Janelle Monae

Does she play with a string/horn section?

she didn't, but that was a small one-off show so she might next time, now that she has music out in the uk

She did not do the painting thing and no, no string/horn section. Very stripped down - drummer, keyboard guy, guitarist, and a couple hooded backup dancers.

seen her twice now and I found that "energetic and joyful" thing a bit canned; she'll absolutely manufacture it if the crowd's not into it.

right, just listened to this again...so much energy and so many ideas but the songs just aren't there. there are several stretches where she just putzes around, darting hither and thither, and it's all very impressive to hear what she's capable of, but she rarely settles down enough for it all to gel. it feels lacking in the same way that listening to a soundtrack is lacking - i get the sense that while monáe's obviously really talented musically, her ideas work best visually...live, obviously, and the "many moons" video. (not that there's a song as well-crafted as "many moons" here - this isn't near to the standard of the metropolis suite.) it doesn't really span that many genres - it's basically a musical (maybe this is why i'm not totally down with it, i'm not a fan of musicals really...) with a few retro rock'n'roll moments thrown in.

"tightrope" is pretty great, my favourite stretch on the album is the closing two songs, where you suddenly feel there's something at stake emotionally. i've never heard of montreal, but the song with them is fucking awful.

i'm glad this exists and think she'll make much better music in the future, i just have to avoid reading a single word by indie fans or rock critics about it, especially if those words build her up by knocking other r&b artists.

xp she absolutely manufactured it when i saw her (terribly-publicised gig, tiny crowd and kinda empty venue) - still worked though

I don't think it was manufactured at this show, I mean there was a very sizable and loud group of people right in front singing and dancing along with every song, she seemed to be feeding off of them quite a bit.

this isn't near to the standard of the metropolis suite.

I'd argue the opposite!

yup, relistening to "many moons" now, SO good and hitting me in a way the album didn't really

jon, i'm not saying it wasn't real; just saying that she will and does manufacture that energy if the crowd isn't reciprocating it.
with some caveats, i kinda agree with lex.

isn't that just "goin' in"

you have to bring it no matter what fuck a crowd

yeah see i can fux with musicals personally but the crucial flaw in this album is in appropriating them in form but no longer in function - the overrarching narrative, so implicitly redeeming to the metropolis material, is tenuous and garbled on this, just a series of wildly variform rococo set designs wheeling in and out between tracks like a favouritest hits comp for a body of work that's never actually gotten round to existing.

like lex says it's nevertheless still a worthwhile showcase of commendable musicianship & songwriting and whatever but you have to call into question the ambition, and the motives of people lauding that supposed ambition, of an album that manages to so perversely mulch down so many different styles and impulses into the same monotonously showy inconsequence (aka the polar opposite of what basement jaxx do btw deej). what is the agenda here besides a proof of talent?

what is the agenda here besides a proof of talent?

You couldn't be more off-base. I'd say a "proof of talent" is the last thing she's trying to get across. Whether or not that's your personal interpretation is strictly your problem (and your loss) -- not hers.

i always feel the need to repeatedly point this out, but I really LIKE janelle and archandroid is a great first album. It's just too rag tag and flailing for me to really fall in love with it. Give her a few years and I absolutely expect her to wow me.

the overrarching narrative, so implicitly redeeming to the metropolis material

this is the worst thing about metropolis imo

an album that manages to so perversely mulch down so many different styles and impulses into the same monotonously showy inconsequence

this is a great way of putting it - exactly what it does.

relistened to metropolis and maybe it's the conceit working better when it's concise, confined to just a few tracks, maybe it's just better songwriting, but it really bursts with life compared to the archandroid - "sincerely, jane" and "mr president" are a good deal better than anything on this album too.

xp the overarching narrative is probably the worst thing about janelle full stop

an album that manages to so perversely mulch down so many different styles and impulses into the same monotonously showy inconsequence

yes

"ilxor", ok i'm sure she herself does have all kinds of the most delightfully daringest ideas imaginable about what it's supposed to be but my point is what of it are you left with after hearing this album?

rev, i coulda cared less about the metropolis plot as such but imo it lent a (forgiving) focus to the material that's been entirely lost here.

You guys, it's okay that this isn't the world's greatest album! It's still a lot of fun!

all the fun of underpants, roll up roll up

like ok i don't wanna sound like the guy all cross that i didn't get to find out what happened to the gripping android lady plotline (although we were promised a diddy in character cameo EFF WHY EYE) and i'd love to be able to hear this as a jaxxian fun parade but so much of the structure and delivery of the album actively militates against even that simple pleasure - you could hand me any single track on this and i'd most likely be quite taken with it but as a whole no fucking way.

tbh I have completely ignored the narrative throughout this and Metropolis and have only been listening to the songs as pieces of music; how they present themselves, how they flow from one piece to the next, etc. I couldn't tell you what most of the lyrics said because I'm too busy listening to the way she's singing the words than to what the words actually are.

