Rachel McCord: Interview

The lovely and utterly charming Ms. Rachel McCord took some time out of her busy schedule to talk to me about music, acting and how important family ties are to her.

Music is a passion to you, what first got you into it?

Well I’ve always loved listening to music. It’s always been a therapy for me, any time I’m upset or going through something it’s important having that as my backbone. When I most seriously got into writing and music was during a really long break up actually. I was a little sad, a little hurt and a little frustrated and I started writing songs. And it escalated from there and I just never stopped!

It must be very cathartic to get your feelings out like that?

Absolutely. There’s been a lot of positives from it so it’s definitely a good thing in the end. It’s better than writing in your journal or talking to a counsellor in my opinion cause you get to sing those lyrics over and over again, especially when you’re recording an album. I’ve written quite a few songs, 200 or 230 and while I can’t possibly record every one, they’re certain songs that when you go back to them, the more you feel those emotions. That’s how you’re really going to get over whatever that song was about.

The songs you’d be most familiar with like “Don’t talk” or “sneakin around” I feel like I’m nearly singing about someone else, because I’ve completely healed from those emotions so its fun to watch that progress. Once you’ve rehearsed a song so many times, it’s almost like you’ve opened up your diary to the whole world and they’ve accepted it and you’ve accepted those feelings and you can move on from that.

Of course also being an actress lends itself to the theatrical nature of song writing. Do you enjoy embodying a song?

I do, I relish it a lot. Before I became an actress I thought actors were emotionally crazy! But Annalynne (Rachel’s sister) taught me a lot and we used to sit down and do little sessions, read lines and whatnot and I learned about what actors do when they portray characters. You’re taking on their emotions and it helps you deal with feelings much more than non-actors would. You get so into a character that you can really embody it. So it’s really helped me write things that might not be a personal experience but through it, it’s like experiencing a different life.

Is there a slant of autobiography to your songs?

Each song is a specific piece of me. Like a listener can hear a song and say that’s exactly where I’m at and you feel the music is speaking to you. You might laugh, you might cry but either way you’re getting those emotions out. There have been times acting where I’ve done a scene and then gone back to my trailer and cried, where it really hit me hard. Each chapter, each song is just another piece of me.Acting and music are very different passions of mine, both challenging in their own ways, cause music is just an expression of what you’re feeling at that particular time but acting is totally embracing other feelings and its something you must pull yourself out of and sometimes afterwards I just need to get away. I spend time with my little dogs or my sisters and it’s this kind of quiet calm because it can be quite exhausting.

Speaking of your sisters, is it nice having them there as fellow actors as sort of a support net?

My sisters are like all I really have. I feel so lucky to have these two amazing women. I’m the baby and have them to look up to and fall back on and they’re both so different. We all have different characteristics but we complement each other. Living in the same house I can just walk down the hall, if they’re home (laughs) cause they’re always on the go! But we can talk and cry or whatever because they go through the same things I do. They help me through the same insecurities cause they’ve both been there.

Who would you cite as primary influences for your work?

Alanis Morissette, she’s incredible. She has such versatility with her music. But when it comes down to slower ballads, something that has been a bit of a struggle for me, I turn to James Blunt who I think is amazingly talented. But it’s not just any one person, I’ve had a lot of diverse influences and that’s what has gotten me to where I am today and the different ways I sing.

Will Thompson, my producer is based in Atlanta, and is with Vigilanti records and he works on every song with me. He’s very very talented. We actually met 3 years ago through a singing coach I had and even though I can write songs, and have a vision for the music I’m not a producer! So I showed Will some tracks and we both had similar ideas for them. He helped get them to where they are today.

With the large number of songs you’ve written how did you decide which ones you wanted to record?

I actually don’t want to say I’m only going to do this style of song or that style. One of the most important things to me is to be genuine with my fans. I’m in a place where a lot of people can be fake or whatever and I’m very straight forward and honest and want that to come across in the music. I can’t lie to myself or my fans. At the end of the day if you love an artist and if you’re involved with an artist you have to know the whole person, not the image they might be putting out there.

