I think it's a good album. Zero is a great song, and nothing on it is particularly bad. But the album is very inconsistent and other than Zero there isn't anything that memorable on it. It sounds to me like the YYYs are courting a wider audience by switching their focus to electro-pop instead of the bombastic lo-fi rock that made Fever To Tell so good.

Yet, on the current end of year spreadsheet, it's third in the year, and plenty of lists are putting it in the top one or two. And then in that '2009 survey' thread, at least a third of the responses mentioned it.

Can somebody explain to me what you see in this album that makes you put it so high? I might put it in my top 50 and that's it.

"Zero" is indeed one of the songs of the year- it's so triumphant and euphoric! It sets the stage for an album that soars with melody, and it just feels like a perfect little pop album. I like their first 2 albums as well, but this was an unexpected and exciting change in direction for a band that has now showcased a rather impressive range.

I might start a similar thread for Merriweather Post Pavilion. I like it, but I hardly see why such a fuss is being made for it.

I listened to it a few times when it first came out and enjoyed it, but didn't rate it too highly. I just listened to it again about a month or two ago and liked it a lot more and now rate it as my favorite album of the year.
Part of the reason for this is because to my ears this has maybe been the worst year for music ever, so there isn't much competition, but it would still be a top 10 record most other years. As for why, well, it's like "Fever to Tell" for the dancefloor, and whatever Moonbeam said.

I'll back you up on MPP if you want to start a thread Moonbeam

I have it on my mp3 player, will liste, to it this week

I don't understand it either. I don't really understand all the acclaim for "Fever To Tell" either though. For example, I completely agreed with Pitchfork's first assessment of the album (which is rare) in that 'Maps' is by far the standout track and the rest is just nowhere close (I think they rated it 7.5 or something). And now all of a sudden they're ranking it as the 24th album of the decade? What's that hell..

...These songs contain O's most expressive singing yet, and the tension between her vocal performances and the band's playing results in music richer in emotion than anything the trio has done since "Maps"...

That's from the LA Times' album review, and it really sums up quite well the main reason why I enjoy the album as much as I do (so much as to consider it, without hesitation, my favorite album of 2009).

If, at any point between 2007 and March '09, you had asked me for my opinion on the Yeah Yeah Yeahs, my response would've likely resembled my standard answer: "I respect them, but the music doesn't do anything for me." Fever To Tell, which I'd heard a few times, didn't strike me as anything special -- it was aggressive and in-your-face, unapologetic modern art-punk rock. Sure, it had something of a cool factor for coming out of the NYC scene, and for having a sexy/mysterious/confident fashionista front-woman in Karen O, but the album as a whole didn't captivate me; it just seemed like immature punk rock. The only real highlight, to me, was the one song that most people seemed to be gravitating to; the one song that sounded like nothing else on the album.

When Show Your Bones dropped, I didn't even bother checking it out. I heard "Gold Lion" a few times on the radio, and other than occasionally hearing "Maps" on my iPod, that was my last exposure to the YYYs. Until early 2009...

I saw the video for "Zero", and I remember thinking at the time "hmmm...this isn't that bad. It's different from how I remember them." Pleasantly surprised. I think a few days went by and I found myself wanting to hear "Zero" again, so I youTubed it. And then a day later, I youTubed it again. And again. Not too long after, I caved and downloaded it from iTunes and it was probably around the same time (geez, it was only eight months ago; I should have a better memory than this!) that I downloaded the rest of the album.

The first time I listened to it, it was one of those "holy shit" moments where you can't believe what you've just heard. I was completely blown away --each song seemed to be better than the one preceding it, and I was instantly struck with how... emotional it was. Gone were the NYC art punks; a more mature, confident (melodic!) band had arrived. Fast-forward eight months... the record still hasn't worn out its welcome; I've listened to it well over 100 times according to iTunes.

So getting back to the record's acclaim, if you do any amount of due diligence, the critics all say pretty much the same thing: It's Blitz! is the sound of a band growing, innovating, becoming more mature, writing music rich with melody, space and fragility. Like Moonbeam commented, it shows another dimension of the band -- exploring new styles, new sounds -- but still writing compelling music. The entire record is filled with gems and, to my ears, sounds very cohesive. Not to mention, the songs are just more emotional than anything they've done before, with the exception of "Maps". Maybe that's part of the reason why I enjoy it -- Karen O sounds vulnerable for once, and it suits her better than the punky, take-no-prisoners persona that she's been known for. Finally she's singing with emotion coming from a more honest, mature place rather than a angry, impulsive one. She's still impassioned, but it's tender rather than pissed off (which can come off as being provocative for provocation's sake, if that makes sense).

