Friday, July 25, 2008

Heavy Water Experiments: Heavy Water Experiments Review

The Heavy Water Experiments self titled album, is pure stoner rock. You can almost watch the dark and distorted music floating through the haze of a desolate and scorching desert. The problem however, is that the music is overly catering to stoner rock, to the point where they make the pioneers of the genre, like Kyuss, look like they were doing it wrong.

Where bands like Kyuss and Queens of the Stone Age have some kick to their music, the Heavy Water Experiments sound like they were pushing for dull music. Many of the songs sound like they’re bound in a tight circle, just constantly rotating, but never breaking outside to explore new territory. The dark and ominous distortion and fuzz of the instruments and vocals becomes monotonous due to the flatness of the songs, rarely reaching out for heavier sounds or more emotion. Vocalist Melbye slowly pronunciates each syllable of every word making it overly relaxed and borring. Most of the album lacks much of a melody, but there are a select few songs which heave enough of a melody to be memorable, like the track, "Anodyne".
I was hoping after repeated listens to find something more to this album, but it is rather mundane, never breaking out of the spacey and haunting mellowness which drones from start to end. I really wanted to like this album, but it is plagued by monotony. If this album could have gotten a little kick in the ass then maybe I would be listening to the music I was expecting.
Grade: C-

18 Comments:

Blogger bob_vinyl said...

I couldn't disagree with you more. I don't think they were going for the stoner rock thing at all. That stuff is generally Sabbath-based (or in some cases like Fu Manchu, Nugent-based). QOTSA are one of the few stoner bands that really expand beyond that.

As far as HWE is concerned, I am amazed at how heavy they are without being a heavy band. They've taken a different path to psychedelia that is much more ambient, et no less trippy. It's not on all the time, bt it's pretty close.

11:49 PM  
Blogger Jeff said...

Bob - I felt like the dark psychedelia and heavy sound led it to sounding like stoner rock for me. I think regardless of the genre, the music felt like it was going nowhere.

9:11 AM  
Blogger Jeff said...

Bob - I felt like the dark psychedelia and heavy sound led it to sounding like stoner rock for me. I think regardless of the genre, the music felt like it was going nowhere.

9:11 AM  
Blogger Barbara(aka Layla) said...

Well based on the cover art aloine...they look like they would play stoner music.

Good review, probably not my cup of "T"

Stoner Trivia: Back in the 70's we used to refer to marijuana as "T" because the component that made you high was tetrahydrocannabinol

7:05 PM  
Blogger Jeff said...

Layla - Well even though Bob disagrees that it is "stoner rock", I'm pretty positive he would agree that this music is stoner oriented.

That's some interesting little stoner trivia, I've never heard to it referred to as "T" before.

9:17 PM  
Blogger bob_vinyl said...

Oh, it absolutely has a psychedelic quality. I completely agree with that.

10:12 PM  
Blogger Jeff said...

Bob - I didn't think that was too far of a stretch, lol.

9:17 AM  
Blogger bob_vinyl said...

I think my issue was with the idea that it is "stoner rock," which is a fairly defined genre, versus just drug-oriented. It would need a good bit more in the heavy, fuzzy guitar department to be stoner rock in my opinion. It definitely has psychedelic qualities though. I think we probably differed on the degree to which they succeed in being truly mind-altering.

It's funny, because I've been reading your blog for awhile and I think of you as someone who gets it," yet we do disagree on some stuff. It's good that way.

9:53 AM  
Blogger Jeff said...

Bob - I definitely see where you are coming from with why you don't think it is stoner rock. This may not make much sense, but I almost saw this as a purist form of stoner rock, because of the slow tempos, heavy fuzz and distorition, and psychedelia.

Just out of curiosoity, what did you think of this album? I found it pretty hard to sit through in its entirety.

11:58 AM  
Blogger bob_vinyl said...

I'll be reviewing it pretty soon, but in short, I really liked it. There were a couple places where it got a little lite and lost me, but overall, I enjoyed how extreme they were and how they managed to seem heavy without being loud. The crazy part is that my wife liked it too. She's not so big on weird stuff a lot of times.

Perhaps I misread "pure stoner rock" to mean "stoner rock without any outside influences" and you meant it to mean "the essence of stoner rock." Language is a funny thing.

12:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

9:59 PM  
Blogger bob_vinyl said...