So the songs in production are the ones that are the most real. I can go into the studio and have all these plans for a song but on the day just not be feeling it and I might write a new song on the spot. That’s something more genuine, more me. I’d pull lyrics from my big notebook full of song lyrics and random writings. Believe me, its very disorganised to everyone else but to me it‘s perfectly fine! I have to be true to myself in my music and every time I step behind that mic I have to believe in the song. I’m a lot of different things, I’m fun and goofy and I have all the same desires that every girl would have and I think it’s important to have that in the music.

What next for Rachel McCord?

I’m working on the album and having made the move to Hollywood has thrown up its own challenges with finding producers cause it’s hard to get back and forth to Atlanta. I’m also doing the acting thing. So my days are filled with events and auditions. I’m very blessed for having all that but I’m looking forward to getting back in the studio, revamping some of the old songs and showing all you guys some new stuff!

Check out Rachels music at her myspace page:

www.myspace.com/rachelmccord

Buffy the Vampire Slayer- Georges Jeanty Interview

The very talented and gracious Mr. Georges Jeanty took time out of his busy schedule, helping to shape the continuing adventures of everyones favourite Vampire Slayer, to answer a few questions:

1. Your start in comics came with the Paradigm series for Calibur but what was it that first piqued your interest in comic book art?

I had a love for art my whole life. I think every young kid grows up wanting to be an artist before some other item of interest takes them away to what they'll become as adults. I always loved to draw. I was fascinated with art. All of it. Art in print, art in murals, art in billboards. Anywhere there was art I really took a liking to. Comics captivated me more than any of it and that's where my heart has been. I always loved the idea that comics, while having cool art for the most part, told stories. And the better artists drew you into the story with this cool art work. It was a phenomenon that I was drawn to at an early age. As a kid, Superheroes were very real to me.

2. Your work for Marvel seemed very much in the X-line but was varied in tone, Bishop: The Last X-Man being a melancholic piece,
while Deadpool is known for it's tongue in cheek humour (more of a precursor to Buffy, tone wise), did you enjoy that diversity within the same universe?

I love doing different books. And yes, Bishop and Deadpool were vastly different comics. Bishop as I remember was more of a story like the Lord of the Rings. It was broad and sweeping and brooding. Bishop was in this strange world and he was effecting change as he went along. While Deadpool was the opposite. Deadpool as I understood it never took himself too seriously and that's how I approached that character. Like he was a guy who was always wise cracking when you were trying to be serious. But underneath that he was a cold blooded killer. He was a hard character to maintain a balance with, that's why I think you had to have Deadpool among people who were worse than him so that you would root for him. If he was at a party with very nice people he would probably come off as that annoying guy at your office party. Those challenges proved most enjoyable when I was drawing those books.

3. Does humour in a book allow for a bit more experimentation on your end?

I think you can get away with a lot more. As just stated, in Deadpool, which I saw as a comedic book he could do anything absurd and you would believe it because that's the nature of his character. I remember one story that had Deadpool against Punisher. Now these guys are virtually the same and the way that I played it was to have Punisher totally serious and Deadpool totally not serious. So Punisher's annoyance in the book comes from a place you understand and not just think this guy has a bug up his butt!
I do that in Buffy as well. Buffy and company are maybe a little more animated some times to get the point across and as a result I try and draw them funnier. It's a constant act of experimentation. It all depends on the situation.

4. You've handled a huge icon in your career, the big blue boy scout Superman, how was that experience? And is there a pressure when dealing with one of the fore fathers of the comic landscape?

I started on Superman feeling just that way, that this was the quintessential iconic character of comic, and as a result I think my first outing with Superman came across a little stiff. I was so busy trying to show the 'Super' that I forgot about the 'Man'. I think every artist once they start out feel they have something to prove and even more so with a character like Superman or Batman. Their attempts end up becoming stereotypes. True, Superman is the archetype but he's still this guy from a little town. Once I started treating him as a 'man' I had a lot more fun with him, and what I mean by that, I was putting expressions on his face, like if he was lifting something heavy he would grimace a little at the weight, stuff like that.

