Idolator

Rad video. Like the song too.

Can't even remember "The Rip" (can't see the video, either) but "Hunter" is gut-churning, so full of ugly juxtapositions and audio disconnections.

Thanks, that was mesmerizing. I didn't even know they were pushing a "single," per se.

As for the album, given the wary advance hype, I must say it's been a pleasant surprise -- it's not nearly as dark or weird as I feared, and I find it totally enveloping.

@Chris Molanphy: Wary? From whom? I heard nothing but stellar buzz from my camps...

It's like a cold, sad Broadcast.

the wariness seems to have come entirely from people who wanted more scratches and plodding rap beats instead of what the band actually came up with

@Chris Molanphy:it's not nearly as dark or weird as I feared

But that's what I like about it! It's as dark and weird as I hoped!

Q magazine sums it up perfectly:

"Third will probably be more admired than listened to..."

@chim_richalds: That is such a ridiculous sentiment.

Q's statement would apply to, say, Scott Walker's The Drift (and I'm a listen to that album quite a bid), but not Third.

Q trying to rile up Phead fans to get hits ya think?

it's not a ridiculous sentiment at all, though the conspiracy theory suggesting that Q is trying to get more web traffic is amusing (especially because they don't have their reviews online).

the record sounds like a bunch of half-formed song sketches and snippets of jams. no cohesion, little substance, and after an eleven-year wait it's a massive disappointment.

yet from the get-go, it was all too easy to predict that it would get praised for its "obtuse brilliance" and "haunting dissonance" and "expertly crafted paranoia" even though it is downright boring.

suggesting that this supposedly "arresting" record doesn't fully reveal itself until the 21st listen? seriously? why not just come out and say that you've finally convinced yourself to like a shitty record?

I'm with Chim. This album is utter trash.

This is the purest example in recent memory of the Emperor being tone-deaf -- and you're all afraid to admit that in a time where music is generally disappointing and a great Portishead album would be a God-send, this is atrocious. I'm still waiting for them to say they're kidding.

Let's keep the criticism simple -- the guitar performance on "The Rip" misses notes and the guitar is out of tune. HE MISSES NOTES. The performance is what one might expect from a 12 year-old guitar student who just learned how to fingerpick. Tune the f'n guitar and hit your notes, damnit, and then we can talk. Or is an unsteady, out-of-tune performance a refreshing breath of fresh air after decades of musicians recording multiple takes of a song until they end up playing the intended notes?

Put on the self-titled or Dummy, and tell yourself this is just as good. Because it is, isn't it? Between "The Rip" and "Wandering Star," it's a coin toss, right? Who needs tight, beautifully programmed beats and perfectly orchestrated, in-key performances when you can just goof around and people will worship anything you release regardless?

Prince isn't talented enough to fingerpick this well... someone should teach him the meaning of innovation.

[www.proteinpower.com]

@chim_richalds: I was never much of a Portishead fan until this record, but I liked it on the very first listen and continue to like it more, as Maura says, on the 20th and 21st listens. I think the negative buzz is coming from people, like Matos says, "who wanted more scratches and plodding rap beats instead of what the band actually came up with." If it had taken 10 years for them to release another Dummy, I think even more people would be turned off (I would be).

@brasstax: If it didn't have the name "Portishead" on the cover (id3 tag) you never would have even heard it. No one would have bothered with a 21st listen, or even a 2nd listen, and 99% of us wouldn't have gotten to a first listen. If Dummy had sounded like this, it wouldn't have been released.

@EnsignMilkshake: And exactly how is this any of the band's problem when it appears to be solely yours?

@EnsignMilkshake: You seem to be kind of person who is completely oblivious to and/or dismissive of any kind of music that isn't "in-key" or "perfectly orchestrated" (although I'd argue that Third is both of those things).

Seriously, years go by between finding albums I like as much as this one, and I'm just sorry you were expecting something entirely different (and boring).

@EnsignMilkshake: What's YOUR issue, dude? It's a fine album and perfectly consistent with the direction they started moving in with their second album. Dummy was dinner party music that even Portishead isn't a big fan of anymore.

Personally, I can't put Third down and would suggest that you actually listen to it all the way through a couple of times before you continue belly-aching.

@Ned Raggett: Never said it was! It's totally my problem. For some reason, one of my favorite bands forgot how to play their instruments and match up samples that are in key. Sucks for me! And I wouldn't even mind if it were a jazz or reggae Portishead record... just try to stay on pitch.

