"The Monkees" Rewatch: The Audition (Find the Monkees)

“The Audition” (aka “Find the Monkees”) begins with the group’s pad being invaded by Martians. And a trio of secret agents. And some apparently not copyright infringing jolly green giants. The three gimmicky rival bands each tell the boys they’d received invitations to audition for TV producer Hubbell Bensen, who is looking for a singing group to star in a new show. Despite being “as bad as any of other group in town” the Monkees are disappointed that they seem to be the only group to not get an invitation. As they lay around the pad depressed Davy suggests sending a tape recording they’d previously made to Mr. Bensen. Unfortunately, before returning the rented tape recorder, Micky forgot to take the recording with him, so instead the boys decide to visit Mr. Bensen in person at NBC Studios. Meanwhile, Miss Chomsky, Bensen’s beleaguered secretary, rented a tape recorder which just so happened to have the Monkees’ recording on it. Bensen’s immediately taken with the recording of “Mary. Mary,” proclaiming, “That’s the group I’m looking for!” After searching through booking agents, talents scouts, record companies, disc jockeys, and others with no leads, Bensen eventually decides to tell the press his problem to gain publicity and find the group.

One thing I wanted to note about this episode is that, like “I Was A Teenage Monster” before it, it has a sort of meta quality to it given that it’s about the band getting a TV show where they will presumably play  a band, who will “play my [Bensen’s] theme song.” Granted, it doesn’t have quite the resonance or room for commentary of Monster, this case of the band playing a band trying to get a gig to play a band is just kinda funny to point out.

Speaking of comparisons to earlier episodes, as briefly touched on, this episode goes by two names, “The Audition” and “Find the Monkees.” As I said in my post on “Too Many Girls,” the multiple names for some episodes confuses me and I wanted to try to find some sort of possible explanation for it. The closest thing to a concrete answer I could find was from the Anorak Zone, which says the alternate titles resulted from “repeat episodes being billed with different names, or early working titles being confused with the finalised ones.” I say closest thing, because while the latter portion makes sense, I don’t get the former. I’m not sure if that’s due to the phrasing or me overcomplicating things. Though, to be honest, it probably is just me overcomplicating it, so I’ll try to drop it.  

On a completely different note, this episode ends with an interview about long hair, getting into fights, and then recent “riots” and vandalism on the Sunset Strip involving teenagers protesting a curfew and laws that prevented people under eighteen from attending clubs that serve alcohol even if the clubs specifically cater to teenagers. Now, I don’t know enough about this particular situation to have an opinion on it one way or another, but I did want to point out two quotes from the interview that I find particularly interesting. The first being the last statement before the credits roll, which is Davy saying, “The reason I haven't spoken all this time is because that it doesn’t matter what I say nobody’ll listen to me because I’m under twenty-one, so I’m just keeping my mouth shut.” He smiles slightly as he says it, but wow, talk about a truth bomb. It’s no wonder the episode ends there and pretty pointedly, I’d say. I mean, his statement shows the paternalistic notions the protests were pushing back against, notions acted on without any concern to what the people directly affected by the laws know, want, or need. Or as Peter put it, “Nobody listens to kids talking for kids because kids are only kids.”  And while I’m on the subject of sentiments expressed here that sadly remain very relevant to this day, I want to close with this quote from Micky: “There haven’t really been riots. They’ve been in actuality, since I, since I was there, they’ve been demonstrations. And uh, but I guess, a lot of people and journalists don’t know how to spell ‘demonstration’ so they use the word ‘riot’ ‘cause it only has four letters.”

"The Monkees" Rewatch: I Was A Teenage Monster

The premise of “I Was A Teenage Monster” is actually pretty simple: the Monkees have been hired by scientist Dr. Mendoza to teach “a youngster” to play rock ’n’ roll, but start to have doubts once they find out the “little monster IS a little monster” of a Frankenstein’s monster variety. (Or is he a machine?) Soon they discover the doctor’s real intention of “teaching” the monster by stealing their musical abilities and then wiping their memories. So, the boys must find a way to regain their talents and thwart his “avaricious ambitions” for the Singing Android (aka Andy.)

