Just a few points to mention about Burn Burn...

Heavy Alibi · Post by **Heavy Alibi** » 8/7/2009, 10:01 pm

M2, I'm curious... since you're only 13 and you live in the US, how did you find OLP and get into them? How did you find their old work?

MindsOnLoan · Post by **MindsOnLoan** » 8/7/2009, 10:13 pm

M2 wrote:hey, im 13. why would i read in August?

I've never been that much of a book-reader either, but even at your age I loved to read articles and things like this related to my interests. Music is one of my interests, and more specifically, OLP is an interest as well.

Waiting to Exist · Post by **Waiting to Exist** » 8/7/2009, 10:47 pm

Yeah, I'm kind of loving AnnieDreams' descriptions of how Raine's singing wrong, even if I don't understand it. It's interesting stuff. And the debate with Mr. Riley was also fun.

Frec-L · Post by **Frec-L** » 8/8/2009, 7:32 am

i live in israel and started listening to olp at 15-16.

if u have a good taste u will find a good music, young or not..

AnnieDreams · Post by **AnnieDreams** » 8/8/2009, 7:39 am

RileyLewis wrote:I think you misunderstood me. I don't argue that there are categories and subjective qualities to music. All I am saying is that as an art form, there isn't any truth to it, just like there isn't any objective truth to any art form. It's all subjective. We make our own rules as we go along. I agree that it is fair to say that Raine does something wrong in the frame of modern singing techniques. There is nothing wrong in saying that. But subjectively, there is nothing wrong with any style anyone uses, flaws or not.

I am a dancer, so I know all about professionalism and artistic integrity, etc. It's my life. But it also grants me the insight to know that it's all man-made. I get angry when someone tells me the dance style I perform is too traditional, or too modern, or should do this or that. I respond that the style I perform in has certain rules and traditions, and they are followed. Sure it might be more exciting performed another way or for some other audience, and good for someone else for doing that. So I know what you are saying, because I live that every day.

But I recognize that my dance form is also man-made, and the rules and traditions that go with it are completely subjective. We follow them because it's very nice to have guidelines to go by, and for traditions sake. And I get mad when people break traditions in my dance style just as you would for singing. But it's all made up, and I don't care if someone else wants to break it, really. I get angry, but also know it's their prerogative to do so.

Since enjoyment is subjective, so too are the rules that govern it's performance.

Okay, I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say. You don't argue that there are subjective qualities to music, but subjectively, there is nothing wrong with any style anyone uses? What part of my original post was it that you disgreed with? You said you agreed with the technical flaws I pointed out, but then said that they weren't the reasons he didn't sound good. Use of technique directly effects your ability to sound good - that's why it exists in the first place. Otherwise it would be pretty pointless.

I wasn't talking about rules as in traditions that govern certain styles (which is what your dance analogy talks about), I was talking about technique. We don't follow them for the sake of tradition, we follow them because they work. I'm not saying "the band used jazz chords! this is rock music!", I'm talking about pitch, breath support, and vocal production, which is important to any and all styles of singing. It's the fundamentals of singing - without it, you might as well not open your mouth, because it's not going to sound good no matter what else you're doing.
I agree that stylistic choices are subjective, but I said that in my first post. Raine's nasally singing and creative vowel shapes (which would be wrong in terms of traditional rules) were part of his unique style and the overall sound of the band. While it may irritate trained singers (I bet if I wasn't used to it already it would bug the hell out of me), it wasn't causing problems in terms of the sound they wanted to achieve.

But it's all made up, and I don't care if someone else wants to break it, really. I get angry, but also know it's their prerogative to do so.

And this is a very important point. While I very much disagree that vocal technique is "all made up", I won't get into that. It's the question of someone wanting to break the rules. Because there's a huge difference between deliberately discarding conventions, or just ignoring them all together. If it's someone's prerogative to break the rules, I respect that, but if they're doing it out of ignorance or inability to follow the rules properly, then I see no problem in criticizing it. A lack of knowledge and skill isn't subjective.

m2 · Post by m2 » 8/8/2009, 8:02 am

Strong Alibi wrote:M2, I'm curious... since you're only 13 and you live in the US, how did you find OLP and get into them? How did you find their old work?

I have 3 brothers. Two of which went through a stage where they were pretty big OLP fanatics. One has seen them 9 times, caught Raine when he fell off the stage at a gig, met Mike in an ally after the show in 1999, and more. One has only seen them once. After that was over, I started getting into music and, when looking through a stack of CD's at eight years old, I came upon a very strange looking cd that made me laugh. A man was holding a fish in the middle of the desert. I listened to Is Anybody Home? and loved it but i never really became an insane fanatic until a little after the release of Healthy. And I've been a fanatic of all their work ever since.

m2 · Post by m2 » 8/8/2009, 10:01 pm

Okay so my full Burn Burn review is ready so here we go. I wrote it very professionally

:

Our Lady Peace
Burn Burn
July 21st, 2009
Coalition Entertainment
2/5 stars

I've been an OLP fan for a while. And I must say, I've never been more disappointed. This album was described as a very raw, unique, bullheaded, rock album. To me, that is complete BS. Naveed is. But All You Did would've never have been caught dead at a show in 1995, not even 2000. This album also lacks feeling and emotion. Really, i can kind of picture Raine singing this very bored, rolling his eyes and just wanting it to be over. There's not even feeling. The closest I found to emotion was on Escape Artist, barely. And there's not much this record speaks for either. At least Healthy had a sort of political feeling and something to sing about. Here, were getting songs of Butterflies (Monkey Brains), a fallen relationship (Never Get Over You), and children (Refuge). I can understand Raine wanting to be a little more loose but this is too much. And, there's nothing unique about this record. Angels Losing Sleep and Al Genina had a little bit of a raw unique feeling of classic OLP paranoia. These are all very general pop tunes. And I must say, I still enjoy some songs, but this is no return to form. It's drifting further away. So there it is, Burn Burn in a nutshell. My least favorite OLP record yet, and I don't think were ever gonna get that raw album again but lets let it go and try to enjoy the music (if you can)

