HAIM

i can't believe we've set up cyndi lauper as a strawperson for all female vocals in pop

clarke, i guess the question to ask is, for you, is it possible for a band to be good, maybe even excellent, if their singer didn't have gravitas / vocal chops / w/e quality you're attributing to cyndi lauper?

ya i was gonna say... do u think neko case is a good a vocalist as cyndi lauper?

if you're not as good as cyndi lauper, it's back to the woodshed for you!

the hilarious thing is that most singers aren't as good as Cyndi Lauper, full stop; she's fucking incredible

yeah, that's what I'm sayin

clarke, do you like new order?

like, Cyndi Lauper is easily one of the top 25 singers of the past 30 years, so I'm not really going to fault the lead singer of Haim for not being as good as her, like I'm not faulting the lead singer of Haim for not being as good as Celine Dion or prime-era Whitney or Mariah, or Anita Baker, or Toni Braxton, etc etc etc

"clarke, i guess the question to ask is, for you, is it possible for a band to be good, maybe even excellent, if their singer didn't have gravitas / vocal chops / w/e quality you're attributing to cyndi lauper?

― 乒乓, Monday, October 7, 2013 2:59 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink"

Oh of COURSE, I like so, so, so many bands with crappy-to-fair singers. I just think this kind of very slick, precise, extremely sculpted music demands a singer with a bit more of that "whatever quality I'm attributing". And yes, I do like New Order very much. But that is SUCH a different thing from HAIM.

some of the earlier haim songs sounded kind of pitchy to me but it seems that they tuned it all up on the album thankfully. I do think that they're trying for some stuff a little beyond their abilities which is fine by me. I don't mean in terms of gravitas, but just that they've written some parts that are a little difficult to sing in terms of the control required to do that staccato stuff. record sounds good though so who cares?

http://rlv.zcache.com/i_love_gravitas_png_reusable_water_bottles-r49016bc259be482292873d76d775792b_vblp1_8byvr_324.jpg

That's what I drink out of when I'm washing down a hot plate of chollopitas.

I'm not really going to fault the lead singer of Haim for not being as good as her, like I'm not faulting the lead singer of Haim for not being as good as Celine Dion or prime-era Whitney or Mariah, or Anita Baker, or Toni Braxton, etc etc etc

yeah, and for me that's actually a large part of how creativity works and how new original things are created! reaching for prime-era whitney and falling a bit short is more interesting to me than settling for something safe or taking influence from people who suck.

line of complaint about HAIM's vocal performance is almost as weird/unanticipated as the collapseboard one about them being the cynical adoptee du jour of pageview fiending middle aged bloggers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZC04J1a7iVU

^Least serious song in the Cyndi catalog.

wk, I agree, and I'd generally rather hear over-reaching and slightly falling short than smug virtuosic phoning-in. I think HAIM would be better served if their music were a little more rough-hewn and live-sounding. (Cue "rockist!"...)

to take this from the other side, i think the vocals on this are leaps and bounds beyond the vocals on like, the lorde album or something.

just spent some time trawling through snippets of live performances going back to mid-2012 and I really have no idea what Clarke is talking about re: pitchiness

It was really just the first song posted on this thread where I thought I caught a little whisper of it.

check out the first video in the thread. the line "without involving me" on the first verse at around 0:35 seconds sounds a bit flat to me on that video but it sounds like they tuned it on the final album version. I may be crazy though.

I think that's a timbre issue; the delivery is pressed but it doesn't strike me as flat

yeah it might be a different take on the album version

xp Jennifer Paige is a good call katherine. I could see them covering Crush.

ok I just lined the two versions up in a daw. there are definitely pieces of different takes being used, but also the syllable "volve" in that line sounds about 30 cents flat to me in the original.

Surely Haim being more "rough-hewn" would do away with one of their most distinctive and attractive qualities.