Straight up, I adore this episode! It has so many great moments. Plus, it gives me a chance to talk about magical realism! While I’ve talked in the past about the series’ tendency to stretch one’s suspension of disbelief fairly wide, shall we say, “Teenage Monster” is likely the most overt example of magical realism up to this point. Now, the definition of “magical realism” might seem self-evident, but for clarity’s sake (and to put my English degree to some use): Magical realism is an artistic genre and tradition from Latin America that basically presents a grounded reality where some magical or mythical elements exist unexplained and accepted as if ordinary, often for the sake of some sort of (mostly political) commentary. Obviously it shares characteristics with other genres, like sci-fi, fantasy, science fantasy, surrealism, etc., and the overlaps can make it a bit hard to categorize. It seems like the big thing that characterizes it is the fact that it’s all played very mundane and just how things are. I don’t know if the writers of this episode were consciously trying to fit into the genre or if it actually technically does fit into it, but I think the argument could be made. After some initial fear the band does just act as normal and accepts their memory loss and the idea that Dr. Mendoza could and did transfer their musical abilities to Andy. Of course, the question of whether or not Andy is a “monster” or very sophisticated machine complicates things, because if he is a machine then the episode might be more sci-fi/fantasy. However, between Mendoza’s assistant Groot asking to be turned into a Wolfman and all the music seeming to emanate from Andy (instead being proficient at the instruments), I think the magical realism description still kinda fits.

Something that really struck me while watching the episode for this blog was the scene where the boys attempt to teach Andy rock ’n’ roll, specifically their priorities. Before teaching him anything about actually playing an instrument or singing, they gave him a new name, a Beatle haircut, “groovy clothes,” a guitar he couldn’t play, and a choreography lesson from Davy and Peter. Basically the image trumped all and, well, the music would eventually be fed into him later. I’m probably not the first to point this out and frankly I’m surprised it never dawned on me before, but the parallels between the monster in this episode and the Monkees’ own creation (right down to turning on their respective creators) are really interesting. Now, this episode had been written and filmed before behind the scenes tension erupted over music and input from the Monkees’ members, so I doubt (though I could certainly be wrong) this episode was intended as a commentary on the manufactured nature of the group. However, more pointed commentary on their construction and the constraints that resulted does become a theme in later output. It’s funny to see, though perhaps inadvertently, how early it started.

"The Monkees" Rewatch: The Case of the Missing Monkee

“The Case of the Missing Monkee” begins with Professor Schniztler (one of America’s greatest scientists) concluding a speech at a banquet where the Monkees provide the entertainment. When Peter tells him how much he enjoyed the speech, the jittery professor gives Peter a note, “I am being taken to the Remington Clinic.” After Mike ignores Peter’s attempt to show him the note, Peter goes looking for the professor.  Once the others realize he’s disappeared Mike finally reads the note and the boys leave the gig to find Peter. Once the police and the clinic’s nurse are no help Mike, Davy, and Micky choose to break into the building and disguise themselves as patients in order to search for Peter and save the professor before the culprits smuggle him out of the country.

I have to say this is a good episode, but must admit that figuring out what to write about took a while. The episode is very funny, of course, but no big moment that stood out to focus on; instead quick lines of dialogue and visual gags that would just seem to piecemeal to write out. However, a couple ideas did eventually seem worth expanding on.

For some reason with this episode it really struck me how odd the Monkees’ gigs were in comparison what one might assume. Remember they’re meant to be teenagers (though Mike’s stated age is 21) and they’re a rock & roll band, yet they’re playing fancy balls, Italian restaurants, and banquets for famous scientists? Granted, they have gigs at the Vincent Van Gogh-Gogh as well as Valerie and Vanessa’s parties, which make sense as a club and parties for young people, respectively. Sure, whether in the show or out, the Monkees were never the most threatening rock act in terms of image (reality being far more complex, of course), it just seems weird considering the “long-haired weirdos” attitude the band gets from many older folks on the show.