On top of it all are just great songs. "Heads Will Roll" is a club-banger of the highest order; "Skeletons" (my favorite) has a huge, epic, celtic feel to it; "Dull Life" is a rocker with the intensely chilling breakdown "we see the nightmare of your lies"; "Little Shadow", the album closer, is by far the most heartwrenching thing they've ever done. It's nine great songs (and one mediocre one); what more can you ask for.

All in all, it's a band that's growing up and this album is by far the best of their career. (Mark me down as someone who is extremely excited to hear what they're going to do next.)

Awesome reply, Anthony! It's Blitz! may only be my 3rd favorite album of 2009, but I like it better than anything from 2008.

Ok, thanks for your input. I think I get a little more why it's showing up so high now.

I can see it's 'more melodic, more mature', but that could just as easily be spun as 'less energetic'.

Maybe the Fever to Tell/It's Blitz debate is the same as the Let It Be/Tim debate.

You can add White Light/White Heat vs The Velvet Underground to that debate as well. I think WL/WH is awe-inspiring while the VU's self-titled record is completely awful.

I like both Fever to Tell and It's Blitz, although I prefer FtT.

I listened to it

Guess what ? It's rubbish to me, sorry guys.

Piece of frozen music just good for the micro wave.

I'll review it for etat-critique but in French (maybe it's better for you, Moonbeam and Anthony )

No, honestly, I don't like it. I'll come back with a more explicit review soon.

To me this album is everything I don't care for in lusic : all is in the production, the rest is bland, cold and boring. There's no place for chance, for hazard, for accidents in this music. All is calculated, wrapped in plastic film. Frozen music I said.

And no trace of a good melody. In the AMG review and in yours Anthony I read that one song had a celtic feel, but frankly I can't tell which one you were talking about.

It is not painful to hear on the other hand. Each song's ten first seconds is even pleasant. But then, nothing else happens.

Translation: nicolas doesn't like synths. (Or, has ice water flowing through his veins.)

nicolas doesn't like synths ? Not wrong.

well, yes, I like synths like Moonbeam likes acoustic guitars



And that's not true either : I love Suicide, I love Soft Cell, I love LCD Soundsystem, I love the Streets and the Chemical bros. I don't dislike Fever Ray.

It's not only a question of synths. The songs themselves sound dull to my ears and I'm not the only one , because Les Inrocks, the main (and quite indie-friendly) rock magazine in France, were disappointed by "It's Blitz" and said it sounded uninspired compared to their previous offerings.

I'll have to side with nicolas, and by extension, BillAdama.

I wouldn't say it's synths I have a problem with so much as when they sound so antiseptic.

Classic!

Tell me why I respect the hell out of your taste, then?

Completely agree. It's very one-dimensional, stale, calculated, "frozen" was a good way to put it... and those aren't good things for an album that sounds like it's trying to get people on the dance floor, or any album for that matter.

Look to last year for an album with a somewhat similar aesthetic but which was much more successful at having style and substance...Hercules and the Love Affair.

I simply refuse to accept the notion that a band is all of a sudden "uninspired" if they don't rock out as hard as they used to. That's what seems to be implied here, and it's ridiculous.

I dunno... yeah synths are a bit sterile just by virtue of how they sound, but I hear a lot of passion in Karen O's singing on this record and I think the band is showing some ambition, which isn't a bad thing.

A song like "Skeletons" -- to me, every second is bursting with drama so implosive that it explodes in tiny little bubbles of emotions in your gut. And anyone with at least one working ear and a crumb of a soul should be able to feel the emotion of a line like "...still we're caught between all this sorrow..." in "Little Shadow". If not, you'd better check for a pulse.

Diversity of opinions is great, if there wasn't any, it would be pretty dull. I find "It's Blitz!" a very dynamic and exciting record, one I didn't fully appreciate the first few times a listened to it. But I think this is going to be one example when we're all going to have to agree to disagree and move on.
For a random example, minus a couple of songs I find Bruce Springsteen's "Darkness on the Edge of Town" pretty damn boring, and I can hardly listen to it from start to finish. And this is coming from someone who likes the Boss. But I still respect the opinions of those who praise the record, even if I just have to shrug my shoulders.

Spot on! This album still has all of the blood that made Fever to Tell so invigorating, but it's expressed in a different way.

I do disagree about synths being sterile. I think the "electronic = sterile, acoustic = 'real' and authentic" stereotype is one of the worst in all of music, but that's a topic for another thread.

I'm looking forward to that thread. It is logically appealing to conclude that no particular instrument should produce music that is more "authentic." But there are mechanical differences between most synthesizers and most acoustic instruments that make it more difficult to portray authenticity using a synth. I mean, they call them "synthesizers" for a reason.

