Paul Duncan: Be Careful What You Call Home

Peter Funk

An album that walks a tightrope between melody and off kilter experimentation with satisfying results and unexpected success.

Paul Duncan

Be Careful What You Call Home

Label: Home Tapes
US Release Date: 2005-11-08
UK Release Date: Available as import
Amazon affiliate

Is it possible to be both pop and experimental? Can the basics of melody and hook exist happily with found sound, unconventional structure, and everything-but-the-kitchen-sink instrumentation? I'm sure Paul Duncan didn't give these questions much thought when he was composing Be Careful What You Call Home and it's to his credit that the album sounds as unselfconscious and organic as it does.

The temptation with Paul Duncan is to lump his music in with the freak folk movement. Duncan's gentle tempos and melodicism coupled with his penchant towards adding layered electronic effects and found sounds initially draws comparisons to Akron/Family. There are points during Be Careful What You Call Home where you can hear ghosts of Duncan's Southern roots trying push their way through via banjo or a phrasing that recalls more traditional songwriters like Jimmy Webb. But the soil that Duncan has made is thick and those sprouts rarely bloom into something traditional, though they remain recognizable.

There's something insular about Be Careful What You Call Home, an element of unselfconscious inward focus that defies the more overtly theatrical moments of Devendra Banhart or Angels of Light. This is due at least in part to the fact that Duncan plays just about everything on the album. In addition to recording and mixing duties Duncan lists writing, Vocals, guitars, bass, Rhodes, piano, melodica, synths, glockenspiel, drums, percussion, computer, and harmonica as his responsibilities. While he does get help in bit and pieces, a violin here, additional drums there, a banjo on one song, there's little doubt as you listen to Be Careful What You Call Home that Duncan is having a fairly intense conversation with himself and creating a personal musical vernacular as he goes: getting swept up in his creation is the fun of Be Careful What You Call Home.

Duncan's songs tend to unfold slowly presenting themselves in bubbling bits that add up to convincing wholes. He's at his most abstract during his instrumental pieces; during these songs Duncan abuts his organic instrumentation (guitar, glockenspiel, piano) against unsettling moments of static or gentle pieces of found sound. The middle section of Be Careful What You Call Home is Duncan at his best. He takes us from the instrumental "Toy Bell" which builds towards a disturbing buzz of feedback before entering into "You Look Like An Animal", one of his most confident pieces of songwriting and singing, which is followed by the instrumentals "Toy Piano", with its click clack rhythms, "Manhattan Shuffle", backed by the sound of falling rain over guitar and bits of percussion, "Toy Bass", a driving bass line recalling Broken Social Scene's most coherent moments, before ending up with "Oil in the Fields", a gorgeous collection of memories that opens with "I remember Father's ring" and finishes with the line "and yes I have been drinking". Each song, instrumental or vocal, no matter how oddly populated always finds a line of melody to return to. This is Duncan's greatest strength: he writes beautiful, captivating melody that allows him to slide into the experimental without tearing the listener from the experience of the song. His songs often feel like lullabies in which he strokes our heads in comfort while telling us a most disturbing fairy tale.

Be Careful What You Call Home is a confident album unafraid of risk or melody, happy with both a pop sensibility and an experimental edge. It's a tricky tightrope that Duncan is able to navigate with aplomb.


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.