So I don't know, it seems to me that a lot of things that are actively irritating people are things I'm actively ignoring, and while I didn't think this album was an immediate showstopper I've enjoyed it more with every subsequent listen.

i can think of very few concept albums i like that actually have a coherent plot.

"ilxor", ok i'm sure she herself does have all kinds of the most delightfully daringest ideas imaginable about what it's supposed to be but my point is what of it are you left with after hearing this album?

If you're not left with any of it (i.e., if it all goes over your head), then why not just enjoy the album as a "worthwhile showcase of commendable musicianship & songwriting," which you rightfully say it is? There's no need to get caught up in the idea of what it's "supposed to be" with any album, really -- it is what it is, to each listener, and obviously it comes across differently to different individuals.

as a whole no fucking way.

Why not put this and Metropolis on "shuffle" mode, at the same time? Forget the narratives/plotlines, the supposed "structure" of each album, and let the songs intertwine in new, unfamiliar ways. If the songs are good but you don't enjoy the structure, maybe it'd help to adjust the way you approach the songs as a listener.

like ziggy stardust is basically... we're all going to die... oh hay it's this guy from space... doobie doobie doo... something about women voters... i'm sad.

tbh I have completely ignored the narrative throughout this and Metropolis and have only been listening to the songs as pieces of music; how they present themselves, how they flow from one piece to the next, etc. I couldn't tell you what most of the lyrics said because I'm too busy listening to the way she's singing the words than to what the words actually are.

^ HI DERE OTM ^

alright thanks for the insight guys maybe i'll try putting it on in the next room while reading a book or something

yes, hi dere v otm

HI DERE otm fourthed.

i feel you guys are still reading me too literally - i'm not repeat not diehard about the archandroid script but if you take something like ziggy stardust (good comparison btw) it has a concision and flow as an album in itself that does allow the concept to either loosely illuminate the album or be ignored entirely as the listener sees fit. in the sprawl and sheer repetitious mass of this monae it's a lot lot harder for that kinda freedom to breathe imo.

I don't know, I find it pretty easy to sink into the album, largely because of the repetition and the cyclical patterns it creates as the album moves through moods; it's like I'm riding her biorhythms or something.

Aside from the Of Montreal misstep, this album flows adequately to excellently (mostly the latter). Very satisfying on the musical level. I'm not that big on lyrics and concepts anyway, and I don't find myself tripping over them in this case, so they don't undermine the music for me either.

also the Of Montreal track is one of the points where I always stop to check which song I'm on because I'm enjoying myself so much; I don't get the hate

ya since i like of montreal it's kinda like... oh, look a song by a band i like. like a little intermission.

I've actually kinda come around to the OM joint though kevin barnes' voice is a bit much to take. it's a fun song I just have no idea what it's doing this album.

Yup -- we're going to be arguing about this album for years.

I sort of think that there's no way in hell I could ever get a grip on the overarching story if there is one because as a whole it's just too much.

I'm not sure the songwriting is as bad as people are making it sound, in fact I think it's pretty good, it's the arrangements that are bad more often than not. With the faster songs, Tightrope aside, I keep wishing she'd let them breathe a bit. I maintain the ballads are the best things here for that reason.

The songs are ok; it's the arrangements that grate.

i think they're grate too!!

(not that there's a song as well-crafted as "many moons" here - this isn't near to the standard of the metropolis suite.)

lex is so very OTM. By which I mean WE HAVE THE SAME OPINION ABOUT A RECORD THAT INSPIRES DIVERSE REACTIONS.

"many moons" is good (and the best song on metropolis) but there are like 8 songs on this that are better

i dont get rtc's complaint at all -- love the way this flows musically, its like a dj mix, slows down at the right spots/speeds up at the right spots & amazingly sequenced. & its funny that dudes will say 'the songs arent there' & then rtc makes a more fleshed out argument that suggests the songs are there & u guys rush to cosign him anyway. lets have some consistency haters

"many moons" is good (and the best song on metropolis) but there are like 8 songs on this that are better

― what it feels like for a goon (The Reverend), Thursday, June 3, 2010 7:21 PM (Yesterday)

ok wow - gonna listen to this tomorrow but you just must not have been in the "many moons is great" camp

no, i never really was

i mean, i like it but

I am firmly of the opinion that "Lettin' Go" is the best song she did prior to this album (and it still may be)

http://rlv.zcache.com/ding_ding_ding_tshirt-p2354000263304517744028_400.jpg
I've made the Debbie Deb comparison elsewhere and might as well make it again.

actually, now that I think of it, a lot of what I like about the new album is that it injects a dose of '05-era fun party jamz monae back into the metropolis-isms

um forks? where are you going with that?

ok, considering rtc's current line of attack, lol at

btw janelle monae (who would like to be cassie but never can be, come to think of it, kinda like a tinman who can't get rid of his heart), her thing is out now apparently. i'd say the ep format was a crafty idea but hopelessly fatal to her schtick at the end of the day.

― r|t|c, Tuesday, September 4, 2007 2:51 PM Bookmark

(wtf at cassie comparison?)