Friday, March 2, 2012

Cloudkicker: "Beacons"

A true beacon of light in the music world, this album is basically everything anyone could ask for in an instrumental.

Less physics, more amazing metal!
I’ve been wanting to do one of these albums for a while now, since this artist has become one of my favorites over the course of a few months. You may also know “Cloudkicker” by the name B.M. Sharp (or just Ben Sharp). Ring any bells? If not, I’ll explain: this man has a ton of acoustic guitar stuff on YouTube that is downright genius. Seriously, go look it up—he’s one of the better guitar players I’ve ever heard. So how does that sort of brilliance translate into another genre? Very well. Very well indeed.

For those of you that don’t know, which may be the majority of you, Cloudkicker is a project by Ben Sharp that simply involves instrumental metal music. There are two exceptions, the albums “Loop” and “Let Yourself Be Huge”; they are more acoustic and lighter in nature, with the latter being an album of serene greatness. But the other albums in Cloudkicker’s repertoire are metal instrumentals that equal and surpass his acoustic songs. Before I move on into reviewing this album, however, I’d like to mention something that is important to realize about this specific artist—and also this specific CD.

You see, the idea behind an instrumental is for the listener to provide their own ideas as to what the song is representing. What story is being told, if you will. Songs with lyrics force us to follow what the singer is saying; we can’t help but be influenced by the words being spoken. The brilliance behind an instrumental album is that it allows our ears and minds to form original pictures and ideas simply from musical stimulation, causing the scope of what the songs mean to reach levels of infinity. We are allowed to create the world that the album lives in. I realize that this sounds like an odd notion, but before you raise your eyebrow too far just give it a try.

 Here is what I advise: start playing the album, making sure your player is not on shuffle or anything of those sorts. Listen to the album all the way through, taking in every layer of music that is presented. Hear the high notes, feel the bass, and sense everything in between. Now, look around you. Look out a window at the picturesque panorama if possible; or look at the objects around you, creating ties between the audio and the visual. Look at the album art and the name of the songs. What story is being told? Who is that, and what is he reading? Why is there extensive complex machinery behind him? Close your eyes; hear what is being played. What do you see or feel? Allow your mind to make a story that fits the music. Let your imagination paint the pictures with the colors provided by the musical stimuli. Just think about, with, and beyond the music.
I can see forever...

The reason I have spent the last paragraph being weird is because of two things. The first is that I love instrumental albums, as well as albums that give a lot of instrumental time (i.e. Between The Buried And Me’s newer albums). They allow and force you to think about what you are listening to—there is no guide in their sonic landscapes. It is the enjoyment of music in its purest form. The second reason is that Cloudkicker must be approached in this method, or else everything will sound very redundant. If you walk into this album with a normal approach, it will not be nearly as enjoyable as it could be.

So let’s get started: how does this album sound from an engineering standpoint? Comparative to previous albums, Ben Sharp has definitely honed his mixing skills since his last (popular) Cloudkicker opus, “The Discovery”. One of my main complaints in my early listening experiences with that album was that it was not very well balanced. There are plenty of places where I wish I could hear some of the more intricate layers in the songs because the overwhelming distorted guitar shoved them soundly to the side. This has been fixed in “Beacons”: everything comes through very clearly and intentionally. I enjoy the crispness of the sound that is heard, even though the distortion of choice is fuzzier than most. This may have something to the cleverly selected kick drum beats that highlight many of the strums on the guitar; this gives the guitar a sharper sound without having to reduce the fuzzy distortion. Speaking of drums, I will have you know that the drums are all programmed in this album. And yet they still sound great! It is not a drum machine; instead it is the use of a ProTools plug-in that turns MIDI into amazing drum tracks. This is a one-man project, after all, so why not use such a thing to ease the recording process?

As for actual songs, I personally think each song has its own slice of genius grafted right in. Even the most mundane-sounding track has purpose in the whole scheme of the album. There is an obvious reason as to why each one was placed into the slot where it was placed. Intentionality screams forth from this album, and I would advise other artists to have the same purposefulness in their song writing and selection for albums. The list of songs creates a home with many rooms for each song to have its own individuality and yet still be found under the same roof.

The genius behind the genius in the genius.
You may be wondering why I have not complained about repetitiveness in this album yet. It is repetitive, and I am fully aware of that. But, you must take into consideration a few things. First of all, the repetitive nature is limited to the bounds of the song itself. There is a MASSIVE difference between a repetitive song and a repetitive album, the former being okay and the latter being not so good. The difference is that a song is one idea; if it repeats itself a few times or decides to extend a riff out longer than you might expect, it’s okay because it’s still the same idea. However, if an album is the same idea over and over again, then it becomes boring. With “Beacons”, the songs may be repetitive, but they are their own idea contain in separate packaging. Plus, if you were to listen very closely and attentively, you might notice that most of the time there is a new layer of sound being added with every repetition. What I’m trying to say is that yes, the album can sound repetitive. But at its core, it really isn’t, and that can be heard with multiple careful listens.

