What does it say about Lambchop (and me) that I can think of no other band which I can alternately love and hate with the same ferocity?

The new album (OH, Ohio) is, in essence, almost a sampler of their previous output. It more or less revisits the styles of all previous albums (with the exception of the horn section that enlivened Nixon). In places it seems to revisit some of the melodies too; I had to check the track listing to make sure no sly jokes were being played. That voice is as percussive, glottoral and odd as ever. It is all imaculately produced but somehow like all their albums you wonder if the obscure lyrics and smooth gloss are hiding anything of real substance. Yet last night on my third listen of the week I was rapt again.

At times I love 'Is A Woman' and would passionately defend it's qualities but yet when others say they absolutely hate it I can see why. I saw 'chop live once and they were dreadful, to the extent I could not listen to any of their albums for literally months. I loved 'Damaged' after it came out but at times I can only make it past 3 or 4 tracks before getting bored or irritated.

Is it a compliment to the band that I appear to need to be in a curious frame of mind (choppy?) to somehow engage with the music? Why do I have this vague feeling on some days that the sum of the parts is less than it appears yet on others feel to be in the presence of brilliant originality?

Anyone else got this problem with Lambchop, or for that matter any other band? The only other in my collection that even gets close is The Blue Nile who for me always walked a line between banality and brilliance but at least they have produced some songs that will always be on my favourites list. If I made a Lambchop 'Best Of' compilation it would change almost entirely week to week!

Enough rambling. Buy the new album. You might love or hate it. Or both.

Bruce

The Blue Nile - "walking the line between banality and brilliance". You couldn't have put it better. 20+ years later I still can't decide. Nicely recorded, though.

I read once that Mr Buchanan et. al. recorded it as a challenge to the newly emerging digital technology. If so, it is perhaps somewhat ironic that many now use WATR as a demo disc to show off their digital sources.

(Having said that, I listen to it plenty - so I guess I evidentiality lean towards "brilliance")