Something else that stuck out to me from “The Case of the Missing Monkee” is Peter’s line, “Why am I always the one to play dumb? Why can’t I play smart once in a while?” I think that’s a fair question. Now, of course, I realize that the real answer lies in sitcom characters needing to fit into certain archetypes and every show “needs” a designated doofus, like Rose Nylund from The Golden Girls. But why? And why should Peter specifically be singled out as such, considering that up until this point the others have definitely had their own moments of stupidity? (Like, Davy in “Too Many Girls” and Mike and Micky in “Dance, Monkee, Dance.”) I don’t have any answers, unfortunately, but as the series goes on and Monkees output becomes more meta “Peter the Dummy” becomes a frequent topic of discussion. 

"The Monkees" Rewatch: Son of a Gypsy

“Son of a Gypsy” starts with the Monkees waiting to find out if they’ll be chosen to play Madame Rantha’s ball. They wait along with Maria and her sons, Marco, Rocco, Zeppo, Kiko, a group (and possible Marx Brothers reference) who plays “gypsy music” and want the gig in order to steal the Maltese Vulture. When the Monkees get the gig Maria invites the band to their camp “to show that there are no hard feelings” and to blackmail them into stealing the vulture. After some dancing, good luck charms, tea leaves, and knife throwing, Maria gives them the choice between torture and stealing the vulture, the latter which they initially refuse. Once they acquiesce to the scheme, Maria and her sons take Peter hostage while the rest of the band plays the gig and attempts to locate the vulture before it hits midnight and “then it’s curtains for Peter.”

Last time, when discussing “Too Many Girls,” part of me wanted to make an ironic, facetious “that’s racist!” joke at the line, “He’s English, he likes tea,” but hohohohohoooooh, man, this episode makes me legitimately uncomfortable. Way back at the start of The Monkees Rewatch I mentioned that there were some episodes in season two that I hadn’t watched much or at all and looking back, I really should’ve just said of the series as a whole. For whatever reason the latter half of season one also has a bunch of holes for me, which includes this episode. So basically “Son of Gypsy” is new to me and I went into it hoping (perhaps naively) it wouldn’t be riddled with horrible stereotypes, but I was wrong and since it doesn’t have any kind of nostalgia factor for me, I have difficulty looking beyond my discomfort. Admittedly, I’m not Romani, so I’m not about to be presumptuous and tell anyone how they should or should not feel about it. All I’m trying to say is that it made me feel icky. And yes, given the show’s age it is by no means the only episode hinged on stereotypes. Age doesn’t excuse such things, obviously, but I also don’t think a few problematic elements render an older work utterly worthless. Still, yikes, man. I don’t know… I feel like I’m just rambling at this point.

I don’t have much else to say about it, honestly, though I will admit the second half of the episode with distracting the guards and stealing the vulture is funny. I mean, it has Micky Dolenz doing a silly voice and Mike Nesmith being goofy, so it kinda goes with the territory. Also, I don’t remember if I mentioned this in another post, but the performance footage for “I’m a Believer” moves oddly slow on shots of Peter and Davy. It’s very strange and quite distracting. I don’t get it. If anyone can offer any explanation for it, I’m all ears. 

"The Monkees" Rewatch: Too Many Girls (Davy & Fern)

“Too Many Girls” opens as the title implies; too many girls lurk around the Monkees’ pad in the middle of band practice and distract Davy. After the others manage to (briefly) shoo them all out Davy vows he’ll “never look at another girl, ever.” Despite the boys’ “best” efforts (like surrounding him when they walk in public) the vow is, of course, immediately put in jeopardy. Their troubles deepen when they visit a tea room operated by pushy, conniving stage mother Mrs. Badderly desperate to nab Davy as partner for her daughter Fern’s amateur hour act. Part of her plan involves using tea leaves to persuade them that Peter will get a virus, Mike will get a flat tire, and within twenty-four hours Davy will meet a girl and fall in love so hard he will leave home, because “the tea leaves never lie!” With some extra help from a nail and pepper, the boys are convinced and keep Davy locked up in the pad until a telegram sends him dragging a chair to judge a beauty pageant where a blurry Fern is the only contestant. After some batted eyelashes and more tea leaves, Davy decides to help Fern with her performance and it’s up to Billy Roy Hodstetter, Locksley Mendoza, and the Astonishing Pietro to bring him back to some sense.