They're still making boatloads of money releasing it, so it obviously isn't their problem.

And most people don't seem to mind looking at the Emperor's bare ass, so it isn't your problem either. Kudos to the tailor.

@EnsignMilkshake: HE MISSED NOTES
@EnsignMilkshake: HE MISSED NOTES
@EnsignMilkshake: HE MISSED NOTES
@EnsignMilkshake: HE MISSED NOTES
@EnsignMilkshake: HE MISSED NOTES

@EnsignMilkshake: Sucks for me!

An understatement.

@brasstax: No, I'm acutely aware of music that isn't in tune. I know, all my elite snobbery about tuning instruments and not flubbing notes is absurd. I'm stuck up.

@slowburn: Beth Gibbons killed his puppy.

Beth's dingo be eatin babies

@slowburn: I promise you, I have listened all the way through several times. Let's just get this out of the way -- I'm open-minded, I listen to a very wide variety of music, and I didn't have any particular expectations for this record.

That said, this blows. And the only reason anyone is arguing with me is because you're all wannabe elite followers, afraid to say that some of our favorite musicians made something that isn't just disappointing, but is affirmatively bad.

But hey, there's no accounting for taste. I'm happy, and I want all of you to be happy too. Enjoy. Don't get upset. Be happy. I love you all. really. Seriously, everything is cool. Be cool. Let's all get along. I didn't mean it when I called you a follower, I was just, you know, getting intense, like people tend to do on the internets. I'll even listen to the album again. With an open mind. So we cool? Friends? Sorry if this bothered anyone, really, just trying to keep the discussion lively.

Third sucks donkey balls.

serious question: is "gut-churning, so full of ugly juxtapositions and audio disconnections" supposed to be a good thing? i literally can't tell.

and that's the thing. you can get all defensive (unnecessary because you're in the majority) but it's just funny to read people heaping excessive praise on something so atonal and obtuse.

i get it: you're stunningly open-minded and, dare i say it, hip for liking difficult, weird-for-the-sake-of-being-weird music.

but resorting to dismissing dummy as dinner party music only shows that you're trying way too hard.

@EnsignMilkshake: And the only reason anyone is arguing with me is because you're all wannabe elite followers, afraid to say that some of our favorite musicians made something that isn't just disappointing, but is affirmatively bad.

Your ideas are not intriguing -- neither are you, really -- and I do not wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

@chim_richalds: it's just funny to read people heaping excessive praise on something so atonal and obtuse

Wacky fun time, yes.

resorting to dismissing dummy as dinner party music only shows that you're trying way too hard

Words in one's mouth are hard to put, really. (As someone who loved Dummy since its release -- and still does, and I'm sure that's the case with nearly everyone on this thread who has been expressing praise for Third -- you are mistaking loving this album for rejecting everything else. And that's a foolish mistake to make.)

you guys can hate on Third if you want! It's just funny that some of you guys either get so obsessed with things like "MISSING NOTES" or assume that anyone who does like something you think is trash is obviously a sign of a "defensive hipster follower" or whateverthefuck.

For the record, I think Third is overrated and not as original as people think, even though I really enjoy it.

@chim_richalds: I wasn't talking to you, but as it happens I still like and listen to Dummy. That said, I recognize that it's a lot "easier" to like than Third, and while there's nothing wrong with music that's easy to like on first listen, it doesn't make music that's easy to like on third or fourth listen BAD.

@EnsignMilkshake: "wannabe elite followers" -- Thanks for the laugh, man.

People can like different things. I found Third to be evocative of a lot of other types of music (I agree with whoever said it wasn't super-original, and I don't think that's a bad thing at all) that I have grown to like, and I love the spooky, super-urban undercurrents of it. Those of you who don't like it can just say you don't like it without getting all, y'know, aggressive about how cool you are anyway.

I'll take back some of my sniping since I see that chim_richards was responding to a specific post; the reply function is odd sometimes. (The band can think the first album is dinner party music all they want, don't have to agree with 'em!)

@ Ned Raggett: i wasn't putting those words in your mouth. i was referring to the person who (gasp!) said, "dummy was dinner party music that even portishead isn't a big fan of anymore."

not to mention the others who dismissively characterized early portishead as "scratches and plodding rap beats" or claimed they didn't like portishead until this album.