5. How do you approach which projects you take? Must certain key elements be in place to entice you?

My whole career has be one of happy occurrences. I can't say that I had planned my career in comics other than I wanted to have one. I never had that '5 year plan' that people talk about. I just kinda floated from project to project. I was just happy to be getting the work. I've always said in comics that it's not the project you're doing right now that you have to worry about, it's the project you're doing after wards. I have tried and succeeded to some degree, to just keep working. I have been blessed to have a career as long as I have and I'm grateful for that!
I love to draw comics so there is very little in comics that I wouldn't love to do. There are things that I might feel better at then others, but telling a story is always something I look forward to.

6. Your current work on Buffy has gotten you a lot of attention, and you were personally handpicked by the Boss himself Joss Whedon. How did you feel when you were approached?

Like most people, I didn't believe it.
Really. I thought Dark Horse was yanking my chain. What a cruel trick I thought, to get me to draw your book by telling me the guy who for some is a house hold name asked for you personally. But it was true.
I was like on a high that whole day! I'm so glad I took this gig. Buffy has been amazingly good to me! And it opened the door to a show I knew little about and now consider it among my most favourite, and it has allowed me to meet such wonderful fans. People say there's no love like fan love and I so believe that!

7. A show like Buffy has a large and incredibly vocal fanbase and with a new medium to adjust to, a lot of feedback would be directed to the main architect of this version. Was there any trepidation with taking this job on?

I think because I had no idea of the fan base for Buffy at the beginning I wasn't at all intimidated about taking the job, which was good in hindsight. I treated it like a job I was hired to do. I was going to give it my best because that's what you get when you hire me, but I had no idea how much fans were waiting for something like this, like Season 8. I was more jonesing on the idea of tackling the likenesses. I always wanted to do a project that had likenesses but to be honest I always thought I would be drawing Star Wars or Star Trek first. I had a serious need to Draw an X-Files book or a Godzilla one, and Buffy came out of nowhere for me. It was great!
It's like being in school and the prettiest girl taps you on the shoulder at the end of the year and tells you she has a crush on you. You're surprised and taken back, but the more you think of it the more you feel special!

8. Were you a fan before the job? And if so, did you sometimes wish you weren't to be more objective to the subject matter or has it been
beneficial?

I was not a fan before.
I am a fan now.
And I think that has helped improve the overall look of the book. For the first few issues I was still getting to know Buffy, and I look at those issues today thinking if I could do them over they would be better. What becomes beneficial about being a fan is in the details. A lot of the little visual stuff that you see in the book and can point out as something Buffy or Sci-fi related is usually me just sticking in cool things I like. Like one issue had the Doctor from Doctor Who and Rose his then companion, walking the streets of England, I just thought it would be cool to put that in there since that scene took place in London. There is a future issue with Harmony in a Tattoo parlor and she's looking at all the types of tattoos she can get and in there I've put Faith's and Angel's tattoo along with some other things that weren't in the script, I just thought they'd be cool.

9. TV show tie ins or adaptations slavishly adhere to photo reproductions of the actors involved. I find this often sucks the vitality from the art or in the very least restricts the artist. Your illustrations retain the essential feel of the characters while not being precisely Ms. Gellar et al. Was this point heavily discussed?

It was discussed but not heavily. I had a conversation with Joss about just that thing. I said Joss, I'm not really all that great with likenesses are you sure you want me drawing this book? And he told me something that cemented my approach to the characters, He said I'm not as interested in you drawing Buffy to look like Sarah Michelle, I'm more interested in her looking like Buffy.
That did it for me. While some likenesses are more difficult than others, and Kennedy comes to mind right now, I try and get the essence of the character and not the photo accuracy.

10. What characters and creators would interest you for future collaborations?

In the Buffy book? Well, I've been real lucky to have worked with most of the major writers from the TV show and before this season is done, I will have probably drawn most of the Buffy cast such as they are. All of the writers have been great and it always strikes me what a great compliment to the show how they've all come back to write stories for Season 8 because they really love the material! As an artist it has proven to have all sorts of challenges, as a fan it has been incredible to geek out over having talked to Joss Whedon or Jane Espenson or Drew Goddard and all the rest! It really has been incredible.

