Los
Angeles doom-dealers Ancestors are band that ÐÐ well, hang on, weÕve
already lazily thrown them into a, like, bag, and thatÕd be a bit
premature. Okay, what Ancestors are, first of all, is undoubtedly HEAVY,
but then again theyÕre a lot of things, in a way akin to how the
progressive likes of Pink Floyd and King Crimson were back in the early Õ70s,
a time when bands could throw just about everything into their magic
teapots, then sit back and watch it explode ÐÐ often right in their faces.
Foolhardy risktaking is, according to Ancestors, an admirable goal, a
righteous one, an honorable and utterly rocking one.
Ancestors
ÐÐ Justin Maranga (guitar, vocals), Nick Long (bass, vocals), Brandon
Pierce (drums, gong ÐÐ yes, gong), Chico Foley (electronics, keys and
vocals) and J. Christopher Watkins (organ, vocals) ÐÐ have a recent album
out on Teepee called Of Sound Mind. A hairily ungodly hash of slab-thick
stereo-distorto guitar rifferooney, ambient electronic interludes, soaring
and kinda catchy, even, melodic gambits and a lot of interesting stuff
residing somewhere in-between all of the above, itÕs a way, way broody,
real, real
gloomy, extremely rainy-day-holed-up kinda atmospheric sludgehammer that takes
you places,
and suggests that you use your mind along the way.
I have to
admit that I was lured in by all the journalist-baiting jive about how Of
Sound Mind
had all these these real neat-o reference points surrounding its genesis,
such as the abovementioned Floyd and Crimson, along with Neurosis, Miles
Davis, Eric Dolphy, forking Albert Camus and Henry David Thoreau, for godÕs
sake. Not only that, I was given to understand that theirs was a concept album, donÕt you know.
But chief theoretician/lyricist
Chico Foley defends/defines it this way: ÒWe knew we would definitely take
it somewhere with lyrical premises and ideas, but we were interested in
staying away from all of that Ôconceptual recordÕ thing, while kind of
circling Õround one specific theme. This record is loosely associated with
something which is consciousness, psychology. ThatÕs something thatÕs been
done a million times before, but we have our own paradigms, our own
perspectives and instincts.Ó
All thatÕs
fine with me, actually ÐÐ IÕm just devilÕs-advocating off the whole
post-punk prejudice that the very idea of rock bands attempting to beat
grande opera at its own overblown game is silly and ÐÐ that most
pretentious of rock-crit terms ÐÐ Òpretentious.Ó
ÒWe were kind of afraid of ÔartÕ
concepts,Ó admits Foley, ÒÕcause of how it was mocked originally, like with
the prog bands in the Õ70s, where it became jokeworthy. We wanted to take
it seriously, but we donÕt really want to be too serious, you know. In fact,
we just did a seven-inch that was based on an imaginary graphic novel about
a deer that got run over and became a mad sexual deviant.Ó
Composing
the album, the band started by establishing a set of moods, which could be
vague, or fairly specific feelings, and eventually focused those feelings
into concrete concept. For this they took musical cues from a much earlier
time, as much to pay near-literal tribute to them as to metamorphose them
beyond all recognition.
ÒPink
Floyd, King Crimson ÐÐ we canÕt deny the fact that we referenced them,Ó
says Foley, Òbut we want to stay away from where itÕs obviously a massive
inspiration. WeÕre not trying to wear them on our sleeves; we wouldnÕt want
people to think we aspire to do anything they did.Ó
Well,
again, though, even if they did aspire to such itÕd be okey-dokey by me,
because look: These days, if anyone wants to do a concept album, itÕs a good thing
precisely because it was something that was verboten in punk-rockÕs now moldy old
past. Also, I like AMBITION, and I also happen to be sick to death of
sarcasm and irony, no kidding. But I was wondering, er, well, exactly is the concept? London-born
Foley draws on his experience as a philosophy/poly sci student at an
English university as he attempts to clarify:
ÒThere are
basically four main songs on the record, and each song has a specific lyrical
idea that has something to do with human psychology, the first being about
diaspora and why are we moving somewhere, for something or for nothing, or
are we seemingly going nowhere? We were trying to stay away from mythology,
but did refer to the gods of aspiration in general, maybe career or
academic or intellectual. ÔThe TrialÕ is very romantic, but we tried to
make it really loose. ÔThe Ambrose LawÕ is about how the parallels of
schizophrenia in the human mind may be projected, as opposed to how society
constructs it; itÕs about human society as a human function, how some of
this comes about from our own possibly schizophrenic mindsÉWeÕre all
bipolar to some degree.Ó
Meanwhile
the second song, ÔMother Animal,Õ seems to deal with absurdism, such as
this situation where ÐÐ I mean, why, for example, are we even considering
all these things that Ancestors are talking about in these songs?
ÒIs it all
absurd?Ó asks Foley. ÒWhy are we trying to accomplish knowledge when knowledge does not even exist? Why are
we doing it? Are we thinking too much? ItÕs classic things that are thought
about by the human brain.Ó
So
you might say that the time feels kinda right for big-ass conceptual rock
ÒworksÓ that put you in a mood to brood, for these are, perhaps,
long-attention-span times, if only for escapist respite from our collective
certain tragic ruin. The band is acutely aware that theyÕve got to add
something new to that experience or hazard getting hock-pooÕd right offa
the stage.
ÒThere is
kind of a revival of these kinds of emotions and musical ideas of the early
Õ70s,Ó says Foley, Òbut for us weÕre concerned how a lot of that has been
rehashed by some bands, and there isnÕt really any new form of direction.
To aspire to some of these bands who were unique and knew what they were
doing yet just trying to replicate a sound as opposed to be unique yourself
is kind of pointless. Music evolves. You might have all these influences,
but throw Õem all together and get it really mutated.Ó
ÒWhat we
liked about a lot of the Õ70s bands,Ó adds Watkins, Òis that they were
doing something new and original, and rather than replicate what they did
stylistically we thought weÕd replicate what they did as innovators. ThatÕs
the hard part, obviously.Ó
ÒThe early
Õ70s was a great time Õcause you had a lot of freedom, rather than being
controlled by what the market demanded,Ó says Foley.
ThatÕs
true, except that now, marketing yourself to a specific niche ÐÐ
doom/metal/psych-prog/etc. ÐÐ is a survival tool that every
musician has simply got to have; accepting that youÕre going to be
categorized is part of the game.
ÒIt always
pops up,Ó says Watkins, Òespecially the way communication is now ÐÐ
everyone wants a reference point, and thereÕs no way around it. ItÕs
probably best to not think about it.Ó
Even
as we speak, Ancestors are digging away at their new opus, whose title,
rationale and theoretical content are still shrouded in mystery.
ÒThe next
oneÕs gonna be a little more about the story,Ó says Watkins.
ÒWeÕve been
talking about eight characters that represent archetypes, and stuff like
that,Ó adds Foley, cryptically.
ArenÕt they
concerned about it being their third record and going out there and being,
you know, a total wank job?
ÒIÕm
confident,Ó says Foley with a laugh, Òthat Ancestors are not capable of
letting something get wanky.Ó