While it’s hilarious to watch Locksley Mendoza that out-hack Mr. Hack, I gotta be honest here: this episode rests on probably the stupidest piece of Sitcom Logic in the series. I think I’ve used the term before and I should probably explain exactly what I mean by it. Basically, Sitcom Logic refers to the often stupid characteristics and behaviors exhibited by sitcom characters that no rational human would take part in it, but the comedy hinges upon their existence. It’s basically a specific brand of plot contrivance. Incidentally, I find it interesting that “contrived” is often used as a criticism when analyzing narrative media. I mean, technically speaking, most if not all art is contrived on some level, but a good craftsman of their art can keep you from seeing those strings (unless, of course, seeing those strings is the entire point.) Now, The Monkees series calls attention to its strings plenty and does well at making the audience ignore them when it wants. Neither of which happens in the case of “Too Many Girls,” because I find it impossible to overlook Davy’s total stupidity. Like, dude would’ve been completely safe from the consequences of so-called prophetic tea leaves if he had stayed in the pad for just that one measly day. One! Like, come on! I can begrudgingly forgive and understand superstition, but not that.  And yeah, yeah, I know this is pretty much a “why didn’t the eagles take the Ring to Mordor?” situation where doing the “sensible” thing would result in no story at all (and no Billy Roy Hodstetter would indeed be a loss), but… man, there had to have been a better way to go about it.

I also wanted to touch on the fact that this is one of a few episodes in the series to have an alternate or subtitle. I’ve already discusses a few, like “One Man Shy” and “Here Come the Monkees.” It’s an aspect of the series that always kind of confused me in that I don’t know why they just couldn’t settle on a title for the episodes in question. Of course, as someone who often has a difficult time settling on one word to describe things (hell, I’ve done it a few times in this very post), I know I have no room to judge. I’m just curious. I know these posts are meant to mostly be off the cuff and loose, but maybe this is one thing I should try to look into, see what I can find, and report back on when the next dual title wielding episode comes up.

Daily Album Digest: September 6 - October 3, 2015

Carrying on February's Music Writer's Exercise (#MWE), each day I listen to a new album and tweet a brief review of it. Then every two weeks compile those tweets here with some extra thoughts.

9/6: Ben Folds' So There: Ben Folds and chamber music/baroque pop? Oh, yes. Highlights: "F10-D-A" and "Phone in a Pool"

Why? Featured on NPR’s First Listen.

Additional Thoughts: Ben Folds is one of those artists so good that I wish I listened to them more often, but paradoxically can only apparently handle their genius in small doses. I just… ugh, the man is brilliant, truly. So much so that what can really be said about his work? But, of course, I’m here to at least try to say something. So. As the cover says, So There contains “8 chamber rock songs with yMusic” and the three movement “Concerto for Piano and Orchestra” performed by the Nashville Symphony. The melodies on “Phone in a Pool” and “Yes Man” are simply gorgeous. “Yes Man” also serves as a great example of Folds’ ability to balance humor and sincerity, both overall and sometimes even in the same song. It’s a tricky line to walk and a lesser artist would fall flat on their face, their credibility flung out of their hands along the way. This skill isn’t new to Folds, as evidenced by Way to Normal’s “Hirsoshima,” but I find it remarkable, nonetheless.

9/7: Janet Jackson's Janet Jackson: Very of 1982, for good and ill. Decent dance songs can't compensate for its weaknesses.

Why? I know was going through Green Day’s discography, but I suddenly remembered that while getting caught up on Janet earlier this year, I neglected her first two albums.

Additional Thoughts: I suppose I should expand on the “very of 1982” bit. Well, I say that because of the combination of disco touches in tracks like “You’ll Never Find (A Love Like Mine)” and the vaguely Gap Band-esque (but not nearly as funky) aspects of others, like “Young Love.” I don’t know, the album does a pretty good job of summing up my image of dance music in the early eighties. The album does have some duds, of course, most notably the saccharine ballad “Love And My Best Friend.” The problem with the record, even on the good tracks, is the fact that, at 16, Janet is noticeably shy and didn’t yet have her powerful stage presence and many tracks could’ve benefited from some extra confidence.

