Interpol
Interpol
Matador
Sept. 7
By Jason Cunningham
Interpol isn’t a bad band. Yes they’ve overrated and yes the hype that has consumed most of their career leaves a lot to be desired. This makes Interpol another forgettable band. Since Interpol has never really seemed worthy of their praise, my expectations for their latest release, the self-titled Interpol, were low to say the least. Judging from their third album, Our Love to Admire, it seemed like more bloated hipster garbage was going to be thoughtlessly tossed out into the listening space.
After listening to Interpol my expectations were more than satisfied. Opposed to the 1980s driven sound that made the band listenable in its brightest moments, the listener is given an album that depressingly drones on. It’s aimless, it’s boring and even at the album’s best points Interpol still finds a way to make a song’s highlights less pleasing. Each track clumsily dribbles out as drool down these uncreative chins.
Interpol’s leader Paul Banks, who may have his chin partly if not fully gone up his own ass, might remind listeners of that friend in high school who consistently made shitty post-punk music with lyrics that were meant to be dark. If that friend got a chance to release an album as a grown man it’d literally just be this. These songs aren’t the worst things to listen to, but at times are bad enough to warrant laughter. The response to Interpol hasn’t been too bad. Many critics have given the album favorable reviews. Ignore those critics.
This album isn’t bad enough to reach entertaining for the wrong reasons status and it’s not good enough to listen to twice. After the second listen I actually felt my day get a little worse having wasted energy that could have been focused on a better album.
Just skip this one. Pretend it doesn’t exist. Listen to the first two Interpol albums and remember what it felt like to wonder if this band’s potential would go anywhere impressive. So far I’m impressed with with how far downhill they’ve actually gone, slipping into a purely unmemorable sound that seems like it’ll stick.
Guest • Sep 17, 2010 at 9:25 am
This reviewer's descriptive power awes me. So this album is "bloated hipster garbage," "1980s-driven," "clumsy," "aimless," "not bad enough to reach entertaining for the wrong reasons status," and "not the worst thing to listen to, but bad enough to warrant laughter." Hmm. I still have no idea what this album actually sounds like.
Try describing the music itself and putting the album into the context of the band's career. Does it strive for the high watermark of "Turn on the Bright Lights" in all its sweeping, evocative grandeur? Is its itinerant, brooding violence peppered with flashes of color and romance, as in "Antics"? Does it descend into the overcooked, self-same indie-rock drivel that marred "Our Love to Admire"? Does the rhythm section still create the complex polyrhythmic grooves it once did? Has that chiming, reverb-soaked lead guitar lost its novelty? Has Banks been forcing his best Ian Curtis impression all along, or does he have something genuine to say? HELP ME OUT HERE.
For the record, if you were old enough to listen carefully when "Turn On the Bright Lights" came out, you'd know that it was among the seminal pop albums from 2000-2010 and a self-contained masterpiece, and you wouldn't have been wondering if Interpol's "potential would be going anywhere impressive," whatever the hell that means.