The Magnetic Fields new album

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Has somebody listened to "i" yet? Is it any good?

― daavid (daavid), Monday, 3 May 2004 22:27 (twenty-one years ago)

on first listen - lyrically quite funny and musically covering a few different styles. i don't really like his voice that much, though - it still reminds me too much of that guy from the Crash Test Dummies for comfort.

― phil turnbull (philT), Tuesday, 4 May 2004 00:05 (twenty-one years ago)

"i" is closely tied to "69 Love Songs", lyrically and musically (obviously, this allows for quite a few styles, but the point is, there's no return to "Get Lost" or any earlier albums). A few of the songs - the near-perfect pop of "I Don't Believe You", the ridiculously fun dance of "I Thought You Were My Boyfriend", and the elegant closer, "It's Only Time" - are among Merritt's best, but the rest range from decent to poor ("Is This What They Used to Call Love" is quite a low point). Also, one occasionally gets the impression that the album is simply collecting outtakes from the "69 Love Songs" sessions, especially with "I Die" and "I Don't Really Love You Anymore", which are very close incarnations of "I Shatter" and "I'm Crazy for You But Not That Crazy", respectively. Overall, it's good, but don't expect to be blown away.

― Kareem Estefan (Kareem Estefan), Tuesday, 4 May 2004 00:27 (twenty-one years ago)

Don't worry, I don't.

― Paul in Santa Cruz (Paul in Santa Cruz), Tuesday, 4 May 2004 00:30 (twenty-one years ago)

it's great, i miss analog action and synth snap crackle pops but 'i thought you were my boyfriend' and 'marry me dude' (i forget its real name) are fantastic. it was a lil odd getting used to a normal length mag field release.

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 4 May 2004 00:52 (twenty-one years ago)

and daddino, matos i luvs you, you know this, but verging on dorkiness here.

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 4 May 2004 00:54 (twenty-one years ago)

imho

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 4 May 2004 00:54 (twenty-one years ago)

and you're verging on what, exactly?

― Matos W.K. (M Matos), Tuesday, 4 May 2004 01:04 (twenty-one years ago)

the danger zone apparently!

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 4 May 2004 01:10 (twenty-one years ago)

take a RIIIIDE into--the danger zo-o-ohooone!

anyway, what's dorky about that?

― Matos W.K. (M Matos), Tuesday, 4 May 2004 01:12 (twenty-one years ago)

also: are you one bit surprised, really? I mean, really?

― Matos W.K. (M Matos), Tuesday, 4 May 2004 01:12 (twenty-one years ago)

blount u my cuz but how is that article anything else than a well-written, well-considered article?

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Tuesday, 4 May 2004 01:20 (twenty-one years ago)

(look at it again, J0#n. there's a trick in there.)

― Matos W.K. (M Matos), Tuesday, 4 May 2004 01:20 (twenty-one years ago)

Are the vocals as prominent as they were on '69'?

― John 2, Tuesday, 4 May 2004 01:23 (twenty-one years ago)

oh wait I get it duh

cute, cute

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Tuesday, 4 May 2004 01:56 (twenty-one years ago)

cute or no, it's a considerate and well-written article. so "dorkitude" whatever.

― Matos W.K. (M Matos), Tuesday, 4 May 2004 01:58 (twenty-one years ago)

TS: "well-considered" vs. "considerate"

well-considered articles: show evidence of familiarity with their subject matter
considerate articles: hold the elevator door their subject matter, give up a seat on the bus for their subject matter if the subject matter is handicapped or elderly

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Tuesday, 4 May 2004 02:01 (twenty-one years ago)

haha.

― Matos W.K. (M Matos), Tuesday, 4 May 2004 02:08 (twenty-one years ago)

i think the "info@seattleweekly" tag at the end is the funniest part. is that always at the end of reviews? if so, quel convenience. in any case, i agree with the general overview of the album. it's quite pleasant, nothing surprising, but at this point it would be a little hard for Merritt to surprise us. i do love "i thought you were my boyfriend." it does, however, beg for a remix.

― spittle (spittle), Tuesday, 4 May 2004 03:25 (twenty-one years ago)

it's at the end of every piece, except when it's written by a staff writer, in which case the email address of the writer is at the end.

― Matos W.K. (M Matos), Tuesday, 4 May 2004 03:37 (twenty-one years ago)

I also like how spittle's posts fit the concept somewhat. it's just too bad it didn't do so completely. it's knowing people are playing along, though, that's half the fun.

