³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

(. I like it.)

What bothers me is the extent to which this has been recorded so that it sounds exactly like 'Hollywood'. Or, given the back-to-frontish way albums are put together the extent to which 'Hollywood' was recorded so it sounds exactly like this. I don't mean the songs are the same, I mean they bear the same sonic footprint, and it's not just Marina's voice. The synths are the same, the swirling vortex in the chorus is the same, all the SOUNDS are either the same or so very similar that it makes no odds.

Now, consistency of sound is not a problem if you are Mumford and Sons, so there's no reason why it should be a problem if you are Marina. But it is, and the reason why is to do with the ChartBlog Theory of Rock vs Pop:

Pop music works to a different methodology to rock, or folk. With rock, you get your act together, you develop a trademark sound, you write a bunch of broadly similar songs which work within that sound, and you record them into an album. There may be highs and lows, but you very rarely break away from the blueprint noise that you make. Oasis, in this respect, were the perfect rock band.

With pop, you work on a song by song basis. You get some arresting ideas together, bash them into shape in as distracting a manner as you can manage, try out a few hot new production ideas, phone a few rappers, whatever it takes to make your song stand out from everyone else's. Then, when you've done that really well, you have to repeat the process, only this time, your last song is also in the list of things you can't sound like any more. Girls Aloud, in this respect, are the perfect pop band.

You can pick any analogy you like to represent the different approaches, none of them are perfect, but I'm going with sweets vs bread. People can eat a lot of bread, but they can't eat a lot of sweets. They get more excited about individual sweets than they do about individual slices of bread, but if they had to, they could probably cut out sweets more easily than they could cut out bread.

I leave it up to you to work out which is which, but let's just say it's no coincidence that I mentioned Oasis. They have a song about a roll after all.

Anyway, despite being a decent song in its own right, 'Oh No!' suffers because of the sonic footprint thing. I don't want it to suffer, but it does. Having said that, it's better than any amount of dreary (but worthy) rock music.

Download: Out now


³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ Music page

(Fraser McAlpine)

"The lyrics of 'Oh No!'... refer to being obsessed with consumerism, success, money and fame."

"We're here for the tunes, and Marina has them in spades. Day-glo flourescent spades with sparkly handles."

"This Welsh singer/songwriter shows that Great Britain even does Katy Perry cooler than us."

PS: Of course, this is not the first time that the ChartBlog Theory of Rock vs Pop has appeared in ChartBlog. I'm basically repeating myself here, with minor variations, in order to make a broadly similar point to the one I made the first time. Just like Marina! Oh no! (etc)