In keeping with recent review laziness, I missed Diana Rozz. Review will come at their show with Die Die Die and Thought Creature, puncuality permitting.
ANYWAY.
Not having seen Tiddabades (wise name change) in about a year, I was pleasantly surprised by their set on Friday, opening for 1995. Still a pastiche of Gang Of Four ripoffs like Foals, they’ve tightened their set significantly. Vocalist Timmy barks out commanding vocals, and provided the most charisma from any of the performers there tonight. That charisma held up the band when they reverted to the same hi-hat rhythm way too often. Musically pretty uninspiring, but set apart live by the raspily delivered vocals and dynamic crowd interaction.
I think it’s fair to say that 1995 are cool. They only listen to cool music, which is only Unknown Pleasures and Strange House. They only dress like Faris Badwan, and they only speak authorit(at)ively over basslines. That’s about it, really. Oh, they were in NO magazine. See?? Told you they were cool! I did find it quite hard to tell songs apart which made me a little sad – they weren’t a very good Joy Division covers band.
Most of the sarcasm aside, there is very little in the way of innovation in 1995. Taking the badass attitude of forbears like Iggy and (more recently) Faris Rotter and putting it through a Stolen Girlfriends Club catwalk blender,1995 fail to do much live. Where their EP showcased the rougher edges of the extremely dark music they play, the live set showcased, well,how good they look. That’s about it. There could have been some genuine feeling, or some differentiation between tracks, but apparently a fashionable aesthetic is all you need to succeed. Sweet! I’m one black v-neck t-shirt away from stardom and a Vice article.
As a friend said, this show highlighted the difference in hype for New Zealand bands. The Brains show the preceding Wednesday was a show from a band equally ‘hyped’, although via word of mouth and because of their DIY noisemaking aesthetic. 1995 purport a far ‘cooler’ aesthetic, gracing NO Magazine (probably worth mentioning that the singer is the music editor for that publication) and basically picking up where Brain Slaves left off in terms of being a band who base their appeal around their image. Which I could almost have put up with/ignored, until their show on Friday. Both Brains and 1995 are pretty heart-on-sleeve with influences. But where Brains came off like an earnest, hardworking noise band with musical directive, 1995’s set confirmed that they are little more than shameless hipsters riding off the fashion train, rowdy (yes, they get that) but completely void of any drive, meaning or sincerity. After Tiddabades’ set, even 1995’s crowd interaction looked like posing. Guess they haven’t listened to Primary Colours yet.
60 Comments
Ouch!
good on you for not being a dick about this. unbiased and straight up. good fucking review (opinions aside).
Agree with Tidabaddes. Not really inspiring in the slightest, but still a very good band. A strange combination that may be, but I do enjoy seeing them play live.
ps yes smart name shortening
You see bands to be ~*inspired*~?
What are you, from the City Impact Church?
In Auckland we generally go out to hear some music, not dick ride someone’s aesthetic intentions. Epic WGTN Fail.
Personally disagree, I thought that 1995 put on quite a show and it seemed the crowd quite enjoyed the gig all in all.
It’s great to have something a little different in Wellington, we seem to get a little too hung up on what we think is ‘cool’ and when out-of-town acts come in we give them a shit because its not what we’re used to.
I give these guys full props, I remember when 1995 was something they just talked about. What they effectively managed to do is create hype before having an end product, and then actually backed up the hype – much to the joy of the elusive scenester crowd in Auckland.
It would seem to me that your personal bias (and perhaps jealousy?) have formed the basis of this review.
I would usually give my name when posting a comment, but I don’t feel like receiving a barrage of snarky comments today.
For the record, Diana Rozz kicked arse. Those girls are hot.
The point of the review seems to be that there is no aesthetic intention, hard to “dick ride” something that isn’t there to be ridden.
So just for arguments sake. does a band have to not look like a band anymore to be good? I didn’t see the show but have seen them before at San Fran and really enjoyed them.
I remember the day when a bands unified aesthetic was a plus.
In a country filled with a whole lot of mediocrity(but a lot of good also) something that maybe appeals to a more universal consensus of what should look like isn’t such a bad thing.
