The cover is nearly white, but nothing about it feels clean. A male face has been photographed, duplicated, cut, shifted and pressed back into itself until identity resembles damaged paper. Forehead, mouth, eyes and neck occupy incompatible positions. One expression appears to be closing its eyes while another face pushes forward through it. The image is not hidden in darkness like Death Mask or Shame. It has been overexposed until visibility becomes another form of disappearance.
That white field is important. Darkness traditionally conceals; excessive light can erase with equal efficiency. The cover offers exposure without clarification. We can see nearly everything and still cannot establish where one person ends and another begins. Consenting Adult begins with the possibility that self-knowledge may function the same way. Adulthood provides legal visibility, a name, a body and the apparent authority to decide, but the person making the decision may remain internally divided.
The words Sutcliffe No More sit quietly at the lower left, balanced by Consenting Adult on the right. The typography does not announce a dramatic rebirth. There is no new logo declaring liberation from the past. The old name has simply been revised into a sentence of refusal. Sutcliffe remains present, but followed by “No More,” as though the project can neither carry the historical identity unchanged nor remove it completely.
Kevin Tomkins has resisted attaching an elaborate moral explanation to the change. Sutcliffe Jügend had reached an artistic wall, the temporary Slaves No More project provided space to reconsider, and Sutcliffe No More became the name because Tomkins and Paul Taylor liked how it worked. The music continued. There was no public ritual of purification in which the artists denounced everything previously made and requested admission into respectable culture.
Even so, language performs meanings beyond declared intention. “Sutcliffe No More” sounds like a refusal to remain permanently chained to Peter Sutcliffe, power electronics history, serial-killer mythology, collector expectation or a younger artist’s conception of extremity. The name does not say Sutcliffe never existed. It says the name will no longer control the future.
This distinction matters because underground cultures can become strangely hostile toward development. A project earns recognition through one period, and listeners begin guarding that period as the artist’s authentic identity. Any change is measured as decline, compromise or betrayal. The audience that originally celebrated refusal becomes another authority demanding obedience.
Sutcliffe No More refuses that custody. Kevin Tomkins and Paul Taylor retain the old equipment, instincts, vocal force and ability to produce physically punishing sound, but those elements are no longer required to follow one approved template. Guitar, Wasp and Korg synthesizers, autoharp, electronics, spoken language, rhythm, atmosphere and song-like structure can appear according to the needs of the work rather than the historical rules of power electronics.
Consenting Adult is the second full release under the revised name, following Domestic. The earlier album concentrated upon domestic abuse and was recorded remotely during the pandemic, an accidental historical alignment that made its subject more harrowing as reports of violence inside homes increased during lockdown. Tomkins later described making Domestic as emotionally punishing.
He described Consenting Adult very differently: almost a joy to record. That statement does not mean the album is cheerful. Its titles include coercion, bodily damage, dependency, family tension and a comatose body converted into an object. The joy appears to have come from creative release, the discovery that the new identity could move freely instead of remaining obligated to one emotional temperature.
The result occupies two discs and divides itself structurally. The first contains eleven relatively concise pieces, most between three and five minutes. The second contains five longer works, each approaching or passing nine minutes. Disc one moves through doors quickly. Disc two enters fewer rooms and remains until their atmosphere changes.
“Akrasia” provides the philosophical key. The ancient Greek term describes acting against one’s better judgment: knowing what should be done while choosing something else. It names the break between knowledge and action without reducing the person to simple ignorance.
That fracture destabilizes ordinary ideas of consent. A person may understand that an action will harm them and still desire it. They may verbally agree while another part resists. They may recognize manipulation and remain emotionally unable to leave. They may repeat a choice they sincerely regret every time it is made.
This does not make consent meaningless. It makes consent more psychologically complicated than a switch moving cleanly from off to on. Legal adulthood grants authority, but it does not free the adult from fear, dependency, appetite, trauma, loneliness, money, family history or the body’s ability to override declared intention.
