Music: Just How Good is the New Portishead Album?

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


mojo-photo-portisheadthirdcover.jpgOkay, I promise that my week-long series of Coachella afterglow posts will come to an end right after this one. In fact, while my appreciation of the long-dormant Bristol combo Portishead was confirmed by their spectacular performance in the desert Saturday night, I’d been enjoying their new album, Third, for a while. While I (lovingly) mocked it a while back here on the Riff for the, er, intensity of its lyrical misery, there’s something exhilarating about Third. It’s that rarest of comeback albums: less a return to form than a return to function, evidence of a band’s determination to explore new musical territory (and new depths of despair), just as they always have.

After the jump: what’s Rob Sheffield’s damage?

For sure, Geoff Barrow, Beth Gibbons and Adrian Utley were under intense pressure to follow up their ground-breaking ’90s albums, Dummy and Portishead. Much has been made of how they managed to avoid the pitfall of just issuing a repeat by refusing to use any of the instruments they had before. By necessity, then, Third is a strange, difficult listen at first, especially for someone expecting retro-trip-hop or neo-James Bond themes. The album kicks off with a rumbling breakbeat, a far faster tempo than anything they’ve done before, and when the beat drops away, Beth Gibbons’ voice seems to approach the song at a crazy, inverted angle, singing a melody that at first sounds completely off key. Like much of the album, it takes a few listens for the whole thing to resolve, but once you get your head around it, its majesty becomes increasingly apparent each time.

It’s probably a good thing the album leaked a few months early (and got a pre-release stream on Last.fm, the music/social networking site’s first), giving reviewers a chance to get comfortable with these angular new songs, because now that the reviews are in, they’re almost unfailingly worshipful. All-powerful Pitchfork gives the album an 8.8 out of 10, its highest rating of the year except for Hercules and Love Affair. Rob Sheffield in Rolling Stone is one of the few dissenters, dismissing the band for their lack of “sparkling personalities or musical variety,” and giving the album a 3.5. Did he listen to the same thing I did?

Back on the positive side, the UK Guardian gives Third five out of five stars, picking up on the way you have to get used to the album’s sharp edges: “Portishead’s third album is initially more a record to admire than to love, its muscular synthesisers, drum breaks and abrupt endings keeping the tension high. But after several listens, Third’s majesty unfurls.” NME goes one step further, comparing the album to initially-shocking and now-beloved works like Radiohead’s Kid A or Bjork’s Homogenic, and gets to the heart of what’s so astonishing about the album: the band’s ten-year absence is an eternity in rock, and “that ‘Third’ exists at all is impressive… That it’s Portishead’s best album yet is little short of miraculous.” They give it a 9 out of 10.

Every year, I make a list of my favorite albums, and some years, the CD that takes the top spot is merely a very good one, an album I enjoyed unequivocally. Sometimes, though, there’s an album that seems to require a shift in perspective, so much so that at first, I’m not even sure I like it: The Streets’ Original Pirate Material, Blonde Redhead’s Misery is a Butterfly. Portishead’s Third may or may not land at #1 on my 2008 “Best Albums” list, but they’ve already broadened my horizons.

Third is out now on Island.

Portishead – “Machine Gun”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate