Review: Oxford Collapse, Bits--REVISED!

All I could really think to say about this album is: I like it.

I know, I know, there has to be more than that. There has to be quantified evidence: stats and numbers and pie charts and bar graphs and 3-D graphics that demonstrate why I like this record. Problem is I’ve never been about numbers. Or graphs. Or proof. I never debated in high school because I can’t do that. I literally cannot do it. I don’t think like that. I don’t think quickly or aggressively or analytically. For me, thinking analytically is like being forced to put on stainless steel underwear. I like something because I like something and if you disagree that’s totally fine but I have no desire to discuss it with you. Let’s shake hands and be on our separate ways and never talk of it again, Pumpkin.

So when Doug suggested we do this weekly album review on one hand I was pumped to have a reason to listen to new music. On the other hand, I was utterly deflated because I’d have to demonstrate why I like music. But, as I listened to this album all week I found that it’s not a bad thing to know why I like music. It was enlightening to me to be able to pinpoint what makes me like music. So, here goes.

First of all: tone. The music on Bits feels light and whimsical and unserious and unpolished; lo-fi. It doesn’t sound like they spent months in the studio which pretty much equates death for an album to me. There’s probably a graph I can draw that shows the longer a band is in the studio the more the album sucks. Bands get bogged down by time in the studio. Creativity withers. Great albums are similar to what I remember about light particles from Physical Science 101—the more you try to pin them down the more they elude you. And conversely, the less you try to pin them down the more you know about them (or in the case of songs, the better they are). I have no idea if that analogy would stand up scientifically but I think it would so there you go.

Next: voice(s). I really like the voices. I’m pretty sure the singer’s voice is the first thing I judge when listening to any new band. I don’t care if the voice is a crappy voice. I'm not looking for any American Idols in my music. I’ll take a voice with limited clarity and smoothness and talent over a perfect but pretentious voice any day of the year. I cannot stand a voice that says, “I’m freakin awesome” regardless of the lyric it is singing. From the initial “I can’t remember things…I can’t remember things. I just don’t know what to do…oo…oo,” and in the elevated, harmonizing yelps on “The Birthday Wars” and the distant, marching choruses of “Children’s Crusade” I knew I liked these guys’ voices. And I like there’s more than one singer. Matching scratchy, squeaky, yelling, stretching voices make me cheer for a band. I can connect with that. I can’t connect with perfect voices. Oh, and I like the funny-voiced female background singer on “John Blood.”

Music is next. There’s nothing moving about the music on this album. Not that it’s not catchy. I’ve been whistling the cello hook from “A Wedding” all week. I think the transition between “A Wedding” and “Featherbeds” is one of my favorite moments on the album. It moves from the organic simplicity of human voice and strings to a brassy-cymbols-almost-fuzzy-bass-and-canned-drums-sounding splash. And I love the yelling chorus on “Young Love Delivers.” I think it totally redeems the lame beginning of that song (more on that to follow). “Children’s Crusade” is a pretty little spot for me, although I don’t know how it will stand up against the test of time. For now it's certainly pretty but it could be fleeting. However, I love the little interludes in that song that make it sound like they’re going to break into “La Bamba” by Los Lobos. I get all excited to sing, “La la la la La Bamba!” and then it goes back to the pretty little march. But that’s fine.

Lyrics. In general I'm torn when it comes to lyrics. One part of me says I really couldn’t care less about the meaning of lyrics. I don’t care what bands are saying these days. I don’t care what issues are swelling in their precious little hearts. Who cares. I certainly don’t. The other part of me, though, being an English major, certainly likes to hear--and look for--creatively worded lyrics. So that division is a challenge to reconcile when I listen to music. The major concern I have about lyrics is this: Don’t write sentimental lyrics. That’s it. I won't tolerate it. As long as they're not sentimental I don't care. And I don't care what they mean. So, lyrically on Bits, I haven’t really found any sentimental lyrics. I tried to look the lyrics up on the internet but couldn’t find any. I do like the line, “In your presence, we’ll acquiesce,” from “For the Winter Coats.” The only lyric that really bothers me for some reason is the first line of “Young Love Delivers”: “My love came back from China, brought me a pocket camera.” I don’t know why but it just pisses me off. Like I said above, though, the chorus totally redeems that song: I want to pull over to the side of the road, raise my arms and yell, “You’re so sweet, thanks for asking! We’re doing fine for our steady slow decline!” (if that’s even what they say). Who knows. I don’t. And, frankly, I don’t care.

Finally, for me, are The Intangibles—a series of five short answer, unquantifiable responses to the album. The Intangibles are: 1) How does the album make me feel? 2) Is this music unique? 3) Would I go see the band? 4) How would I recommend the album to someone? And, finally, 5) What song off this CD would I want playing in my car if I was giving John Darnielle a ride to Whole Foods Market?

• How does the album make me feel? Bits happens to make me feel young. Like I’m kicking it in the basement of my best friend’s house after school and we’re talking about sports and scoring chicks. It makes me feel like, “Hey this isn’t the greatest thing in the world but it’s cool and I’m young and there’ll be plenty of time for that stuff later.” I would’ve loved this album when I was 17 and that's fine with me. It’s carefree and loud in parts and there’s yelling and some pretty great guitar and drum parts and even some feedback which totally reminded me of the early 90’s.
• Is this album unique? Honestly, there’s a lot of influence from many other bands in this music. For that it doesn’t really stand out as unique. Entertaining? Yeah. Thrilling and moving and the only place on the face of the earth to find just this exact music? No.
• Would I go see the band? If they played my hometown, yeah, I think so. If I had to travel? No.
• How would I recommend the album? “Hey have you heard Bits from Oxford Collapse? It’s alright. If you get a chance to hear it, you may want to.”
• What song off this CD would I want playing in my car if I was giving John Darnielle a ride to Whole Foods Market? Probably "Featherbeds" or "John Blood."
  

Grades:

Tone—4

Voices—3

Music—3

Lyrics—3

Intangibles—3

Total: 16

For the purpose of setting the standard: Zero is the lowest possible score on both the individual components and the total. Two is an average score on the individual components for a total score of 10 for a straightforward, average album. Five is the highest score possible for the individual components adding up to a score of 25 for the perfect album. Albums that are twenty-fives are (for example): The National Alligator, The Unicorns Who Will Cut Our Hair When We're Gone?, AMFM Mutilate Us and Possum Dixon Possum Dixon.