There is something about this album that makes it even more unsettlingly interesting. Have you looked at the titles of the tracks yet? If you have, you might have noticed that they are strange, to say the least, for normal song names. That is because every song name is a phrase that was recorded from a pilot whose plane was going down, meaning that he was facing an inevitable doom in a fiery wreckage of twisted metal and smoke. Let that sink in for a moment. The titles of the tracks are someone’s last words. That always gave me the chills.

As you may have noticed, I am partially in love with this album and failed at hiding it. But what is the point in hiding it? It’s amazing. This is the kind of diamond in the rough that music seekers like me love finding or hearing about from friends. This is proof that the Top 100 lists are a load of crap, that the terrible popular music out there falsely shadows music that is actually good, that true artists aren’t always the ones making millions of dollars and the media headlines on a daily basis. This is beautiful music that paints an even more gorgeous picture with your own imagination. This is penultimate perfection. Cloudkicker’s “Beacons” flies above and beyond expectations, cleanly earning itself a well-deserved:

7 out of 7. What else can be said? Bravo, Ben Sharp. Bravo.

2 comments:

  1. Nice job! Very well written.

    I noticed that you don't describe what the music really is. For instance, what can the listener expect? What are some interesting and unique ideas executed in the album (ex. his extensive use of E-Bows to add an atmospheric touch in songs like Push It Way Up)? Are there strange timings like Tool's music? Mention what other bands the album sounds like.

    I was pretty shocked you didn't mention his obvious Meshuggah influence seen through his extensive use of poly-rhythms.

    If anything, at least link the music for the reader to listen to while they read the wall of text. Link you're favorite song perhaps. (I have never ever seen a writer do this and it confuses the hell out of me...) Better yet, if you have a specific riff or spot in a song that was awesome, use Youtube's "Copy song starting at this time" feature! Words can only do so much, my friend.

    Final criticism, you're mistaking the objective of Top 100 lists. Those lists are for songs which are formulaic. Songs that are dance-able, songs that sing about topics that appeal to a massive variety of people (e.g. love, loss, hate). Instrumental albums such as this do not fall anywhere near these categories. Top 100 lists are not equivalent to "Top 100 Exceptionally Quality Music" lists.

    Just some clarifications:
    1) Ben Sharp only uses money generated through the sales of "Cloudkicker" CD's and merchandise to fund future and current projects. He has a day job which he uses to pay the bills and buy groceries. The evolution of the quality of sound heard from past albums through Beacons (and ultimately through LYBH) has as much to do with the gear that was upgraded between albums, as much as it does with the amount of skill he's obtained through experience.

    2) He used Logic Pro and Superior Drummer 2.0 for this album. (He began using triggers with an electronic kit and Superior Drummer for the sampling in LYBH). Every instrument is DI'd as well.

    3) In paragraph 8, you address the repetition. What you are trying to say is that the album is not formulaic. The songs are written very patiently. This allows for each transition and following song to be more powerful by allowing the listener to absorb drop of an idea before moving on. It's brilliant. Repetitive is synonymous with irritating which is an inaccurate description of the soundscape.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for the massive feedback, man!

    To address what you've said here:

    I didn't describe the music style/genre in detail on purpose to really emphasize the need behind listening carefully to the album and using imagination and thought process to make your own picture. I felt as though if I said anything beyond "an instrumental" it would turn away a lot of people who might read a more specific genre and turn away. However, I do see your point behind describing it a little bit better to reduce the mystery in expectations a little more. Or maybe it's better that way?

    I'm not really one to mention influences. I feel as though the music is what it is, and where it comes from is not as important. But I can also see that it would help describe the music a bit better as well, so maybe I'll make more of a mention of it in the future.

    Love the idea of putting a link in for the reader to listen to while they read. That is an excellent suggestion that I will certainly implement.

    The reason I mentioned the Top 100 list is to point out the stupidity of its purpose. You're right: it does define a set of songs that appeal to a large amount of people. But does that large appeal actually make it a good song? Or does it simply mean that the song happened to catch the ears of enough people to make it popular? What I mean by that is that the exposure has more to do with the popularity than the actual quality, in my opinion. We both know that a lot of the Top 100 songs are utter crap, despite their overwhelming popularity. And we also both know that Cloudkicker is amazing even though you have to search reasonably hard for him. But maybe I'm just a bigot haha.

    Thank you for the clarifications about Cloudkicker, especially regarding the gear and such. I knew that he did use revenue to get new stuff, but for some reason I never factored the new gear in.

    Regarding the repetitiveness, I figured I hadn't explained myself well enough there. I am in full agreement with you: it is purposeful and well-written (did I not mention that I thought that way?) and doesn't detract from the quality. I tried to explaining that but must have not been clear enough. That's what I meant by the fact that the songs themselves were repetitive and not the whole album; however, as you suggested, using a different word would have better explained the point.

    Thanks for reading and for the feedback! This will really help me improve as I write more reviews!

    ReplyDelete