Tall poppy syndrome has perhaps dribbled into this review
How is this review meant to be taken any other way than a snarky bitter ’scene hating’ when you put a fucking banner photo up of the Horrors? Obviously a huge influence on 1995, but so what? Nice work Jamesss, I enjoy reading your reviews but I find it harder and harder to take you seriously when you take cheap shots like that and you give nothing but praise to your friends, such as Crackhouse 5.
saw 1995 on friday and thought they were refreshingly good for us here in wellington. getting pretty worn out that these guys get horrors and joy division comparisons… it’s starting to read like reviewers don’t know any other bands that these guys are probably influenced by, bands that would have influenced the horrors. Although you did say you were lazy at the start of this review.
ALL THREE BANDS WERE AMAZING.
JAMESSS SHOULD PROBABLY BURN HIS CLOTHES CAUSE HE MIGHT LOOK LIKE A BAND HE MAY LIKE.. AND SHOULDNT SEE UP AND COMING BANDS PLAY LIVE SETS CAUSE THEY MIGHT SOUND LIKE SOMETHING ELSE.
SO NEXT TIME ILL KNOW WHO HE IS CAUSE HELL BE NAKED AND DEAF AND NOT AT A SHOW.
“when out-of-town acts come in we give them a shit because its not what we’re used to.”
i dunno about that. two out of town bands (brains + 1995) came this week and showed us two completely different ways to do things, which is cool.
some bands passing through show us new ideas, others come riding on the success of complacent formulas. i think most people in wellington are pretty happy to see music not from here. that doesnt mean any band that goes on tour is good/cool/relevant/whatever.
Well this review makes jamesss ‘look’ bad rather than the bands… im sure he would have rather beat infront of a mirror than go out last friday night, i guess people who really wanted to see 95 due to LISTENING to there amazing ep would have loved it.
kelvin seems to think its a good review.. the others above seem to think otherwise, if you’d like to bring brains into this??.. ive heard from people that they were shit on wednesday.. i am yet to see them live myself but regardless on how there live set will be ill still like them as i like there MUSIC!
Tiddabades played an awesome party set as allways. Diana Rozz has an amazing drummer Both up and coming bands are reppin wellington well.
Perhaps ‘out-of-town’ isn’t quite right, maybe I should have said ‘from Auckland’.
And complacent formulas? That might be a stretch. Which formula is this? And can you let me know who else in NZ uses said formula?
I also think that when you invite a band to come and play at your own ‘gig night’ you are going to be predisposed to supporting them, perhaps Brains isn’t quite the example you should be using?
1995 are as DIY as it comes, they recorded that EP in a lounge using a couple of shit mics… Not wanting to compare bands as they’re completely different musically (and I dig both) but 1995 are every bit as DIY as Brains or any other new bands out there
Jesus christ Jamesss, little bit fucking obsessed with their image aren’t we, after reading this steaming pile of words 1995 don’t come off as image concsious, YOU do. ‘1995 are hipsters, they’re from Auckland, they dress somewhat fashionably, they were in a fashion magazine, they’re not ‘DIY’ or real 1995 sound like a few other bands I’ve heard’. So bitter. Could you be any more obsessed with the way they look dude? You probably want 1995 to run a fucking train on you.
Can we please get over a need for DIY-ness? It’s not 1980s Dunedin anymore, eh?
1995 is sending mixed signals if they’re coming across as a fashion band but are using DIY production. Bands can choose how they look much more easily than how they produce (it’s easy to look good but good production is generally big dollars).
Oh hi everyone!!
I really wanted to point out with this review that I felt their aesthetic (which I clearly didn’t like) was the focus of the band – while it’s all well and good to have a clearly defined band aesthetic, I thought 1995 could benefit far more from maybe, you know, focusing a bit more on defining their sound outside the aforementioned influences. It just meant their performance came off as insincere/kinda shit for me.
And no not everything has to be DIY, I was just making a comparison.
thanks for reading yalls xox
i think brains and 1995 are both really bad
i dont care about how they dress or produce
No one likes YOUR aesthetic..
How to write a Jamesss review:
I went to Mighty Mighty on Friday to see the Crackhouse 5 AND IT WAS REALLY GOOD. Thw way they dress doesn’t inimidate me and I know so little about music I can’t PICK ANY of their influences! LOLZ oh nozzz bros. P.s You should read this blog http://www.fupenguin.com/ I learnt how to write music reviews by blatantly ripping off this guys style of writing LOLS.
hey D E F,
just wondering when i reviewed crackhouse 5??? i cant find it anywhere!!! fuck!!!
nah ch5 sound like the clean right???? cause ALL I LISTEN TO IS FLYING NUN
but seriously – ajax/bag raiders/matt & kim/dan deacon/flaming lips/whoever the fuck else ive done on here. TOTAL DIY EH
How about right here tubby: http://noelleemings.blogspot.com/2009/05/ch5-hit-initial-target-market-of.html
Anyone who pays attention to local music “press” knows you ride the dicks of those guys. The Kitchen Sink isn’t the only place on the internet you fucking teletubbie
and what? im friends with ch5, you’re probably friends with someone in 1995, or another band who exist. haters gonna hate, and that applies to everyone… we done here now?
