ‘movement’ (and this is the third time it’s gone around in the last 40 years) has its power ballads, its torch songs, its anthems. Venture to say that Portishead ‘The Rip’ will have a place in that pantheon. Furthermore, that it will be placed kicking and screaming next to Renaissance ‘Ashes are Burning’ and This Mortal Coil ‘Song to the Siren’, like it or not (and yes, TMC was really an ‘undercover’ prog project!)
So, you ask, did Portishead created a prog album? Weren’t they headed in the Radiohead post-post-rock direction, trip-hop roots not withstanding? Well, won’t go as far as calling the entire album an exercise in unusual time sigs, but it sure has a lot of it to be purely accidental. They are referencing something in the genre, and want to know what that is. Could it be just Talk Talk (wink wink)?
So is Beth Gibbons really just channeling Annie Haslam? or Elizabeth Fraser? No, don’t think so. But she’s definitely keeping the prog chanteuse torch alit.
[littlelicker.com]