The opening sound therefore does not need to depict one forbidden act. It establishes division as the album’s governing condition. Tomkins’ voice can sound like both actor and witness, the person performing an action and the consciousness observing that performance with disbelief. Taylor’s electronics do not merely accompany the words. They provide the unstable ground upon which the competing selves stand.
“Drug Mule” moves the question from private will toward exploited agency. A mule physically carries material for another person, becoming both participant and container. The body crosses a border while the power organizing the journey may remain somewhere else.
The title contains a useful ambiguity. The mule may have consented in the narrow sense, but the circumstances surrounding that agreement may include poverty, threat, addiction, desperation or manipulation. An adult decision can be real while the range of available choices has been violently reduced.
This is where moral labeling often fails. Society sees the body containing the drugs and assigns guilt to the nearest visible person. The system producing the journey remains dispersed across money, demand, organized power and unequal risk. The courier becomes the entire crime because the courier can be caught.
Sutcliffe No More’s later work increasingly turns away from glamorous monsters and toward this ordinary machinery. The older fascination asked how someone could become a murderer or sadist. The newer question asks what happens when normal people move through compromised conditions every day, performing actions they partly choose and partly inherit.
“Brother” begins a family sequence that will later include “Mother,” “Father” and “Sister.” The titles are startlingly plain. No names, adjectives or incidents are supplied. Each person is identified only through their relation to somebody else.
Family roles are among the earliest identities imposed without consent. Nobody selects their initial position as child, sibling or parent. The role arrives through birth, adoption, circumstance and the decisions of previous generations. It may become a shelter, duty, wound, inheritance or combination of all four.
A brother is not one stable character. He can be protector, rival, witness, substitute parent, stranger or carrier of family memory. The word contains intimacy while revealing almost nothing about affection. Relation does not guarantee love; it guarantees connection.
The record’s refusal to describe the brother fully allows the title to operate like an empty chair. Every listener may place a different person there. The music does not need to tell one complete family story. It activates the listener’s own network of obligations and unfinished conversations.
“Cut Tooth” returns identity to the body. A damaged tooth is small compared with the injuries usually displayed by extreme music, but that modest scale makes it intimate. The tongue repeatedly finds the sharp place. Eating, speaking, sleeping and breathing can all become reminders.
A cut tooth also exists where interior and exterior meet. Teeth are part of the body but appear publicly whenever the mouth opens. They carry age, care, poverty, fear, labor, diet, violence and inherited structure without explaining which history produced the damage.
Pain located in the mouth has a special power because the mouth is also the instrument of agreement. The same body part that says yes or no may be injured, ashamed, numb or difficult to expose. Consent is usually imagined as language arriving from an intact speaker. Real speakers are embodied and sometimes afraid even to open their mouths.
The short duration of “Cut Tooth” suits that concentrated pain. It does not need to become a grand tragedy. A tiny exposed nerve can dominate consciousness more efficiently than a philosophical argument.
“Plainsong” introduces a title associated with unadorned sacred vocal music, a single melodic line before later harmony divides the voice into several simultaneous paths. Inside this record, the word suggests simplicity without innocence.
A plain song could be the statement remaining after ornament has been removed. Yet Sutcliffe No More rarely allows language to remain plain. Tomkins’ delivery carries sarcasm, disgust, pain, distance and theatrical enlargement. Even a direct sentence arrives through several emotional filters.
The sacred association also creates an unusual echo. Plainsong historically organizes the human voice inside ritual order. Power electronics often does the opposite, pushing voice toward rupture, feedback and bodily overload. The title places liturgy beside damaged electronics without requiring either one to win.
That meeting may reveal a shared function. Religious chant and extreme sound can both alter perception through repetition, duration and physical vibration. One seeks communal alignment; the other may produce confrontation or isolation. Each treats sound as something done to consciousness rather than mere decoration.
