first opinions on 'archangelsk'
Got something to say?
Sign up or log in.first opinions on 'archangelsk'
Created by Mr. Hell. Last updated on September 25, 2011 at 05:12 PM.
initially i felt quite disappointed that after a two year hiatus bg came up with an album with only eight real songs, of which three had already been released as download singles on aquarium's kroogi.com page. at least those tracks are presented on 'archangelsk' in new, more subtle versions.
but what is really striking about the new album after a couple of listens is how assured bg has assembled those eight songs (plus one short instrumental): there's no deadushki-like industrial excursions irritating the listener, no disney-inspired singalongs and no drunken sea shanties. instead there's plenty of classic aquarium (old and new): 'archangelsk' begins with two dark rock songs with apocalyptic imagery, followed by two tracks highlighting the bright side of bg (the first one an irish-folk tinged tune, the second one sounding very beatlesque - including an george harrison-miming slide guitar solo). then there's the mysterious/messianiac 'secret uzbek' (already released on kroogi.com, but presented here in a version more leaning towards the folkrock of dylan & the band) followed by 'babylon fire', a reggae song with deliberate echoes of the classic 'vavilon'. 'rain-coloured sky' an acoustic lament opens the album's finale before this spring's web-release 'one for the road' closes 'archangelsk' on an epic but also gentle note.
'archangelsk' could well be bg's most substantial and coherent album in years and it is a very well produced and recorded album. nevertheless i'm still not sure if there's not something missing: maybe some deadushki-like industrial excursion or an disney-inspired singalong...?
1 reply
September 25, 2011 at 05:12 PM
Dzhon said:
Having ragged and raged about the schizophrenia of many of the post-Millennium albums, I get--and applaud--the coherence.
But Buddhist Boris still needs to contemplate the koan "less is more." Take a gander at the list of instruments on the album: Northmbrian pipes? Uillean pipes? A didjeridoo? Maybe as I delve deeper into the album I'll come to see these as grace notes, but on a very cursory spin it seems only so much clutter. (Actually, it's pretty damn obvious the didjeridoo is there for no damn reason at all.)
Love the dark bang with which the album begins, "Return to Arkhangel'sk" and like the chugging "Red River," but was drifting off by the end, with the four slow, meandering tracks in a row pushing the 5:00 minute mark or going well beyond. Unless you're genuinely offering up the next Blood on the Tracks, this is sure to try the listener's patience.
Still, even on a first spin I can say I like it much better than its immediate predecessor, Pushkinskaya 10, not a single track of which sticks in my brain at all. And at this point I literally have only given Arkhangel'sk one spin, so all criticisms are extremely "preliminary."