[rb022] Lost Lanterns – Polar Living
Polar Living, the debut release by Lost Lanterns which was released on Resting Bell just yesterday, is the result of the co-operation of two persons who met at the university, had played in several bands before and now try to have a go at electronica. On their debut the duo decided to play it safe and settled for broad and slightly detuned, yet warm and almost sticky synthesizer sounds. Realising the possibilities in regard to arranging music, Lost Lantern discovered that alternating two chords and keeping the same base note is possible and can be used for weaving a dense carpet of simple repetitive sequences. Unfortunately their integration of field recordings and noise elements is restricted to adding them as showy feature without actually being part of the music, let alone the foundation everything is built upon. Perhaps they were aware about this weakness themselves as they added overdubs of the same synth voices with various degrees of distortion or other forms of processing, sadly without any notable improvements.
Then, just by the time things cannot get much worse, a thin choked voice chimes in with an anguished attempt at singing to the already mushy sound. This may have worked out well as alternative college rock a la Death Cab for Cutie, with real drums and a set of guitars, but as electronica Echoes of Love somehow winds up with an appearance of a pompous parody. 
I was hoping to discover that this tune was a one time glitch, but unfortunately this first track already sums up their musical achievements and where field recordings appear they remain alien elements, even as standalone version. The sad culmination point of this debut is the 12 minutes epos Seed of Planet where Lost Lanterns do not shy away from adding a dull 4-to-the-floor, 70ies like drum computer beat, tastefully blended with 80ies like stutter sample aesthetics and several Trance inspired echo triplets that were derived from a basic minor chord.
So what is left for me to say? Judged within the context of serious electronica, Polar Living leaves considerate room for improvements and still carries a lot of the “former rockband members go electronica” burden that prevents Lost Lanterns from effectively treating the new music creation medium as autonomous object with its own set of rules. I am sure there is a market for pleasing, mainstream orientated music that borrows elements from other genres as pure decoration. Likewise, there are people who are happy with sticky music that prevents them from aggressions or nervous breakdowns so they can get ahead with posing as useful and handsome member of society and to those “Polar Living” will be a welcome distraction from themselves.
5 Comments »
Leave a comment
Posting comments requires Javascript to be turned on.
Well, a friend came across this recently after hearing the album promoted on Quiet Space radio and sent me a link. I have no issue with people disliking the music, none at all…but I think, after ‘one day’ juding it is a little hasty. It is also rather poor that you jump on the fact that Ben and I play instruments which means we are ‘rockers trying to making electronica’. Actually, both of us are just quiet nerdy programmers / computer geeks, who yes, happen to play a lot of instruments. The idea behind our work is to focus on organic sounds and the tones of old analog keyboards, and this is the first bad review of any of our (and my own) work I have read. Maybe you should listen to all my work so you can have a good slagging off session as I am sure you would hate it…still, I enjoyed your review – you judged too quickly and jumped on us being in bands (so damn what?) as being we have no rights in the ‘ambient’ world (really? next year i am releasing a lot on the most established ambient labels today, so you better stay away from these labels…)but, it was still well written and I appreciate the fact you put time in to slag us off.
Oh, and is music only valid (acc. to your conclusion) if it focuses on the self? And are people only valid members of society if they have a breakdown…but of course, as we were in bands, neither of us could possibly suffer from depression or break downs and therefore (according to you) be valid artists and members of your elite, could we? I think that suggesting people who like this album are ’surface’ people without (your) depth is rather short-sighted and offensive. Like I said, hate the album, but don’t ever suggest we are rockers who as such, as lesser people than you. Quite appalling.
Cheers, Ian
Yeah, right :-). In reality, according to my server logs, you incidently came across the review when searching Google for the release. But I suppose you only looked for a way to plug the phrase “promoted on Quiet Space radio” and added a fictional friend to leave the impression of a silent majority standing behind you.
Reading/comprehension isn’t one of your strengths, is it? Else you would have noticed that I did not take issue on playing instruments, but the failure of integrating the entire sound into a consistent whole. Also a product of your fantasy is the non existent quote of rockers trying to making electronica. The original statement was:
Polar Living leaves considerate room for improvements and still carries a lot of the “former rockband members go electronica” burden that prevents Lost Lanterns from effectively treating the new music creation medium as autonomous object with its own set of rules
And obviously it does not carry any of the elements you try to accuse me of.
Whether you are a programmer and know how to operate computers is entirely irrelevant because it is a statement that cannot be verified and even if, it is entirely unrelated to the criticism, because it was focussing on the music category electronica.
I saw no need to further listen to the music, because to me its structure is primitive, predictable and repetitive, so listening more than once does not result in new discoveries. Repetition may be the key to success in marketing, but not necessarily in critism. That’s not poor but just my opinion based on my experience as a composer. And I feel I have a right to express my personal opinion and give a sound reasoning for my conclusions.
So what? I don’t know if and how many listeners bothered to actually write an article about it, but do you seriously believe the ratio favourable review: unfavourable review is representative of the ratio of people who like your music? Do you believe that all people who do not like the music will bother to spend their time writing about it, rather than simply ignoring it? Do you further believe that favourable reviews are the ultimate proof of your music’s quality or skills as a musician? Or that an opinion of a subjectively perceived majority is automatically turned into a fact and has to be assumed true? Furthermore, do you seriously believe people apply the same criteria for judging music and thus all reviews can be compared with each other?
If you do believe in this then it is my humble opinon that you should go see a doctor and have your head examined.
That’s utter bullshit and appears to be based on an inferiority complex rather than what I actually wrote in my article. I did not question the right to release mainstream music and even confirmed that is has a market share and some listeners have a demand for it.
