BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Here Come The Tears, by The Tears.

 
 
Alex's Grandma
19:48 / 06.06.05
Good title, but is the rest of it any use ?

I think it might be - Bert A was on about wanting to 'get his demon back' after he came out of rehab that time, and it seems like he's managed it, up to a point.

But I'm not sure - So, a thread for discussing what anyone else thinks.
 
 
haus of fraser
08:36 / 07.06.05
Definitely an odd one- old band mates form new band without the rhythm section and stand in guitarist- but won't play old songs cos its a new band- The only other collaboration i can remember anything like this was Lou Reed & John Cale (who they most certainly ain't) doing Songs for Drella- which obviously culminated in a velvets revival and a bitter fall out...

So are 'The Tears' testing the water for a suede revival?

Suede were an alright band for 5 minutes in 1992 who (imho) released two singles that were any good- then very quickly became very crap- especially when it involved any of them talking. (yes i remember the I'm a Gay Man thats never.. Melody Maker quote.) I certainly don't want them to reform- give it ten years or produce an album that blows my socks off- otherwise shut up!

The only thing i've heard was refugees which was embarrassingly bad and comes nowhere near the greatness of The Drowners- which i was secretly hoping it would be.

I quite often see Bernard Butler around Crouch End and in Sainsburys in Haringay two kids in tow... come to think of it the first time i saw him he was pouring pennies into a cash counter/converter that they have for loose change in the foyer- %maybe i witnessed his lowest point?%

Seriously i can see the naive appeal of wanting to play new songs and not just trade on past glories- but the only way to do that is to keep getting better (Radiohead a good example of a band progressing)- sadly i don't think The Tears give us anything that's any better than early Suede or many of the new crop of pretenders doing the rounds now.

McAlmont & Butler reunion anyone?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
08:46 / 07.06.05
(yes i remember the I'm a Gay Man thats never.. Melody Maker quote.)

Clearly not very well. It was a bisexual who has never had a homosexual experience.

Refugees sounded, not really surprisingly, uncannily like Suede. As such, if you have waiting for a new Suede album, this may be the way forward. The question being, which Suede has turned up to the party?
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
09:40 / 07.06.05
It sounds mainly like Coming Up-era Suede without the keyboard stylings of the Codster and with Brett making a bit more of an effort on the lyrics, not so much of his use of lazy repitition. Bernard sounded very restrained, almost as if he's trying to do an impression of Post-Butler Suede, there are hints of Dog Man Star but no more than hints.

A fun Summer record. I Torrented it at the weekend and it's now on my list of stuff to buy properly.
 
 
haus of fraser
10:49 / 07.06.05
...but wouldn't you prefer it if they were honest with their past- ie play drowners, metal mickey etc.

The market for a Butler/ Anderson reunion is (i believe) largely based on nostalgia. The same market that's going to see Pixies and Dinosaur Jr- those of us that were in our teens in the early 90's are now in our late 20's/ early 30's with a bit of cash in our pockets. I don't think the songs that i've heard by the Tears are good enough as a body of work to warrent the attention/ label money, without the Suede nostalgia fanbase- it'll be interesting how its recieved by kids that had never heard suede? (cynical thought: Are they signed to the same label as Suede? hence knock on effect of selling more Suede records ready for a reunion...)

I suspect it'll crash and burn- as maybe do the record label who have decided to bury the album release- the same week as Coldplay & The White Stripes (& Roll Deep) with no hope of a number one album, bringing the inevitable reunion one step closer.

(sorry about the mis-quote, rightly pointed out - but the point was it was an awful thing to say that even had us misunderstood teenagers cringing at the time- but on reflection it sounds like a Big brother audition tape, Craig maybe?)
 
 
Spaniel
10:59 / 07.06.05
No, 'cause Craig is totally straight, and not at all camp.

Totally straight
Not camp

Got that?
 
 
Jack Vincennes
11:20 / 07.06.05
I don't think the songs that i've heard by the Tears are good enough as a body of work to warrent the attention/ label money

Possibly not, but on hearing them I was quite pleased that the utterly excruciating lyrics that Suede seem to have made their trademark since Coming Up were absent. There is, for example, no "Simon, are you atoms in a jam jar" (then again, I've not listened that closely so there may be hidden layers of dreadfulness I've not noticed). I'm not sure it's so much nostalgia that sustains them as Suede fans who keep hoping that the next Suede album won't be shit. It seems that fans of Suede, like those of the Manics, seem to have an almost unlimited capacity for hope.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
11:34 / 07.06.05
...but wouldn't you prefer it if they were honest with their past- ie play drowners, metal mickey etc.

Well, they can't exactly do that on record, can they, so unless you're going to see them live it doesn't make an awful lot of sense as a criticism... unless you mean that the time they spent writing, rehearsing and performing new material could be better spent on practising and performing the old hits live.

