Jonathan Seet: Thanks to Science, We’ve Got Love

After last week’s gratuitous abuse of Canada, shame compels me to leave off jokes about eleven months of snow and one of bad sledding and the like. Purely coincidentally, after Miriam Jones’ rather fine jazzy pop effort, comes fellow Canuck Jonathan Seet’s impeccably-produced tribute to all his favourite Brit bands.Yup, they’re all present and correct: The Cure, The Verve, The Bunnymen, Radiohead. Unfortunately, in many cases he’s latched onto the worst aspects of each group rather that the things that made them great. So instead of the sublime theatricality of The Cure, we have their cheesiest bass lines; instead of the melodic brilliance of Radiohead, we have their adolescent po-facedness, and instead of The Bunnymen’s era-defining creativity, we have their haircut.

That’s not to say that there are no good songs on this plodding, over-long album, but you have to be selective. Whilst opener ‘A Million Hungry Eyes’ borrows a good deal from ‘The Killing Moon’, with it’s strong piano-led intro and twangy, reverberating guitar, it certainly displays Seet’s impressive vocal range and ability to craft a clever pop melody. His voice is pleasing but characterless, as healthy and featureless as a Saskawatchan prairie and his freeze-dried production owes more to MOR hack Jeff Lynn than the indie genius of someone like Joy Division’s Martin Hannett. His lyric targets are obscure: I think this one might be about the cult of celebrity and leads to a redundant coda with Seet endlessly intoning “Quiet on the Set, Take 1″. This adds a minute to a song that should be done in three and a half. Seet might be a solid writer but he’s a bad editor: like the album, this song is too long.

Following on is ‘Just Try’ a blander version of what we’ve just heard, and then we have the first fair-dinkum steal from Oxford’s finest: ‘Come On’ ‘s lead guitar intro is that of ‘No Surprises’ minus all of the danger and edge of that nihilistic masterpiece, and the rest of the song is middle-ranking Electric Light Orchestra. ‘Killing All My Friends’ is much better: it combines Paul McCartney’s melodic sophistication with Richard Ashcroft’s lonesome balladeer shtick to good effect. The chorus is the thing: despite a major tautology (“You’re my alibi, undercover spy”, as opposed to the sort that go around with a bollard on their head saying, “Look Out! I’m a Spy”), it has a big, mighty melody that crushes cynicism, albeit temporarily.

Sadly, the record crashes into the ice floes with the next track. Seet has made an attempt at a mid-album pick-me-up, drawing on The Cure’s ‘Love Cats’, but instead of aping the Goth heroes, he’s gone and re-written ‘Save Your Kisses for Me’ by The Brotherhood of bloody Man! Maybe this is one for Radio 2. The slump continues with the offensively titled ‘Fashion Tips for the Homeless’, a self-pitying acoustic stomp, but is arrested by ‘Watching You Sleep’ a restless but intriguing piece of electronica which reminds me slightly of the Longpigs’ ‘Franck Sonata’. Here, and on the grooving, beat-laden closer ‘End of The Tape’, Seet’s music starts to acquire a spark of individuality and even modernity.

To close then, Seet has shown himself on all thirteen tracks (yes, I counted them all!) to be a professional-sounding songwriter and craftsman, but in Oxford that won’t be enough. He must wean himself off this habit of trying to sound alternately like every British band there ever was, and instead trust his own talent to write songs that sound like Jonathan Seet’s work, rather than a painstaking pastiche. I want to listen to works of art, not trawl through some hoser’s stamp collection.

Jonathan Seet Myspace

  • http://www.gappytooth.com gappy

    I think you’ll find “Fashion Tips For The Homeless” is a brilliant song title, Colin!

    Goods review – I shall try to find time to listen to some of this online & draw my own conclusions.

  • Cal

    I’ll have to check this out because I’m really confused as to why somebody with so much negative to say about this would write such a bloody long, exhaustive review…to his detriment…he contradicts himself several times – lacking Radiohead’s melodic brilliance vs. clever pop melody/solid writer?

    My suspicion is that Colin actually likes it but it’s much cooler to throw in clumsy Canadiana references (ice floes? hoser? Saskatchewan prairie? where’s Terence & Philip?) and half-arsed band references. Why do I get the feeling when I listen to this it’s going to sound nothing like the Brit band references he’s cited?

  • colinmackinnon

    T and P was last week; do keep up, Cal!

    The reason I spent so long on the album was because Jonathan is clearly a significant talent- if he was some duffer that only knew three chords I wouldn’t have spent all the time and trouble listening. And there are some fine songs on the record.

  • Phill

    I just had a listen on myspace – yep, Colin’s pretty much spot on with this review – especially with the love cats / save all your kisses for me reference.

  • http://www.seet.ca Jonathan

    I actually find it quite interesting how people perceive these things. My first introduction to The Cure was Fascination Street in goth clubs in Toronto (I had a roommate, who at the time, was a faux-goth rocker. I would tag along for the cheap beer on Thursday nights to the long defunct Catch-22). My first introduction to Echo & The Bunnymen was Bring On The Dancing Horses on the Pretty In Pink soundtrack. God knows how I ended up with that.

