Quantcast
 Princess Stomper

10 REVIEWS OF THE NEW CULTS ALBUM – 4: the bad review (U.K.)

Decrease Font Size Increase Font Size Text Size Print This Page

by Princess Stomper

This isn’t my type of thing at all. My tapping toes haven’t realised this yet.

The first few bars – which have me straining to hear and wondering if my headphones are plugged in properly – remind me of the Rockabye Baby lullabye covers for tots. Then when things get serious, I’m hearing the shadow of Phil Spector. I recognise ‘Go Outside’ immediately. I recall hearing it, thinking it was fairly good, and thinking “what sort of a fucking stupid name is Cults?” when I tried to Google for info. It’s like trying to search for The The on YouTube. (I’ve tried. Futile.)

They’re the kind of band where you hear pretty much all there is to hear in one song. It’s 60s-style pop through the shimmering time-warp of (what the hell are we calling this decade?) lo-fi hipster pop-rock. By the sixth song (which follows the deliciously interesting ‘Walk At Night’), I’ve figured I’ve heard quite enough. If I don’t switch it off soon, I’ll find myself launching into an impromptu a capella take on ‘Rockin’ Around The Christmas Tree’, which should indicate just how twinkly and Spectorish (Spectral?) Cults’ album is.

Each song is only around three minutes long, which is a blessing. The repetitiveness becomes jarring – it actually gets boring – though never quite enough to stop listening altogether. At least closer ‘Rave On’ is sufficiently different to snap you out of your stupor. The song ends at an odd point, which is faintly unsatisfying, like the album it concludes. It’s just like a bag of those fun-sized Mars bars: nice to dip into, but a bit much if you try to wolf the lot in one go.

5 Responses to 10 REVIEWS OF THE NEW CULTS ALBUM – 4: the bad review (U.K.)

  1. Princess Stomper May 27, 2011 at 6:46 pm

    … I’ll get my coat.

  2. hannah golightly May 28, 2011 at 12:33 am

    Cults does sound like a stupid name, but bear in mind that most of the good names have been taken by now (if you don’t believe me, start a band and go register your name online and find that 17 other bands in the world are sharing it.) It would be a stupid name for any other band. But haven’t you noticed the Cults theme in the lyrics and song titles? It suits them. They also hark back to an era where Cults were always in the news. I think it’s cool that the band has such a cohesive identity and vibe. I think the samples of Cult leaders that they use create a cool edge to their sweet as sugar pop sound and reminds us that there’s more going on with them than meets the eye. I also think that if the name Cults is unsearchable, then that’s pretty punk (aka cool in my world) and sets them apart from the over hyped, over advertised crappy music that record companies attempt to drill into us by force of repetition. It adds to their mystery- and in real life Cults closely guard their identities and keep a tall wall of secrecy around their compounds. Then again, I am sure if you’d thought about it, you’d expect such a response from me on this one. You know how in love I am with Cults and “I won’t let no one talk shit about my boyfriend” 😉

  3. Princess Stomper May 28, 2011 at 3:33 am

    Hahaha … well, I’m glad that’s all you could take issue with – I’m deeply embarrassed about a couple of factual gaffes I made above. I was indeed referring to “Cults” being unsearchable, rather than it being a silly name per se. I still prefer Ian Astbury’s lot, though. 🙂

  4. hannah golightly May 28, 2011 at 4:12 am

    I respect your opinion and expected it based on your supportive comments on my original Cults story on here, where you said that they didn’t move you the way they obviously move me. So fair play to you.

  5. Princess Stomper May 28, 2011 at 5:31 pm

    Oh wow, I had completely forgotten about that!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.