― Matos W.K. (M Matos), Tuesday, 4 May 2004 03:38 (twenty-one years ago)

alphabetization is too hard for me. but i'm amused.

― spittle (spittle), Tuesday, 4 May 2004 03:39 (twenty-one years ago)

(which no doubt makes me a dork)

― spittle (spittle), Tuesday, 4 May 2004 03:40 (twenty-one years ago)

Wow I hadn't even noticed the second plank of the trick in Michael's review until Matos just drew attention to it.

― Tim Finney (Tim Finney), Tuesday, 4 May 2004 04:50 (twenty-one years ago)

haha took me a while even after that.

― cozen (Cozen), Tuesday, 4 May 2004 08:18 (twenty-one years ago)

Tim, email me plz.

― Matos W.K. (M Matos), Tuesday, 4 May 2004 08:21 (twenty-one years ago)

see, i have a hard time admitting the truth that s.m. has written some very good songs and is capable of doing so again, because i am so revolted by these high-concept crutches that he has been working with for a while. i can't even explain just why i'm revolted either, but it seems like this terrible cop-out. also one of the most distinctive things in earlier m.f. lps was the tinny electronic sounds he used to make his records, that gave them on occasion a weird sort of grandeur. a sound he seemed to have abandoned with "69 love songs"--is it back or does this new one continue in the more spare, often acoustic mode?

― amateur!st (amateurist), Tuesday, 4 May 2004 08:29 (twenty-one years ago)

I did the all-sentences-start-with-i-and-are-alphabetized thing not only because Merritt does it with his song titles, but because I knew it would free me from writer's block. I started with a list of I-words and I-sentence fragments, then wrote complete sentences, and eventually something sensible appeared. It sorta wrote itself, even though the construction of some of the sentences are a little forced. (Matos must take credit for the fabulous title.)

― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Tuesday, 4 May 2004 11:00 (twenty-one years ago)

yeah but you don't submit your rough drafts as papers usually

what i mean is, all this stuff from merritt about baring the process, baring the pop form etc, often seems like a get out clause to not write songs that work on several levels. so much of the stuff on 69 love songs was so anemic and underdeveloped, but i guess he thought that one catchy idea would be enough.

does that make sense? i've never been so disappointed in a musician as when merritt started falling for his own crap.

― amateur!st (amateurist), Tuesday, 4 May 2004 13:18 (twenty-one years ago)

Underdeveloped is OK if you're knocking out 69 songs.

What when (twelve? twenty?)

― mark grout (mark grout), Tuesday, 4 May 2004 13:20 (twenty-one years ago)

but why "knock out" 69 songs instead of really working at 11 or 122? the only imperative to do the 69 was to carry through this stupid high concept (which barely holds together) and to impress people with your "range."

i'm also a bit frustrated with myself--hence the vitriol--because i was really enamored of those early mf lps, like REALLY enamored, for a while and now i can barely listen to them.

― amateur!st (amateurist), Tuesday, 4 May 2004 13:22 (twenty-one years ago)

i meant to write 11 or 12

― amateur!st (amateurist), Tuesday, 4 May 2004 13:22 (twenty-one years ago)

.. and so did Stephin Merritt! boom boom.

― mark grout (mark grout), Tuesday, 4 May 2004 13:25 (twenty-one years ago)

serz now. 69 songs is great, theres a fine full single CD in there, many OK tracks, and 6 dead clunkers. As some kind of project I have pondered in the past, its a well realised one.

The prob is, I really still don't need another MagFi album.

― mark grout (mark grout), Tuesday, 4 May 2004 13:27 (twenty-one years ago)

recent Merritt interview thingin Salon.

You have to sign up for the free day pass
if you aren't subscribed to premium, but that just means clicking through a 5-second commercial for The Last Samurai.

It's not that great of an article, but worth reading for Merritt's snippy quotes re: Bjork, poetry, perfection/imperfection, the interviewer.

BTW, heard "i" and disliked it. Propriety in recording run amok!

― ben tausig (datageneral), Tuesday, 4 May 2004 13:34 (twenty-one years ago)

Passing resemblance to Bill Drummond?

― mark grout (mark grout), Tuesday, 4 May 2004 13:36 (twenty-one years ago)

I think it's about a clown.

― the bellefox, Tuesday, 4 May 2004 13:39 (twenty-one years ago)

i'm pretty much in complete agreeitude with amateurist here, even though i haven't heard the new one and still want to.

― s1ocki (slutsky), Tuesday, 4 May 2004 13:45 (twenty-one years ago)

yeah but you don't submit your rough drafts as papers usually

Don't be sure about that.

― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Tuesday, 4 May 2004 14:13 (twenty-one years ago)

I did the all-sentences-start-with-i-and-are-alphabetized thing not only because Merritt does it with his song titles, but because I knew it would free me
from writer's block. I started with a list of I-words and I-sentence fragments, then wrote complete sentences, and eventually something sensible
appeared. It sorta wrote itself, even though the construction of some of the sentences are a little forced. (Matos must take credit for the fabulous title.)

Hey wait, this post is alphabetized as well! *hides*

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 4 May 2004 14:21 (twenty-one years ago)

see, shit like this: "Stephin Merritt of the Magnetic Fields may be the best writer of love songs around today."

if i had a penny...

merritt seems to believe it too; or at least he puts on a character in interviews that pretends to believe it. either way it's silly, not least because he is NOT the best writer of love songs by any means.

69 love songs is like a grad thesis on pop form. if that is your cup of tea...

― amateur!st (amateurist), Tuesday, 4 May 2004 15:56 (twenty-one years ago)

unintentional irony alert, from salon article:

. "Even if it hadn't been a good record, it probably would have been written about, just because of the title and the concept."

― amateur!st (amateurist), Tuesday, 4 May 2004 15:56 (twenty-one years ago)

These are good points from amateur!st, and the thing is, when I initially heard the lies that "i" was going to be more personal, I thought it was bound to be a total failure. Merritt depends on his irony and self-plagiarism, which is why he is not the best love-song-writer alive, even if he can crank out more good love songs than anyone with the use of his formula. It's important to note that he's brilliant with his tricks...and I don't mean starting songs with the letter "i", which is clearly more "cute" than "brilliant", I mean alluding to love songs within love songs, recycling his own past material with tongue in cheek. To draw a parallel, some criticize Quentin Tarantino because he relies on gimmickry, allusions to pop culture, irony, etc., but many also hold that through these "cop-outs", a new form of portraying meaning emerges, which is arguably just as sincere as the more direct, "braver", gimmickless way to write. Ultimately, many will be turned away by the fact Merritt seems to care about pretenses more than the actual music, but still more will be drawn in by the pretenses, then will stick around when they find out that the music/lyrics are quite good.

― Kareem Estefan (Kareem Estefan), Tuesday, 4 May 2004 17:22 (twenty-one years ago)

The Guardian's review the other day seemed to me oddly dumb: it proceeded from the letter 'i' to the notion that the LP is personal. Perhaps it is, but that does not follow from the title. Also, it said that Merritt was improving, which I find hard to believe: I have never been able to dispel the feeling that his opus is done and the only way is down, or out.

― the bellefox, Tuesday, 4 May 2004 19:54 (twenty-one years ago)

i'm also a bit frustrated with myself--hence the vitriol--because i was really enamored of those early mf lps, like REALLY enamored, for a while and now i can barely listen to them.

-- amateur!st (amateur!s...), May 4th, 2004.

I felt the same way. When Get Lost came out and I subsequently heard all of the early ones, I would tell people that the Magnetic Fields were my favorite band. I initially thought 69 love songs was a career high but the subsequent disappointment of the 6ths record lowered my opinion somewhat. I miss the production style of the early records but I don't know of my inability to listen to them is due to hearing them too much or an altered opinion on Merrit's songwriting style.
I think the Salon article reveals, to a certain extent, that Merrit has lost something after the success of 69. He definitely seems somewhat joyless and too dismissive of new music to really grow.

― theodore fogelsanger, Tuesday, 4 May 2004 21:46 (twenty-one years ago)

Factoid from that Salon interview: Merritt disses Cole Porter and praises Momus.

― spittle (spittle), Wednesday, 5 May 2004 04:10 (twenty-one years ago)

Which makes me think Merritt and Momus should write a musical together. It could be in 74 acts, each named after a drink. They could call it Cocktails.

― spittle (spittle), Wednesday, 5 May 2004 04:16 (twenty-one years ago)

when I initially heard the lies that "i" was going to be more personal, I thought it was bound to be a total failure.

the "lies"?!

― s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 5 May 2004 04:33 (twenty-one years ago)

i can take a prog concept album about witches and woolly mammoths more than i can take these minimalist concept albums by merritt, nowadays

― amateur!st (amateurist), Wednesday, 5 May 2004 11:48 (twenty-one years ago)

The first time I listened to it, I remember being disappointed and by the second half the record was actually putting me to sleep. I could live without a third of the album, and the bad songs are really dull. But of course the more I listen to it now, the more I like it.

