The Chemical Brothers
We Are The Night

THE REVIEW

"Expectations. It's always expectations that screw you over!" You wait almost three years for the new Chemical album to come out, go to the friendly store that gives you a discount, buy it anyway "in the dark" (but not too enthusiastically after hearing the first single), and put it in the car player convinced you'll: have fun, feel like dancing, drinking, and immersing yourself in that cultured university party atmosphere with a bit of the ravaged Manchester spirit that accompanied you for 5 and a half albums (the half being the last "Push The Button") and instead... disappointment! You hear something else entirely.

Now, I want to clear this up right away. I don't like this album. So, you'll ask why my rating. Because it's a great album. It's a courageous work, full of new ideas, study, thoughts, and reasoning. It's an album that's been thought out and not just thrown in there to make money. I preferred the dance rhythms of the beginnings. I preferred tracks like "LEAVE HOME, BLACK ROCKIN' BEATS, HEY BOY-HEY GIRL, IT BEGAN IN AFRIKA, BELIEVE (the only great track on "PUSH THE BUTTON") but alas, forget about that type of song. You won't find it on this album.

As I was saying, I bought the album and listened to it twice on the A4 TO-MI between one construction site chicane and another, then I sat at the PC to write the review. Convinced (since it came out YESTERDAY) of being the first. Hell no! I already found two reviews of the "promo" version. Fuck! And also two good reviews I must say. Compliments especially to the "crazy one" whose average judgment on the singles I share. So, I refer you to his review for detailed critiques on the tracks. Not wanting to repeat something already written, nor to compete with other reviewers, I propose a different interpretation key, perhaps more broad and all-encompassing of all music genres and all great bands. Does changing genre benefit a band or destroy it?

What do I mean? I mean think of the transition from "industrial" to pop-rock of the last two NINE INCH NAILS albums (see my review on "Year Zero")? Or the transition from "thrash" to "rock-metal" of Metallica in the '90s (see my review "Black Album")? Or the shocking "catharsis" from "cross metal" to "80s pop" in M.Manson's latest album? Or perhaps... the extraordinary histrionic ability in the careers of Queen or Madonna? What's better? Having the courage to propose with different styles and genres, demonstrating also different artistic and musical capabilities, or sticking to a sort of coherence with your audience and offering the same genre ad lividum night after night for years like Iron Maiden, Pearl Jam, Slayer, or Depeche Mode? Or is a short and fast arc desirable, a shooting star like the Bluvertigo trilogy project or the rapid career of Audioslave? Making 3 great albums and disappearing to avoid the risk of growing old?

As a listener of many and quite different music genres and as a former musician, I often ask myself this question, finding pros and cons to both answers. The dilemma arises again listening to this "We Are The Night" by the Chemical Brothers. An album, again, very beautiful but that I don't like. Due to the expectation argument mentioned in the preamble. A Chemical album should make me dance. This one instead makes me think about many other things. It makes me appreciate, in the first 4 tracks of the album, the happy nods to the early electronic productions of the '70s/'80s (Kraftwerk, Heaven 17, Cabaret Voltaire above all). It makes me savor the "chill out" vein of the album's core, never entirely abandoned by its English side. I really like especially the last part with clear '80s disco references in a "new beat" sauce... however, this music doesn't get me high!

Sounds, arrangements, and production impeccable. Nice tracks but soulless at first much more cheerful towards the end but my nostalgia for "SURRENDER" and "COME WITH US" remains insurmountable. Regards.