I would love for Haim to tour with Savages

The Girls of Lorde and Haim Are Making Cranky Critics Rethink Their Disdain for Dance Pop

and watch Jim DeRo go:

http://images.ridemonkey.com/index.php?size=full&src=http%3A%2F%2Fgifninja.com%2Fanimatedgifs%2F107270%2Fbig-trouble-in-little-china-exploding-guy.gif

The more I listen to this album the more I enjoy how tightly wound together the rhythm of the vocals and the drums are. The groove attack is so consummate.

yes, it's one of the album's greatest strengths that everything is built around rhythm.

Este was studying at UCLA and graduated in 2010 with a degree in Ethnomusicology,[12] completed in just two years instead of the normal five.[5][7]

oh yeah! I saw an interview where they were talking about that and doing tuvan throat singing.

Alannis Morrisette

started to get the creeping feeling that the drums on this are overly busy and fussy, a whole lot of extra toms and handclaps in there. but it could be my car stereo giving me a bad mix.

The main vocals are very rythmic too, with the stuttering and some lines sung with a percussive effect (i.e. "that chu gonna be ok anyway" in The Wire). Probably related to the main singer also being a drummer?

"Surely Haim being more "rough-hewn" would do away with one of their most distinctive and attractive qualities.

― Tim F, Monday, October 7, 2013 5:16 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink"

I disagree strongly. I just watched a few live clips, and one in particular (for "Falling" live at Maida Vale for the BBC) really struck me--there's tension in the performance, drama in the development of the song. It sounds great. The studio version is just... I hate to say it because it will draw anti-rockist backlash, but it's overproduced. That synth climb in the studio version is totally gimmicky and gratuitous. I use "overproduction" not because I object to any studio fuckery or something like that; I love tons of ridiculously over-the-top records. For me, something is overproduced when it's polished to the point of blunting rather than enhancing the band, or when the studio part of the sound stands out so clearly as separate. The live version contains a pretty impressive and well-executed guitar solo, very much in the vein of something Buckingham would have played on Tango. As "produced" as those '80s Mac records are (and forgive me for prolonging what I think is not the best analogy for this band's sound), one of the best things about them is the sound of a superhumanly talented guitarist doing his thing--his voice comes through as a guitarist. If you compare the live version of "Falling" to the studio version, I think the studio version has rubbed out the grain and individuality of her guitar to the point where it's just another "effect". And to me that stinks and it's too bad.

I haven't gone through too many Haim live clips but the ones I've seen have been so far removed from "rough hewn" that I literally have zero context for framing your complaint with them on record.

Like, I feel like you accidentally clicked on a Savages clip and got confused based on the way you're making your argument.

I'm only using "rough-hewn" as a relative term here.

They're definitely more raw and noisy live. It's been a while since I heard a new band whose live and studio sounds are so different. I like both versions tbh.

The Posies were like that earlier in their career. Dear 23 was this Paisley Underground-inflected John Leckie-produced ball of pop, then I saw them live and it was like a RAWK SHOW.

From the live clips I've seen, except for covering "Oh Well", their live show doesn't really seem more "rawk" than what's on the album to me.

It's not more "rawk" at all. I'm not fetishizing specific sounds that signify rock, I'm just asserting that there's more to sink one's teeth into in their live stuff. And I don't think DL is meaning for "raw and noisy live" to mean necessarily "in a rock sense"...

The live stuff is way more rawk. Danielle's vocals in particular are much more rock in the live clips I've watched. More room for extended rock guitar soloing. And obviously lots of studio shimmer missing. I don't quite see how it's even a question.

Their previously discussed all-encompassing emphasis on rhythm works far better in their live stuff as well to me. You hear the way everything rubs against everything else. Again, there's tension. The more I listen to the live stuff, the more beef I have with the studio stuff. I like this band! Find them a new producer for their next record!

Does anyone else think the drum sounds on the studio version are dogshit?

i, uh... really like the drums in this album

the live vocals are way sloppier and it's all guitar/bass/drums without all of the drum machines and stuff on the album. I like the "overproduced" version way better, but it's cool they can play as well as they do live.

yeah, its like a bonus. lord knows there were plenty of 80's studio creations that looked and sounded mighty sad on stage when it was time for them to hit the road and pimp their single.