“Savant” names a person whose abilities appear radically uneven, extraordinary in one domain while other forms of functioning may remain limited. Popular culture often romanticizes the figure because exceptional skill can be displayed while the person’s full interior life remains conveniently ignored.
The title fits an album concerned with divided agency. Intelligence does not produce uniform self-command. Someone may understand complex systems while remaining unable to govern one appetite, relationship or recurring decision. Knowledge and wisdom do not always inhabit the same rooms.
Artists are especially vulnerable to this mythology. Exceptional creation is treated as evidence that the creator possesses exceptional insight into every aspect of life. The work becomes a false certificate of personal mastery. Consenting Adult repeatedly dismantles that fantasy. A person can produce disciplined art while remaining contradictory, compulsive and confused.
The title track sits near the center of the first disc rather than opening or closing it. “Consenting Adult” sounds like a bureaucratic category, the phrase used to end a conversation once age and verbal agreement have been established.
The album hears uneasiness inside that reassurance. “They were consenting adults” can be an important defense of autonomy against moral intrusion. It can also be used to prevent examination of power, dependency, humiliation or emotional consequence. The phrase may protect freedom, or it may close the file too quickly.
Consent is not identical to approval by an outside observer. Adults may choose practices, relationships and experiences other people dislike or fail to understand. Protecting that freedom matters. The danger begins when another person assumes that consent grants ownership beyond the exact act agreed upon.
Permission is specific. It has duration, limits and the possibility of withdrawal. One agreement does not dissolve privacy, dignity or future choice. Adulthood is not permanent availability.
The title becomes even more resonant beside the band’s history. Sutcliffe Jügend used violent language and criminal imagery that listeners voluntarily approached. Nobody encountering the name could reasonably expect comforting entertainment. Yet choosing to enter the work did not require accepting every interpretation, scene custom or social behavior attached to it.
The listener’s consent is active. One may hear the record deeply while refusing the culture of hardness surrounding it. One may stop, return, question, reject a lyric or remain fascinated without surrendering judgment. Consent to experience art is not consent to be governed by its mythology.
“Mother” follows, and the family architecture acquires a center of origin. The mother is the first environment for many human beings, initially not another person encountered from outside but part of the conditions of existence itself. Body, nourishment, sound, protection and fear may all begin there before language can organize them.
Because the relationship begins before conscious consent, its influence can feel older than choice. An adult may spend decades attempting to distinguish personal desire from the expectations first learned through attachment. Approval and survival were once nearly the same thing.
This does not reduce mothers to causes or archetypes. It recognizes that intimacy begins asymmetrically. The infant has need without independence. The adult caregiver possesses power while also carrying exhaustion, inherited damage and needs of their own.
“Wicked” lasts only thirty-five seconds, an abrupt moral stamp between “Mother” and “Father.” The placement makes the word behave almost like a judgment issued inside a family argument.
“Wicked” is a totalizing label. It does not identify what happened. It transforms conduct into nature. Someone did not commit a harmful act; they became a harmful kind of being.
Such labels can simplify necessary protection. Some behavior is dangerous and must be stopped. Yet the word can also end curiosity precisely where understanding might prevent repetition. Once a person has been classified as wicked, the surrounding family or culture no longer needs to investigate its own contribution.
The track’s brevity resembles the speed of condemnation. A life may contain thousands of days, but one word can reorganize the public meaning of all of them.
“Father” arrives after the verdict. Fathers occupy another role inherited before the child can evaluate the person performing it. Authority, distance, protection, approval, violence, instruction and absence can all collect beneath the same title.
The music surrounding a word this plain does not need to produce one universal father. Its power comes from the listener’s inability to hear the role neutrally. Even someone with a loving history brings images, gestures and remembered tones of voice. A family title is a private sample activated by public language.
Adulthood often involves discovering that parents were never the complete beings children imagined. They possessed fear, desire, ignorance, vanity and unfinished childhoods of their own. This recognition can produce forgiveness, anger or both. Understanding causation does not erase consequence.
