4 out of 5

Label: VHF Records

Produced by: Kawabata Makoto

I don’t know that I actually understand Terry Riley’s In C. I mean, conceptually, I think I do, but then whenever I read about it again… it sounds awful complicated. On the plus side, when I’ve heard different takes on it – including Acid Mothers Temple & The Melting Paraiso U.F.O.’s 2001 edition – I recognize I don’t need to understand it to enjoy it. So I might be missing some musical witticism about how this 20+ years later “In a Not C” followup does (or doesn’t) tie into that prior take beyond its title; but again – I’m able to enjoy it, all of that aside.

Kawabata Makoto’s contributions to the VHF label have leaned towards the more open-ended, peaceful side of his psychedelia, and Not C follows suit, at least tonally setting it apart from the more rocking ‘C’ version. While the recording kind of elementally has the ingredients of something more cacophonous, the clean guitar notes and burbling singing and soft-edged production turn the layers and layers of the quintet’s playing into a kind of organic, stream-like flow of notes, not noise. Pt. 1 certainly builds and builds on those notes, such that drumming and singing and strumming (and buzzes of synths) are overlapping, it just has a kind of Polyphonic Spree sincerity to it – spinning faster and faster on a merry-go-round on a pleasant Spring day.

Okay, it scratches some chaos itches in its final section – as Jyonson Tsu’s vocals get more urgent and the beat more drilling, it slips into territory that will likely get the parent in the room, moderately enjoying the tune, to ask you to turn it off. But that’s also the joy of how this builds up: energy that keeps feeding on itself; the band playing more and more exuberantly with each go-round.

Pt. 2 is maybe intended to be the more blissed out take: the vocals are more spaced out; feedback fills the tracks intro; the drumming is more primal. Its build up is more reflective of the original In C, in that it grows into a rock freak out. But the warm production style remains, which makes the whole thing interesting, but tonally discrepant to a degree: the bass defines the “walls” of the song, and the vocals fade into a throbbing low-end alongside it. Guitars and drumming are minimalized amongst this – flavor text. It’s a rock song that’s… not very rocking. I like it conceptually, and I think it’s a smart pairing to Pt. 1’s “brighter” sound, but I’m not settled on it being fully effective on its own. Like, I’m rationalizing it to make it fit in, but I think allowing some edges through on the mix of this one could’ve made it a strong gut punch versus Pt. 1.