It's Just What All Young Lovers Do

I'm going to hate myself after this. I'm about to do something that I always thought was unfair, lazy or even downright rude. I'm going to review two different bands at the same time. I know. When I was growing up, trying to absorb as much information about rock as I possibly could, I read music mags a lot. And when I was 12 and living in the suburbs with the local Jewel my only source of culture (this was way before the internet thing), that meant Spin. Rolling Stone seemed like it was all about classic rock, and at the time, I associated it with the Rolling Stones, who in my non-conformist little pea-brain I considered to be the lamest pile of archaic musical bullshit the world had produced up until 1982. As if they didn't look old enough, people at my school that wore those big ugly red lips t-shirts smoked pot. At the time, one of the few things I thought was lamer than the Rolling Stones was pot.

So I remember buying the 'punk' issue of Spin and based on that it seemed to be a pretty decent collection of writings about rock. I continued reading in subsequent months. It remained good; I thought that Spin represented the apex of music journalism and embodied all the coolest shit in the world. I know. Remember, I also was 12 and thought pot was lame. The one thing, though, that bugged me about Spin's journalistic policies was that sometimes a reviewer would write about two different records in the same review. Why? I thought. Doesn't each of those records deserve its own individual assessment? Would that writer like it if some guitarist reviewed Spin and Rolling Stone together and said something like "These two mags both have a lot of influences in common and end up sounding pretty much the same. No need to buy both if you just want your basic dose of rock and no real basis to choose; one's about as good as the other." Never mind that that is, of course, exactly the truth.

What I didn't realize at the 12-year-old-hated-pot-smoking time was that there might be a fairly decent reason for this. I guess I didn't understand the concept of genre or affinity of any sort. I thought it was just an easy way to dismiss two bands in one column. I'm not sure that it ever made sense to me until a few months ago. I have been wanting to write about The Maccabees and Good Shoes, two very good quirky pop bands from the south of England that have been getting some positive reviews in music magazines lately. I just couldn't finally decide on which one, primarily because they sound fairly similar and are about equal in quality in my mind. Oh.

I don't remember how I first heard the Maccabees, but they made it onto my constant playlist immediately. Forget that their debut EP sucked a horse's scrotum (do I really need to write stuff like that to make this more interesting of a read?). 2004's 'You Make Noise, I Make Sandwiches' was sloppy and boring. Sorry, guys; I can say that because your more recent stuff is mind-alteringly good. All the 7"s and finally the Colour It In LP from last year (largely collecting the 7" songs, sadly) were the most frequently played songs on my ipod in 2007. No joke. So...touchstones...Gang of Four, early Cure and Echo & the Bunnymen (there I go lumping again), Stiff Little Fingers, all filtered through the better bits of Pulp. The singer borders on glossolalia at times and I actually mean that in a good way. It adds a kind of weird emotional energy to the lyrics. This shit is clever and catchy as hell. Going for the obvious melody is easily one of my main character flaws, but this time it's justified. These tunes are eminently singable but ffs I haven't gotten them out of my head and it's been over a year. It's upbeat, danceable (fuck if i hit the caps lock key one more time I'm gonna give up) and features smart lyrics. Relentless, popping bass and a nice interplay between two jangly (not wimpy) guitars. Thank god most of the world has no taste or this, my favorite little band, would be playing football stadiums all over North America.

Good Shoes, then, is more of the same. And that's not an insult by any means. If you find something as awesome as this, you piss your pants for joy when you find another version that's just different enough to meld familiarity and novelty togetherI understand genre now. Maybe more Cure and definitely less SLF, Good Shoes' songs are a little catchier (take that as you will), but if you muted the vocals I doubt I would know the difference. The guitar interplay is more dynamic, but I fancy the bass-playing a bit less. The singer has an angelic (I'm not kidding) animated voice that I prefer just a tad over Orlando from the Maccabees' voice, but not by damn much. The only drawback? The lyrics are literally some of the dumbest pieces of crap I've ever encountered in my long music-listening career. He keeps talking about how arrogant he is, every song is about a girl he sort of likes, lines and verses get repeated over and over, etc. It borders on mindless. But you know, it's just like that famous quote about Nicholas Ray's 'Party Girl': Who cares? I don't; it almost makes it more enjoyable. The beauty of his voice as an instrument goes perfectly with the consummate kinetic pop songs behind it. This shit rocks and refuses to leave my head just as adamantly. Listen to "Small Town Girl" and tell me you think differently. Incidentally, it's a Blondie rip-off. Uh, who cares?

These bands are both young, with just one LP each. Things get a little loose at times. However, I predict you will soon see them at a football stadium in North America. Opening for Arctic Monkeys or the Kaiser Chiefs. And blowing them the fuck off the stage.

Good Shoes official website

The Maccabees official website