Islands
May 6, 2006 12:22 PM   Subscribe

Islands is a musical band of the indie genre the was formed in Canada in early 2005. In mid-2005 Islands recorded a debut album titled Return To The Sea, which was released in April of 2006. Return To The Sea has been described by their lead singer as having "some dancehall influences, some calypso... It's more diverse and sprawling and ambitious."
posted by jne1813 (33 comments total)

This post was deleted for the following reason: album release announcement for album that has been out for a while.



 
Well, it's like The Unicorns but with added weirdness. I think I preferred the Unicorns
posted by Flashman at 12:27 PM on May 6, 2006


For example, on "Rough Gem"-- a song so insidiously infectious that trepanation may be the only way to get it out of your head-- the main riff is begun by an understated keyboard, picked up midway by plucked violin strings, and completed by a second, more cartoonish synthesizer. All the while, Diamonds cracks puns on his name, declaring "I'm a girl's best friend/ Can you cut?/ I can cut!/ I'm a rough gem."

Kill me now.
posted by docgonzo at 12:27 PM on May 6, 2006


Well, the Unicorns' LP was awesome... I've heard Islands is OK but not quite as good. They're playing here in seattle in a while, I might go see them cause they were awesome way back when they were touring as the Unicorns. Those guys are freaks though, and I wouldn't take anything they say seriously. You should have seen the suit the keyboard guy was wearing.
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 12:34 PM on May 6, 2006


They're playing here in seattle in a while, I might go see them cause they were awesome way back when they were touring as the Unicorns.

Do it. I saw them last night at the El Rey and they tore shit up--at the end of their encore they took us on a parade outside and gave everyone roman candles.
posted by maxreax at 12:41 PM on May 6, 2006


Basically... a band put out a new album. So?

I like music as much as the next person, but this is not what Mefi is for.
posted by dobbs at 12:52 PM on May 6, 2006


Eh, what is the difference in this and "Apple/Google makes new shiny thing!" posts? Other than the fact that some people might not have heard of this band as opposed to Apple/Google.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 12:58 PM on May 6, 2006


Wow -- you've got a point there. MeFi isn't for unique displays of artistic expression...how silly of me.
posted by jne1813 at 1:00 PM on May 6, 2006


weretable, the difference is that new bands put out albums every single day. Do you want every Mefite who likes band X to make an FPP to their myspace page, a pfm review, and site to buy the album every time? Neither do I.
posted by dobbs at 1:05 PM on May 6, 2006


hypocrisy is an ugly thing dobbs...an ugly thing
posted by jne1813 at 1:08 PM on May 6, 2006


I liked them as the Unicorns better, but this album is really growing on me. Those example lyrics from Rough Gem are pretty corny, but in general it has kind of an interesting post-apocalyptic theme going on lyrically. It's actually pretty epic, in a tongue-in-cheek kind of way. Yay Islands!
posted by mayfly wake at 1:11 PM on May 6, 2006


Well, I agree that this isn't much of a Metafilter post, but since it exists, here is a recap to help everyone get up to speed on Islands' backstory. It's the first paragraph of the Pitchfork review:

"After dropping their gloriously goofy and endlessly inventive 2003 LP Who Will Cut Our Hair When We're Gone?, the Unicorns became extinct. Following a brief resurrection as Th' Corn Gangg, a live side project in which Unicorns songs were recast as backing tracks for MCs like Subtitle and Busdriver, multi-instrumentalist Nick Diamonds and drummer J'aime Tambeur announced they'd soldier on without guitarist Alden Penner (née Ginger) as Islands. To prove it wasn't just another one of their bat-shit crazy antics, they leaked two mp3s: "Abominable Snow", an epic about surviving a yeti sighting, and "Flesh", which revealed a sweaty, sexy side to Diamonds' and Tambeur's songwriting. Both songs were outstanding and, just as important, sounded like the work of the Unicorns. (In fact, they were live staples in the band's last days.) But when Diamonds explained they wouldn't be on the new album and then gushed to Pitchfork about how the band's record would be, of all things, inspired by Paul Simon's Graceland, it was anybody's guess as to what Return to the Sea would actually sound like."
posted by Flashman at 1:29 PM on May 6, 2006


