Review 1 of 1

0 of 1 found this comment useful ( 0% )

kev2016z writes:

4of 5 Stars

I first must say that of all the post-punk bands out there and in all their infinite glory, The Still's sophmore release "Without Feathers" was probably THE one I was most anxious about. With all the Post-Punk and Nu Wave bands out there it's constantly a challenge to sort the greats (The Strokes, The Stills, Interpol) from the one-hit wonders (Bloc Party, Kaiser Chiefs). Lyrically The Stills have always been one of the stronger Post-punkers in my book but their first album right off the bat was compared to the likes of The Strokes, Echo and The Bunnymen, and Interpol. Personally I've always thought they sounded like a merged version of The Strokes and what Spoon should sound like but that's beside the point. The Stills, although their debut was absolutely brilliant and nearly perfect, needed to make a statement with their second album. They needed to do something to set themselves away from all the constant comparisons and find their own original niche. "Without Feathers" does in fact accomplish this. Never before have I heard a band's sophmore release sound so abosolutely nothing like them and yet at the same time, exactly like them. The Stills' "Without Feathers" goes into so many different territories it's hard to decide what to compare it to (if it's at all possible).But if I had to I'd say that there is a slightly apparent Elton John/Beach Boys/White Stripes/Beck influence, and even Raveonettes particularly toward the end of the album (ironically, They mention the Raveonettes in the liner notes). Like The White Stripes "Get Behind Me Satan", The Stills don't depend too much on their guitars but rather the support of various other intstruments like a piano, horns and of course, a cowbell. And yet through it all, with all the various inspirations, The Stills have managed to make something that is utterly original and able to distinguish them. Many have criticized this album claiming that they have downright "abandoned their roots." I wouldn't necessarilly claim abandonment but rather experimentation. The Stills do sound different on "Without Feathers" but every so often you can make out some "Classic Stills". I think the best song on "Without Feathers" is "Helicopters" and The most "Logic"-sounding song is "Baby Blues" but even still they bring in a female back-up singer and it sounds like it came right out of a Raveonettes jam session. Truly I love both of The Stills' albums and it's practically impossible to compare them because they're totally different. Is Without Feathers better than Logic Will Break Your Heart?....no. But it is still a very good album. Personally WF seems like it's just an album that the Stills just wanted to make. I don't necessarily think this is like their "new" sound, but rather something they felt they needed to do. The only con I think may be that "Without Feathers" seems, at times, too soon a record for a band that only has one other album out. At times it seems like it should be like their fourth album because it's such a stretch for them. But that's just my own minor issue. I suppose it's unfair to claim something is "too ahead of itself"...or is it? Whatever. The main point is that "Without Feathers" is a great album, ahead of itself or not, and any true Stills fan should take right to it. And as far as the vocal Hamelin/Fletcher switchoff...I don't know. I didn't even know that Tim wasn't the main lead singer anymore until I read it because I think Dave sounds a lot like him. But now that I know I can tell and I like Hamelin's voice but just prefer Tim's. Oddly enough Tim sings two of the best songs on the album, Helicopters and Halo The Harpoons.

May, 22 2006 14:43:34

Post Your Comments

0 more reviews