Ultimately, I don't think musicians think in those terms - certainly not fey auteur types like Anderson and Butler. Look at Bowie or Eno: there's a school of thought that states that they filled the setlist of a damn fine live show by about 1979, but they continue to make new music rather than just honing their live shows. Even the Rolling Stones, who very clearly know which side the butter can be found, occasionally release albums of new material. I don't think you _want_ too many self-aware artists deciding when they have done enough for a setlist and moving on to the nostalgia circuit.
 
 
haus of fraser
12:13 / 07.06.05
unless you're going to see them live it doesn't make an awful lot of sense as a criticism...

..that was what i was refering to, apologies if i wasn't making that clear.

Of course make new records- but also be aware of the market. i guess personally i've not been too impressed with The Tears yet, and by refusing to play suede songs live they're failing to recognise a part of their charm- i'm sure most of the Tears fans would love to see them include 'My insatiable one' or 'to the birds' in their live set.

Can you imagine Morrisey and Marr reuniting but refusing to play Smiths songs?

And while I understand no artist likes to be consigned to the 'Here and Now' style nostalgia, neither should aging rockers 12 years past their prime ignore the inevitable whilst trying to reclaim their popularity...
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
14:14 / 07.06.05
Haus unless you're going to see them live it doesn't make an awful lot of sense as a criticism...

Copey's bottle that was what i was refering to, apologies if i wasn't making that clear.

I suspect that Haus was making the funny. Let's move along...
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
14:21 / 07.06.05
But why should The Tears play songs by Suede? Precedent-wise I think we've only got David Bowie's time in Tin Machine, did they play Bowie songs? Whether genuine or not, Brett and Bernard have said in interviews that they have a lot of unresolved issues to work out from the end of their time in Suede and the fallout afterwards, of course we all love our bands to be tormented, but if this is true perhaps they are trying to avoid anything that bollixes the band before it gets going.

And on the other hand, it's natural for bands to want to play new songs rather than old ones. What is interesting is bands like Oasis who do long concerts consisting of about 80% old songs, with perhaps the odd one or two from the new album slipped in.
 
 
haus of fraser
15:39 / 07.06.05
But why should The Tears play songs by Suede? Precedent-wise I think we've only got David Bowie's time in Tin Machine, did they play Bowie songs?

Tin Machine being a prime example- yes i own both their albums and spent months (ok maybe just a couple of weeks) trying to convince myself 'under the god' was a great song - but even the die hard bowie fan in me finds it hard to really enjoy them as i would other albums.

Playing both new and old songs live seems like a tiny sacrifice to appease older fans... and did Tin Machine ever really split up or just change their name- Reeves Gabriel, Bowies writing partner on Tin Machine still seems to be playing on David Bowie records- but under the more marketing friendly name David Bowie....

Will this happen to Suede/ The Tears?

I know i'm being a little facetious- but surely the big attraction with the tears is the reunion of players that wrote the early stuff for Suede...
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
17:52 / 07.06.05
Well, yes. They wrote the early stuff for Suede. Therefore if you liked the early stuff by Suede, I imagine the argument goes, you might also like this stuff by the people who wrote it.

I don't entirely see the problem. I mean, they're not passing off. They aren't calling themselves Suede, and they are making no secret of the fact that they don't want to play any old Suede songs live right now - just as Bowie made no secret of the fact that he wanted to take a break from his back catalogue, was forming a band, and was going to play and sing songs writen only by that band. You're no further away from hearing The Drowners than you were when Butler and Anderson were not playing it live separately, and possibly a bit closer. Bowie decided after two albums by Tin Machine that a) being a solo artist was actually quite a lot of fun and b) the back catalogue had had a nice rest and was actually better as a live option than having to sing They're just a bunch as assholes with buttholes for their brains with a straight face.

Maybe right now B&B are unable to deal with the emotions of playing Animal Nitrate live, but woudl still like to perform live, and as such have no option but to play songs that they can perform without bursting into tears (do you see?) at how they had it all, man - hence the new stuff.

And I wasn't entirely joking about this being a criticism only applicable to live performance; Alex asked about the album, and it seemed odd to get the response "Well, they aren't playing early Suede songs@, is all.
 
 
Pingle!Pop
10:36 / 13.06.05
The thread's pretty much sunk by now, but I'll bite...

The album does, as has already been noted, sound very much like Suede. I'm not sure, though, that it's quite as simple as "which Suede?"; while I'd agree with Our Lady that the songs overall sound rather Coming Up, it also contains significant elements which were lost from Suede post-Butler's departure, as well as elements of the increasingly-awful later Suede.

The guitars, for example, though playing Coming Up-esque quirky tunes, certainly have a lot more to them than Brett et al ever managed without Bernard, a complexity (or possibly just a competency? Brett was never actually very good at playing guitar, whereas Bernard... well, was) not seen since Dog Man Star and a more prominent glam tinge.

The vocals, on the other hand, are for the first half of the album definitely nowhere near early Suede, even including Coming Up in that. Compared to the rather feminine/adrogynous voice which helped make them famous, the first eight songs - particularly the singles - are sung in a rough voice which doesn't appear on any Suede albums, and which I've only heard at their truly awful Glastonbury appearance post-A New Morning, with even a kind of masculine swagger about it.