9/8: Grace Potter's Midnight: Striking in its variety and Miss Potter's powerful voice, particularly on "Delirious."

Why? 2015 release.

Additional Thoughts: Midnight is the solo debut from Grace Potter frontwoman of the “rootsy” band Grace Potter and the Nocturnals. As said in the tweet, this album covers and mixes a wide variety of genres, such as pop, rock, gospel, country, soul, R&B, and even disco, like on the aforementioned “Delirious.” Another stand out is “Instigators,” which sounds like the rowdy child of “Layla” and the White Stripes. Add in her powerful, raspy voice and on paper it seems like it shouldn’t work, but it does; due in large part to Grace’s commanding voice and presence. Seriously, she can wail. It’s a strong, great record, but unfortunately it was met with blowback from male Nocturnals fans that called it a sell-out move and accused Grace of, how do I put this, turning herself into a “pop tart” via sexy photoshoots. Now, I have yet to listen to any of her previous band’s work and will concede this record is quite polished, but ehh… the comments I saw just felt like gatekeeping and typical latent misogyny that pervades dude-helmed music fandom. Maybe I’m wrong on that, but I can’t help but be suspicious when such criticism is thrown at smaller acts, particularly when they’re women.

9/10: Janet Jackson's Dream Street: If Control shows Janet in full bloom, Dream Street planted the seeds.

Why? Rounding out what’s left of her discography before Unbreakable.

Additional Thoughts: What a difference a couple years makes! While Janet is still a ways away from pulling off the likes of “Nasty” or “If,” she is most definitely on the road there. Dream Street is, by probably every metric, better than her debut. The album’s finally three songs (“Hold Back the Tears,” “All My Love To You,” and “If It Takes All Night”) are fantastic dance/R&B tracks and it’s a shame that this period gets ignored in Janet’s set lists.

9/11: The Libertines' Anthems for Doomed Youth: Ironic that its very existence is remarkable, yet it feels a bit safe.

Why? New release.

Additional Thoughts: The Libertines are a weird case for me. I enjoy their stuff well enough, but came to them after things had gone to hell for them and therefore don’t have the deep love and nostalgic affection many folks have. It’s that same love and affection that made this record something people hoped would exist one day and, after everything, it’s damn near miraculous that it does. And while I wouldn’t call this album bad (good bits, like “Heart of the Matter.” are about on par with good early Libertines tracks), I worry the pedestal the band’s been placed on might cause folks to be too harsh or too kind to it – myself included. I mean, on the one hand. I want growth, but on the other hand, I can see why they’d want to tread lightly and given how this project could’ve very well gone horribly wrong to the point of not coming to be at all, I almost feel bad saying anything negative about it. I don’t know. I guess we’ll have to see what, if anything, follows this and hopefully that will give better perspective on this record.

9/15: Beirut's No No No: Feels sparse at times, perhaps, but it has some shining moments, like "Gibraltar."

Why? 2015 release.

Additional Thoughts: Positives first: the album is loaded with very, very pretty melodies, such as “As Needed.” They have an almost McCartney feel to them. Unfortunately, Beirut tends to hammer on them too much, for too long, so they don’t go anywhere and the repetition quickly weakens them. Add to that, sparing instrumentation, half mumbled vocals, and repetitive lyrics and one can’t help but feel like one is caught in a loop. An often pretty loop, yes, but still one that gets old after a while. It can be very lovely; I just wish it was more… dynamic.

9/18: Darwin Deez's Double Down: Bright and catchy with tinges of nostalgia and familiarity, like on "The Mess She Made."

Why? New release and I must confess the cover made me curious.

Additional Thoughts: The aforementioned familiarity tends to manifest in melodies and such that feel like the Strokes, Weezer, and even grunge. A more specific example is “Lover” with guitars and vaguely Eastern touches that make it feel like it could’ve been on the Beatles’ Revolver. (Plus it has the ridiculous line, “No I don’t care to meet your parakeet,” which I can’t help but love.) I can see how this might work for and against the record. On the positive side, it does reveal a variety of influences, but on the negative, it’s not exactly reinventing the indie rock/pop wheel. The album does have a lot of charm, so which side you come down on, I guess, really depends on what you want out of it.

