- Home
- Submit News
- Bands
- Streams
- Best New Music
- Interviews
- Tours
- Reviews
- New Releases
- Contact Us
- Login
CardiacsCardiacs: Sing to GodSing to God (1995)Alphabet Business Concern Reviewer Rating: 5 Contributed by: Skibz777Skibz777 (others by this writer | submit your own) One could end up writing a book merely attempting to explain the Cardiacs. Really, how do you succinctly summarize a band so unique that critics had to collectively conceive an entirely new genre just to describe them? Since their formation in 1977 by singer/songwriter/guitarist Tim Smith, the Cardi.
One could end up writing a book merely attempting to explain the Cardiacs. Really, how do you succinctly summarize a band so unique that critics had to collectively conceive an entirely new genre just to describe them? Since their formation in 1977 by singer/songwriter/guitarist Tim Smith, the Cardiacs have both perplexed and divided critics and audiences alike with their sound, a schizophrenic blender mix of the sonic assault of punk rock, the experimental textures of post-punk, the grand orchestral harmonies of psychedelic pop and the occasional rabbit-punch burst of manic ska, all set against enough complex instrumental passages and ridiculous time signature changes which might recall a drunken brawl between Frank Zappa, Syd Barrett, Crass, Madness, Wire and Public Image Ltd. on the set of Eraserhead. Puzzled critics had little choice but to coin their own term exclusively to describe the Cardiacs: "pronk," the seemingly oxymoronic mix of progressive rock and punk. Please login or register to post comments.What are the benefits of having a Punknews.org account?
Thanks for trying to give me homework, but I'll pass. I'm not about to dig further into the back-catalog of a band so that I can prove to myself they're as interesting as you say... especially when, in my esitmation, this release did not live up to your hype. I'm an overzealous Cardiacs freak (though not to the degree of *some* people), so obviously I mildly disagree...after all, your primary point of comparison is Mr. Bungle, a band which would not exist without the Cardiacs' influence, as Mike Patton has even organized benefit shows on behalf of the band. Detractors are quick to unfavorably compare them, quite ironically, with modern bands who would not exist without the Cardiacs' influence. Taking away any point of comparison, this album is still an insanely bold and original piece of work. I got this album based upon this review. It's an OK record, but the review oversells this record in a huge way. To read this review, this album is the most mind-blowing collection of music ever released. In reality, it's fairly accessible psychedelic rock with a few aggressive passages. It has a Mr.-Bungle-meets-ELO vibe, without being as good or as interesting as either of those bands. It's decent, but "some of the most original, challenging, compelling, ambitious and truly out-there music", this ain't. |
Previous
Exclusive StreamsSponsored EventsNewest Reviews
Punknews.org TeamManaging EditorAdam WhiteContributing EditorsBryne Yancey Kira Wisniewski Brittany Strummer Andrew Waterfield Armando Olivas John Flynn Chris Moran John GentileCopy EditorAmelia ClinePodcast ProducerNariman ShariatPublisherAubin PaulISSN 1710-5366© Copyright 1999-2013 Punknews.orgTerms of Use Privacy Policy Frequently Asked Questions Contact Us About Punknews.org Other Places to Go |









The last paragraph is more a summation of the Cardiacs as a whole rather than this specific album. I wouldn't necessarily call myself a diehard fan, at least not to the extent of some people who literally consider Tim Smith to be in league with Beethoven, but taking into account their entire body of work from 1980 onwards, I'm prepared to firmly stand behind my claims. People wouldn't believe any praise about The Beatles if the only album you had to show for it was 'Help!'.
In all honesty, this is not my favorite Cardiacs album, it's my fourth. However, it's their most traditionally punk-oriented and what I felt was most appropriate to review here. In retrospect, though, doing an album from 1995 makes about as much sense as trying to praise the Ramones as a whole with a review of 'Mondo Bizarro'. I think if I had tackled one of their earlier albums, which placed this music within perspective of the late 1970s and early 1980s, my bold claims would probably hold a bit more water. Plus, there's always the fact that I'm just a shitty reviewer. ;)
I'm not trying to turn this into an argument, either, nor am I trying to divert anyone's opinion...I know plenty of people who fucking *hate* this band with every atom, and that's fine with me. I would just hate it if I personally tainted anyone's opinion of any band because of my own biased viewpoint. I'll admit I may have gone overboard with the praise - although, in the context of their entire discography, I feel some elements of such do ring true - but frankly, I couldn't conceive any other way to draw attention to an album which I assumed 3/4 of this website would ignore just after reading the first paragraph.