Chalk me up as one of those people who thought little of Portishead until album, btw. I basically thought of Dummy as downer spy-jazz dullardry and after Third I may have to reinvestigate.

Also, the only reason I actually pricked up my ears for a listen was cuz a few people I respect was like OMG WOAH. If anything, Portishead's reputation was a mark against it, definitely not for it.

i'm sure Morcheeba are waiting to "cash in" on the run on teutonically-infused anti-folk caused by this chart-busting success. i'm sure a Hannah Montana/Portishead double bill concert tour is in the works.

some of you guys CAN'T be for real.

Do the people who are calling this album "atonal" actually know what the word means?

[en.wikipedia.org]

Even "Machine Gun" isn't atonal and most of the song is an extended rhythm track!

[en.wikipedia.org]

The people calling this album "atonal" should learn what the word means before throwing it around. There's nothing atonal about this album at all.

(okay now I look like a dumbass because I thought my comment was swallowed, argh)

@chim_richalds:

serious question: is "gut-churning, so full of ugly juxtapositions and audio disconnections" supposed to be a good thing? i literally can't tell.

[img.sparknotes.com]

@djp: No, no, no, I love you for saying it, even twice.

@chim_richalds: Wrong link: [www.mathsisfun.com]

@slowburn: "Thanks for the laugh." Really was just goofing, so you're welcome.

@Dickdogfood: "Gut-churning" isn't usually a good thing... unless you're into eating dog food, and... uh... other stuff, I guess.

Seriously, as for the off notes, I don't know how a guitar performance where someone screws it that badly gets any praise at all, or even released. Well, actually, we know how it gets released... put the right name on it. But if José González played his guitar like that, would you be raving about it, or would it be the end of his career?

Shouldn't be playing that badly live, let alone on an album.

I don't know what the Portisheads would be doing today if this had been their debut instead of Dummy, but they certainly wouldn't be giving guitar lessons...

holy shit I think Ensign would explode if he were to attend a Glenn Branca concert.

@mackro: ...or were forced to listen to Half Japanese.

José González?

@mackro: Nah, Branca's fine. It isn't that everything has to be purest precision, but this just sounds bad. Someone's fingers are having a hard time finding the strings...

@EnsignMilkshake: the uncertainty (the "badness") of the finger-picking underscores the themes of the song - fragility, self-doubt, etc.

there you go - that's the cliffs notes explanation. did that do it for you? i didn't think so. yeah, yeah, i know - Yngwie could have played finger-picking that was "fragile or whatever" but without MISSING NOTES. great, i know, cool - let's never hang out - bye.

@EnsignMilkshake: Gut-churning is a bad thing? Really? See, one of the basic things you should know about human culture is that it often takes things that, outside of culture, would be upsetting or irritating or painful and turns them into pleasurable experiences. Acquiring the taste for the sting of spicy food or the bitterness of coffee is one example; understanding the virtue of the sublime--something philosophers have long tied to feelings of terror--would be another. Something's that's gut-churning is potentially another example.

@westartedthis: Are you sure we don't already hang out?

Great explanation. It's either about that or heroin, I can't tell for sure. Or maybe the fragility of white horses. I can't wait for their next album, where they write songs about confidence and practicing and not being weird for the sake of being weird.

And don't put me in that camp -- Yngwie really is just terrible. Noisy and dirty is great... I'll take Hendrix over Malmstein or Vai any day of the week.

@EnsignMilkshake: You will be waiting a long time, and hopefully you will be equally disappointed.

@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.

@chim_richalds: Yeah, I did notice the bit about controversy over the term. That controversy has to do with whether "atonal" is an appropiate designation for music based on a twelve-tone formula rather than traditional Western scales and has nothing to do with the type of music being discussed, which has no identifiable tonal center. Everything on "Third" lies wholly within the paradigm of traditional Western chord structure. Every song has a tonal center and is built off of an unambiguous chord progression firmly rooted within the context of diatonic harmony. "Silence" is the closest that they come to an atonal piece, mostly because of the dissonance between the melody line and the chord structure underneath, but even that is two harmonically-cohesive pieces of music with identifiable tonal centers placed on top of each with no rhythmic trickery or subterfuge.

If you're going to throw around a real music term to bolster your argument, you should at least have some understanding of what the term means if you don't want to get called out (and that goes for the "literally thousands of people" you invoke, whether they're being positive or negative).

@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.

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.

+ Watch video

@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.

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]