AWmusic

The Boxer Rebellion – Union

18 January 2009, Sheila @ 7:25 pm

Released January 13, 2009

The Boxer Rebellion was a violent uprising against foreign and Christian imperialism in China. The ruling Qing Dynasty tried to use their supernatural powers to expel the foreigners out of China. This eventually ended with the overthrow of the Qing Dynasty and the establishment of the Chinese Republic. Why the history lesson? Because the band, The Boxer Rebellion, has about as much in common with violent rebellion as white bread has to dark pumpernickel.

The Boxer Rebellion started life in 2000 when lead singer, Nathan Nicholson, met guitarist, Todd Howe, in a London bar. The two struck up a friendship and together with Adam Harrison (bass guitar) and Piers Hewitt (drums) formed the band. In 2003 they played the New Bands tent at the Glastonbury Festival and shortly after were signed to Alan McGee’s Poptones Records. They released their debut EP, “Exits”, in 2005. This year saw the release of their much anticipated full-length album, “Union”.

The Boxer Rebellion was recommended to me by a friend. I am reconsidering this friendship. “Oh, no”, she said. “You like Radiohead, you will love this band.” Famous last words. I was warned, in a way, I guess. Inevitably, when this is said to me I end up not liking the recommendation. And the Radiohead influence is very evident in this band. Fortunately there is only one Radiohead despite the number of pretenders that crop up every year. I just wish there was a way to stop bands from trying then I wouldn’t have had to suffer through this album.

There are so many things I didn’t like about “Union”, despite NME reporting that this self-released album is outselling Kings of Leon, Coldplay and MGMT on U.S. iTunes. It is currently #1 on the iTunes Alternative chart and #4 on the UK Alternative charts. It helps that single, “Evacuate” was the iTunes download of the week and that The Boxer Rebellion is the featured band on Myspace. So why didn’t I like this if it is so popular? Basically because it sounds like Radiohead lite. They try really, really hard to sound like The Verve and Radiohead that I find it gets in the way of actual music. The last song on the album, “Silent Movie”, sounds so similar to “Nice Dream” that I find it highly annoying. If you want to be Radiohead, become a cover band and be done with it.

All is not lost with this album though. “Soviets” is a very nice tune that starts with acoustic guitar and Nicholson’s clear vocals and then about midway kicks into high gear. I like it because it is free of all the goo-gaws that plague the other songs. There is no reverb, which is overused on just about every song, no soupy echo, and no cloying atmospherics. It’s a straightforward song with rich vocals and a truly lovely melody. It kind of reminds me of “Chinese Sleep Chant” on Coldplay’s “Viva la Vida”. “Spitting Fire”, the next song is also a nice clean song free of atmospherics so you can really hear Nicholson’s vocals. He has a pleasant enough voice and when not trying to sound like Richard Ashcroft or Thom Yorke, is a natural singer. He keeps well within his register so there is little straining even when he uses his very wonderful upper register.

So I guess you are wondering why I dislike them if I like the vocals. Well, lets not get hasty here. Nicholson does have a nice voice. Notice I said nice. I use nice a lot when talking about this band. That’s because the whole album is nice. It is something you could put on as background music and not worry that your guests will pay attention to it instead of you. Some of the tunes, like “Silent Movie” or “Misplaced” sound like they were written for a movie soundtrack. They are mostly harmless and benign which is a shame because the lyrics are thoughtful if a bit vague and repetitious at times. I’ve listened to this album about a half dozen times now and I still couldn’t sing even a portion of these tunes if my life depended on it. They are totally forgettable.

The first time I listened to this I didn’t make it all the way through. I had to stop it half way through the second last song, “Forces”. I don’t know what it is about it but it hurts my ears. To me there is a dissonance that I can’t quite put my finger on. I don’t know if Nicholson is singing half a note off-key or if the timing isn’t right or what but there is something about it that puts me on edge. I think it’s the guitar that doesn’t sit right with me.

In the end the only impression The Boxer Rebellion left on me was that I have heard all this before done better. In fact, there are two Canadian Indie bands that do it much better, October Sky and The Dunes. October Sky has the essence of Radiohead but has the good grace to know their limits and not to try to copy them. The thing October Sky lacks are good lyrics. The Dunes, on the other hand, have decent lyrics, not Radiohead, but certainly not trite either, and Kevin Pullen has a much better voice. Maybe if the three of them got together they would make one great band.

All in all, I would give this album a pass but since it is outselling Kings of Leon, perhaps you shouldn’t listen to me. I, obviously, don’t know a thing about music.

The Boxer Rebellion – Flashing Red Light Means Go.mp3

The Boxer Rebellion – Silent Movie.mp3

The Boxer Rebellion – Soviets.mp3

*mp3s removed by request*

Buy The Boxer Rebellion on iTunes.

MySpace:
The Boxer Rebellion

Share and Enjoy:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Filed under: Boxer Rebellion

9 Comments

1. Lizzie — January 26, 2009 @ 3:41 pm
   
   

   You’re right – you don’t know a thing about music – that album Union is awesome!




2. Nancy Williams — November 29, 2010 @ 12:40 pm
   
   

   Of course, what a magnificent website and enlightening posts, I surely will bookmark your site.Have an awsome day!




