Mick Shrimpton wrote:alex maiolo wrote:It's not the greatest thing in the world, and it's a little dated, but there were some good ideas in there. I figure out some of the guitar parts and they are great.-A
What an absurd critique to make of Suede! Dated?
Dated? Of course it's dated! Suede were a modern Glam Rock band. If you had any appreciation for the best guitar players of the early 1970s British Glam Rock scene, you might recognize Butler's inventive compositions. By compositions, I mean "riffs", which were the central element of Glam Rock. Suede were songwriters first and foremost. If you can't appreciate songwriting in the traditional sense, then why did you ever pay attention to Suede?
Ok, King Suede-head, settle down...
If you'll recall, my "review" was pretty damn positive.
In fact, I singled out Butler's badassery pretty clearly. I used the mother of all compliments to describe his skills - "riffage."
Did you even read what I said?
Out of all of the "guitar heros" of the BritPop era, the only ones truly worthy of the sobriquet were Bernard Butler and Graham Coxon, even though their styles were very different. I don't consider Radiohead "BritPop" or I'd toss in Johnny Greenwood too.
Butler didn't knock me over with his solos, which could be a bit sloppy and even a little boring, but his snakey guitar lines, progressions and catchy ass riffs are 90% of the reason I listen to them. He was second to none with that stuff.
As a band, they don't do it for me without him.
By "dated" I mean how their records sound - it has nothing to do with the band. Much of what was recorded in the UK in 1992 sounds dated now and Suede's no different. Not because of the recycled Bolan and Ronson riffs, which I openly endorse, but because of the production of Suede's music.
Meaning, you can't convince me that the opening guitar's
tone in Animal Nitrate is some nod to T. Rex. It's so enhanced is sounds like it was played on a titanium guitar and recorded in a giant glass room. The songs stand up great on their own, hence my praise for their live work, but the early recorded output has been pissed on with glee by the producer. No trick was left untried. That's what I meant by "dated."
When I go back and listen to Ride, Stone Roses, Moose, Blur, or any other band that I like that made music between 1988 and 1994 (approx.) I often have to ignore the production, even if it was done by people I like - Stephen Street, Hugh Padgham, John Leckie, etc.
It was just how they were doing it then.
Go back and read what I said. You'll see a lot of love in there with a few caveats aimed towards people who don't care for proto-BritPop, fey delivery and/or glam.
-A