“Sister” completes the first disc with another horizontal family relation. Unlike parents, siblings often share part of the same environment while receiving radically different versions of it. Birth order, gender, timing, temperament and parental projection can produce several childhoods inside one address.
A sibling may therefore become both corroborating witness and impossible contradiction. Two people remember the same household differently, and each may experience the other’s account as a threat to reality. Family truth is rarely one stable recording.
The first disc’s progression through brother, mother, father and sister suggests that adulthood cannot be understood only as individual autonomy. The adult remains connected to roles acquired before autonomy existed. Consent occurs inside a body carrying those earlier relations.
The second disc begins with “Drained,” and the compositional scale immediately expands. After eleven relatively concise works, the listener enters a track lasting nearly ten minutes. The title describes depletion rather than impact.
To be drained is to have something removed gradually: energy, blood, desire, money, attention or hope. The word implies that a container once held more. Unlike destruction, draining may leave the exterior apparently intact.
This makes it a fitting image for adult harm. Many damaging relationships do not produce one spectacular event. They operate through repeated small extractions. One person becomes responsible for maintaining the emotional climate, absorbing anxiety, explaining behavior and restoring peace. Nothing dramatic happens on a given day, yet the reservoir continues dropping.
The longer duration permits that process to become perceptible. The music does not merely announce exhaustion. It consumes time until the listener feels accumulation.
“Heavy Petting” takes a phrase associated with adolescent sexuality, an old euphemism attempting to classify physical intimacy without naming it too explicitly. The wording sounds humorous now, but euphemisms often reveal social anxiety. Adults create categories to regulate what younger people may do while avoiding direct language about desire.
Placed on Consenting Adult, the phrase produces temporal confusion. The adolescent vocabulary remains active inside the adult body. Early lessons about shame, permission, secrecy and desirability do not disappear when legal adulthood begins.
The title may also ask how adults learn consent if their first education consisted of silence, jokes, threats or moral panic. A culture uncomfortable naming touch cannot expect everyone to arrive at maturity possessing a precise language for boundaries.
“Heavy” changes the apparently playful phrase. Touch acquires weight. Petting can imply affection, ownership or the treatment of another person as something less than fully equal. The language shifts according to who acts, who receives and whether either person can stop the encounter safely.
“Berlin Pharmacy Shopkeeper” is the album’s most oddly specific title. After abstract roles and bodily states, a person appears through city, workplace and occupation. Yet no name is supplied.
The specificity creates a miniature world. Berlin suggests travel, history, nightlife, division and reinvention. A pharmacy occupies the boundary between illness, relief, commerce and controlled substances. The shopkeeper mediates access, standing between bodily need and the products intended to answer it.
The title could refer to a real encounter, an invented character or private joke. Its refusal to explain is valuable. Not every human figure must become an allegory immediately. A person may enter art because their presence, voice or manner lodged in memory for reasons the artist cannot fully justify.
Within this album, however, the pharmacy naturally reconnects with akrasia and dependency. Medicine can restore agency, while another chemical relation may narrow it. The same substance can be treatment, pleasure, compulsion or commodity according to dose, context and body.
The shopkeeper is not merely selling objects. They stand inside a system of permission. Prescription, age, law and professional judgment determine who may receive what. Consent alone does not guarantee access. Society recognizes that desire can be sincere without being sufficient.
“Coma Toy” is the most disturbing title because its two words should not coexist. A person in a coma cannot participate in consent. A toy is an object defined partly by availability to another person’s hand.
The title therefore imagines the complete collapse of subject into object. A body remains present while the conscious person is inaccessible, and another will assigns use to it.
The horror does not require a detailed narrative. The phrase reveals the endpoint hidden inside possessive desire: a perfectly compliant body that cannot contradict, withdraw or judge. What appears as absolute consent is actually the elimination of the person capable of consenting.