9/27: Ought's Sun Coming Down: "Beautiful Blue Sky" uses semantic satiation well and, in doing so, proves its own point.

Why? 2015 release and the review on the NeedleDrop made me curious.

Additional Thoughts: Semantic satiation comes into play in the chorus of “Beautiful Blue Sky,” which is multiple small talk questions repeated incessantly and insistently. It can be grating. It does prove the point that such small talk is done automatically and thoughtlessly to the point of losing all meaning, but it’s still grating. In a way, that’s indicative of the album as a whole for me, in that I mostly get what the album’s going for, but care for it. For instance, the vocals are often done in a spoken word way that sometimes sounds like Mick Jagger doing a silly voice. And the music, at times, I think, tries to be manic and chaotic, but it comes off incoherent and jumbled. Or I don’t know, maybe I’m wrong on all that. I just know that, aside from maybe “Passionate Turn,” it doesn’t work for me.

9/28: Green Day's Nimrod: A lot to digest at once; luckily most of it is quite good. Highlight: "Redundant"

Why? I’m currently working through their discography.

Additional Thoughts: This album is like when you eat a steak but realize too late that you cut off too big of a piece and you keep trying to chew because it’s really flavorful and yet you still can’t ignore the fat that comes with it. Also, I must be honest and say that I chose “Redundant” as a highlight largely due to it being my favorite Green Day song. Honestly this album has many highlights (“Last Ride In,” “Worry Rock,” “Hitchin’ A Ride,” just to name a few), but at eighteen tracks, it’s a lot. Granted, Billie Joe is so skilled in melody that even though it can feel like too much, it at least it always sounds good. Plus, the old “too much of a good thing” comes up again with Green Day only with much more mixed results in their 2012 triple album, so I can forgive Nimrod. Besides, “King for a Day” instantly makes up for any shortcomings.

10/1: The Rolling Stones' Between the Buttons: Though all originals, the most interesting songs seem to riff on others.

Why? I’m currently taking a course on the Stones and slowly working their catalog as a result.

Additional Thoughts: Okay, first off, the US version was included in the RS500, so I can’t get too deep into this one just yet. But I just wanted to say that I don’t necessarily mean that tweet in a negative way. Much of the critique around Between the Buttons I’ve read thus far describes this period as an identity crisis for the Stones. I don’t know that I agree with that. I feel like that’s perhaps the case if one thinks the band was only ever in one little, very blue box to begin with and that certainly wasn’t reality, even on their debut. Two of the stand out tracks here are “All Sold Out” and “Please Go Home,” which quite obviously owe much to the Beatles and Bo Diddley, respectively. Is that a bad thing? Not inherently. Do they stand out because of Diddley and Beatle overtones? Maybe? But I wouldn’t dismiss them as mere rank imitation either.

10/2: Janet Jackson's Unbreakable: As the title track fades Janet says, "I'm glad you're still here." Same here, J.

Why? New release and c’mon, it’s Janet! I’m not going to let myself fall behind on her again.

Additional Thoughts: Like Nimrod (and most of Janet’s albums), Unbreakable is a long affair. With seven years between it and Discipline, the length makes sense, as Janet says in the title track, “Lots to talk about” - and it’s true. Love, loss, looking forward, looking back (and more) are all topics and themes touched on and make this Janet’s most introspective album since probably The Velvet Rope. Like TVR, it also can be moody and dark, but it has plenty of light (and dancing), too. 

All albums available to stream on Spotify. 

If you'd like to suggest an album, comment on this entry, tweet me, or ask on Tumblr.

Daily Album Digest: August 23 - September 5, 2015

Carrying on February's Music Writer's Exercise (#MWE), each day I listen to a new album and tweet a brief review of it. Then every two weeks compile those tweets here with some extra thoughts.

8/25: Carly Rae Jepsen's Emotion: If Kiss is cotton candy Emotion refines that sweetness into something more subtle. 

Why? 2015 release.

