Skip to main content

Review: Fleet Foxes

Many critics have been suggesting that the eponymous album from Fleet Foxes is the best of the year (from an American group). It is surely one of the oddest. Eschewing a booklet with lyrics or photos, one is instead presented with a flimsy inner flyer, which is mainly a rambling diatribe against holiday snaps, and an argument for the "power that music has, its transportive ability" - as opposed to photographs, which ruin the imagination.

Well, it is hardly transgressive or even novel to argue that music is persuasive - music has charms, as we all know. However, striking out against images is less bland - though vaguely fundamentalist (one thinks of the breaking of stained glass windows, or the blowing up of statues) - and, as well as being politically dodgy, is not well-founded. Many mystics, and others, have testified to the power of a vision, sometimes based on an image, or fetish object, to assist in the concentration on higher truths. Yeats used, for example, a Japanese sword. Photos may sometimes rob us of purer memories, but also, of course, provide memories where none were before. Films are an example of the sublime powers (transportive) of images.

Anyway, the Fleet Foxes album is lovely, and nostalgic. It's very well-textured, and moody - as its editorial note would imply - and has a "haunting" element that comes from the seasonal and elegiac themes - and use of echo chamber, folk instrumentation (especially tom-toms and chimes), and rather old-fashioned production sounds. It feels like a long-lost classic from the late 60s or 70s, maybe via Cat Stevens' "Morning Has Broken" - or some Walker Bros. work - but sadder than that. It really is beautiful songwriting. "Tiger Mountain Peasant Song" is particularly moving, as is, indeed, "White Winter Hymnal" (which owes much to Arcade Fire, in theme and tone - surely the subject of winter and childhood treated in such a fashion comes from that Montreal band). "He Doesn't Know Why" and "Your Protector" are the other standout tracks.

This sort of album was more common forty years ago, when quality in songcraft was more prevalent - and when soaring, heartfelt songs needn't be tediously anthemic, but could be offered in a more nuanced fashion. Highly recommended. And yes, listening to this I feel ten again, when I first really began checking out my parents' record collection, and falling in love with old records. I recall my first hearing my mother's 45 of "(Ghost) Riders in the Sky: A Cowboy Legend". I think it was the Vaughn Monroe version. Fleet Foxes has trace elements of that potency, that stirring grandiosity, especially in "Your Protector".

Comments

Anonymous said…
Good to hear. I saw them in Chicago a couple of weeks ago when they were here before the Pitchfork festival, and thought they were wonderful.

Popular posts from this blog

CLIVE WILMER'S THOM GUNN SELECTED POEMS IS A MUST-READ

THAT HANDSOME MAN  A PERSONAL BRIEF REVIEW BY TODD SWIFT I could lie and claim Larkin, Yeats , or Dylan Thomas most excited me as a young poet, or even Pound or FT Prince - but the truth be told, it was Thom Gunn I first and most loved when I was young. Precisely, I fell in love with his first two collections, written under a formalist, Elizabethan ( Fulke Greville mainly), Yvor Winters triad of influences - uniquely fused with an interest in homerotica, pop culture ( Brando, Elvis , motorcycles). His best poem 'On The Move' is oddly presented here without the quote that began it usually - Man, you gotta go - which I loved. Gunn was - and remains - so thrilling, to me at least, because so odd. His elegance, poise, and intelligence is all about display, about surface - but the surface of a panther, who ripples with strength beneath the skin. With Gunn, you dressed to have sex. Or so I thought.  Because I was queer (I maintain the right to lay claim to that

IQ AND THE POETS - ARE YOU SMART?

When you open your mouth to speak, are you smart?  A funny question from a great song, but also, a good one, when it comes to poets, and poetry. We tend to have a very ambiguous view of intelligence in poetry, one that I'd say is dysfunctional.  Basically, it goes like this: once you are safely dead, it no longer matters how smart you were.  For instance, Auden was smarter than Yeats , but most would still say Yeats is the finer poet; Eliot is clearly highly intelligent, but how much of Larkin 's work required a high IQ?  Meanwhile, poets while alive tend to be celebrated if they are deemed intelligent: Anne Carson, Geoffrey Hill , and Jorie Graham , are all, clearly, very intelligent people, aside from their work as poets.  But who reads Marianne Moore now, or Robert Lowell , smart poets? Or, Pound ?  How smart could Pound be with his madcap views? Less intelligent poets are often more popular.  John Betjeman was not a very smart poet, per se.  What do I mean by smart?

"I have crossed oceans of time to find you..."

In terms of great films about, and of, love, we have Vertigo, In The Mood for Love , and Casablanca , Doctor Zhivago , An Officer and a Gentleman , at the apex; as well as odder, more troubling versions, such as Sophie's Choice and  Silence of the Lambs .  I think my favourite remains Bram Stoker's Dracula , with the great immortal line "I have crossed oceans of time to find you...".