« Sunday Night Journal, March 5, 2017 | Main | Sunday Night Journal, March 12, 2017 »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Well, you managed to come up with a band that I'd never even heard of. "Never heard" is not unusual but "never heard of" is. I like these tracks.

Yeah, they're one of those bands that is much better known in the U.K. but has largely flown under the radar (ahem) over here.

Not sure if I'd have ever heard of them myself if not for that chance MTV video.

This is good news on the music front:


I subscribed to Rdio and really liked it. I hate Spotify. The new Pandora service uses a lot of technology that they bought from Rdio when it folded. But apparently it's initially going to be available for hand-helds, which is a big restriction for me.

I like the third Blue Aeroplane track the best of these three. I basically like what they're doing but its appeal is lessened by the fact that I can't understand the words at many points, and for the whole thing to work I really need to be able to understand them, without working at it, and they need to be good. I think the latter is the case but only on the quieter track can I get them fairly easily. It's partly the accent. I think even if he were reciting the words with no accompaniment I'd still miss things. If he were on tv I'd turn on the captions. :-) Partly it's my hearing, too, no doubt.

But then even when I was young I seemed to have more trouble than a lot of people understanding song lyrics. I heard "He really wasn't where it's at" as "He really wasn't wearing that."

The way he delivers the vocals reminds me of Lou Reed.

Maclin, That's because you weren't.


I know. I was probably 16 at the time, 17 at most, and the phrase was not part of the vocabulary in small-town Alabama at the time.

Yes, it is Lou Reed-ish, also Dylan-ish. I like the sound of it a lot.

I don't really pay too much attention to the lyrics here, although I do appreciate some of the wordplay. I tend to think of the words as a sort of hipster stream-of-consciousness thing, which is a part of the whole "song-package." And I like the package. In that sense it's somewhat similar to the way I listen to early REM or Cocteau Twins.

I can't understand REM and CT at all. In the case of CT that's not surprising since in their earlier (and imo best) stuff she generally isn't singing words at all. But both of those have melodies, really great ones in the case of the Cocteaus.

True. Then again, with the Aeroplanes, the guitar lines carry a lot of the melody. Most of the time if I find myself humming along, it's one of the guitar parts I'm humming.

A funny thing: a habit I've been trying unsuccessfully to break is browsing the new releases list on eMusic. If you don't see something like this regularly, you probably have no idea of how many cds (or "cds") are released every day--and eMusic doesn't even have the big labels. Hundreds every day, 50% or so of which are disposable dance tracks. I keep scanning the lists, hoping to spy something great. Yesterday what should appear but half a dozen or so albums by the Blue Aeroplanes. Not Swagger, unfortunately, though there is a "best of" compilation that includes the first two tracks in your post.

That's funny. You don't think that had anything to do with the fact that maybe you had previously googled them or something? You know how these search things work...

They do a good cover of Paul Simon's "Boy in the Bubble," which was a minor "alternative" success for them over here, and I think is the only song I've ever heard of theirs on the radio. Another favorite tune of mine is "Mercury," from the Life Model album.

No, it's just a static list, not anything user-specific. The compilation is called Huh!, btw.

Yes, I've seen that one.

Used copies of the first three major albums are generally pretty cheap on Amazon. I think that they were deleted or something when the record label (Chrysalis?) was acquired by someone else in the mid 90's.

Couldn't remember on which thread we were recently talking about David Lynch, but in case you hadn't seen it, last year's somewhat Lynchian film Nocturnal Animals has come out on DVD.

I say "somewhat" Lynchian because while it has some stylistic and narrative similarities to Lynch's work, it differs in that it is somewhat more straightforward in plot, and more directly displays its moral sensibilities.

Amy Adams and Jake Gyllenhaal both turn in very good lead performances, and Michael Shannon and Aaron Taylor-Johnson are excellent in important supporting roles (Shannon was nominated for an Oscar, and Taylor-Johnson won the Golden Globe.)

Here's IMDB's summary:

~~A "story inside a story," in which the first part follows a woman named Susan who receives a book manuscript from her ex-husband, a man whom she left 20 years earlier, asking for her opinion. The second element follows the actual manuscript, called "Nocturnal Animals," which revolves around a man whose family vacation turns violent and deadly. It also continues to follow the story of Susan, who finds herself recalling her first marriage and confronting some dark truths about herself.~~

I would add that a key element is that it's the reading of her ex's novel that brings her to confront those "dark truths," and the skillful weaving together of the two narrative strands is one of the things that makes the film work so well.

The level of "adult" matter in the film is no worse than that that shows up in Lynch's films, although I must say that the first few minutes of the film are somewhat disturbing, albeit in an unusual way, one having nothing to do with either sex or violence. My first reaction was "What the hell?," and I sincerely hoped that this opening sequence didn't telegraph the content of the rest of the movie. Well, it doesn't, but it does set a sort of tone, and the relevance of the scene becomes apparent a little later on.

Anyways, if you like Lynch, or "neo-noir" in general, I'd highly recommended it.

Update: Well, apparently Nocturnal Animals has been out on DVD for a month but I just noticed it yesterday.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)