11 . Why not shamelessly plug the fantastic looking Buffy Sketchbook on sale through your website?! This is your forum! : )

If you insist! Anyone enjoying Season 8 will love the sketch books I've put together which shows you all the behind scenes stuff that went into making Buffy Season 8. Vol 1 is sold out and Vol 2 is available right now. These books are extremely limited, so if you're interested please act fast. Just go over to http://www.kabalounge.com/ and you can order yours!

The Fall (Movie Review)

Most of us were raised on fairytales and myths. They are intrinsically linked to our development. Imaginations can be built and psyches forged by them. To those who dismiss them with a cursory “just kids stories” have long forgotten both their potential positive and negative attributes. They matter.

The movie “The Fall” by innovative director Tarsem Singh, knows they matter and goes to great lengths to describe the importance of verbal storytelling and the lives it can not only salvage but the ones it can shape.

Set in an L.A. hospital in the 1920s the plot centres around a little Mexican girl named Alexandria (Catinca Untaru) who while on the mend from an accident befriends a wounded stuntman named Roy (Lee Pace) in a nearby ward. Their odd relationship is sparked by a tale he begins to tell her about a band of outlandish characters in a storybook setting and their quest to find and kill an evil Governor. The wicked politician, suitably called Odious has in some way wronged each of the protagonists and in his nefarious machinations we get some of the most beautiful images I have ever seen on the screen. The visual design through the film is sumptuous, an MC. Escher inspired labyrinth, golden dunes, barren tropical isles and timeless palaces are all rendered in such opulence I almost feared for my diabetic health, so rich is the texture of the film. But it’s a sugar high I would brave once more to again spy the wonderful costumes and style that the movie is infused with. It is drunk on the visual possibilities of Cinema.

Apparently CGI- free which is refreshing in this day and age where most Directors use it as a crutch, this is made with more practical special effects and an insane adherence to location shooting. One montage of our heroes previous adventures shows them in numerous countries and that meant clocking up serious air miles travelling to a reported 18 countries for the determined filmmaker and cast.

The characters presented within the story are little more than ciphers, the archetypes of various genres mixed together like ingredients in a cauldron but the crucial thing is we still care for them, as symbols of Alexandria’s imagination and her perspective on the world, innocent, naïve, magical. As less than magical events in the real world begin to invade and darken the tale we don’t want to lose the charm of this place any more than Alexandria does and its there the essential and age old tug of war begins between ugly truth and fanciful fiction. Roy has an agenda with the story and is manipulating Alexandria in a way she couldn’t possibly begin to understand. Therein lies the heart of the film. The fairytale is a beautiful construct, an over the top world which allows the actors within to perform in a very knowing, arch and post modern way but as fun as it all is and as beautiful, the soul of the film is in the scenes between Untaru and Pace. Theirs is a natural chemistry, borne of a free flowing improvisational tone. And when the story must lead to its inevitable showdown between reality and fantasy, both actors engage fully with the material, so much so that they make what we know to be a flippant story as powerful as any “truth” another movie might present.

Now many will dislike the film and feel its themes are obscure, even childish but they are the ones missing the point. Cinema, for all its sins began as escapism and a form of mass story telling. Only this time its adding how one world reflects on another. This may be too dark for children (most fairytales are) and too “insubstantial” for some grown ups but as an example of pure, unfiltered visual cinema and or an exploration of an emotional crisis this is a triumph.

