Cursive - Happy Hollow
Rating
RIYL
CriteriaMurder By Death
The Paper Chase
Fugazi
Tracklist
1. Opening the Hymnal/Babies2. Dorothy at Forty
3. Big Bang
4. Bad Sects
5. Flag and Family
6. Dorothy Dreams of Tornadoes
7. Retreat!
8. The Sunks
9. At Conception
10. So-So Gigilo
11. Bad Science
12. Into th Fold
13. Rise Up! Rise Up!
14. Hymns for the Heathen
Users Rating |
Your RatingCreate an account or log in to rate this album |
Recent Ratings |
|
It’s tough enough following a superb album; it’s damn near impossible following two superb back-to-back releases; and it’s more likely Paris Hilton will become a nun than it is for Cursive to release an album that matches the insurmountable success of both Domestica and The Ugly Organ – the latter of which many consider a landmark in modern indie-rock. Some critics, fans, and peers even go as far to suggest that The Ugly Organ is one of the best albums since the new millennium. All of this sudden success and immediate critical, (relative) commercial, and fan attention could wreck any band’s psyche, which is why Cursive frontman Tim Kasher decided to take a breather from the band and focus on his more folk-rock-focused band the Good Life; some speculated Cursive would never get back together.
After yet another sensational release with the Good Life in 2004 with Album of the Year, Kasher came back to Cursive, despite the departure of cellist Gretta Cohn. With Cohn’s departure, Cursive was left with a vacant chair, which contributed to much of The Ugly Organ’s unique and popular sound. Prior to Cohn’s recruitment to Cursive, Kasher had said he had grown tired of traditional rock music, and liked experimenting with new instruments. To fill the void of Cohn’s unexpected departure, Cursive has finally returned after a three-year absence with a loud burst of horns – trumpets, trombones, and sax’s, oh my – on their newest Saddle Creek offering, Happy Hollow.
Just like there was no easy way to follow up The Ugly Organ, there’s no easy way to review Happy Hollow. From a completely objective and stale standpoint, one could simply state that Happy Hollow just doesn’t live up to its predecessors. But on another level, you have to give the guys in Cursive credit for pushing forward despite adversity, and they pushed forward with an entirely contrasting album from The Ugly Organ. Happy Hollow is much more sonically aggressive, considerably slower, less lyrically personal, and recalls many similarities to 2000’s Domestica.
However, there are evident shortcomings to Happy Hollow completely independent from any album-by-album comparisons. Most notably, the overall songwriting isn’t as strong, both lyrically and musically. While many of the songs, either mellow or rocking, sound the same – choppy, standard “Cursive” guitar work, weird notes, heavy distortion – which isn’t commendable, the lyrical weaknesses, however, are efforts worthy of such praise. Prior to this, a solid majority of Cursive’s lyrics – both Kasher’s and guitarist Ted Steven’s – were deeply personal. On Happy Hollow, the band tried something new, writing a concept album revolving around religious themes in a fictional Western town – Who Will Survive, And What Will Be Left of Them, anyone? In the end, Kasher comes off sounding pretentious and awkward, as he challenges creationism from a Darwinian viewpoint. This attempt towards a new writing perspective is admirable and completely justified, but ultimately – at least on this release – Cursive are better personal songwriters.
Despite all this seemingly harsh criticism, the complete truth is Happy Hollow is a respectable indie-rock record. Although it doesn’t live up to Cursive’s previous two releases, which were both exemplary, Happy Hollow is still good, or at least, good enough. This isn’t so far-gone or crummy that it’ll alienate Cursive fans for life; and Cursive may never again release albums as good as Domestica or The Ugly Organ – something every album they ever release will ever be ultimately compared to – but nothing changes the fact that the musicians in Cursive are terrific at what they do. Sure, Happy Hollow has some dry filler, but it also has some great songs like “Dorothy at Forty,” “Big Bang,” “Bad Sects,” “So-So Gigalo,” and “Into the Fold.”
You’ve got to applaud Cursive for the changes they attempted on Happy Hollow because some work quite well, while others don’t. It’s taxing enough to have a respectable follow-up after The Ugly Organ without too deeply disappointing too many fans, but that was ultimately inevitable. At the end of Happy Hollow, I feel neither overtly disappointed nor ecstatic, but chiefly satisfied.
--Kamran Rouzpay
Comments
Manchester, England
Belgrade, Serbia
xept wouldn't involve Paris Hilton... would try mu luck with Mr Bush...
Tucson, AZ
Dallas, Texas
Manchester, England
all hail the awesome power of differing opinions!
SL, UT
I dont think a band should be reviewed in comparison to their previous work. Each record should be reviewed on its own merit.
Additionally, those bands level of musicianship indeed could, and should be reviewed in comparison. Musicianship shows how talented a band is. If Over It (which I've never even heard) aren't as good of musicians as Cursive and the songs aren't as impactful why would Over It get a higher rating?
