The National
Trouble Will Find Me
4AD
2013
Rating: 7 buckets of sawdust out of 10
I had no intentions of writing about the new National album "Trouble Will Find Me," and I'm not sure what I'm about to write even counts as "writing about it." It would be easy to dismiss it as just another National record because at first glance that's pretty much what it is. But after a few listens I realized, yeah, it might sound pretty much like everything else the band has released over the last few years, but they do it really goddamn well and I always like the end results. This is a very listenable record. And I'm sure I might forget about it from time to time like I often do with this band, but I guarantee every time I remember to play this I will enjoy it very much. If you're already a fan of the band you will love this. You probably already do since it's been out a little while. Never cared for the National? This ain't changing your mind. But are there actually people who dislike this or any other band and then give them a listen after a half-dozen records wondering if they've changed their mind about that band? I doubt it.
The National
High Violet
4AD
2010
Rating: 6 morose Midwesterners out of 10
The National probably could have Just named this record "'Bloodbuzz Ohio' and a Bunch of Other Songs You'll Be Indifferent About", or maybe that is just me. Granted, it's a really fuckin' good song, probably their best since "Lit Up", but it's not enough to raise the whole album above "ho hum" status. It's a very National record though, sounding like a depressed former steel town, full of crumbling factories and faded dreams.
The
National
Boxer
Beggars
Banquet
2007
Rating: 8 walking weirdos out of 10
Maybe you've
heard of The National...they blew up the scene a couple of years back in 2005 with
their release “Alligator”, finishing on tons of best-of lists
and fluttering up the ruffled dresses of music bloggers around the
world. Personally speaking, I thought the album was weaker than the
“Cherry Tree” EP they released a year earlier, but they were a
good band who deserved a little hype, even if it wasn't over the best
music they had produced (but still a damn good album in the grand
scheme of things).
So now they have
a new record out
called “Boxer”, and the question everyone wants the answer to
comes to mind – how does it measure up to their previous output? Bands
so often fall off after they receive a little critical acclaim,
thinking too much about what to do next, how the critics would react,
would they be able to grow their sound without alienating their older
fans...well, in this case, you'll find no slump. The National are as
sharp as ever, producing their best work to date as far as I'm
concerned. It sounds like their older albums, maybe a touch
peppier if anything, and there isn't a weak song in the entire batch.
For those not
familiar with the group,
their sound is a tad difficult to describe – the best I've ever
been able to come up with is Interpol with David Berman of the Silver
Jews singing. Honestly, it feels a bit disingenuous to use Interpol
as a touchstone since The National have actually been on the scene
longer, but hey, it's a reference the kids will get so I'm not going
to make a fuss over it. If it gets you in the stores buying their
record, then it is a comparison worth making. And let it be known,
in the event you are keeping score, I'd rather listen to The National
any day of the week over Interpol.