This statement is a poorly disguised attempt at the “appeal to authority” game. Who are “the most established ambient labels”? Is your personal notion authoritative for the rest of the world? Even if the definition made any sense, what does it say about the label’s objectives? Do you really want to sell the silly notion that something released on a big label is automatically good and a “certificate” of one’s musical achievements? Why is it then that every defence you try to raise is based on either some unverifiable third party statement or ad-hominem attacks?
I’m afraid you are well aware of your music’s weakness but too much in love with posturing as a “star” to have a look on musical issues. This is ok, it merely indicates that music isn’t the primary incentive for your activity, but craving for attention, feeling important and superior (it’s what Martin Luther King called the “drum major instinct”). Like in your music, there’s too much redundency in your comment and I don’t think it has much sense to go on, because you apparently failed to comprehend the criticism’s actual meaning. Of course, if your world has no categories other than “friend” and “foe”, then I imagine everything in between is subject to arbitrary (mis-)interpretation.
Olliver
wow, you really are amazing. fair play to your rudeness. and, err…a liar? shit? complex? polar (irony eh)? craving attention? huh…go figure. i thought i was pretty polite and your article suggested, to me, that you considered us ‘band guys who have no right to ambient work’. it still looks that way to me. why am i in love with posturing as a ’star’…because of reviews i have zero control over? whatever, i am very saddened that there are people out there like you who attack others in such an aggressive manner. bad reviews are fine but belittling me and my work is not cool at all. the point about labels was that you will come across my work…is that arrogant? you just will, and you hate it so stay clear i guess. that’s all. and actually, i heard your work – its really interesting and i am sorry you think i suck and am just doing music for the attention. best of luck to you. sincerely, ian
oh, just wanted to add that i do appreciate the fact you took the time to write a review…it just took me aback a bit. Concrete Muser is really good by the way. I’ll leave it at that as you don’t like ’small chat’ Good luck and take care, Ian
This looks to me like a willful misrepresentation of what I actually wrote and seems to indicate that my criticism did not get through you. Moreover it suggests that you do perceive reactions on your statements but not what might have caused them. That’s regrettable, on the other hand it might simplify your life because you can easily dismiss criticism as personal attack and prevent yourself from dealing with situations you apparently cannot cope with.
I’m at a loss with this statement. Something is obviously preventing you from getting the message. If you reread my review, or have it read and explained to you by someone with more patience than me, you will not find any prohibitions at all. Neither will you find personal attacks, but criticism of the *work* expressed as a personal opinion. The more it remains a mystery to me how somebody can even remotely associate this review with any kind of personal attack.
That’s a classical non-sequitur: Reviews and the habit of posturing are entirely unrelated to each other, so one cannot result from another. Additionally, the first part appears like yet another willful misrepresentation of what I wrote in my reply to your comment (not part of the review!)
The original statement was:
I’m afraid you are well aware of your music’s weakness but too much in love with posturing as a “star” to have a look on musical issues.
Which was a conclusion from the observation that you were more concerned about your perception in public than my review’s actual contents and did *not* mention other reviews in this context, so I really don’t know what led you to claiming otherwise.
It occurs to me that you are both well trained and used to playing the victim. This is consistent with your self-presentation as a nice guy who, on the surface, complies to political correctness to make up false and offensive claims. Let me reiterate the facts:
At first there was an unfavourable review criticising the inconsistency and superficiality of the work. Then you came across it and redefined this as a personal attack and even assumed hatred and spite as motivation. Your sole arguments were based on some unnamed third parties you considered authorities who had “certified” your work as good and my failure to comply to these “facts”. That it does not make sense at all to criticise a person one is not personally affiliated with or who is otherwise unknown to someone did not prevent you from repeating the claim nonetheless. When I pointed out your not so nice attempts at misrepresenting the review and my reaction to your comment, where I had expressed my worries this might be related with you being more interested in posturing rather than addressing musical issues, you again reinstated your “out here to get you” fantasy and repeated all the silly claims I had already refuted. Now do you seriously believe this kind of ignorance you exhibit conforms to any form of politeness?
I suspect that once you made up your mind, nothing can get through you any longer, no matter how crazy this notion of yours may be.
The original reference of this claim was a reply to Ian Hawgood’s statement:
next year i am releasing a lot on the most established ambient labels today, so you better stay away from these labels…
Which went like this:
This statement is a poorly disguised attempt at the “appeal to authority” game. Who are “the most established ambient labels”? Is your personal notion authoritative for the rest of the world? Even if the definition made any sense, what does it say about the label’s objectives? Do you really want to sell the silly notion that something released on a big label is automatically good and a “certificate” of one’s musical achievements?
Notice that a reproach containing the word “arrogant” does not appear anywhere in my reply. Also notice the phrase “the most established ambient labels today” in the original statement and the implicit threat or order to “better stay away from these labels” and how it gracefully omits the “or else…” part. This seems to me a weird form of politeness based on the notion that Ian Hawgood has some kind of power over me (which I seriously doubt).
This remark looks like a key statement to me:
It reveils that Ian Hawgood is more concerned about the perception of his personality than that of his work. Or more precisely with a perception of his personality that matches his own ideal picture of himself. It also explains how an unfavourable review focussing on the flaws of his work suddenly becomes a spiteful personal attack and that poor Ian Hawgood completely loses the focus on the actual review’s content and instead opts to launch a politically correct ad-hominem attack. These are not the traits of a nice guy. Rather, these are traits of someone who has grave issues with accepting his own limitations and everyone else pointing out these. The music as such only echoes the creator’s personal weaknesses and the discussion made it obvious why his work cannot aquire more depth and settles with citing stereotypes.
Olliver