COIN: why 1992 is a near perfect EP that no longer exists.

This album is good. More than that, it's great.

I could go on about stylistic choices that the band makes on its individual tracks, but you, as the listener would either disagree with me, or be able to figure those things out for yourself. Besides, I don’t think those elements are what make this a perfect EP.

In today's music, it seems like bands put out an EP because they haven’t written enough music for a full length album, or they have a bunch of remixes they want to put out, or, like COIN, they have a number of songs that go really well together and should be digested as a smaller whole than a full length album. 

The EP is the perfect format for music today.  My attention span is short, and I'm impatient. An EP is great the same way that an hour and a half is the perfect length for a film. Because when I sit down to listen to new music I look at the time and say to myself "okay do I really want to devote an hour to this album that might suck?" With an EP, I'm looking at half an hour. That's my drive to school, to work, to get through half my workout, or run 3 miles, or whatever (as if I actually do those last two...). It's a manageable and easily devotable time frame.

So, perfect time, check.

Let's talk about theme. This album is full of longing. The first track: "hope is dying". The second track: "Honey I still want you now like I always will". The third: "I'm bothered by a life lived without you". Fourth: "If you'd act your age, then I wouldn't play the fool". Fifth: Instrumental, but with a dismal tone. Sixth: A lost-love story.

Get it? This album is great because it has connection via disconnection.

Okay, but it's also connected musically. Each of these tracks features a section of instrumental music, a musical interlude, toward the end where the music itself seems to become a character in the narrative literally take over. These sections are often fueled with a certain strength and rebellion almost. The singer gets through his lyrics and then it's as if the music responds. These sections all come to a climax in Minty, the instrumental track. Minty is the music's response. Brooding and melodic, Minty leads right into the laid back lament, Malibu.

The album is essential a kind of Fugue. A Fugue is a musical term denoting a short piece of music with a repetitive theme, voice, or melody line. This EP, as I've mentioned has this repetition. But it goes further. The musical interlude in Atlas is a direct musical copy of the second chorus of Malibu. The connection is present and conscious from the first track to last and in this way, fulfills the theoretical definition of Fugue, but also fulfills a more modern definition which just observes repetition in theme throughout the work.

So the album is connected, flowing, and approaching brilliance in that regard. I am bold to say perfect in almost every way. There's only one problem: it no longer exists. That's right. Released in May of 2013, this album is no longer available. The group decided that they didn't hit the target audience quite as well as they would like to and are rereleasing a few of the tracks from the album as singles for now and will include a number of them on a future full length LP. 

So doesn't that discount some of the greatness that I mentioned before? In a way, I think it does; or at least the kind of greatness I'm talking about. Don't get me wrong here, these tracks are all great, well written, and well performed. But will they have the same impact as singles or as tracks on a potentially less connected LP? Perhaps. There was just something special about the 1992 EP.

While these songs can each stand on their own, or at least be independent of the 1992 EP, I believe that they lose something when taken out of the EP's context. They won't have the same potency that they had as a connected body of work in this EP.

But then again, I'm probably wrong. Unless you snagged a copy of the EP before it dissolved, there's no way for you to really dialog with me on the subject. But I have this to say: I still love this band and love what they're doing. And I hope I'm wrong. I hope that their full-length album creates even more connection. Maybe they ditched the connection of 1992 for greater connection on their next album. We'll have to wait and see. 

For now, I'll be partying like it's 1992. 

For more information:

Saturdays: http://noisetrade.com/thisiscoin/saturdays

COIN: http://thisiscoin.com/

Other Album reviews: 

1. http://www.confrontmagazine.com/2013/05/1992-by-coin/

2. http://www.venturemag.co.uk/2013/05/22/coin-1992-review/

Timshel: An exposition of Hebrew and what we can learn about salvation and sanctification from an American Novel.

I recently read John Steinbeck's 1952 novel, East of Eden. Steinbeck defines a Hebrew word, Timshel, in his novel, a word meaning "Thou mayest" and he talks about how it has been mistranslated in both the King James and the American Standard translations of the Bible to mean "Do thou" and "Thou shalt". Steinbeck explains how a correct translation of the word is actually one of the most important and encouraging things that a Christian can hear in regards to the pursuit of righteous living. I think the novel says something important about humanity, religion, and choice:

"'Now, there are many millions in their sects and churches who feel the order, "Do thou," and throw their weight into obedience. And there are millions more who feel predestination in "Thou shalt." Nothing they may do can interfere with what will be. But "Thou mayest"! Why, that makes a man great, that gives him stature with the gods, for in his weakness and his filth and his murder of his brother he has still the great choice. He can choose his course and fight it through and win.' Lee’s voice was a chant of triumph.

Adam said, 'Do you believe that, Lee?'

'Yes, I do. Yes, I do. It is easy out of laziness, out of weakness, to throw oneself into the lap of deity, saying, "I couldn’t help it; the way was set." But think of the glory of the choice! That makes a man a man. A cat has no choice, a bee must make honey. There’s no godliness there.'" [1.]

Though it may seem like Steinbeck is talking about works-based salvation here, he isn't. He is critiquing the belief that choices are set and that mankind has but one course of action: to put an end to sin in our lives. Sometimes it seems that if Christians cannot reject the sin we are in, we aren't Christians at all! As a Christian, I know the never-ending cycle of sin can often be discouraging and make life seem futile, but what I often forget is that the struggle is not against sin, it is against the natural tendencies of the flesh toward evil. This is an important distinction, which is identified by Oswald Chambers when he writes, "The warfare is not against sin; we can never fight against sin — Jesus Christ conquered that in His redemption of us. The conflict is waged over turning our natural life into a spiritual life." [2.]  As Chambers writes, the struggle cannot be against sin. The struggle is against human nature and is active within myself; choosing to put the natural life to death in order that Christ may raise a spiritual life within me. 

The choice to reject the natural life and its' restrictions and depravity is therefore necessary and righteous. It makes the choice, not a matter of salvation, but of sanctification. Choices we make don't determine the power of Christ's work, but they conform us to his image. Once we are saved, it is our choices and actions that determine our stature with God. Choices are our way of making our faith real in our lives. Choices are how we interact with salvation; they are our response. I believe that our humanity is realized when we are living in right relationship with God and making the choice to put to death the natural life. It is an act of restoration. I think Steinbeck would agree.

For more reading:
1. A complete quote, Steinbeck - http://www.timshel.org/timshel.php
2. A complete quote, Chambers - http://utmost.org/do-it-yourself-1/