The 2000s have been kind of a weird decade for music. Lots of bands emerged, and the lists of influences are getting more and more pretentious and esoteric. Everyone’s jockeying for position in the race for the strangest, most unique sound. Bands both new and old have emerged placing more emphasis on sounding new than on sounding good. For all the great things about music today, and as heartened as I am for the potential that the next decade brings (especially compared to where we were heading into this decade), I can’t help but lament what seems to be a willful shift away from convention – change for change’s sake.
We’ve been here before. Last decade saw a decided shift away from pop music – it started with Cobain, and then the 90s declined into a horrendous experiment in wedding pop and grunge. By 1998, the only reason to even bother turning on the radio was that maybe Radiohead would be playing. Dave Matthews and his jam-band stormtroopers were threatening to take over the music world. It was a dark time.
But that old brand of pop music has a way of surviving. It is – and I think will be for a long time – the red, beating heart of modern music. The Strokes – remember them? – came along and brought us back to basics, reminding us why we loved pop music, and why it was still the best genre out there. And the people spoke: pop convention prevailed yet again over the forces of pointless change. Dave Matthews band has since, happily, been relegated to the iPods of thirty-somethings, troglodytic frat boys, and hippies, and the echoes of Elvis Costello, Buddy Holly, and others survived for another few years. But here, a decade later, we’re faced with a similar situation. Esotericism has risen to sharper prominence in recent years – making its way from the haughty smoke-filled rooms occupied by critics and into the mainstream – I heard “Summertime Clothes” at American Eagle a month ago, for God’s sake – deeply chilling. Anyway, I may be engaging in some alarmism here, but I have long believed – as any of you who read my work with any regularity know – that pop music is under siege again, and that we’re seeing a rejection of the pop traditions that have soundtracked our lives for so many decades.
Enter Girls. Their debut, Album, decidedly establishes them as part of the preservationist strain of modern musicians (i.e. one of the good guys, depending, I suppose, on your perspective), who don’t just understand the value artists like Elvis Costello, Buddy Holly, and Brian Wilson brought to the table, they incorporate their influence relentlessly, adoringly into their music – I mean, the first track is called “Lust for Life”, for heaven’s sake. That’s the usual threesome you’ll hear referenced in discussions about this band (especially Costello). I definitely agree with the first two, not as much with the last one – Girls’ arrangement patterns are nothing like those employed by the Beach Boys (way less emphasis on harmony, way more emphasis on attitude and melody). But either way, Girls’ debut is a firm homage to times gone by, and it’s proof that those old, steady influences still have vitality. Their brand of infectious, stubbornly conventional but edgy enough pop is a winning formula, and makes for a record that improves with every listen.
But obviously, the appeal of Album extends beyond the statement it makes – it’s an impressive musical achievement in its own right, boasting a shocking degree of musical variety coupled with incredible cohesion. “Laura” is a bubblegum pop gem that smacks of Costello and the early Beatles. “Big Mad Mean Motherfucker” incorporates a verse straight out of the 50s with a guitar solo that even Chuck Berry would probably moderately approve of. “Lauren Marie” is another standout, a shamelessly sentimental, imminently relatable ballad with a delicious melody and an enticing arrangement centering around ethereal, synthesizers, winsome period piece guitars, spare percussion, and even the occasional splash of harp.
The cohesion comes, probably, from lead singer Christopher Owens’ wonderfully versatile and very distinctive voice. Less grating than Alec Ounsworth but more reckless than Colin Meloy, Owens’ voice is definitely in that category of acquired tastes. He ranges from a hugely endearing, carefree, if slightly nasal wail on “Lust for Life” to a gorgeous, plaintive, Jens Lekman croon on the sprawling, cathartic centerpiece “Hellhole Ratrace”. This vocal versatility allows Girls to change up their sound around Owens vocals and still sound stylistically consistent.
I’ll submit that this record is definitely not for everyone. There’s definitely a case to be made that Girls are a little too cute and kitschy (that clause is pretty awesome if you take it out of context, by the way), that Owens’ vocals and lyrics are a little too affected. Some will indubitably be put off by this record’s self-satisfied pop sheen, by the effort that Girls seem to put into being uncomplicated. There’s something to be said for this criticism too – being “just a pop band” oughtn’t produce so self-aware a product as Album can sometimes be. And the record is not without its clunkers – “God Damned” offers a weak melody that falls hopelessly flat within an even less interesting instrumental framework. But quibbles aside, this album is still quite good – and yes, it’s a reminder the music world definitely needed heading into the next decade. Hopefully, we’ll listen.
8.3 / 10.0