How is plucking a string any more authentic than pushing a key?

Eeeg. NOW we're entering some sticky territory.

Moonbeam... I didn't mean "sterile" in a bad way; I guess I just meant that it's not an organic instrument, but that doesn't mean that it's any less effective, OR affective. (I was more or less responding to the "I wouldn't say it's synths I have a problem with so much as when they sound so antiseptic" remark, which is kind of like saying you don't like ketchup when it's tomato-y.)

My love of synthesizers goes way beyond It's Blitz.

It's not how you play the instrument, it's more to do with the authenticity of the sound that emanates from it. No one would argue a piano isn't as "authentic" as an acoustic guitar. And all this depends on us using the same definition of "authentic" to mean a more naturally created sound.
I don't have anything against synthesizers, but they basically generate computerized sounds and are therefore not as natural as other instruments.
None of this is to say, however, that one is better than the other. I don't necessarily equate "authentic" with "good." Mostly it depends on the song being played and how well it's played. Which sounds better all depends on the ear of the listener and is as subjective as anything else.

I guess I'll side with the "I-don't-get-this-album" side. But for me, this extends to all of the Yeah Yeah Yeahs' stuff - I don't get it. To me, it just doesn't go anywhere, no melody, nothing. I think that in general, it's just cold, whether its the more punky stuff or the newer synthesizer-heavy material. I also don't like Karen O's voice, so that may have something to do with it.

Because we're of the same kind

Edit: Note that I honestly didn't see the above response to this same comment before posting my comment...but here it is anyway.

I don't think that's anywhere near the point. It doesn't matter how the sound is created, it just matters how it comes across to the listener. Synths have MUCH less nuance, color, and dynamics by their nature. Pressing a key produces the same dynamic regardless of how it's pressed, but an acoustic instrument can be plucked ten different ways with ten different sounds. Yeah ok you can adjust settings and sounds and whatever on a synth, but just can't mimic the capability of the direct human influence on an acoustic instrument. You just can't. And more than that, it's not ALL synths that I (can't speak for anyone else) think sound sterile, but in this case (It's Blitz) I think they absolutely do. I mean, heck, I'm a HUGE Cure fan and the one thing I miss most about their current lineup is their synths. Disintegration definitely would not be anywhere near the album it is w/out those synths.

I can appreciate that synthesizers have a different method of producing sound, but they're just as legitimate! I disagree that there aren't as many variations of how they can be played.

This is just a sore spot for me. So many music critics have panned 80s music and synth music in general for being less legitimate of an artform than music recorded with more conventional instruments, but these same critics worship the Beatles studio tweaking and don't seem to mind electric guitars that are played with various pedals that alter their sound. To be frank, such critics sound like old geezers complaining that in their day they had to walk uphill both ways to school in the snow.

I understand that there are a number of artists who use synths that aren't really musicians, just as there are scores of cheesy guys brandishing acoustic guitars who strum a few chords and bleat platitudes in hopes of getting laid. Music is great regardless of genre and regardless of the instruments used to create it.

I wouldn't say that synths are less authentic than acoustic guitars.

Some musicians can really make synths sound like they're alive, they can make synths bleed, scream, laugh and moan.

I think than rather than a authentic vs. artificial opposition, it has to do with a nature/civilisation thing or if you prefer, rural/urban, wood/plastic.


Most music nowadays (and IMO especially the music which is praised here on this site) has a strong urban sound. The noise of the machines, the slickness of modern home interiors. That's why I loved the Fleet Foxes album which was going in the opposite direction.

Cover arts are good indicators of this trends.


But that's my opinion, and not a judgement in any case.

And about It's Blitz!, my negative opinion of it has nothing to do with the fact that they use synths.

The more I grow old and the less I feel intertested in records that make me feel all is calculated.

I've lent an ear to "Fever To Tell", and, even it is a bit wilder, there's still this absolute control of things. The guitars sound impeccably dirty to my ears.

That's also why, if I appreciate their musicianship, I can't get into Steely Dan.

I can't "win" this argument, so I hesitate to even go forward, but here goes...

First, I didn't say plucking a string is more authentic, so your question is not on point. I said it is more difficult to portray authenticity with a synth. That should not be read as a criticism of synth music. If I say playing bag pipes effectively is more difficult than playing a trumpet effectively, am I ripping on bag pipers? No.

The mechanical differences depend on the type of synthesizer involved. So it's kind of pointless to proceed unless we narrow it down to a particular synth. Generally speaking, not all synths allow for the same range of dynamic and chromatic variability that can be accomplished by acoustic instruments.

Look, I have nothing against synthesizers. I love them.