    While I think Colin’s assessment is mostly accurate, I would contend that the influences he’s spotted in the songs (or production value) are not actually influences, per se (at least not in the sense that I was trying to ape my favourite Brit bands – missing in action: Peter Gabriel, Elbow, early Genesis, Bowie, Catherine Wheel, XTC – huge). In fact, my approach I was going for with “It’s Not Enough” was a 50’s-60’s Motown back-beat. I was listening to a lot of Motown at the time, e.g. Diana Ross & The Supremes, Temptations, Martha & The Vandellas, etc. I think if you listen again, you’ll agree that it sounds way more like The Supremes than The Cure (since when did The Cure do Motown harmonies like that?). And even then, The Supremes would never have done a song about lesbian dalliances. Or would they? Hmm. Anyway, it’s more accurate that both The Cure and myself were borrowing from Motown, not me simply ripping off Brit bands.

    And yes, the MySpace “Influences” section lists The Cure but that put there to try and to answer the question, “what do you sound like?” and serve as a touchstone for the search engine. It came afterwards, not before.

    Regardless, thanks again, Colin for taking the time to listen to the 13-track epic. It’s not easy writing a balanced review. Also, the “Fashion Tips For The Homeless” is facetious and it’s offensive to anyone they’re not realizing that it’s not a prescriptive title but descriptive.

    Cheers,
    Jonathan

  • http://www.seet.ca Jonathan

    p.s. – that last sentence should have read: Also, the title “Fashion Tips For The Homeless” is facetious and if it’s offensive to anyone they’re not realizing that it’s not a prescriptive title but descriptive.

  • http://www.seet.ca Jonathan

    p.p.s. – also, I’ve never heard of Brotherhood of Man. I just Wikipedia’d it and figured out why: we don’t get Eurovision in Canada and I don’t think that song ever made it over there. If it had, I completely missed it.

  • beaver fuel

    How I envy you never having had to put up with Brotherhood of Man!

  • http://www.seet.ca Jonathan

    Sorry – one final thing I forgot which is the entire reason I sent the CD in to Oxfordbands.com for review: I’m playing a solo show at the Jericho Tavern on Friday April 17th. Just me and an acoustic, no band or production.

    I mention this because pretty much all of the songs on this CD were written from scratch for voice and guitar or piano. The production canvas which Colin bases almost the entire critique on was never the starting point of the recording, and as I said before it was never the intended outcome to sound like somebody else. So the show at the Jericho might give some insight into how unrelated to the songs the production actually is.

    So yes, that’s a plug. K.l8r.
    j.

  • colinmackinnon

    Two weeks on, I’m beginning to think I was a little harsh. The bad songs are as bad as I said they were, but the better songs are real growers and deserved more attention. ‘The kind of Girl I Am’ is bloody good, and the two electronica songs mentioned in the review are really excellent.

  • Julie

    actually, you didnt say any of them were bad!
    i saw him on friday at the Jericho and bought a cd. the guy can fuckin sing and the tunes weren’t derivative at all! you might have somthing about the Radiohead influence but he’s better than they ever were at that period in their career i.e.when they were actually writing songs an not wanking about with fx in their studio hole.

  • http://shahidul.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/shadi-ghadirian.jpg Charlotte

    Yeah, Radiohead need to write some proper songs again, that new stuff just sounds like a lot of noise to me, why do they have to use gadgets!? I can’t hear the lyrics!!! Bob Dylan needs to go back to using an acoustic guitar as well instead of that terrible amplified nuisance, what’s the world coming to?

  • Julie

    theres a difference between wanking and using gadgets, b

  • Andy

    What have you got against this guy, Colin? It’s a ridiculously harsh review for a record that’s clearly growing on you. Indeed, you never said any of them were bad. Your review suffers from the same length and editing problems you accuse your subject of. It smacks of a small Scottish man accusing of others of being foreigners. Some of your other reviews acknowledge “nods” and influences. Instead of calling it a “painstaking pastiche” you could have easily called them “nods” too, but no, you had to try and take him down a notch.

    And then talking down your nose trying to sound intelligent by throwing out the word “tautology” when you obviously don’t even know what it means (i.e. “undercover spy” is not the same as “alibi” – look it up); it’s like you’re overcompensating for something. You should have passed on this one instead of writing a hack review. I’ve been enjoying this site for a while and you write some good stuff but I don’t know what got into you here.

  • Beaver Fuel

    They don’t call him “Slasher Mackinnon” for nothing, you know…

  • http://www.gappytooth.com gappy

    Hi Andy

    I think C-Mac* is stating that the phrase “undercover spy” itself is tautological, which seems fair, because keeping your ID secret is a prerequisite of being a spy, I’d have thought.

    *His J-Lo inspired street name…tho I shall be calling him the “small Scottish man” from now on, rest assured!

  • Big Tim

    >I think C-Mac* is stating that the phrase “undercover spy” itself is tautological, which seems fair, because keeping your ID secret is a prerequisite of being a spy, I’d have thought.

    Is it not possible for a spy to be out of work, or simply not on a job, and therefore not necessarily undercover? There must be other times when a spy is not, by dint his or hers current activities, being undercover? Not really much need for secret identities when you’re just popping to the shops for a pint of milk…

    Anyhoo, I’ll give it a listen, if only to see if I agree with the Mac Daddy. He’s gonna make you jump jump.