So you try and claim like you’ve never showed favoritism to your ‘bros’ I catch you in the middle of a lie then you try and play it off like it’s no big deal? No one can take any of your reviews seriously that’s a fucking problem don’t you think? What relevance does it have if I’m friend with people in bands?!? I’m not the one that’s trying to be A SERIOUS MUSIC JOURNALIST oh nosssss.
if you read it, you’ll notice that it’s not exactly ’serious music journalism’, nor was it ever intended that way. so yeah, noone took that seriously (like it was even a review – i happily admit its a biased wank promo piece – and have admitted it previously) and no, it’s not that big a deal. if you’re going to let one non-serious piece about people i know get in the way of validating anything else i write, so be it.
love, ‘a fucking puffy marshmallow’
So why did you bother writing it Jamesss? You’re basically admitting you wrote just under 500 words to be a snarky asshole and take cheap shots at a band who are killing it on Radio Active. Why do you even exist? What purpose are you serving? If I want to see read some pointless drivel where the writer ‘hilariously’ breaks out into capital letters I’ll go and read fupenguin
um, i was talking about the ch5 piece as not being ’serious journalism’.
this piece was me being seriously angry because i feel 1995’s show on friday was terrible and completely image-based. that’s it. the purpose i serve here is reviewing shows, i just happened to review one i didnt like. its not something i usually do, but fuck, it happened. OH NO.
please go read fupenguin
lolz i think he means the CH5 article was the biased wank piece. “killing it on radio active” maybe meant something 20 years ago, almost insulting to be picked up by them nowadays
Your purpose is to review music, sure ok (goes to show how much writing ‘talent’ is in Wellington) yet you spend about 5 sentences talking about their music and spend the rest of the review going on and on like a bulimic 13 year old girl about their image. I’ll go read fupenguin after you lose about 15 kilos chubs.
Crikey. In perfect fairness to the reviewer, he was reviewing a show, so all elements have to come into it, aesthetic, sound, interaction. He did say that he thought they looked and interacted very well, so thats positive. However, he would also call himself a music reviewer, which means the sound of the band has to take precendence in any review. And on listening to them, he is quite right. They are pretty same-y compared to most of the other bands around playing Joy Division. There are other bands to be influenced by, you know.
By which I mean to say, who needs another post punk leftover?
well, it’s one piece, and certainly not my only negative review on this site. anyway i think everyone will get it, not many people like what i’ve written or how i’ve written it. least of all you. and as much as you hate on my focus on their image, you’ve used my weight (???????) in almost every post you’ve made. i think we’re about done here, don’t you?
Yeah we’ve both made our points. The bonus of being just another asshole on the internet is that you you’re not having to adhere to any kind of guidelines or etiquette.
D E F, Jamesss has written a review under his own name. You have attacked his review under a pseudynom. Where’s the etiquette there?
“I’m not the one that’s trying to be A SERIOUS MUSIC JOURNALIST oh nosssss.” yeah but you’re engaging in a public discussion and facelessly making personal attacks – a little one-sided I think.
doens’t it say in THE TITLE of that ch5 piece “I SELL OUT”.
Did you read comment number 31 man? That pretty says exactly that I am not any kind of moral high ground, I am just an anonymous cunt on the internet being a bastard to this guy. I pretty much beat you to your entire point there don’t you think?
and also to be honest having phantom do your posters is hardly DIY, not that there is anything wrong with that. but thats like, the opposite of diy
You said ‘you’re’, not ‘i’m', so I assumed you weren’t including yourself.
@ D E F + ODA H8RZ
“BLAH BLAH YOU TALK ABOUT THEIR IMAGE MORE THAN THE MUSIC THUS UR REVIEW HAS NO VALIDITY” doesn’t realy make sense because the whole point of this review is to highlight the fact that 1995 focus on their image over their music.
