Suede Online

Way to perdition

Monumental songs, fights, drugs, line-up changes ... The long ten years of Suede's career are the particular history of 90's british pop. They were supported by the press, but always kept a phylosophy of "us against the world" that their fans loved. The very complete and careful reeditions of their five albums (including all the b-sides, some unpublished songs and a lot of visual material) serve as a proof of an erratic career which includes two of the best albums ever made in the U.K.
Suede (1993) recalls the time when the band was "the best new band of U.K." as stated by Select. The album is a fantastic maniphesto of exhilarating glam and melancholic pop which turned Brett Anderson and Bernard Butler into the new Morrissey and Marr. The work included some of their best songs and b-sides, which have always been the secret of the band: there was no bad one till 1997. Their cenit arrived with the Stay Together EP (1994, and the marvellous My Dark Star and The Living Dead) and the excessive and tremendous Dog Man Star, their masterpiece.
The couple took their obsession for the ampulous arrangements to the paroxism and opened doors to a lyricism which dealt with a postmodern and suburban universe. Their triumph was also their final: Butler left the group and nothing was the same. He was substituted by a facsimil copy (Richard Oakes), and the combo chose a lighter touch to reappear with their more pop and successful record: Coming Up (1996). Head Music (1999) showed what seemed impossible: mediocrity. Brett decided, probably obliged by the lack of inspiration, in plagiarising himself again and again, and only a bunch of songs saved the whole. But there is no possible excuse for A New Morning (2002): bad, lifeless and boring songs. Sad ending for a passionating career which they now try to prolong with a nostalgic tour.

maybe a little too hard with Head Music, but I liked it a lot.

Interestingly, the reviewer gives the first 2 albums 5 stars, the maximum. I think I have only seen other 5 stars rating once in more than 10 years.

poor review in my opinion - read far more praiseworthy reviews of suede over the years - to say their first too albums were incredible just mimics what has been said a million times before - and it glosses over what a brilliant album Coming Up is - also Head Music as you said which on ocassion is one of my very favourite Suede albums depending on mood... To call ANM bad, lifeless and boring is also missing the point - yes there are some dull songs, yes it was nowhere near their peak - but their were also some fine songs too - obsessions, lost in tv, astrogirl, streetlife, you belong to me - to say there was no excuse for ANM when at best it is 'good' and at worst 'average/hit and miss' is a poorly constructed critique - also there is no detail to the review either - very little about any of the songs...

5/5 for both the first two albums is nice, but to give HM 2.5/5 and ANM 1.5/5 is an absolute disgrace...

I like it because I think he is right to a good extent.
Maybe what I disagreee more is in the extended inherent assumption that a poppy record (Coming Up) has to be regarded as of less quality than a dramatic serious album (Dog Man Star), as it happens also when qualifying films. I would have given CU 5 stars also.
I have to agree with Head Music and ANM albums and all their b-sides, as they lack the long term effect of the first three: you hear the songs and you like the songs more with the pass of time. I really can't say what this effect consist in: maybe it's the melody, maybe it's the guitars, maybe maybe it's the production, maybe it's the kookiness

At the end, the line between a good song and a class song is not that clear.

AND I LIKE OBSESSIONS! A LOT, and Untitled, even if they sound like everything precedent

HM is at the very least 3.5/5 and ANM probably 3/5.... They are GOOD but not GREAT albums... so I disagree with much of the review - and they crticise the albums without actually giving any examples of good or bad songs... Everyone seems to have had a memory loss on ANM too - let's not forget that highly regarded british music journals Q and NME gave that album 3/5 and 7/10 respectively at the time... hardly the awful album everyone seems to have jumped on the bandwagon retrospectively to say... Oh and I actually think the ANM b-sides are very good on the whole... If the reviewer can back up his opinion with some actual detail I might be interested - but just to write-off albums of is pretty ignorant.... And it's annoying because if I didn't know Suede and just read a sentence or two slating the album without any justifcation i'd probably steer clear - which is a shame... especially with HM - CGE, EWF, SIF, Electricity, Savoir Faire, Asbestos, Hi Fi, indian strings, He's Gone... all great, great songs... And Down has one of the best 'outros' of any song!...

Javvier wrote: Maybe what I disagreee more is in the extended inherent assumption that a poppy record (Coming Up) has to be regarded as of less quality than a dramatic serious album (Dog Man Star), as it happens also when qualifying films. I would have given CU 5 stars also.

Excellent point. Though I do think that, as far as "poppy" albums go, you can find a lot of peers for "Coming Up." Early Oasis, for example. Not to distract from the majesty of CU, but it doesn't tower above similar releases.

DMS and the debut, on the other hand, in the class of "serious" albums, are in a much more elite class. Personal favorites aside, DMS has a haunted quality that simply doesn't exist anywhere else. There are plenty of other albums that explore isolation, depression, stardom, etc. but none quite have the feel that DMS does. Are there "better" albums out there? Not the point! The album is special because it's so singular; even Suede themselves never released anything that matched its atmosphere. It's automatically going to seem more significant for that reason.

mark wrote:Everyone seems to have had a memory loss on ANM too - let's not forget that highly regarded british music journals Q and NME gave that album 3/5 and 7/10 respectively at the time...

Maybe the guy tripped up by implying some sort of universal consensus, but I think that either way, contemporary reactions aren't really the point.

mark wrote: If the reviewer can back up his opinion with some actual detail I might be interested - but just to write-off albums of is pretty ignorant....

Well, admittedly, at least he's consistent; he doesn't give detail for the albums he praises either. And let's be honest: haven't you heard a fair few albums that can be written off in their entirety? I don't think a track-by-track breakdown of "Standing on the Shoulder Of Giants" is necessary.