Hella
The Devil Isn't Red

Introduction

There is a guy named T. (a year ahead in high school) who is hitting on me. I have some doubts, but I keep them to myself, both with him and on the site. So, I think that to impress me, T. sent me a file from the band Hella. I came here to the site to see what people say about it and found nothing. Then I listened to it with the purpose of writing a music review about it.

The Band

Hella is an American band dedicated to a genre called math rock.

I discovered from Wikipedia that it roughly translates to mathematical rock, referring to the complex rhythms played by the bass and drums. Basically, it's a strange kind of music because: as rock, one expects the guitar to be dominant (like in the Rolling Stones, Who, Led Zeppelin, but also U2 or Muse, etc.), and the voice (Elvis, Deep Purple, etc.), while here, the instruments that are usually secondary are dominant.

They didn't invent the genre, but from what I gather from the internet, the forefathers are King Crimson (Red), the English post-wave scene (Pop Group), the American and Canadian post-punk scene (Nomeansno), and partly similar to grunge (Helmet).

All bands I don't know, except for King Crimson, whose "In The Court of The Crimson King" vinyl my dad has (my dad listened to Hella with me and said he hates them, but I told him they were a gift from a "guy," maybe he's jealous!!!!).

  Martina's Decalogue

Let's say I liked Hella halfway. They're not absolutely terrible, but they're not musical geniuses either. Now I'll explain the ten reasons.

1. very complex music and not very catchy. Lacking any reference to song form;

2. quite ungraceful music, there's no melody, so you forget it quickly. Practically when the CD ends, you have to start again to remember what you listened to;

3. music too difficult. It's hard for a young person to listen to it; it doesn't compete with less talented but impactful groups, like Tokio Hotel (which I don't like! Don't be mad if I mention them) or Coldplay.

4. a band that doesn't have a great image. Image is important too; you could be a genius, but without an image, you go nowhere today. It's sad, but it's true. You have to know how to sell yourself, otherwise, you're out of the market;

5. a band that wants to be alternative, but doesn't clearly explain "to what." Okay, "complex" music vs "simple" music, but they are two opposing ideas that cancel each other out. If I want to say I don't like pop, I have to take pop apart from the inside. My dad explained to me that Frank Zappa, a rock guitarist of Italian origin, made this point many years ago in an album called "You Are What You Is," which isn't reviewed here;

6. focusing music on rhythmic variations and using the guitar rhythmically only can become tiring in the end, paradoxically reducing the variety of possible styles. It becomes, in some way, "monotone" music. And so it tires the listener, who, in reaction, can even say that in the end, simple music is better;

7. they are very skilled musicians, but that's not enough. Technique is one thing, but in my opinion, expression matters too. Rock was born as expression, not as technique. But so did jazz. Perhaps only "classical music" combines technique with expression, but it wasn't popular music as we understand it today; it was music made by elites for elites. The old folk songs were simple. Rock must be simple and impactful even if it's math;

8. this math thing doesn't convince me much: it's a conceptual abstraction for which music is reduced essentially to mathematics. It's true that according to some – even Giovanni Allevi says it – music should be written with reference to the quantity of sounds, of notes, and the very concept of duration, but in my opinion, in this way, you lose sight of the fact that music is first and foremost "communication." You can communicate well or badly, but you must communicate;

9. in the long run, they become boring if you're not a technician. Precisely because they are math (and maybe crazy), it ends up that the songs are all or almost all the same and similar. You have to pay attention to catch the nuances, but practically you understand them only if you're a "technician" or an "expert";

10.                      original music but at the same time "inimitable," based on what was said in the preceding points. In my opinion, the fact that a musician can be "imitated" is important because then he becomes a model for young people and can promote the evolution of taste. For example, the Beatles: quite easy to imitate. Or even Lucio Battisti in Italy. Indeed, everyone remembers them and thus imitates them and improves music. Basically, Hella is like the cheetah: too good and destined to become a dead branch of musical evolution.

The Score.

This time, it's not easy. I propose a division:

1.    for those who like math rock, this band will be a hit. 5 balls. I find it crazy that on the site, among so many duplicates, triplicates, and reviews of rubbish, no one has written about Hella!

2.    for those who don't like math rock, I don't recommend them. 1 ball. If you want to listen to complex music, even rhythmically, but catchy, I recommend: "Remain In Light" by Talking Heads.

In fact, when I see T., who I think hasn't listened to them but lent them to me just to show he's alternative, I'll give him the Talking Heads (Robert Fripp from King Crimson even played with them)!