jn3, it's easy to see dobbs' point. The matisyahu post is interesting more as a spectacle, even if you don't like music at all. It's interesting/unique that a hassidic jew is making reggae songs. There's nothing interesting about a new indie band, regardless of whether their music is good. Dobbs isn't being hypocritical, Metafilter really WOULD suck if everyone who liked a band posted about that band when they released a new album.
posted by jonson at 1:29 PM on May 6, 2006


jne1813, when I made that Matisyahu post, the entire album was on the site to listen to. Same for when I made the Liars post (they were giving away their entire second album as high grade mp3s). Those are both interesting things that aren't possible without the web--one of the things MeFi is for, pointing to interesting things on the web.

You've simply put together a little press release for a record you happen to like. Sorry, but I haven't been hypocritical.
posted by dobbs at 1:35 PM on May 6, 2006


hassidic jew doing reggae--- versus--- indie band incorporating "dancehall influences, some calypso"

hmm...there's no correlation in theme at all
posted by jne1813 at 1:37 PM on May 6, 2006


Your favorite band post sucks.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 1:38 PM on May 6, 2006


The band sucks less than this post.
posted by swell at 1:56 PM on May 6, 2006


hmm...there's no correlation in theme at all

yeah, there really isn't, actually. There's nothing unusual about an indie band playing world music influenced pop, no matter how many times you want to jump in here and defend the post against the tide.
posted by jonson at 2:09 PM on May 6, 2006


"Indie" is not a genre.
posted by eustacescrubb at 2:20 PM on May 6, 2006


if people associate the concept of 'indie' with a type of music as opposed to the label type then it is a genre no matter what anoraks may anally suggest.
posted by ClanvidHorse at 2:24 PM on May 6, 2006


Let me try to brighten this post with what more interesting bands are doing nowadays...

French Teen Idol - Italian post-rock/electronica that will make you soar
The Most Serene Replubic - another Canadian band, with absolute mastery over pop and polyrythmics
Magenta Skycode - if you dig The Arcade Fire, these Finns will rue your day
Gil Mantera's Party Dream - these Ohio kids will tear you a new hole with their energy and pop brilliance
Lights Out Asia - prepare to soar through some clouds of ethereal grandeur
Uzi and Ari - shoegaze has never been more alive and kickin
posted by Mach3avelli at 2:49 PM on May 6, 2006


"Indie" means . . . what exactly? Honest question.

Also, another vote for this post being lame. Sorry.
posted by _sirmissalot_ at 2:49 PM on May 6, 2006


if people associate the concept of 'indie' with a type of music as opposed to the label type then it is a genre no matter what anoraks may anally suggest.

Indie is not a genre. If you think it's a genre, please explain what musical qualities identify something as belonging to the indie genre.

Indie means independent, i.e. independent of major labels.

Also, MeTa.
posted by ludwig_van at 2:52 PM on May 6, 2006


Yeah, gotta say lame.
posted by stinkycheese at 3:01 PM on May 6, 2006


"Indie" generally refers to music that doesn't fall under the mold of most mainstream patterns of music. Usually by means of non-standard time signatures, more complex progressions/chords, lo-fi production, and the like.

That or being on an independent label.

How to differentiate the two depends on who is making the label.
posted by Mach3avelli at 3:06 PM on May 6, 2006


"Indie" generally refers to music that doesn't fall under the mold of most mainstream patterns of music. Usually by means of non-standard time signatures, more complex progressions/chords, lo-fi production, and the like.

Are you quoting that from somewhere, or did you make it up? Because it's totally bogus. I'd say the majority of the archetypal indie bands don't have any of those characteristics, except for lo-fi-ness, which is unrelated to the rest.

