"Tramp", the triumph of Sharon Van Etten

Tramp

I relentlessly encouraged people to check out the music of Sharon Van Etten, even more after watching her live. Following the recommendation, I really wanted to review "Tramp", because is one of these rare albums that endures, sticks with you in a very special way. It gets inside, on a very intimate level. It is hard to define in words, but almost all of this tracks are the vehicle of expression of an artist reaching the audience with her talent, tunes and a brutal honesty, perhaps also exorcising her demons in the process too (you can search for her personal story around). As an obsessed music lover, few records are capable of reaching through your ears, your stomach, you mind and your soul. "Tramp" does.

It all begins when the drums arrive on "Warsaw", inoculating an unexpected vigour to the tune, wrapping Sharon's gorgeous voice, announcing "I want to show you". Indeed she will. Immediately, as a matter of fact, as "Give Out" quickly shows this is going to be an intense  ride. By the time the disarming couplet "You're the reason why I'll move to the city/you're why I'll need to leave" arrives for the second time, anyone listening to "Tramp" should experiment goosebumps (if you are human, that is). I assure you it won't be the last time.

Because then comes "Serpents", all tension, urgency, fire. Unresolved anger and a mesmerizing work where lyrics and sounds (I clearly hear the echoes of The National here, Aaron Dessner has been a major factor producing the record) bite at the same time. With such a powerful opener trio, its understandable the melancholic "Kevin's" might not as remarkable, although being a strung-out number where Sharon allows her voice to shine, works in a probably needed lighter affair within a heavily-charged record. Anyway, it serves well its purpose of anticipating "Leonard", the next and astonishing song. The combination of, I dare to say, a happy melody, with such a poignant lyric is breathtaking. How can someone put such tenderness and emotion into a song? The chorus is among the most beautiful things I have heard in my entire life.

"In Line", despite the compelling of its slow-burning crescendo with Sharon repeating those two words like a desperate mantra, might be the less memorable song of the lot. But like "Kevin's" before, it provides a shelter before the storm of "All I Can". Van Etten’s voice again rising while the music grows and grows, building an epic number (hear that brass section), in which the singer-songwriter delivers some of the most striking lines of her career. What an mind-blowing, compelling tune.

With the help of Beirut's Zach Condon "We Are Fine", follows on an apparently brighter way, at least musically speaking. It gives a refreshing sense of relief to the album, as well as shows another side of Van Etten's way of approaching the songs. "Magic Chords" also succeeds in providing "Tramp" some diversity in its style and tone. With its jazzy/waltsy vibe, it looks, smells and feels like a nocturnal affair full of emotional turmoil and possibility. Impossible no to fall in love with Sharon's voice right with this one.

"Ask" repeats the formula of "All I Can" with equally moving results, hitting the listener hard with the mixture of moving lyrics and bursting sounds. And its followed by "I'm Wrong", another epic number, that hides all its eloquence on a powerful and shocking droning sound. After the final track "Joke Or A Lie" concludes, sparse, breathy and unexpectedly (in my opinion) hopeful despite the final sentence "Believe me, I tried", you might as well try to dry your eyes, sigh and treasure "Tramp" among the most precious "properties" of your record collection. Here's a total triumph of an album, an incredibly powerful one, rich, disarming, fragile and intense as very few. The perfect demonstration of the immense talent and personality of Sharon Van Etten.

SCORE: 8,75/10

The Indie Anthology 17: essential songs

Let's start the new month with a superb tune for our Anthology. Another one with a summery vibe, if you ask me, from an amazing, modern classic lost band. Enjoy!

Song: Going Blind
Artist: The Go-Betweens
Year: 2000

Melody. Could you understand music without it? I couldn't. Agreed, mainstream abuse an perverts the idea of a catchy melody so they can stuck in your head easily. But when we talk about indiepop / indierock, is also what can make a tune unforgettable, magic, immortal. Some think its simple, but on the contrary, is the hardest of talents of music. You have or you don't. Robert Forster and Grant McLennan had it. In gigantic doses. After 12 years of hiatus, they delivered "The Friends of Rachel Worth" with the company of Sleater-Kinney members. It was the album that made me discover them, falling forever in love with this shiny, perfect gem of luminous pop penned by the missed Lennan. 

