Everything Everything - 'Schoolin'
The brutal and sad news first: this probably won't trouble the chart compilers unduly.
This would be true at almost any time, but is especially relevant when the Top 40 is in a state of siege from football songs and Glee songs. And I'm fairly sure the band aren't really expecting it to go Top 10 in any case. It's a shame, but there we are.
So why mention the song in the first place? Well, there's the small matter of it being brilliant. And unusual. And brilliant. I mean sure, if you WANT to put up with cash-ins and rehashes for the next month or so, with no extra mental sustenance beyond your prized old songs of the past, by all means ignore me. But if you've an ear for something ELSE, this is worth a go.
(. It's animated.)
And they're from MANCHESTER! A city which, if left to its own devices, can sometimes seem to be a little too impressed with its own heritage, to the detriment of its musical future.
Which is strange because of all the big musical cities, Manchester's proudest achievement should be failing to come up with A Sound in the way that Liverpool had Merseybeat, Bristol had trip-hop and Glasgow has janglepop. The full Mancunian musical experience should be harder to pigeonhole, not least because of the amount of sonic rule books which have been ripped up along the way. It's not just about getting a Liam cut and swaggering around, is what I am saying.
Where was I? Oh yes, Everything Everything. Well, to anyone who likes a linear tune which builds towards a huge chorus, designed to transport a stadiumful of people into a blissful whole, this is going to seem like a bit of a mess. It's all jibber and twitch, and funky with it. It's got a brilliant electro "doot-doot" noise, and lyrics which either make no sense or are impossible to hear.
It also suffers with a bad case of too many ideas. It's got ideas the way children get chicken pox. They're everywhere! And just as itchy! Here's another one! And another! It's already been replaced by something else! Made of clicky noises! Startling, isn't it?
Anyway, the point is this: despite the arty coating and challenging presentation, this is pop music. It might demand a bit more in terms of attention and handling to get the best out of it, but that just makes it more precious.
Plus, and I really can't stress this enough, it's got that brilliant whistly "doot-doot" noise in it. What more do you need?
Download: Out now
91Èȱ¬ Music page
(Fraser McAlpine)
"Insanely fast-paced, rap like lyrics and the repetitive whistling that would get on your nerves if it wasn't for the rest of the song around it."
"'Schoolin' sounds more like the lead track off a Nelly album and to be fair, minus the crude misogyny."
"They're here to challenge every knee-jerk convention of indie rock and dance on the grave of pointless retrogression."
Comment number 1.
At 15th Jun 2010, CurtainJerker wrote:Manchester didn't come up with A Sound? What about Madchester/baggy? Very identifiable, and came from and is associated in the public consciousness with Manchester.
Am intrigued to hear this song that you're raving about. Will have a listen when I get home. (Not often I'm minded to do that from a Chartblog review these days.)
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 15th Jun 2010, Fraser McAlpine - wrote:The thing with Madchester's indie-dance hybrid is it DID come to define the city's musical output for a while, but you could just as easily say the Sound of Manchester is Joy Division/early Factory records/New Order. Certainly right now that's a bigger musical influence on the music of today.
And then there's Oasis, and the lasting influence of their anthemic rock, a sound which is very different to, say, Happy Mondays or 808 State.
My point being the glory of the place is the range of different sounds, not that they eventually gave us 'Definitely Maybe' and walking like a monkey spiv.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 15th Jun 2010, CurtainJerker wrote:I see what you're saying Fraser. I think the words you used ("Manchester's proudest achievement should be failing to come up with A Sound") seemed to imply that Manchester had never developed a signature style, when in reality you meant that it has more than one signature style and so can't be summed up as easily.
However, having clarified that, I'm still not sure I fully agree. I might be getting out of my depth here in going back to before my musical time, but whilst Madchester/baggy was definitely a "scene" (ie multiple famous bands from the same geographical region with identifiable connections in sound and style), were the other two that you mentioned?
Oasis were definitely (maybe) as Mancunian as you can get and made the city cool for my generation (at my school in Ayr, one Oasis obsessive mysteriously developed a Liam-swagger and a preposterous "a'right aah kid" accent at the age of 17). But they seemed like just one band continuing a great lineage, rather than part of an overall sound from Manchester (unless you count Northern Uproar).
I'm less confident about Joy Division/New Order, since that's before my ears properly kicked in. It's just that I'd say there was one identifiably "Manchester" sound from the beginning of the 90s; as well as a tradition of great individual bands that have come out of the city before and since then, which were not necessarily part of a sound. Just my view though.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 15th Jun 2010, Fraser McAlpine - wrote:I think there's a slight misreading there, if you don't mind me saying. What I said was:
"Manchester's proudest achievement should be failing to come up with A Sound in the way that Liverpool had Merseybeat, Bristol had trip-hop and Glasgow has janglepop."
Which to me means if they're going to be proud of something, it should be the diversity of sound that has come from the place. Anyone who thinks the Manchester Sound is just anthemic Oasisy rock, or even Madchester baggy, is missing the bigger picture.
It's a contentious point though. I'm glad you've picked me up on it. I would've just put "they don't sound like your archetypal Manchester band, but fit into the city's musical heritage beautifully", if I wanted to avoid a row. :-)
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 15th Jun 2010, CurtainJerker wrote:Fair enough. I don't think I misread what you wrote, so much as inferred one possible meaning from it which wasn't the intended one, but it's cool.
And no danger of a row here! If I wanted to row, I'd go onto Jedward and point out how transparent, redundant and derivative Lady Gaga's work appears if you remember Madonna in the 90s.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 15th Jun 2010, RandomEnigma wrote:No-one would row with you there, Curtains. We're all level minded people here...mostly!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)