Long-term faces on both their hometown of Southend and London's trendy Hoxton scenes for some time, it was inevitable that The Horrors would eventually go from being The Royal Hotel’s house band to acquiring a decent record deal and adorning the front covers of both music and style magazines alike in glossyville. And that’s regardless of what they sound like...
Of course, that is where the root of the problem – their problem – lies. After all, if there was a fantasy league where rock groups rather than football teams were created, you'd probably pick a band with the image and attitude of this bunch every time, even down to the on-stage aliases (Coffin Joe, anyone?).
When one gets down to the nitty-gritty of their musical output, though, a vacuous chasm starts to appear, and fast. To call The Horrors one dimensional isn't just stating the obvious; it's like telling a child that Santa only comes once a year. After eleven songs, the band’s inability to stretch their sound starts to take its toll.
Which is a shame: as live bands go, The Horrors are one of the most exciting and entertaining acts around at the minute. They regularly brighten up many a dull indie-by-numbers club night with their riotous, theatrical performances. But, of course, you can't watch the band while listening to Strange House on your iPod, and when the realisation hits home that people like The Eighties Matchbox B-Line Disaster and The Damned have done this kind of thing so much better, you wish you'd invested your hard-earned cash in something with just a little more longevity. Listening to Strange House can be compared to ordering a Big Mac with fries – the activities can be similarly evil, but at least when your stomach’s emptiness subsides you don't have to look at the packaging every day as a reminder of your last bad purchase.
On a positive note, at least The Horrors are doing something completely different to most of their contemporaries at the minute. While some may see them as an act retrogressing to garage days most ‘proper’ musicians would rather forget, they nevertheless have the foresight and vision to go way beyond last week's fad for divine inspiration. If their existence persuades some 14-year-old kid to check out some of the Pebbles or Nuggets compilations from the mid-to-late 1960s, then they have achieved something to be proud of.
But back to the matter at hand: Strange House is unlikely to win this youthful quintet any new converts. The best advice to anyone wishing to sample The Horrors would be to catch them live – preferably in as small a venue as possible – and seek out the first two singles before committing to this debut long-player.
Hopefully – and I say this with complete sincerity – this sadly mediocre record won't signal the end of The Horrors. They do have something to offer that other contemporary (and mainstream-accepted) artists can only dream of, but they really need to ‘know their place’. In their case: around midnight in a dingy basement bar with the amps turned up as far as they can go.

Is it right
not even wanting to try to listen to a the Horrors song ?
I hate
people that say they don't like stuff just because everyone else does!
People who go off bands as soon as other people start listening to them! Who cares if they're the most stylish band in the country? they look absolutely amazing, they play out of their skin every gig and the music they're making is such a breath of fresh air from all these crappy curly haired jingly jangly indie bands like the view, the fratellis etc etc etc etc etc etc etc who have absolutely nothing of any interest to say and absolutely no songs of any inspiration whatsoever.
We need a band like the horrors to remind us just how good showmanship in bands can be!
Are you talking to me ?
Because I didn't say I don't like them. I haven't even listened to them. But everything I've read about them, made me want never to try...
absolutely!
not interested in 'topman' rock
"The Horrors are one of the most exciting and entertaining acts around at the minute"
What? If by that you mean its exciting to listen so a dog bark its way through a 20 minute set of songs, then yeah, break those boundaries!
A prime example of style over substance
They may not be
breaking any boundaries as such, but they're a damn sight more interesting to watch for 20 minutes than yet A.N.other post-rock Mogwai copyist ensemble or A.N.other lo-fi Pavement wannabe collective or A.N.other Britpop throwback gang of lads with nothing much to say other than wearing the same pair of levis for half the week.
^ agreed ^
Note: Band with singer
Key requirement: Singer must be able to actually SING
Interesting to WATCH yes I agree. Interesting to Listen to - no fucking way. He wrecks EVERY one of their songs with his barking, mumbled grunts.
Bands should be judged on how they sound live before anything else. The rest of the performance may be superb but if their lead singer is dire, surely that spoils everything about them.
maybe they are differnet on record (i.e. maybe he sounds like he is singing in english)
Granted
he wouldn't get through an X-Factor audition but would you say Win Butler is technically a great singer, or Thom Yorke, or countless others whose vocal style fits into what the rest of their band are doing without sounding like the next Aretha or Marvin.
Those you have named
Not great singers that is true, but I can at least hear their lyrics and therefore try to understand the meaning.
I can see how you can say that The horrors singers voice can to some extent, be said to fit in with the genre of music they play. But I'm a great believer in singers actually singing. In words. That we can understand.
each to their own
but i completely disagree with your belief.
sometimes hearing what a singer is saying is vital. other times its desirable, but not necessary. other times its better that you cant hear a word and the voice becomes an instrument. but you cant have a catch all rule for something like this.
personally, i'm put off by a lot of bands where they can sing well. they often tend to be boring, unimaginative singers biting someone else's style. and not doing as well as their influence. i love many bands where the singer 'cant sing' or 'has a stupid voice' or 'is just talking'.
as for the horrors, heard a couple of their songs and was quite impressed. they definitely have an interesting sound and take their influences from some interesting places. moreso than most indie nowadays anyway. this review sounds like it could be about right though, and is a lot more reasoned than a 'the horrors have stupid hair' type review that this could have been
I agree with the review
Definately. Its well rounded and well written. It has made me think about listening them on record as opposed to judging them solely on their live act. And just for the record, I did like them musically when I saw them, especially the gothic organ sound (a la the Munsters) I was just completely put off by the "singing"
To me though, I don't see the point in having a singer in a band where the words/lyrics sung are unintelligable. Why bother?
sometimes lyrics aren't the most important thing about a band
composition, arrangement, mood, sound etc.
i think lyrics are vital, and a band with bad lyrics will turn me off immediately. but sometimes a band doesn't have to be focussed around the singer and what hes saying to be good. sometimes what they are saying is far less important than how their saying it and how it fits in with the rest of the music
.......