This is the dark reflection of the album title. A consenting adult is valuable precisely because the adult is an active subject whose wishes matter. Remove consciousness and the apparent absence of refusal means nothing. Silence is not agreement.
The track’s nearly ten-minute duration forces the phrase to remain unresolved. A quick shock title might allow the listener to register disgust and move on. The composition keeps the moral vacancy open.
Extreme music has often used unconscious, dead or injured bodies as imagery because they offer maximum transgression. Consenting Adult asks a more interesting question: why does total power require the other person to become less alive?
The title also turns back upon listening culture. An audience may want artists to function as coma toys, indefinitely repeating the sound associated with their reputation. The artist’s changing consciousness becomes an inconvenience. The ideal legacy act never refuses the audience’s demand.
Sutcliffe No More is the opposite gesture. Tomkins and Taylor remain conscious inside their history. They can alter the name, reject a template and make the listeners follow or leave.
“I Digress” closes the double album with the longest track, more than twelve minutes. The phrase usually interrupts a speaker who has wandered away from the announced subject. It apologizes lightly and promises a return to order.
Placed at the end, there is no return. The digression becomes the destination.
This is an elegant statement of the project’s method. Sutcliffe Jügend began in an early industrial culture with a relatively concentrated vocabulary: violence, criminality, domination, feedback and confrontation. Decades of digression brought guitar, autoharp, domestic psychology, family roles, melody, spoken word, philosophy and fractured song into the same practice.
Purists may hear wandering. The artists hear continuation.
Digression is also how consciousness actually works. A person attempting to explain one event discovers a childhood memory underneath it, then a relationship, bodily sensation, song, fear or image. The mind does not move according to a clean table of contents.
The closing title refuses the fantasy that the album’s subjects can be arranged into one argument. Consent leads to compulsion; compulsion leads to family; family leads to shame; shame leads to touch, drugs, illness, art and identity. Every explanation opens another corridor.
Musically, the double-disc form protects this multiplicity. A single forty-minute album might encourage the artists to choose one dominant sound. Consenting Adult permits harsh electronics, spoken narration, ambient tension, guitar, rhythm and pieces approaching recognizable songs to coexist without being forced into uniformity.
Tomkins later described the album’s freedom and variety as a release after Domestic. That creative pleasure is audible not as happiness but as permission. The duo sounds free to pursue whatever a track proposes and discard anything that exists merely to satisfy a genre.
Their working relationship supports this flexibility. Tomkins and Taylor discuss the conceptual and sonic territory, bring ideas into the studio, frequently record performances in single takes and then edit heavily. Either artist can reject an element immediately. Nothing is protected merely because effort was spent making it.
That arrangement depends upon trust. Consent inside collaboration is not polite agreement with everything. It includes the security to say no without destroying the relationship.
The editing process resembles adulthood more honestly than the fantasy of perfect self-expression. A person generates more impulses than can become a life. Choice means cutting, preserving, rearranging and accepting that some meaningful possibilities will remain unused.
Tomkins has compared aspects of the approach to Can and Miles Davis, where extended performance provides material later shaped through selection. The final track is not simply the spontaneous event or the editor’s plan. It is the relation between them.
Consenting Adult was also created through remote exchange because the pandemic prevented ordinary studio collaboration during the first two Sutcliffe No More albums. Physical separation could have weakened the duo’s instinctive communication. Instead, it made mediation part of the music.
Files traveled between locations. One person’s completed action became material for the other. Each had to act without controlling the entire moment. This is collaboration through partial custody.
That idea connects strangely with the physical release. The artists specifically requested that the complete album remain available only as a double CD, while Bandcamp offered sixteen tiny sample fragments. The official object requires purchase, shipment, unpacking and possession. Hearing the full work is meant to involve acquiring its physical body.
The package supports that intention. Three folding panels contain two discs, portrait art and a twenty-four-page booklet. The first sixty label copies add a transparent overlay and numbered sticker. The edition is limited to three hundred, making sequence, paper, plastic and handling part of the work rather than optional decoration.
The portrait images continue the cover’s destruction and reconstruction of identity. Faces appear partially erased, doubled or interrupted by another body. The two artists occupy opposite panels, while the discs and central image create a hinge between them. The package becomes a small architecture of divided persons collaborating.
Private Release preserves a different body. The post contains one cover image and a 651.54-megabyte FLAC archive. The foldout package, portraits, transparent overlay, numbered sticker and booklet are absent, while the complete audio appears digitally despite the artists’ physical-only request.
That contradiction should not be disguised. The album concerns consent, and its unofficial digital circulation immediately raises a question about what happens after consent meets copying.
A creator may consent to release a recording while attempting to determine its conditions: format, price, territory and sequence. A listener who acquires the object can duplicate the sound technically, but possession does not automatically erase the maker’s intention. At the same time, decades of underground culture have depended upon tapes, rips, borrowed records and private archives moving work far beyond authorized channels.
The two systems are not easily reconciled. Artist control preserves context and supports continued creation. Unofficial circulation preserves access, defeats disappearance and allows a distant seeker to encounter work that may otherwise become unavailable. Each protects something and violates something.
The FLAC files preserve the recorded data losslessly, but they do not preserve the complete release. The booklet may contain words and images that change interpretation. The two physical discs enforce a pause between “Sister” and “Drained.” The foldout portraits make the artists’ bodies part of the encounter. A folder can reproduce the sound while reorganizing its custody.
That does not make the folder unreal. It creates another edition through use. The album enters a different system where searchability, survival and discovery matter more than numbered scarcity.
The Private Release post is almost silent about this transfer. One image, label name and file size. The page does not argue that the archive has permission or explain why it should exist. It simply places the work where seekers may find it.
That gesture resembles the album’s own uncertainty. The title does not provide a universal formula for determining whether every act is acceptable. It creates a field in which agency, power, desire and consequence remain active.
Consent is necessary, but the record suggests it is not the end of moral thought. What conditions produced the agreement? Could it be withdrawn? Who possessed more power? What happened afterward? Did either person understand what they were asking for? Did the act make future choice larger or smaller?
These questions apply to sex, drugs, family, artistic collaboration, distribution and identity. They also apply to the name Sutcliffe No More. The duo has chosen to continue, but continuation does not mean remaining available to the past in every form the audience demands.
The cover face is therefore not simply damaged. It may be reorganizing. Several versions of one identity overlap because no adult arrives whole and final. The child, performer, family member, victim, aggressor, artist and observer continue occupying the same skin.
Adulthood is often advertised as the point where the person becomes self-governing. Consenting Adult presents something more believable: adulthood as the long practice of negotiating among forces that were never fully chosen.
The record’s darkness does not come primarily from demons, murderers or spectacular evil. It comes from ordinary agency becoming uncertain. A person knows and does otherwise. A family role outlives childhood. A body agrees while another internal voice resists. An artist creates a name and later discovers the name making demands of its own.
This is a deeper psychological territory than simple provocation because it offers no monster who can be expelled to restore order. The conflict occurs within legitimate human capacities: desire, loyalty, care, curiosity, touch, memory and the wish to be free.
Sutcliffe No More does not offer a doctrine for resolving those conflicts. The duo builds sound around them until their pressure becomes perceptible. Electronics fracture the ground. Guitar gives certain forces physical direction. Spoken language attempts to classify experience and repeatedly discovers more experience underneath.
The hardness remains, but it no longer functions as the admission price to a scene. The music is severe because its questions are severe. A listener gains nothing by pretending not to be affected.
Consenting Adult is therefore not a softer continuation of Sutcliffe Jügend, nor a return to the old project under safer branding. It is the sound of two artists treating their history as material rather than law.
The phrase “No More” does not close the archive. It opens the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Hi.