"Carnage", the darkest verbal comedy

Carnage

Verbal comedy. Is that a movie category? Because that definition fits "Carnage" incredibly well. The film is a dialectical battle of two couples, the Cowan, Nancy and Alan, and the Longstreet, Penelope and Michael, gathered to resolve, as the civilised and sanctimonious people they are, a quite serious "issue": the Cowan's son has beaten the Longstreet's kid with a stick, seriously injuring the latter's teeth. But soon the viewer will realise the four are not what they suppose/presume to be...

"Carnage" is clearly the screen adaptation of the play "God of Carnage" (Yasmine Reza, the original author, also co-writes the film script). Wait, it is more than that. It looks as if t we were watching the play itself. It all happens in virtually one room (the Longstreet's living room), in one afternoon and (almost) with only the four characters being on screen. And this fact has several virtues, as well as a few limitations.

Director Roman Polanski has to be praised for not "throwing" his ego on the film. The short length and straightforward timing in "Carnage" are key elements that allow the film to exude rhythm and dynamism. Together with the simplistic setting and lack of grandiloquence serves the comedy very well. What matters are the characters and its collection of one-liners and bourgeois traumas. I also liked Polanski's clinic eye to give, with subtle and noteworthy talent, such importance and presence to the objects on the Longstreet's apartment.

Of course, if we talk about characters, a major factor are obviously the actors. And Polanski relies on a very experimented and reliable quartet. Penelope Longstreet, played by Jodie Foster, is the more histrionic of the four, a passive-aggressive wife really wanting to push the boundaries of her guests as she is not only the concerned mother of the injured son, but a moral watchdog of Western civilisation. She is the hardest role to play and Foster's mannerisms are arguably the more dubious. Foster is closely followed by Nancy Cowan, performed by Kate Winslet. She, as the stressed mother of the "abuser" kid wants to be nice at first, but she turns, on the most extreme transformation of the lot, into an uncontrolled beast, physically speaking too.

In my opinion, the husbands are the most satisfying characters. Michael Longstreet, played by John C. Reilly starts being the kindest and accommodating person of the quartet, then evolving into a much more complex character, and amalgamation of frustration and resignation. Reilly excels in giving a natural and convincing force to Michael. And then we have Alan Cowan, performed by Christoph Waltz. He probably steals the show with his mobile phone addiction and his aggressive-aggressive, malicious nature. He for sure has the best and funniest one-liners of the film.

Unfortunately, "Carnage" also suffers from the "play structure" constrictions. For sure, the spectator has to make an effort and believe on the credibility on such an awkward situation. The first half of the film is funny and subtle, as we know that each character is hiding (well, except Alan Cowan) his/her real nature for the sake of showing her/his good manners. We could say the film shines for what it insinuates and not for what it shows, in one word: tones of hypocrisy. But the turn of events and evolution of the characters on the second half of "Carnage" is a social example of the "snowball effect" taken to a hardly credible extreme. Funny still, and somewhat understandable as we are in front of a play, but the conversation derives into a very different territory from the initial abuser-victim too quickly. Hard to believe such solid social masks would crumble so easily after a couple of whisky shots (enough said). But hey, the truth is that before you will start complaining, the movie will reach its end. So overall, there's not a lot to regret after a straightforward, smart, funny and entertaining dark (very dark) verbal comedy, packed in less than 80 minutes.

SCORE: 6,75/10

"The Union", everybody must get stoned!

The Union: The Business Behind Getting High

Quoting Bob Dylan, the title of this post could be the joking summary of "The Union: The Business Behind Getting High". I'm exaggerating... but only a bit.

As a documentary exposing the hypocrisy and brutal amount of lies from the different American governments, pressured by the big, gigantic, pharmaceutics industry and their greedy interests, the film must be overtly applauded and celebrated. It has a particularly good "didactic" quality. First, on demystifying marijuana as the EVIL, something decades of propaganda and partial use of the media resources has achieved in the USA. Second, and even more importantly, because it reveals how the penalisation of cannabis has created an enormous illegal industry (called "The Union"), and several legal structures that benefits immensely from that prohibition. "The War on Drugs", which targets marijuana as its prime villain is finely exposed on the film as a combination of paranoia (John Ashcroft, Ronald Reagan, George Bush I and II* have some amusing/pathetic moments) and perverse, shameful manipulation. And third, because it doesn't hide these policies are only a way to help the powerful and politically valuable lobby of pharmaceutics industry.