Additional Thoughts: Kiss is a great pop record that I was probably too harsh on back when I discussed it here. Or, maybe it would be more accurate to say that the subject I chose to discuss regarding the album made me seem harsher on the record itself than I was in reality. Either way, it’s an undeniably fun record, regardless if major label interference played a part in it or not. Carly Rae’s trajectory has been such that it feels weird and incorrect (though not technically wrong) to call this record mature or something along those lines. I think Emotion provides a balanced mix of the pop on Kiss and the singer-songwriter tendencies and themes from Tug of War, such as on “LA Hallucinations.” And the songs are just great, especially “Gimmie Love” and “Making the Most of the Night.” Plus, it must be said, it’s a much better 80s throwback than 1989 (particularly “All That.”)

8/27: Green Day's Insomniac: If there's at least one difference between this and Dookie, it's aggression.

Why? I have a list of discographies I want to get through. This time around I decided on Green Day.

Additional Thoughts: Many critics got on this album’s case for not being much of an artistic leap. And while I do understand that to a point, I don’t think it’s fair to expect every album to be monumental leap forward for an artist or the medium as a whole. They don’t all need to be groundbreaking, watershed moments. Besides, Insomniac does feel very different from Dookie. It’s certainly louder and more aggressive musically than Dookie. Also, Dookie has an undercurrent of anger to it that is smoothed out by poop jokes and references to masturbation, but on Insomniac that juvenile humor is gone and you just get the straight anger, like on “86.” Plus, it has “Brain Stew,” man! Arguments, invalid, yadda yadda, you know the drill.

8/28: Sea Lion's Desolate Stars: Quite beautiful, though her childlike vocals may be something of an acquired taste.

Why? New release.

Additional Thoughts: Stereogum describes (http://www.stereogum.com/1826141/stream-sea-lion-desolate-stars/mp3s/) this project as “whisper-folk,” which is quite fitting. The music of Sea Lion shifts between moody and mellow, almost brooding, so when Linn Osterberg’s voice comes in it creates a very interesting, captivating contrast. Childlike is the best way to describe the vocals in both sound and in that they have an unassuming, almost shy quality about them. I have difficulty thinking of anyone who sounds like Osterberg. The closest might possibly be Jewel when she sings in higher registers, but Linn has such a unique voice that comparison doesn’t feel satisfying. 

8/30: Dragonette's Galore: It'd be too easy to bog this down with reductive comparisons; this is some great synthpop.

Why? Spotify recommended it because of Marina & the Diamonds.  

Additional Thoughts: Alright, let’s get this out of the way: from the first seconds of opening track “I Get Around,” Dragonette sounds like The Fame-era Lady Gaga with sweeter singing. Of course, no one (least of all Gaga) has the market cornered on synthpop/new wave, but Galore’s physical US release came a few months after Gaga’s debut, which I bet invited the comparison a lot (along with comparisons to Gwen Stefani); understandably so, sure, but not really fairly. As I said, no one can claim any one genre and I think sometimes (while helpful) comparisons can be reductive and lack nuance if relied on too much. Anyhow, the attitude and brazenness in tracks like “Competition” and “Jesus Doesn’t Love Me” may stick more in some folks’ minds, but the album also has plenty of sweetness, such as “Another Day” and “Gold Rush.” Initially, I felt like the only real misstep on it was “The Boys,” a bonus track for the US edition written and cover of Calvin Harris. But now, while I can still see why it made me cringe, I find it kinda charming in its own weird way. It might be one of those tracks like “Hollaback Girl” or “Fergalicious,” which you reject at first listen, but eventually you can’t help but love. (And don’t bother lying, you know you do.)

8/31: Green Day's Kerplunk!: One can't deny the heart behind tracks like "Christie Road" and "Who Wrote Holden Caulfield?"

Why? I’m currently working through their discography.

Additional Thoughts: Kerplunk! serves as a good transition from the band’s debut to their big breakthrough Dookie. It even has an early version of “Welcome to Paradise,” which is awesome. More importantly, a lot of the heart that plays a huge part in their work also comes more to the forefront in tracks like the nostalgic “Christie Road” “No One Knows.” Plus, “Words I might Have Ate” is just a great title. And of course there’s the ridiculous “Dominated Love Slave,” which is certainly a thing, heh.