I can't see why everyone likes "I Don't Believe You", I don't know, it seems too easy and by-the-numbers for them. Clever word-play + pessimistic lyrics + fun with cliches etc. etc. but something about it makes it seems like hack-work to me. Plus I don't really care for the chorus, which is just plain stupid.

"I There's Such a Thing as Love" is the best thing on here. Does anyone else hear a sound in the back right after he sings "so your fireman i will be"? I'm tempted to say it's the electronic crash of a stressball but i could be wrong.

― Adam Bruneau, Wednesday, 5 May 2004 18:45 (twenty-one years ago)

why not, slocki? the album, like 69 love songs, covers a wide range of subjects very superficially and formulaically (these aren't bad things, i'm a fan); there's nothing intimate about it. plus, i interviewed merritt a while back, and he denied that it was any more autobiographical.

― Kareem Estefan (Kareem Estefan), Thursday, 6 May 2004 01:41 (twenty-one years ago)

it just seemed like a very intense word to use considering the context!

― s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 6 May 2004 02:13 (twenty-one years ago)

I purchased "I Don't Believe You" as a seven inch about a year before 69 Love Songs was released. It's a great song, the bridge is particulary nice, but it makes me skeptical of the new record that an old track like that is dusted off for release.

― theodore fogelsanger, Thursday, 6 May 2004 17:26 (twenty-one years ago)

i has no pop songs, aside from "I Don't Believe You." And the sentiments are different; it's an obvious anachronism.

The words are clearer on the new version, which I like, but I miss the noises. More and more, I miss the noises.

The best noises are on Old Orchard Beach.

― ben tausig (datageneral), Thursday, 6 May 2004 20:03 (twenty-one years ago)

that one goes too far for me

again though, i think the tinny electronics made his early stuff distinctive. his song sense, his melodic skills, were never what they were often reported to be.

― amateur!st (amateurist), Friday, 7 May 2004 06:38 (twenty-one years ago)

haha--Mike D got quoted on Slate! http://slate.msn.com/id/2099928/

― Matos W.K. (M Matos), Saturday, 8 May 2004 10:18 (twenty-one years ago)

The best noises are on Old Orchard Beach.

very true. and probably one of Merritt's best five tunes, to boot.

― the 'surface' 'noise' (electricsound), Saturday, 8 May 2004 10:42 (twenty-one years ago)

That line about gay wedding soundtrack is good. Maybe.

Independent interview yesterday: still harping on this idea that cos it's called 'i' it's about his real life. I just don't see that.

― the bellefox, Saturday, 8 May 2004 13:54 (twenty-one years ago)

I bought this thing a couple days ago and I'm pretty disappointed. The lyrics are unrewardingly ornate. There's some neat sonic textures but the melodies didn't grab me at all. His voice is REALLY stentorian and annoyingly grand dame. Very disappointing.

― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Saturday, 8 May 2004 16:10 (twenty-one years ago)

Imperial Boredom, sorry, I mean Bedroom starts with an I too.

― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Saturday, 8 May 2004 16:13 (twenty-one years ago)

five months pass...

Been playing catch up for a month, and I finally heard this album. I really like it. It's as if someone distilled 69 into a single disc sampling of what Merritt is capable of as a songwriter (well, some of *that* stuff can never really be replicated). Some of it is perfect -- "I Don't Believe You" is great! -- and some of is sloppy but fascinating (I Wish I Had an Evil Twin, the song about the clown). My only complaint about Merritt is that he does seem to get off on his knowledge of 20th century song craft and pop forms. The showtune thing is a little annoying.

Another thing I like: He sings all the songs this go around, making his homosexuality explicit but more importantly seems to be saying something about the male psyche -- his break-ups go very much like mine with women, which is to say obsessive, depressive and overdone. :-)

― Chris O., Tuesday, 12 October 2004 02:23 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm glad this thread got revived, 'cuz I forgot all about this album. That it came out, that I have it, that I mostly like it. I wonder where it is...

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Tuesday, 12 October 2004 03:51 (twenty-one years ago)

fifteen years pass...

The new one's pretty fun!
https://themagneticfields.bandcamp.com/track/the-biggest-tits-in-history

― Fuck the NRA (ulysses), Saturday, 16 May 2020 19:54 (five years ago)

two months pass...

Monday online

https://www.roughtrade.com/us/events/rough-trade-nyc-the-magnetic-fields-rough-trade-transmissions-1c07c2b7-2477-4791-a208-bd7be9eb2709

― brooklyn suicide cult (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 18 July 2020 17:18 (five years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.