archive : A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z sdtk comp
Cover Art Dif Juz
Soundpool
[4AD]
Rating: 6.4

When I saw the pastoral cover and the 4AD label imprint, I figured that Soundpool would be a good album to fall asleep to. As it turned out, it was a little too dynamic for this purpose, always accelerating when I felt like I was about to drift off. And as I lay in the dark listening to the meandering two- guitar/ bass/ drums instrumental tunes, I thought, "This is decent. Kind of a Tortoise- like combo with decent grooves and a very pretty guitar tone." When I looked at the sleeve notes the next day, I was shocked to find that the material on the CD was drawn a pair of EPs originally released in 1981. I did remember that the drums sounded just a bit dated in a way that seemed strange, but I was in still in awe of how much the sound here matched what's happening in progressive rock circles today. Dif Juz were certainly well ahead of their time.

Which brings up an interesting question. Does being "ahead of their time" make an album any better? I wonder if the latter- day appeal of Can comes at least in part from the fact that the material they recorded in the early '70s sounds so incredibly current in today's musical landscape. Can may not always be great, you understand, but they do seem very contemporary, in a way that makes you go "I can't belive this is from 1972" every time you put on Ege Bamyasi. But while its okay to marvel at how out in front Can were in their day, I still wouldn't say I love any of their records. And that's kind of how I feel about Soundpool.

The closest that I come to love with Dif Juz is the second tune "Re." The chiming, ringing guitar sound breaks my heart in a way that's difficult to convey. It's sad and very beautiful, with an amazing melody and a nifty little bass line to go with it. Nothing else on Soundpool quite reaches the level of "Re," but there are still plenty of engaging moments on this oddly out of time record.

-Mark Richard-San

TODAY'S REVIEWS

DAILY NEWS

RATING KEY
10.0: Indispensable, classic
9.5-9.9: Spectacular
9.0-9.4: Amazing
8.5-8.9: Exceptional; will likely rank among writer's top ten albums of the year
8.0-8.4: Very good
7.5-7.9: Above average; enjoyable
7.0-7.4: Not brilliant, but nice enough
6.0-6.9: Has its moments, but isn't strong
5.0-5.9: Mediocre; not good, but not awful
4.0-4.9: Just below average; bad outweighs good by just a little bit
3.0-3.9: Definitely below average, but a few redeeming qualities
2.0-2.9: Heard worse, but still pretty bad
1.0-1.9: Awful; not a single pleasant track
0.0-0.9: Breaks new ground for terrible
OTHER RECENT REVIEWS

All material is copyright
2001, Pitchforkmedia.com.