I assume those two bands are very different and thus probably shouldn't be compared directly to one another but my point is that a 3.5 starred record should never be better than a 4 starred record, no matter the circumstance.
Trollin' with my homies.
SL, UT
Trollin' with my homies.
Austin
The Daily Galaxy
An elephant that never forgets...to kill!
Dallas, Texas
Prior efforts do matter, they of course shouldn't be the focal point of what new efforts are measured upon, especially for a band that's been around for awhile and should be allowed to change with the time. But just because a band changes doesn't mean comparions against prior work aren't warranted. Take Metallica for instance. I don't dislike St. Anger simply because it's a nu-metal record and it isn't Just For all, in fact, I think it's cool that they tried something new. No, I dislike St. Anger because it's a bad Nu-Metal record. Horrible lyrics, sub-par, unimaginative musicianship for the new style the choose (when there were other innovators of the style at the time).
Same thing can be said for this new Cursive. Compared to prior works, too much filler and pointless noodling for my taste.
You're basing that on the notion that the same kinda of people that listen to Cursive also listen to Over It. Not true. That's like saying people that spin Sade also spin Cave-In, when either crowd probably wouldn't listen to the other for longer than 30 seconds. People have different opinions on what is quality music and what isn't. It's why you HAVE to separate the two. Just because you think Cursive writes better music doesn't mean the average teen that spins Breaking Benjamin is going to feel that same way.
SL, UT
You said you didn't like the record (st. Anger) because it was a bad nu-metal record. Well, that would be judging it on its own merit.
I'm not basing it on that notion at all. Of course they don't have the same fans. Are you arguing that a 3.5 starred record could in some instances be better than a 4 starred record?
Trollin' with my homies.
Austin
The Daily Galaxy
An elephant that never forgets...to kill!
Atascadero, CA
in a lot of instances people are going to find a 3.5 album to be better than a 4 album. ratings are all general opinions its not like everyone at decoy gets together and rates an album based upon how we want our readers to see if an album is up to everyones standards as a whole. I'll admit the Cursive cd is better than the Over It cd.. some people are just loose on their ratings and some people will definately like one or the other more and less than I do. So yes, a 3.5star album can be better than a 4album based on my opinion.
Decoymusic.com (CEO/Founder)
Blue Reef Design Studios (Web Development)
http://aarontroy.tumblr.com
blockbuster
^quoted for emphasis
Dallas, Texas
But it's still comparable to prior work. It's the worst of anything they've ever done, but not simply because it isn't like their old stuff. I left out saying such things like "nu-metal is better than classic metal" or whatever because that would have been getting long winded -- if that makes any sense. All I'm saying is there is a that there should be a little bit of both when grading a band that's had some history. Cause if your favorite band all of sudden started making music for the Barney and Friends soundtrack you SURELY compare it to what they did in the past.
No at all. All I'm saying is that the reviewer felt that the new Over It record is 4 stars for ITS GENRE. While Cursive's new album is a 3.5 for its own crowd. Just because Kam gave the new Cursive a 3.5 doesn't mean that Over It's review of 4 makes it a better record, which is the statement you made and manireal made as well (or implied), prior.
For some strange reason, no matter what webzine or magazine peeps read, they always seem to think that whatever score a record gets, it means that the reviewer is comparing it to EVERYTHING that gets ink in the zine.
SL, UT
I understand there is varience from reviewer to reviewer but the same reviewer should never give one album a 3.5, another a 4 and ever say the 3.5 was a better record.
I'm not saying that applies in this case because I don't even know if the same reviewer did both Cursive and Over It. Just saying as a rule of thumb that should never happen.
Trollin' with my homies.
SL, UT
I can understand what you are saying but I don't think that should effect the rating. Take underoath for example... they changed their sound quite a bit from TOSC to DTGL, while it may make sense to identify those differences (whether it be growth or a step back in the reviewers mind) for the sake of the review, I do not feel that it makes sense to take those changes into account when giving an album a rating. I feel ratings should be given without taking into account the bands previous work. Rate it on its own merit.
In the same breath it would be great if this was completely possible. Unfortuantely it usually isn't due to reviewer bias regarding their perception of the band, be it positive or negative.
You know what I mean?
Trollin' with my homies.
SL, UT
Trollin' with my homies.
Dallas, Texas
PS. Underoath sucks.
Belgrade, Serbia
The Great North Woods
Darla Farmer
RIYL:
the Beatles
Tom Waits
Murder By Death
A Whisper in the Noise
the Blood Brothers
SL, UT
Trollin' with my homies.
Sacramento, CA
i liked giving records 4.73s, by the way. we should go back to that.
I'm not here to make things better; only to observe and pass judgement.
Cleveland, OH
Scene Point Blank / Escapist Records