Bizarrely (to me, at least, who admittedly may have a rather stronger preference for androgyny in pop stars than the "average person"), though, it appears that this change in singing style may not just be a deterioration of Brett's voice but a conscious choice. From Brave New Century (which is easily the album highlight and better than anything Suede have done for a long time) onwards the style reverts to that familiar from the old albums, even at points matching the vocals on Suede's debut.

As far as the lyrics are concerned... argh. I know it's nothing new, but Brett seems to have an eye for the stunningly unpoetic simile, and the better songs on the album lyrically are just those which don't contain any couplets painful enough to make one want to scream. Plus, there seem to be plenty of occasions where lyrics are either horribly cliched, or horribly clumsy in their attempts to avoid being cliched. From Imperfections, for example:

And slowly we become one
We stick like chewing gum
I want your language to be appalling
I want you to play with my hair in the morning


Overall, though, it's certainly better than the last two Suede albums, and in some places (well, Brave new Century, basically) better than anything from Coming Up. And better, at least, than I expected...
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
17:50 / 15.06.05
I really don't hear this supposed difference in vocals on the first half of The Tears' album, and I do remember very well Anderson's apparently conscious decision to abandon his idiosyncratic singing style for something more "masculine" circa A New Morning, with decidedly unsexy results. Listening to 'Refugees' it's pretty clear to me that he's back to doing that thing he does, fortunately. He's still quavering away. Aaauuuuwwww.

I'm enjoying the album more whole-heartedly and with less misgivings than I expected. When I had to review 'Refugees' as a single, I wrote "I hope it isn't just nostalgia speaking when I tell you this is swoon-inducing and gorgeous and hopeless romantic... But I might be wrong." Seeing them live was enjoyable but left me equally unsure - I was a little drunk and a little wistful and generally pliant, and you could feel the crowd's excitement and one's own going up every time the two leads stood near each other, or back to back, or did something recognisably them - which is fair enough, but as I say, it left questions. Now, I'm a bit more sure. Said single, 'Imperfections', 'Two Creatures', and 'Lovers' in particular are all very strong songs - the kind of three or four minute skewed pop songs that were always Suede's greatest strength (everybody remembers Dog Man Star as a classic album, but how many people can sit through it without hitting the skip button at least once, maybe during 'Daddy's Speeding'?). I imagine I'll be listening to these quite a bit over the summer.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
17:55 / 15.06.05
I dunno, maybe his voice is a little deeper on 'The Ghost Of You' but I tend to skip that one anyway, y'know?
 
 
Tryphena Absent
18:27 / 15.06.05
but on hearing them I was quite pleased that the utterly excruciating lyrics that Suede seem to have made their trademark since Coming Up were absent.

There are still moments... for some reason these seem to be the only lyrics that I hear as I do the washing up. Could it be that he's singing the stupid lines louder?
 
 
missnoise
02:09 / 18.06.05
oh my tears
the witch neighbors
london rain
astro pain
sexual blame
in my ear
is a lain

don't know these cools trends
these teenage conundrums
hums
bleeding in my ear

uncle alex
spank me
with a potato
until tomorrow
and maybe i will know of
the tears of sorrow
 
 
lonely as a cloud...
13:58 / 20.06.05
Slight thread-rot, but...pingles, Brett didn't play guitar with Suede. Richard Oates replaced Bernie B right after Dog Man Star. Although I think Brett might've done some of the guitar on The Power...
 
 
Jack Vincennes
07:58 / 15.07.05
I've just got this album (having previously only heard the singles and the occasional album track on the radio) and... I can't shut up about it. It's so, so good. I might be thinking this because I got into Suede quite late (ie, Coming Up era then worked back) and so don't have happy memories of listening to Dog Man Star when it first came out, but I like this as much as anything I've heard by Suede. It's generally a strong album too (I think), it's not like achingly dull / embarrassing album tracks punctuated by some excellent singles, as I thought it might be.

There are still moments... for some reason these seem to be the only lyrics that I hear as I do the washing up. Could it be that he's singing the stupid lines louder?

I certainly think he's singing them slower. 'America's a supermarket, India could take some stopping', forsooth. Still, it's better than the moment of sadness when you realise he really has just sung 'shaking their meat to the beat'.
 
 
Pingle!Pop
13:48 / 15.07.05
Brett didn't play guitar with Suede

Erm, that's true. Oops. What I should have said was that Brett was never actually very musically talented (as opposed to good at playing guitar), and that none of the others could ever really duplicate anything very close to Bernard's playing...

I really don't hear this supposed difference in vocals on the first half of The Tears' album, and I do remember very well Anderson's apparently conscious decision to abandon his idiosyncratic singing style for something more "masculine" circa A New Morning, with decidedly unsexy results. Listening to 'Refugees' it's pretty clear to me that he's back to doing that thing he does, fortunately. He's still quavering away. Aaauuuuwwww.

Not at all? Maybe I'd forgotten exactly how bad the singing on A New Morning really was. But if you compare, well, Brave New Century in particular with anything before it, surely there's a definite qualitative difference? Perhaps it would help if I were more able to think of them as a new band with a slightly different vocal style, rather than wishing they could be early Suede. Oh, well.
 
  
Add Your Reply