9/1: Dogs On Acid's Dogs On Acid: Weezer vibes and Lennon references make for a rough, but fun indie rock debut.

Why? 2015 release and I wanted to hear the music of a band with a name like that.

Additional Thoughts: Yeah, I admit, I’m a mark for any kind of Beatles-related reference, so their track “Flushed” made me smile. I especially like the line “Hey Jude, you’re messing up my mood.” But putting the Lennon references aside, it’s still a fun track, which I guess is to be expected of a band that clearly loves Weezer a whole lot. And though Weezer’s influence is very pronounced, I’m not willing to write Dogs On Acid off as a mere rip-off or some such since this is only their first album and I’d like to see where they go.

9/2: iamamiwhoami's kin: Atmospheric synthpop that ranges from beautiful to spooky with ease. Highlight: "drops"

Why? A review on the Needle Drop piqued my interest.

Additional Thoughts: One review I read described kin as “glacial,” which… well, that’s already way more perfect and succinct than anything I could add. But still, one thing I wanted to add to my tweet is some notes on the vocals and their variations. For example, the vocals on “kill” and “drops” remind me a great deal of Stevie Nicks, but other times the record recalls artists like Bjork and Portishead. As with Sea Lion, said vocals can be somewhat of an acquired taste for some, but if nothing else, they are interesting. I should also note that iamamiwhoami is actually an audiovisual project, wherein each song produced is accompanied by a video. (kin, by the way, predates BEYONCE by more than a year, so any stans who think their girl invented the concept of a visual album need to check themselves.) Anyway, I’ll confess I don’t really get the visuals, including a group of hair-people (?) following singer, Jonna Lee. Wikipedia claims kin continues a story started in bounty, so maybe it would make more sense with that context. I don’t know. Either way, the visuals may not be my thing, but that doesn’t hurt the music for me at all. 

9/3: Green Day's 39/Smooth: An okay debut with good energy, but not *quite* GD's signature energy as it lacks Tré Cool.

Why? I’m currently working through their discography.

Additional Thoughts: As this post (and past digests, I’m sure) shows, I do tend to be rather soft on debuts. I can’t help that. Artists need time to grow, find their footing and an artist having their entire identity and sound ready for their first record is rare, if not nonexistent. On Green Day’s case, a lot of what they would become is already present, such as in the melodies (see “16”). Though, as mentioned, the energy is ever so slightly different with “I Was There” probably being the closest to that same bouncy, manic-Cool energy. If anything, the record really goes to show how important each member has been to shaping Green Day’s sound.

9/4: Helena Hauff's Discreet Desires: The combination of chiptunes, hard beats, and horror movie vibes works so well.

Why? New release. (And I did not want to sit through the new Miley Cyrus just yet.)

Additional Thoughts: This is an instance where the tweet sums the record up pretty well without much need for much else. One thing I’d like to add, though, is that some tracks reach a point where they drag due to lack of variety. I suppose it can weigh down the record a bit, but Hauff’s sound is cool and interesting enough (see: “Piece of Pleasure”) for me to forgive its imperfections.

9/5: Hooton Tennis Club's Highest Point In Cliff Town: Bright, enjoyable melodies, though the lyrics feel.. unfinished.

Why? I don’t remember exactly, I think Spotify might’ve recommended it to me or I saw it in a list of recently released albums.

Additional Thoughts: Man, you gotta feel bad for bands from Liverpool, right? I mean, the Beatles’ shadow looms large and, rightly or not, the comparisons (and expectations) will be there. In Hooton Tennis Club’s case, one could make a Beatle comparison, especially in regard to opener “Up In The Air.” I wish I could remember what I meant when I described the lyrics as feeling “unfinished.” If I had to guess, I suppose I meant that they seem like they could be fleshed out more in spots. Regardless, as jangly indie rock goes, it’s an enjoyable debut. 

All albums available to stream on Spotify. 

If you'd like to suggest an album, comment on this entry, tweet me, or ask on Tumblr.