But as much as "The Union" is thought-provoking and revealing, it is not entirely satisfying. As a documentary itself, in terms of film quality, is quite mediocre. Filmmaker Adam Scorgie structures his film on a never-ending off-voice, giving data and more data, occasionally truncated by the opinions of growers, criminologists, economists, doctors, politicians, famous people (I suppose) and street interviews (probably the most revealing, as they show how ignorant is the population on this issue). The development of the film for the viewer is quite boring. It seriously lacks dynamism.

There's another big issue. "The Union" is heavily biased. Not referring to the part devoted to the "pot industry" or the politic interests, which I already say are brilliantly documented, being the main reason this movie is worth the watching. I'm talking about the nature of cannabis. Never been a pot consumer as I never felt the need/interest/curiosity to do so. I know that cigarettes and alcohol are spectacularly more dangerous than marijuana, that can be very beneficial (and much more healthier) for the treatment of several diseases and chronic pains (have cases in my own family). But this is a "stoner film" (that definition exists?), and hey, cannabis in Spain might be also illegal (the law here is quite ridiculous, you can have your daily dose for self-consumption, but you can be arrested by police if you are seen smoking on public spaces while trade and advertisement in determined places is accepted) but is commonly accepted, and everyone, I mean EVERYONE, knows from the personal experience, familiars/friends, etc, on how regular pot consumption affects people. "The Union" doesn't even try to collect a single opinion of the possible consequences of its consumption. Marijuana is portrayed like a wonder that nature has given to us, and we silly humans, are prohibiting. And that is not exactly the case.

SCORE: 6/10

* Dear Americans, as we should do too, please think when you vote. It has obvious consequences ;). What a monsters parade....

"Fargo Rock City", did 80s heavy metal's matter?

Fargo Rock City: A Heavy Metal Odyssey in Rural Nörth Daköta 
Chuck Klosterman

The things we do for love... like reading this book. Just kidding. I'm too obsessed with music not to admit I was really curious about Klosterman's attempt to defend the indefensible (in my opinion). Hair metal, heavy metal, 80's hard rock: did it matter? So when my girlfriend (confessed fan of this style) bought the book and vividly encouraged me to read it... well, I had to.

Don't tell anyone, but for the majority of this "wild ride" I was seriously amused. That has to be credited entirely to the author's brilliant writing skills. I was utterly entertained and laughing at the mixture of personal anecdotes, detailed account on bands, records, tunes, and the elaborated music theories on the importance of the 80s metal. I will definitely seek out more of his writings.

But not everything works. Or maybe, the problem is Klosterman's level of exposure here. Occasionally, but more times than it would be recommendable, you will find his reasoning attempts truncated by unnecessary, even silly anecdotes, making you miss the point of the argument. In other few cases, the book gets just boring, like the never-ending account of his favourite metal albums (didn't get the "value thing" anyway), the chapter about the "band issue", or directly dubious, like the chapter about sexism on heavy metal.

One can easily feel related to the book and understand Klosterman's fierce opinions. I did. He bursts with passion on a subject that vividly matters to him. Just like a would do with regards to alternative music. Arrogance is just around the corner, or is just a matter of interpretation or interest on the topic. At the end, nobody can argue his reasoning. Did 80s metal matter? Its obvious that it did for many many people. Like him. But he (in my opinion, of course) cannot defend the "quality argument".

Like Klosterman's, I do have my own "teenager stories" with heavy metal. On the book, he makes himself look like the "victim", as fans of 80s heavy metal now seem obliged to constantly justify themselves for what they like (or liked). But I do remember the musical isolation (heavy metal fans have a strong sense of community) during high school, as I was the one saying Metallica's "Nothing Else Matters" was simply boring, or that Axl Rose's voice was extremely annoying, or that I didn't need an everlasting Slash solo in every single song. Yes, I have always been a hater of heavy metal. My guitar hero will always be The Edge. I will always prefer "Country Feedback" outro than, let's say, "Stairway to Heaven". Lyrics will always matter to me (and that makes metal look reaaaally bad, at least as bad and/or ridiculous as Tolkien). I will never get how someone who is mentally healthy can take Van Halen's "Jump" seriously. Or that playing faster or louder means playing better (I had this sort of reasoning with bands like Manowar). Or that can consider Bon Jovi's metal (or simply worth listening).