Also, if 1995 and their fans get tired of getting compared to Joy Division and The Horrors, maybe they should work on diversifying their sound, maybe by adding a little bit of originality.
For the sake of transparency: no I have not heard their EP. Yes I have seen them live.
Wow.. talk about a bitch fight… I gotta say i like 1995. i think the songs are high energy and they energized the crowd from what I’ve heard from mates who went to the Mighty Mighty gig.
I’m not a music journalist or critic so i don’t hold a super high opinion of myself or of my taste in music(as is quite obviously evident in above commenters) I like music that inspires me and that i can dance to. both of which i get from hearing 1995. i say who cares, Reviews are just reviews and lets face it. consensus is 1995 were great. but everyone’s allowed an opinion.
agree with both of the above xo
oh and is this like the most comments ever received by a posting on this site?
Talk about promoting a band.. they’ll be huge!
Comments have only just been turned on in the last couple of weeks, and then only for selected bits, but yup – good promo!
It’s weird that 1995 get compared to The Horrors ascetically. I saw them about three weeks ago at Bacco room in Auckland and they looked nothing like them. I like the way the Horrors look but 1995 didn’t look like them. How do we know they care so much about there image?
HEY GAIZ!
HAV U SEEN DA NU TAYLOR SWIFT VIDEEO??!/
CHK IT OUT HURR
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGWE3hwJ21U
LOLZ
THIS POST HAS MADE ME WISH I HAD AN OPINION SO I COULD HAVE AN INTERNET FIGHT
LETS DO THIS
IM GONNA SAY THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU SAY AND THEN POINT OUT ALL YOUR HYPOCRITICAL/GRAMMAR(tical?) ERRORS
OR WOULD U FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE IF WE DID THIS ON EINSTEIN MUSIC JOURNAL
YEAHHYEAHHYEAHHYEAHH
D E F: i’m not the one moderating your comments, if you used a valid name/email address/opinion maybe i could contact you and let you know this. it’s nice to know you care enough to continue commenting all over my own blog though, let’s make out sometime
I am moderateROARRRRRR. Please take it up with me.
at lest stop being a dick and put a photo of them not the fucken Horrors!
done
Wow, this review has really won this guy James a lot of favour. What a winner. Haha
yip, i live to suck dicks. just ask d e f
I don’t see anywhere in his comments that he infers you ’suck’ dick, plenty of homo references to you in his comments but no dick ’sucking’. Apart from the like first 5 comments though this entire comment thread has seen you take it up the ass though, so at least you’re happy to admit that to yourself. haha
Wow! I’ve never seen 1995 so i don’t know if they’re any good, but Emj did a negative review of them and also got a lot of angry replies…
Hmmmmmmmmm
1995 suck dix. and not in a literal way. i mean that they’re just real bad. and no magazine is the worst shit out.
Stop giving 1995 attention.
They’re silly babies who have shown the whole world that by their unability to handle negative music reviews and posting abusive comments under fake names on the net. If you wanna be musicians guys, you gotta handle the business of reviews etc.
funny how you changed the photos… what a fucking chump
*champ.
*chimp
Who are the Horrors influenced by?? Think about it!! I cant believe you would compare 1995 to something modern…
And as far as that Post-Punk hater goes….What genre would you rather listen too?? At least they are trying to revive something that the rest of this secluded shit hole is’nt! 1995 might not be the most melodic band in the world but at least they are true to influence..! Which I seriously doubt is “The Horrors” (I reckon they may be fans) but to say they sound like them is just moronic!!
The majority of people who have commented on this review have just revealed themselves as un-educated delinquents!
You entertain me….
Including the reviewer (insert-italics upon my previous word)….
I apologise, for I respect truth…But this review sounds like a personal attack!
I think you have done some very good work in the past, but this isnt even a review!
After seeing the comments here, and on the 1995 review on EMJ, it looks like both sides are equally guilty of decidedly blinkered bias and heart warming hypocrisy.
Seriously, this is some of the most amusing shit I’ve read since that whole Johnincharge debacle. Actually, this is just that all over again. Wellington scenesters vs Auckland scenesters. And I don’t mean scenester negatively so unbunch your thrift store/$150 undies.
(Seriously, what else would we label ourselves? Music fans? puhleeze. all the politics, attire and bullshit play just as big a part (if not more so for a lot of people by the looks) as the sounds coming from the speakers)