1.SM
2.Gravity
3.Clumsy
4.Happiness
5.Naveed
6.Healthy
7.Burn Burn

Heavy Alibi · Post by **Heavy Alibi** » 8/8/2009, 11:15 pm

Good review; I do agree in many respects.

m2 · Post by m2 » 8/9/2009, 1:04 pm

oh, and

AYD: 1/5
Dreamland: 3/5
Monkey Brains: 4/5
The End: 2/5
Escape Artist: 5/5
Refuge: 3/5
NGOY: 1/5
White Flags: 2/5
Signs Of Life: 2/5
Paper Moon: 4/5
Time Bomb: 0/5
TRS: 6/5

m2 · Post by m2 » 8/9/2009, 3:57 pm

AND!:

A 10 track album's perfect score is 50. Burn Burn gets a 27. With TRS it's 33. That is not a good score. (for me atleast)

Post by **xjsb125** » 8/9/2009, 4:30 pm

"We're gonna make an album that sounds exactly like Naveed. Same style of lyrics and everything!"

Are you fucking kidding me? Where did they say that? They went back to recording and album the way they did with Naveed. 4 people making music, no outside interference. You set your own self up for disappointment if you believed that you were going to get another version of Naveed. You also made your own interpretations and assumptions. I'm sure you wanted some songs with over-written lyrics about how love is gone and nobody else in the world understands it but you, or how no one can be trusted and you are the only one who is trying to get everyone to see. They don't write that shit anymore because they are past it. Political rock? Every single record label forced their musicians to sing political rock because bashing the government was the cool thing to do at the time. Unfortunately for OLP they put out Healthy a couple of years too late for it to have the right impact.

I'm glad you have an opinion of the album, and you have every right to think what you want of it. Music is all subjective. However, I think you set yourself up for disappointment, and have no real concept of why they write the lyrics that they do now.

m2 · Post by m2 » 8/9/2009, 4:54 pm

Well Matt, Maybe I don't! But all i know is that im not satisfied with this whatsoever.

MindsOnLoan · Post by **MindsOnLoan** » 8/9/2009, 5:10 pm

Also, to be fair, they've compared every album since Spiritual Machines to Naveed. So yeah.

m2 · Post by m2 » 8/9/2009, 5:28 pm

Yeah, and Raine even said in Alternative Addiction interview this is a raw, bullheaded record.

No.

Frec-L · Post by **Frec-L** » 8/9/2009, 6:49 pm

M2 wrote:TRS: 6/5

i'm glad that someone agrees with my 4th commandment 8-)

Joe Cooler · Post by **Joe Cooler** » 8/9/2009, 6:57 pm

I guess it depends entirely on your interpretation of what "raw" means.

Frankly, the raw esthetic found in Naveed has been done to death. That is what the grunge era was. If you want to revisit that, there are a ton of Pearl Jam and Soundgarden records waiting for you.

However, if raw means planting yourself in the studio and playing live off the floor then I think this record has you covered. Just look at the 'Monkey Brains" studio footage. Recording with the entire band playing at once isn't typical among mainstream artists by any stretch of the imagination. You think Happiness or Spiritual Machines were recorded like that? Of course not. They'd sit Mike Turner down and have him play the riffs over and over until it was absolutely perfect. Rotate another member in, repeat. So in that sense, "Burn, Burn" is raw.

MindsOnLoan · Post by **MindsOnLoan** » 8/9/2009, 7:37 pm

Joe Cooler wrote:I guess it depends entirely on your interpretation of what "raw" means.

Frankly, the raw esthetic found in Naveed has been done to death. That is what the grunge era was. If you want to revisit that, there are a ton of Pearl Jam and Soundgarden records waiting for you.

However, if raw means planting yourself in the studio and playing live off the floor then I think this record has you covered. Just look at the 'Monkey Brains" studio footage. Recording with the entire band playing at once isn't typical among mainstream artists by any stretch of the imagination. You think Happiness or Spiritual Machines were recorded like that? Of course not. They'd sit Mike Turner down and have him play the riffs over and over until it was absolutely perfect. Rotate another member in, repeat. So in that sense, "Burn, Burn" is raw.

Well, I found an interview with Raine and Jer recently from around 2000, where they say a lot of it was done in as little takes as possible (ex: Jer said that he only did two or three takes for drums).

Joe Cooler · Post by **Joe Cooler** » 8/9/2009, 7:46 pm

That was for Spiritual Machines correct? I remember reading that they wanted to simplify the recording process for SM because "Happiness" was overly complex. Regardless, "as little takes as possible" with each band member recording separately is still different than recording as a band with as few takes as possible.

Don't get me wrong, I love Spiritual Machines but in terms of the recording process, "Burn, Burn" is more "raw." Emotionally, Spiritual Machines wins out though.

m2 · Post by m2 » 8/9/2009, 7:51 pm

Raw as in no tambourine, no keyboard, nothin but guitars, a bass, and, drums. This is far from that.

AnnieDreams · Post by **AnnieDreams** » 8/9/2009, 7:57 pm

Did Raine say that's what Raw means? Because I have no idea why "raw" would mean that. Can Keyboards not be raw?