Don't confuse cause and effect here. Bands may be on independent labels because their music doesn't have mainstream appeal. They may be lo-fi because they don't have money for good equipment. But they're indie because they're on an independent label, not because their music is weird or lo-fi.
posted by ludwig_van at 3:16 PM on May 6, 2006


"Indie" generally refers to music that doesn't fall under the mold of most mainstream patterns of music. Usually by means of non-standard time signatures, more complex progressions/chords, lo-fi production, and the like.


I guess what I'm wondering is what would be considered mainstream these days. In the ancient days we would say something was "alternative" and everyone knew what that meant. It was a negative definition -- it meant something that wasn't on radio.

"Indie" films or music are so often heavily promoted/marketed nowadays that I wonder if it means anything to be independent anymore. And on the megahit side, it's not like you see many boy bands or Terminator movies these days, either. The big boys try to seem "indie" and the little guys try to look all polished and professional. What's a culture snob to do?
posted by _sirmissalot_ at 3:16 PM on May 6, 2006


Records need labels, music doesn't.
posted by furtive at 3:16 PM on May 6, 2006


The term "indie" has been co-opted by corporations that it doesn't really mean anything today. Regardless, a lot of people would be able to understand something if I told them it was "indie rock."
posted by Mach3avelli at 3:23 PM on May 6, 2006


Mach3avelli rules for the salvage post. I got a lot o' downloadin' to do.
posted by mathowie at 3:26 PM on May 6, 2006


"Area Band releases CD"
posted by I, Credulous at 3:28 PM on May 6, 2006


I guess what I'm wondering is what would be considered mainstream these days. In the ancient days we would say something was "alternative" and everyone knew what that meant. It was a negative definition -- it meant something that wasn't on radio.

It's not that hard to know what's mainstream - look at the charts. Put on MTV. Whatever you see there is the mainstream.

And, indie, ideally, is like the way you used alternative. It tends to be used pretty loosely though, which is a fact that I bemoan because of exactly what you're talking about when you say:

The big boys try to seem "indie" and the little guys try to look all polished and professional. What's a culture snob to do?


That's why I think indie is a useful term in the strict sense. I mean, there are different-sized indie labels and all, but indie-ness comes with an ideal, I think. I'm not saying it's always met, but if you take an optomistic view of it, it's about making the music that you want to make and getting it to the people who will want it, regardless of how many people that is. Production costs are low, so the goal doesn't have to be shifting a million units. You don't have money for a huge promotional campaign, so you have to let the music speak for itself. I think that's worthwhile in theory, and in practice, most of the music I find worthwhile is put out by indie labels.

Records need labels, music doesn't.

Yeah, and why bother with words when we could just gesture and grunt at each other? Meaningful labels facilitate communication. We can't have a very good discussion if we don't have common terms for things.

On preview:

Regardless, a lot of people would be able to understand something if I told them it was "indie rock."


Yes, but "indie rock" is not the same as "indie." Indie is just a prefix which denotes independence. Rock is a genre of music.
posted by ludwig_van at 3:34 PM on May 6, 2006


"Indie" generally refers to music that doesn't fall under the mold of most mainstream patterns of music. Usually by means of non-standard time signatures, more complex progressions/chords, lo-fi production, and the like.

BZZT. Incorrect. There are thousands of "popular" songs that can be characterized by the three things you mention, and thousands of "indie" songs that fulfill none of them.
posted by maxreax at 3:35 PM on May 6, 2006


I can't think of a single indie band I listen to that uses non-standard time signatures. Well, there's part of a Lucksmiths song that's in 7/4. The Music From Next Door on Warmer Corners. What a great song. Took me awhile to realize that about the time signature, though. The chorus is in 4/4, though.
posted by ludwig_van at 3:38 PM on May 6, 2006


« Older The Civil War of the Satmars   |   Street theatre Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments