Each album serves a purpose. Some have been made to come to terms with experiences and feelings, others are made especially for you (the listener), are meant to teach you something, show you something, make you dance, think or initiate you into something. People seem to suggest that Animal Collective (basically the duo of Avey Tare and Panda Bear) is out there to teach you how to use your imagination, as their music offers so little to hold on to that you're required to fill in the gaps yourself. Those who enjoyed it a lot (a large group of people, as it topped many end of year-lists) even went as far as to compare it to a kind of religious experience, or a way to live through a state of childish euphoria a second time, with "childish" not standing for immature/juvenile, but pure/direct/free from any limitations. I can't deny that they actually accomplished this feat - the album does sound like the product of boundless imagination, with its pseudo-spontaneous songs, group therapy chants and tribal ambiance, but that's exactly what bugs me about the whole shebang. There have always been artists around that propagated a kind of back to basics/nature/purity-aesthetic, which always seems a silly way of escapism to me. But hey, I never said I was indifferent to the pitfalls of our cultural discourse. Now, as to how they took it to practise: by creating a bunch of "tongs," which are "about returning to an old house, doing nothing with friends or making sounds with bones": simple and pure fun. Right. It starts off very promising, though, with the drunken stupor of "Leaf House," a kind of campfire symphony with sparse instrumentation (guitar, percussion) and - most importantly - layers of dazzlingly arranged, harmonizing vocals that even recall the Beach Boys' vocal gymnastics. It's almost a sheer cacophony, but somehow the song managed to invoke a dream-like atmosphere that constantly walks the thin line between randomness and direction. The brief slice of ecstasy "Who Could Win a Rabbit" is even better, as folk instrumentation, tape manipulation and random sounds are combined and turned into one hell of a mess that almost succeeds in taking you into another mindset. Sadly enough, this is where excitement comes to a halt, as the remainder of the album seems to have been intended as a long string of free-floating pieces that try to reconcile elements from psychedelic music (manipulations, eerie vocal melodies), folk and experimental music. The contemplative "The Softest Voice" may evoke unreal rituals and barren landscapes, the childish vocals in the second half of "Winters Love" might crack you up, just like "Kids on Holiday" (Syd Barrett goes to the jungle), but from that point onwards the album descends into a long-winded mess that just relies too much on its own idiosyncratic tricks, twist and turns (which is reminiscent of the way in which CocoRosie's self-absorption made 'em deliver not enough memorable substance). "Visiting Friends" is a twelve-minute bore, "We Tigers" suggests what a collaboration of Rhythm of the Saints-era Paul Simon with The Butthole Surfers might sound like (it's HORRIBLE), while the final few (s)(t)ongs of the album have the storage life of a fart, and God knows I really, really tried to give 'm a second chance. And a third and fourth. Sung Tongs managed to do what very few albums have been capable of before: grabbing my attention with the opening attack and gradually raising the annoyance level to a dangerous high. Perhaps I'm flushing my indie cred down the drain with statements like this (or maybe it's just that I don't have the imagination that's required to absorb this album and help me create my own little universe of purity and happiness), but boy, Sung Tongs isn't a very good album, or is it?