Pitchfork travesties Of Montreal's latest - the obligatory response

So Pitchfork (or at least Robert Mitchum) doesn't much care for the new Of Montreal (review here). First, he claims that this is the first Of Montreal full-length which is not a concept album. Not true. Cherry Peel was, much like this release, simply a collection of great songs. Furthermore, although The Gay Parade and Coquelicot Asleep in the Poppies were putatively concept albums, the only discernible concept was something along the lines of, Let's do some songs about characters with fanciful names performing fanciful activities (but there were always exceptions even to that). On Aldhil's Arboretum, the concept is more along the lines of, Let's do some songs about people with real-life names doing real-life activities. Now this would only be a problem if real-life = boring. However, in this case, happily, it doesn't. Whether taking aim at personality-deprived husbands or extolling the virtues of kissing in the grass, Barnes consistently finds the amusing side of his chosen subjects.

Secondly, Mitchum asserts that these songs are more straightforward than previous efforts. Again, not true. Although more compact in length, these songs have every bit of the melodic zigs and zags that have always distinguished Barnes's work. And perhaps I am not the only Of Montreal fan who is actually a bit relieved that Barnes chooses not to include a 20-minute piano epic on every outing.

Third, Mitchum claims that this album is excessively "guitar-driven", with noodling over every track. I simply don't hear this. If anything, the most prominent instrument is typically the bass. Aldhil's features the best pop bass-lines this side of Paul McCartney's peak. And there is nary a noodle in sight. The songs are too tightly conceived and executed to allow for any noodling. Even the solos, as short as they are, sound composed.

Fourth, Mitchum accuses the band of ripping off the Beatles and Queen among others. Now if there is any ripping off going on here, you won't find the evidence of it in Mitchum's review. The parallels he cites are distant at best. "Doing Nothing" doesn't sound much like "I Feel Fine", and the same thing goes for the other comparisons that Mitchum draws. Now no one, least of all me, is going to claim that Of Montreal are purveyors of avant-garde chin-stroking music that has no recognizable influences. In fact, the band often goes for a retro kind of sound, one which unabashedly invokes the pop masters of yore. But their songs are far from being rip-offs or retreads, and considering that Pitchfork gave The Strokes a 9.1, they would be hypocritical to condemn Of Montreal for excessive nostalgia. The fact is that Of Montreal, much like the Strokes in their better moments, are breathing new life into classic forms.

So, far from being a let-down, in my view, this is quite possibly the best Of Montreal release yet. I think Barnes has focussed on his strengths, namely penning great pop songs, and restrained his more self-indulgent tendencies, and the end result is perhaps the funnest album to listen to that I've heard this year - a CD that demands to be put on continuous repeat play. This stuff may not be good for you, but if you have a sweet tooth like mine, it certainly won't be gathering dust on your shelf.