Devendra Banhart: What Will We Be

Photo by Lauren Dukoff

“I know I look high," Banhart sings on his new album, “but I’m just free-dancing." If only we could join him.

Devendra Banhart

What Will We Be

Label: Warner Bros.
US Release Date: 2009-10-27
UK Release Date: 2009-10-27
Artist website

Though it wasn’t that well-received by the critics, I quite enjoyed Devendra Banhart’s last album. Smokey Rolls Down Thunder Canyon found the singer in jovial good form -- from the goofy comedics of “Shabop Shalom” to the Charolastra-worthy “Seahorse”, the album had a slacker optimism that was difficult to hate. And despite not being quite as ambitious as his earlier Cripple Crow, or as goodnaturedly warped as his breakout Rejoicing in the Hands. But Banhart’s been around now for seven years, and is now seven albums in. So it’s no longer a matter of proving anything; and Banhart himself has shown a nonchalant disregard for convention, which has made following his various appetites consistently interesting.

But long-time followers of the musician may not have expected what happened last year, when the singer signed with a major label. What Will We Be may be his Warner debut, but just as his fans hoped, Banhart proves to be largely un-major-label-able. Basically, he’s taken the Warner funding and recorded an album -- with the same musicians as for Smokey Rolls Down Thunder Canyon -- in a remote cottage somewhere in California’s hills. It’s not surprising that What Will We Be sounds, then, like a relaxed, slightly crisper take on the ideas that informed his previous release. This haze of lazy Tropicalia, occasionally interrupted by an indulged moment of proggy vamp, isn’t necessarily a compromise. It really depends on whether you think that the previous, kooky persona Banhart cultivated was a put-on or whether that was his true aesthetic. If the former, you’ll welcome this more straightforward material. If, however, you quite enjoyed that hardcore oddball outlook, he’s moving further and further away.

It’s reflected on What Will We Be even in the way Banhart sings. He’s smoothed out the wicked warble into something softer, lighter and more conventional. He’ll descend to a guttural growl now and then, but on shuffling songs like “Brindo”, it’s all a sweet whisper. More difficult to come to terms with than this change, though, is the sneaking suspicion that this album lacks just about any vivacity at all. It’s languid to the point of fading away completely -- with just a few exceptions. These exceptions are, unsurprisingly, highlights of the album.

The finale, feel-good anthem “Foolin’”, will have you singing along “one day at a time”. “Baby”, an early single from the collection, has the same innocent delight, with its soulful refrain of “I want you babe”. And a pair of songs in the middle of the album prove Banhart’s still got his old songwriting chops. I’ll leave a description of the epic centerpiece “Chin Chin & Muck Muck” to someone else; needless to say, it’s multi-sectioned, hulking, and captivating. “16th & Valencia”, which follows it, may be the closest What Will We Be will come to a radio hit, with its hoisted chorus, “tonight, we ain’t gonna find our lovers”.

But throughout, the languor and the accompanying muddy, slightly fuller orchestrations don’t help lighten an oppressive mood. Though undeniably beautiful, there is a sense of the sodden to these songs. “Meet Me at the Lookout”, reliant on Banhart’s a cappella and static, echoing repetitions of the same chord, stews in place without going anywhere. Similarly, “Goin’ to the Place” offers atmosphere without direction. Nowhere is there the mischievous pep of “Little Yellow Spider” or “At the Hop”. And even though there’s no denying Banhart’s become an accomplished, confident songwriter who follows his muse without a care for propriety or convention, we won’t always be following, lap-dog like, in his wake. Sooner or later, he’ll have to give us something fresh and exciting. Or we’ll lose interest.


So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.