As record reviewers, we're always looking for new bands doing new things and that quest sometimes leads us to make spur-of-the-moment decisions about requesting something for review. Sometimes, we have a chance to listen to all the songs on the myspace profile and sometimes we have the time to listen to just a little bit of a single song. Even with the time for the former, the album doesn't always pan out to be what was expected.

At any rate, I don't think there is any ethical issue with Jeff's initial reaction in his email and the final verdict in his review. Once he heard the whole album, he didn't think it was all that good. I disagree. He thought it had stoner elements. I disagree with that also. However, I think Jeff gave his honest opinion of the album. If he had done otherwise, that would have been unethical.

11:44 PM  
Blogger The Mad Hatter said...

Before I was able to get my hands on QTSA's Era Vulgaris the only song I was able to hear was "Turnin' On The Screw" in my brother's car. -- I hate that song violently. I wish I could stomp it to all hell with a steel-toed boot. And only because it was QTSA did I still get the album, despite its showing no promise in that song. But I've dismissed other bands for far far less. So maybe Jeff heard something he did like, and was interested. Nothing wrong with that. Furthermore Bob, as you know, my blog isn't about reviewing new bands; I'm simply out for kicks. Since I've never asked for a free CD, I guess I don't know how I'd take someone telling me I acted under false premises. First of all, I would never ask for a CD that I was going to hate, and I don't think Jeff would, either. Asking for a free CD just to criticise it is like asking for a bag of trash just to fill your trash can. Totally useless. Secondly, more important voices? Beggars can't be choosers. Who do you want -- Robert fucking Christgau? He hates almost everything anyway. Either you're their label or a member of the band, and you should be lucky someone is interested at all. Jeff's a nice guy; I doubt he felt like trashing you. Geez. Hell, I enjoy doing that. Lastly, bad press is still press. I just did a search for Heavy Water Experiments and Jeff and the Ripple's review comes up 4th or 5th. People aren't stupid and take everything anyone says with a grain of salt. You should be lucky you even pop up in google. Maybe you'll get your own wikipedia page. Or maybe you'll have "important voices" say great things about you so you can cash out and lose your edge. Whatever. I'm done. Oh, and the name's Bryan. Don't want you to think I want a moniker for my identity or some other form of anonymity.

12:58 AM  
Blogger Jeff said...

Assuming that "Anonymous" is the band,

I understand that you are upset about the review. Hell, if I was in a band and received bad reviews, I would take it personally as well. In all honesty, I really liked what I heard from you guys when I initially listened to you. I think you have a lot of potential, I was just writing my critique of what I heard in its entirety.

In terms of the pointless stoner rock debate, which I agree was pointless, it is an opinion. When reviewing CD's I try to give the readers some kind of idea of what they are going to hear when they listen to this CD, and labels and genres are a means to that end.

I don't get paid for writing reviews, I would love to but I don't. In the end, reviewing CD's is a matter of opinion, and everyones opinion differs. If I was to listen to Rolling Stone for my reviews then I wouldn't own half the CD's I do. If people want to hear your music then they will, I can clearly see your band has gotten a number of positive reviews, and one poor one out of the many shouldn't deter listeners. I want to avoid sounding pompous, but without amateur bloggers who do this for fun, your band would have a tough time getting any attention at all, and yes, there will be people out there who don't enjoy your music. There are bands out there who I've heard samples from which I loved and hated their full albums and vice versa.

I never contact bands, including your band, by saying I'm going to write a positive review. If I liked what I heard from the samples I will certainly tell you that, but I never say that I'm going to write a positive review. If that were the case I wouldn't be reviewing CD's, I'd just be promoting them.

I wish you guys the best of luck, because I can see that you are a talented group. I hope you could use my review as a critique if anything. Best of luck to you!

9:58 AM  
Blogger Jeff said...

Also, thanks Bob and Mad Hatter, or should I call you Bryan now?

10:00 AM  
Blogger The Mad Hatter said...

Mad Hatter, Hatter, Bryan, Master Bryan(who do you think anointed Cianan as Master), Bumblebunny, Faddrap Kipperdum, Victor, whatever. Make up something you like; my prerequisite is that I must know that you're talking to me. Hatter seems to be the most used.

11:43 AM  
Blogger Jeff said...

I'm thinking I'm liking Master Bryan...

11:50 AM  
Blogger The Mad Hatter said...

Ok, Master Bryan -- but only when I sound smart. You have to call me the Mad Hatter when I make no fucking sense. ;)

11:55 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Where Classic Rock and Modern Rock Meet