Only So-solace

Quantum of Solace
Directed by: Marc Forster

Starring: Daniel Craig, Mathieu Amalric, Olga Kurylenko, Judi Dench

It was 1979’s “Moonraker” that took Bond out of the hyper real world of Volcano lairs and lethal headwear and shot the series straight into the orbit of the absurd. That movie, which features everyone’s favourite secret agent in a credibility stretching sci-fi extravaganza showed the excess possible when dealing with the universe of Bond. Subsequent movies have tried to play down the ridiculous. Roger Moore’s tenure (the longest any actor has played Bond incidentally) limped to a close with the Christopher Walken starring, “A View to A Kill”, before Timothy Dalton brought some much needed angst and mild grit to the role in “The Living Daylights”. His two movie stint gave way to the smooth (and surely shaken) martini of Pierce Brosnan as Goldeneye reintroduced 007 to a modern world. It had action galore but just about grounded its plot in a post cold war setting. The problem with the Brosnan series of movies was that they swiftly became a parody of themselves. Having seen how the series could falter those films settled into a comfortable groove which with hindsight short-changed the character in favour of its backdrop. Who needs examination of Bonds character when one has Denise Richards in skimpy clothing against the now pre requisite exotic locale?

A rethink was sorely needed. Bonds world was entirely overhauled (Judi Dench as “M” accepted) and with “Casino Royale” we got a Bond that was in as much pain as he could inflict. For the first time the series had consequences. When Bond was hit, Bond bled. When Bond loved, he suffered. When Bond was betrayed, he got angry. No quips, no gadgets. This was a whole new take and it worked wonderfully, that first time.
“Quantum of Solace” the first direct Bond sequel takes place less than an hour after “Casino Royale” but it lacks the depth of the previous film. Here we have a straight revenge flick in which our hero has never been less charming or less interesting for that matter. It finds him on the trail of those that killed his one time love Vesper Lynd but which leads to the discovery of a major secret syndicate working within various Governments to further its own ends. While the movie wants to be a personal quest, it in fact neglects to give us a single person throughout. This is a film populated by ciphers, plot devices to get from one set piece to the next, logic or coherency be damned.

Now one might say, you don’t go to a Bond movie for plot. It’s barely more than functional and that’s true. But at least in the past the set dressing was more fun. Here we have a dour world of bureaucracy and ineffectual villainy. Mathieu Amalric barely registers in his role as Dominic Greene, the so called bad guy of the piece while the wonderful Gemma Arterton is wasted on a minor cameo, her Diana Rigg inspired Bond girl relegated to a footnote. Olga Kurylenko fairs better in the meatier role of Camille, an agent with her own agenda for hunting down the members of the “Quantum” organisation. She doesn’t stray too far from the mould of feisty Bond girls who can break limbs while breaking hearts but at least one gets a sense of a character trying to emerge. Her relationship with Bond is a bit more sub-textual than usual, which gives it a fresh angle also. Even the series raison d’etre, the action, is badly serviced here, the editing so hyperactive and unfocused it leaves the viewer puzzled as to whets going on. I asked myself a number of times who had just punched whom? It does have hallmarks of the Bourne series but

not to the point that people would have you believe. And it's certainly not something to begrudge the movie over.

Craig is still an excellent Bond. I won’t point a (gold)finger at him for the movies failure. He is driven, intense and wryly amusing (without too much campness) when required and I still believe he can take this character somewhere new in the future. However this half baked entry is not the vehicle for that development but now that it lives as part of the series we should let it die and move onto fresher pastures. After all tomorrow never dies and I can take solace in hoping that the next movie won’t be such a quantum leap in the wrong direction.

Autumn Buzz

Pushing Daisies Season 2:
Episode 1: "Bzzzzz"

It's been a long ten months since we last stopped by the Pie Hole for a bite but I'm happy to say it's open for business once more and despite the gap I can also report that not much has changed with our Pie maker and his crime solving cohorts.

If you were one (like me), who was utterly charmed by the story of a man who raises the dead in between baking delicious pies, this is a good thing. The quirky humour, wonderful dialogue and delightful set design and production values remain but while it's great to have all these things back, there is a concern creeping in that maybe, just maybe, the formula needs a little shake up lest it go stale.

