Milk Maid: Yucca

Milk Maid's catchy, '60s-inspired pop songs are completely undermined by the fact that it sounds like the album was recorded in a tin shack.

Milk Maid


Label: Fat Cat
US Release Date: 2011-07-19
UK Release Date: 2011-06-20

Yucca, Milk Maid's debut album, opens with 13 seconds of guitar that sounds like the band is performing a badly-recorded cover of Nirvana's "Sliver". They aren't, of course, but the guitar rhythm and chords of "Such Fun" are exactly the same as the Nirvana song from almost 20 years ago. The song's chorus is different, though, as the band shows an affinity for Beach Boys-style '60s pop. Still, as a person in his mid-30s, it's odd to think that a band like Nirvana is now essentially classic rock and that the similarity of the Milk Maid song may be entirely unintentional. I suppose this kind of thing happens to all music fans as we get older.

Anyway, Milk Maid. Martin Cohen, formerly of Nine Black Alps, did everything on the album himself, but it basically sounds like a punk-minded power trio with a love of early '60s pop music. Second song "Can't You See" is a plaintive surf-ballad with gently strummed distorted rhythm guitar and a slightly psychedelic lead guitar part swirling around in the background. The only percussion in the song is a faint tambourine. Most of the album is like this. There are catchy, old-fashioned melodies in almost every song, but Cohen likes to cut his pop music through with heavy distortion. Come to think of it, that sounds a lot like Kurt Cobain's modus operandi as well, so maybe "Such Fun's" Nirvana resemblance is intentional after all.

Cohen played bass for Nine Black Alps, but he proves to be an adept guitar player here, using several distinct sounds and often effectively playing two or three different parts. Those parts give his simple songs an extra layer of depth and makes them more effective. Most interesting is when he uses the guitar to undercut his songs. "Not Me" starts off a lot like the other pop songs on the album, but Cohen interrupts it smack dab in the middle of the song with 40 seconds of completely distorted, atonal guitar noise. "Back of Your Knees" is similarly undercut, with feedback squalling around in the background throughout the track.

Other songs on the album, like "Dead Wrong", with its irresistible melody and catchy three-chord guitars, would be a pure delight but for one thing: Yucca sounds terrible. The whole album was recorded in Cohen's Manchester flat, but it sounds like it was recorded in a small tin shack. The sound seems to reverberate all over the place, wildly distorting even the prettiest songs under an onslaught of noise. Cohen's vocals, already mixed low, are basically indecipherable on all but the quietest tracks. The press materials praise Cohen's "viscerally dark lyrics", but good luck figuring any of them out without a lyric sheet in hand. If Mild Maid was from California it would probably be called a "low-fi" band, but since Cohen is from England, Fat Cat Records touts the album's "raw spontaneity" and Cohen's "freedom [to do] things his way".

Regardless of how they describe it, it's all code for "this sounds absolutely awful". There's really no excuse for something that sounds this bad in 2011 except as an aesthetic choice. Get a friend with a laptop and a good microphone and a home recording can sound almost indecipherable from a studio album. And as an aesthetic choice, using the low-fi approach on catchy pop like this just undermines the songs, and not in an interesting way. Instead of adding a layer of intrigue, like some of Cohen's guitar choices, it just makes the whole production sound awful. It's like he couldn't be bothered to make it sound halfway decent. Maybe someone at Fat Cat decided that instead of telling Cohen to go into a studio a make it sound good, they could just release his crappy demos and write sparkling press releases comparing Milk Maid to Guided By Voices. Who knows? Maybe that will work for some listeners, but it didn't for me.


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.