Are you my dad?
Thom Yorke is...
A technically great singer, I would say.
Granted
he wouldn't get through an X-Factor audition but would you say Win Butler is technically a great singer, or Thom Yorke, or countless others whose vocal style fits into what the rest of their band are doing without sounding like the next Aretha or Marvin.
they just sound
like the birthday party no? So this is not a bad thing. Also they have been ace live once when I saw em. other times not so good.
Note: Band with singer
"Key requirement: Singer must be able to actually SING"
False! The Fall.
Need i say more?
defnitely worth a listen....
It's a short sharp macabre offering, but full of energy and good fun. I agree with a lot of the comparisons (cramps, pebbles, fall etc) but there's a few more less obvious influences in there, I think an important point is the sound is very different from the formulaic indie numbers of the moment.
As for being able to sing, I think the voice fits the music. I saw them live a while back and as a lead he adds some bite to the performances too.
Shit, Kurt Cobain just got voted as one of the best 10 voices in Q or some such magazine, how many of of his lyrics were 100% decipherable.
I'd say don't judge them on image alone, they're photogenic so they're going to be in magazines, but I don't think they're contrived, they dress as they like. They probably recognise the image has positives and negatives for them, but it would be worse if they tried to look less outlandish, to get shoe-gazing blending-in brownie points.
They are quite 'cartoon' and the songs short, but then again I still listen to my old ramones albums, so there's definitely a place for them in my collection.
John Lydon
One of the most important bands in history (important, not best).
Couldn't sing for shit.
I rest my case.
Touche-
"A.N other Britpop throwback gang of lads with nothing much to say other than wearing the same pair of leis for half the week" God, but do I fucking hate The View!
I like the cover
It's like the Mini-Pops New York Dolls.
I just don't get it
The music, look, and mood of the band just rubs me the wrong way. I don't think you should put so much effort in developing the aesthetics of your band without concentrating on the music first.
Saying that, they could all be wearing jeans and a t-shirt and I would still switch them off. I think the little one has escaped from school.
Gloves
does sound almost the same as Count In Fives...
smells, looks and feels
like an NME band to me, dirty!!!
Like an NME band?
You mean like Foals? The Arcade Fire? The Gossip? Los Campesinos? The Maccabees? Goodbooks?
God forbid the NME starts liking something that you like!
Well...
if you look in his music section he's more of a Kerrang! boy anyway.
i think
the horrors should only release mini-albums, or something, with 6 brand new songs on them, instead of putting old singles on. i think it would tie in with their kitsch disposability better. they certainly aren't a band with much longevity behind them, anyway, and i think a second horrors album would be such a bad idea.
Art School kids
Doing Art school things.
I think they're deffinately an interesting band to say the least. They've got an edge to them, both with their music and their image I just don't think they've got the talent to match their wild art school ideas.
Anyone remember The Bravery?
They once rode this bandwagon.
Rubbish
They will be forgotten in a few months.
The Pebbles and Nuggets compilations
didn't come out in the mid-to-late 1960s...
No but the
recordings themselves date back to the mid to late 60s.
I highly recommend
spending your cash on a Seeds or Monks album or maybe something by The Cramps.
I should love The Horrors 'cos I love garage, but I can't stand the singer's voice. It sounds out of place. And the songs are boring, which is the worst possible crime.
that wasn't a reply
to Dom, just one in general. damn buttons!
Fully agree with you
though, The Cramps especially. Every home should own at least one of their albums.
Rubbish/10
Horrible band. The Virgin Megastore ad makes me despise them even more.
horrible
worst album ive heard in a long time
Psst!
It's not that bad. They are a singles band, though. No doubt about it. 'Count in Fives' is ace, but everything else is sub-par.
Dom Gourlay
Seems quite cynical.
The Horrors are brilliant. They're doing something COMPLETELY different to their contemporaries (at least the reviewer got one thing right), and are making people happy in doing so.
Their music is really quite creative, you can't deny that when you see people like Spider Webb and Joshua Third on stage. The energy is undeniably electric and the lyrics of Faris Badwan, mesmerisingly poetic.
And who says a lead singer has to have a technically good voice? Faris' voice fits perfectly with the style of music The Horrors are making, and the vibe it creates.
Did Johnny Rotten have a good voice?
Does Mark Smith have a good voice?
What about Kurt Cobain, he couldn't sing!
Now see how famous they became, how respected and influential their music has been. Funnily enough all of those bands have achieved enormous success, irrespective of how well their frontman would go in the next series of Idol. If you're going to write off a band because the singer "can't sing", then you're missing out on a hell of a lot of good music, my friend.
The Horrors have countless influences, and it is great that people, including myself, being 15 years old, are listening to the music which fuelled their fire, yes - as a result of their existence. Yet the influences are so mashed up to a point which renders it impossible to say "oh, they sound exactly like this band," or "they sound like the love child of such and such".
It all bubbles down to personal opinion, and I think the band are quite happy that they've created such a polarisation of opinion. No matter what anyone else says, The Horrors will always have a cult of followers, the more loyal of whom will stick by them for their music and the sheer emotion and feeling which fills the listener upon the playing. They are what they are, take it or leave it, there is no right or wrong.
But please, if you're going to have an opinion on a band, listen to them first!
breaking news
"music taste subjective" says Strik3r.
Umm...
I didn't even say that.