From the get-go we're back into familiar terrain, involving an eccentric Honey company who have been very busy bees indeed, when it comes to murder that is. Both Chuck and Ned must go undercover to try and solve a case of a mysterious swarm of bees that apparently killed an employee while still dealing with their unique-hands off-love story. The characters have always been paramount here, so while all this is happening we see cynical Private Eye Emerson Cod trying to get a pop up book published and poor put upon Olive Snook feeling the burden of one secret too many based on the fall out of the season one cliffhanger. While all this gives great potential the episode doesn't quite flow as an season opener. It feels like a standard mid season adventure, great fun for viewers already in the know but not the episode for new viewers to jump in on.

Character interplay remains as sharp as ever but there's no surprise to the mystery, as we've seen its type before and it falls into the old trap the first season of Pushing Daisies fell prey to. Unlike other crime shows they only establish one or two characters to be the potential assailant so surprises are few and far between. One can't help but wish that regarding the bee story, it had more of a sting in the tale. But the case is merely a small cog in the magical world on display and in that regard Pushing Daisies is utterly unique. You won't see another show like it, the way its setting fizzes and sparkles, it's a storybook brought to Primetime life. It's a show to be swept up in rather than dryly analyse and if you surrender to the whimsy you'll have a blast. Lee Pace remains the most likeable lead on Television, his Ned being a charming yet crucially never cloying presence. His chemistry with Anna Friel's Chuck is undeniable and it's easy to imagine them becoming an iconic TV couple. Chi McBride undercuts the sweetly romance with a healthy does of cynicism and one-liners and is ably supported by Kristin Chenoweth's Olive but here the writers make a slight misstep. Sending Olive off to a nunnery in this episode might give them a few episodes worth of material but feels like an unnecessary and improbable development that wounds the dynamic of the show. Personally I hope they resolve this thread rather quickly. (I'm aware I requested a shake up earlier in the review but still feel that Olive is an essential foil to the other characters and might suffer if her arc wanders too far from the core group, but I'll have to wait and see what happens!)

It is truly great to have this show back, brightening up the darker days set to arrive with the approach of Winter. It's just a shame to report that the ratings for this episode were hardly stellar and is causing concern for the studio with whispers of cancellation already being murmured as a possibility. The facts are these: we believe in this show and want to see it given the chance to breathe and live on just like Chuck. It has a loyal audience and must be given time to carve it's niche. Good pies need time, attention and care.

It might be premature but if you're a fan and are worried about the show check out this link:
http://www.petitiononline.com/daisies/petition.html

And with it Went the Worth

It's no secret that for the American televisual landscape last year was a mess. The writers strike dealt many blows to brand new shows trying to establish themselves. Hard to find an audience when scripts are dwindling and the cutting of corners is very much required. That being said there might have been an upside to the short and bittersweet morsels we got.

In the case of properties like Prison Break or Lost we got truncation. Blissful in someways, maddening in others it transformed Lost from the most padded of series into a lean, tense thriller. The mind bending minus the minutiae. Prison Break suffered from a stop- start run which greatly affected the momentum. And aside from 24 no other show needs its pace so much. It's in this non stop style of storytelling that lets Prison Break (Ironically) get away with so much. It was always a story one had to take with a pinch of salt. There were huge conveniences, coincidences and contrivances to the tale but at its heart it was a thriller, slick if shallow. We overlooked these gaping holes in logic cause the characters could squeeze out of prison through them and it was all for the sugar rush. The first season for all its reality baiting silliness was well thought through, a plan that had a set number of parts and seeing them all click into place was hugely satisfying, week in and week out.

The second year then had to be made if only to deal with the repercussions and well without the Prison setting the show seemed more like a drawn out ending rather than a brave new direction. Despite this it remained huge fun skulking through various middle American towns with the former Fox River inmates.

The Government conspiracy that stalked the mythology of the show became harder to ignore as they used their nefarious board meetings to trap our heroes (and anti heroes, and em...antagonists) in the bleached out Hell of a Panamanian Prison named Sona. This initially seemed like a dark new direction for the show and despite the oppressive heat and grimy locale the show still did its thing as per usual. Michael remained a Superhero, Lincoln the slow witted muscle, Mahone the nervy ambiguous one and T Bag, the cunning and strangely charming face of evil.

The spluttering tone made the relatively short stay seem more akin to Life and so the 4th series had to do something to hook people back in, those who broke out of their viewing habits a short while into the Sona sojourn.