To me, hair metal was plain silly, and therefore could only be taken as (a silly) amusement, one that was recreated and I would add, tributed, by "This Is Spinal Tap". But I cannot consider it seriously now, as the majority of people do. Klosterman arguments end saying that the music you loved when you were a teenager is the music that matters. I see the point, but I can't agree with him. "My teenage music" was britpop. I still love some few bands and many tunes from that period. But I evolved, and probably only Pulp would be included now among my favourite bands. And there's nothing wrong with evolving. One band brings you to another, then to the next. That's one of the greatness of music. The amount of possibilities, new discoveries and passions while your favourites remain no matter how much times passes. Luckily, it is not a static thing. Music cannot be static.

I would love to read a "Fargo Rock City 2", to see if his opinions have changed over the years. As a matter of fact, did anyone really listened to "Chinese Democracy"? 

SCORE: 6,5/10

The Indie Anthology 16: essential songs

After a short break on vacation (in Italy) we are back online. It's officially summer period and (almost) vacation time, so the next song of our Anthology is one of these perfect tunes, from a much beloved band, that defines that "summer vibe", that spirit... personal opinion of course.

Song: You Can Hide Your Love Forever
Artist: Comet Gain
Year: 2001

What does it make a song "ideal "for summer? For being on the road? For adventure, discovery or just fun? It's hard to explain. Mainstream music (and beer advertisements) try every year to ruin it with their despicable elections and intrusion. But there's something. An unstoppable joy, driven by guitars an melodies, a sun-soaked chorus and that SING-ALONG part, coming like a magic force, propelling you and your throat. Comet Gain's "You Can Hide Your Love Forever" is that sort of song. Vibrant and vital. I imagine the band in the studio, realising "they got it", feeling powerful and pleased, when they finished it. As anyone who listens and sings it.

"We Need to Talk About Kevin", maternity's guilt

We Need to Talk About Kevin

Proceed with care. One of the most sacred taboos in history (I assume in the majority of cultures, but I'm referring to Western tradition) is, without a doubt, maternity. Maternity is always linked, defined with tenderness, sacrifice, courage, sweetness, love, knowledge... and learning. But "We Need to Talk About Kevin" dynamites this taboo. Warning made. 

Director Lynney Ramsay, adapting the homonym novel by Lionel Shriver, explains us a maternity case that is a terrible process. Doubts, extreme pain, utter defeat and desolation. That's maternity for Eva Khatchadourian, played Tilda Swinton, a masterful actress that gives another lesson in an incredibly difficult role, dealing with a monstrous kid, Kevin. Swinton is the movie, and she carries the weight in her shoulders with fierce conviction. 

Ramsay's structures the film as a constant back and forth in time, but despite being confusing sometimes (especially during the first minutes) it makes sense. The focus is always in Eva's drama, and it largely takes place in her tortured, and isolated mind. From her now desolated present, she remembers her romance with Kevin's father, Franklin, played by John C. Reilly, her trips, but also how she got pregnant, how Kevin was born, how he grew up, and how she struggled, from almost the very beginning, in her attempt to understand his devilish son. Like the theme images, the tomatoes, the red paint, the blood, all is connected in Eva's mind, With the mixture of different periods of their past and the present, we soon realise the parents failure will have a horrible climax. We see that Eva tries to piece together her life after that, but one wonders if she wouldn't prefer to be dead instead. 

"We Need to Talk About Kevin" is disturbing, not for what is shows, but for the number of questions it poses and how unafraid it is to push the boundaries of maternity's preconceived notions. Intrigues the viewer, and removes something inside. Praise Ramsay for being that brave. And as I already said, praise Swinton to portray so well, so convincingly, the face (and physiognomy, that serves so well to her role) of the devastated mother. 

But not everything works in the film. Sure, Kevin is pure evil, so bad that, no matter his age (he's played by three different actors) he has such an evil look that makes any movie villain pale by comparison. Is that credible? And Franklin, the father. Can anyone be so clueless about his son? How can he ignore it? While watching, I had the impression he was the dumbest character I ever seen on screen, giving the magnitude of the disaster. A couple of relevant facts for the development of the story were also strange/ bad resolved for me. Foremost the aforementioned climax (leaves quite a lot to the simple acceptance of the viewer) but also, the trial, the cruel treatment of the neighbours (understandable just to a certain point) and office colleagues. And the resolution of the film looks a bit tricky to me (don't worry, won't spoil it). Yeah, maternity impulses, a collapsed mind through we see it all, and the willing to know the reasons can justify almost everything. But as the poor Eva, looking for answers, not many will come. 

Intriguing, thoughtful, brave, with a fantastic Tilda Swinton, but not fully convincing.

SCORE: 6,5/10