3. Ela — February 20, 2011 @ 11:28 pm
   
   

   you are one of those morons who not only thinks they a lot about music but that everyone else should actually care what you have to say about anything. They dont try for a single second to sound like the verve – i dont know what songs you are listening to. And on the name – well done for looking it up on wikipedia but how many bands do you know who have a practical relation to their band name? stick a sock in it basically




4. Sheila — February 20, 2011 @ 11:36 pm
   
   

   Ela: Thank you for your thoughtful critique of my post. It’s nice getting feedback. Basically, music is subjective and what one person likes, another may not. I’m glad you like Boxer Rebellion and that you are very passionate about them. It’s great for music when there are passionate people like yourself willing to stick up for the music you listen to. I didn’t like them, you did. It’s not personal. *shrug*




5. Ela — February 21, 2011 @ 9:49 am
   
   

   Aw now you have made me feel like a spanked little child. Music is subjective. It just grates on me when people, which i think is what you do in this blog, pretend they can trace the epistemological originality of a song, a band or anything really. Everyone sounds like someone else. The beattles were not that original and there are very few, save edith piaf maybe or little richard, who are truly ‘original’. in fact perhaps only robert johnson can be said to have been authentic. I dont actually mind the boxer rebellion, i think they are cool but i am not ‘passionate’ about them. I am passionate about music and i am passionately against poncy attitudes about whats original and whats not.




6. Sheila — February 21, 2011 @ 10:20 am
   
   

   While it is true that it is hard for bands to be original there are many who do manage. The problem is there is a huge difference between being inspired by, in this case, Radiohead or being influenced by them, in which case I would expect to find elements of Radiohead in the songs, a borrowed rhythm here or an altered riff there and actually trying to sound like them. And if you really want to get right down to it, not even Robert Johnson or Edith Pilaf or Little Richard were original, nor were any of the classical composers. They were inspired by someone else, even it was only their mother. The difference between someone who is deemed “original” and those who are deemed not to be original is that you don’t hear their influences. They take what inspires them and move it in a different direction. And if you really want to take it to extremes the only guy/girl who could have been original is the first person to hit a hollow log with a bone. After that it’s all copied.

   I’m not trying to pretend anything, I hear what I hear, you hear what you hear. As I said it’s subjective, not right or wrong just different. The other thing I would say to you is that you’ve accused me of having a “poncy attitude” about what is original and what isn’t when you have done the same by naming those three as people who you feel could be deemed original (I would add Miles Davies, Charlie Parker and many of the other jazz greats but that’s just me). And to be totally petty, it’s spelled “The B-e-a-t-l-e-s”.




7. Ela — February 21, 2011 @ 8:29 pm
   
   

   that is absolutely and undeniably petty and facile. And actually the logic of having to go back to the first human to hit a hollow object is a fallacy and it is not a necessary extension of my argument. What constitutes the rock and roll sounds that are heard today can be (albeit a difficult task) more thoughtfully traced to rythms that held a combination of distinct and determinable qualities, which pre-neolithic man could not be said to have had in mind when he hit his/her hollow stick. While some of these qualities are contained in the work of classical composers, their work can also be easily delineated. That they were inspired by their mothers is a senseless point of contention that bears little reference in a discussion of what original music is constituted of and of what musical histories frame the current pool we listen to. In any case, I bid you good day before we descend to depths unwarranted by what is essentially a trivial issue.




8. Sheila — February 21, 2011 @ 10:20 pm
   
   

   What? You’re bailing on me now? Just when I spent all day working on a pie chart? Well, I was going to say that I had said if you took it to the extreme about neolithic man yada, yada, yada and that I thought you would understand that I was being intentionally simple. Of course I’m trivializing a very complex issue, but my point was: “The difference between someone who is deemed “original” and those who are deemed not to be original is that you don’t hear their influences. They take what inspires them and move it in a different direction.” Since there really hasn’t been anything truely original in well over 100+yrs., even rock and roll isn’t, what is generally considered original has specific stipulations attached to it. Someone can be original in their genre, such as country/jazz, but not in the larger musical landscape. And it is not a senseless point that people such as Robert Johnson or Edith Pilaf could have been influenced by their mothers since they would have brought home from the speakeasy’s and nightclubs of the day, the music they heard. I can clearly trace my love of unusual music back to my mother. And since you had used those people as examples of original music, the reference was germane to your argument. But, oh well, you will never read this but I have to say that I am confused by your calling it an essentially trivial issue since you came in here with a full head of steam calling names and spitting fire. *shrug*




9. Ela — February 22, 2011 @ 10:26 am
   
   

   “spitting fire”. I like it. And a pie chart? I’d love to see it; but what on earth is it of?! Look, we are going to have to agree to disagree. My basic point is that I do not like people trying to assert what is original and what isn’t.

   I have no problem whatsoever with someone saying to me hey listen, i don’t like this song or i dont like this band, i think they’re a bunch of tossers or whatever. The issue is when people start talking about authenticity, what is authentic and what is not is a bizzare reason not to like a piece of music because most of us not only do not have the technical abilities to trace authenticity but neither do we need to.

   A song is supposed to reach your soul, to make you dance, to make you smile, to make you sad etc. Now you may say one of the reasons a song does not reach you is because it is a bad song – the lyrics are crap, guitar is weak, too much high hat, not enough soul/rythm. whatever. but that the song does not reach you because it is ‘unorginal’ would be a nonsense proposition. if you said boxer rebellion does not take your fancy because they are not innovative enough: they’re instrumentation is bland etc, that would be one thing but to not like them because they may or may not sound like the verve comes across to be as, sorry to repeat myself, poncy.

   Additionally, my experience is that the people who talk to me about originality are the most unoriginal people i have ever met. most of us are not in any way original but we can at least try to leave the bullshit at the door and just say i like this/i dont like this. end of story

   When I say it is a trivial issue, I mean that it is a trivial issue in the real scheme of things. Whether a piece of music is ‘original’ or not does not happen to be one of the things that keeps me up at night unless i am stoned out of my mind, in which case nothing is a trivial issue.

Leave A Comment