Whoever came up with the idea of making it the brand new A-Team deserves to be knocked back to Z-status as the show has laughingly become a spy/computer drama. Lazy writing (with one piece of throwaway dialogue, the Sona prison is done away with, cliffhangers resolved and characters regrouped) a flimsy central theme and acting that seems to be a con (yet not the "con" that would be appropriate) the current season has shown conclusively what happens when a finite idea goes on far too long.

The introduction of the "new blood" of Michael Rapaport wouldn't interest a weakened Bela Lugosi and seems like a desperate attempt to freshen things up. It might have worked if Rapaport had provided a brand new performance for the role but this is the same mixture of dumb/smartass he's been peddling for years. None of the characters are showing any new colours either, with lead Wentworth Miller almost visibly tired of the role and the return of Sarah Wayne Callies (though lovely she is) being the shark leap that broke the sharks fin and acts now as a constant reminder of the schlock you're watching.

I would have been a lenient judge in the past but I don't think any of these characters or this show itself now deserve their day in court.

Intimacy? Immediacy, more like

Well it was a party and we were all invited. The last few months have had reports from Bloc party that they were mulling over their third album and that they were even considering dumping the work they had already done and starting anew.

What a surprise (and publicity stunt) then to rush release their third album "Intimacy" on-line. After a sudden announcement all fans had to do was wait a paltry two days for the chance to download the album from their official site with the promise of a physical CD release in October which would be beefed up with extra tracks to not only ensnare the Internet phobic as well as the completists.

Following in the footsteps or caught in the shadow of a band like Radiohead, I find this way of acquiring music a bit disorientating. I guess I'm a traditionalist. Give me the tactility of a CD and sleeve notes to peruse and obsess over. Give me an experience. It's this reason alone that it's taken me a while to give the album the attention it deserves. Using the two producers that they employed for their debut and sophomore albums (Paul Epworth from "Silent Alarm" and Jacknife Lee from "A Weekend in the City") the band are trying to achieve a lot with this record. Possibly too much. Bloc Party should be applauded for their attempts to expand their core sound. They moved from the spiky guitar action of their first album, to the more expansive and measured tones of their second and finally indulging their dance and hip hop(ish) influences on singles,"Flux" and "Mercury". The latter is included here and for those who could not warm to it divorced from a record might be surprised to learn how well it fits into this scatter shot piece of work.

I say "scatter shot" not in a bad way. It's just all the sides of this band try to merge here (no freeways in sight though, a little Bloc humour for the faithful there) and it's a hard thing to reconcile but they just about pull it off. We have the dance acolytes in "Ares" and the aforementioned "Mercury", we have the assured balladeers in "Signs" and "Ion Square" and we have the Bloc of old in "Halo" but the onslaught of guitars have been punched up with hints of electronica, (see "One Month Off"). It makes for a heavy going but enjoyable album. Still the old niggles are there. As a band they are easy to respect and in a particular mood they soar but in spite of the title, there's a distance to the band, the iciness of the Hitchcockian blonde.

That's not to say there's no humanity, in fact this record aches with the contradictions of human nature, it's just there is no humour in this world. The Bloc is catered for but not the Party. It does however seriously rock in places and is a distillation of this band in this moment in time. Musically it's not the quantum leap we were hoping for. Lyrically Kele Okereke might still labour some of his points and rape some metaphors but he does have an ability to articulate a loneliness at the heart of contemporary urban life that I appreciate.

It's distribution is fascinating though. The second single from "Intimacy" , the muscular (and no I'm not talking about Shirtless Kele in the video) rocker Talons wasn't even featured on the download version of the album and that shows a band still working, releasing material as they are excited about it. This may lead to missteps as some reflection on work is required for quality control but I love the immediacy of the release. In a world where we wait on bands to finish touring before finally releasing tepid versions of underwritten songs, I like this attitude of "Here's something we just made, Check it out!" that is coursing through the band right now. More of that excitement please. It's infectious.

"Intimacy" hits stores on October 27th.