************************************************
Nico - Desertshore
I was disappointed with this record.
Not that I had high expectations, but I did have a few points of reference to think it would be interesting, at least.
I knew of this artist the way most people do, as the "And Nico" from the Velvet Underground and Nico. Considering the greatness of that classic, I was curious about what might be in store with this one.
Another point of reference was the fact that this record appears in Scaruffi's top 10. For those who may not know, Scaruffi is a music critic with a following in the mu community. We found a copy of his topsters chart, and have mixed in his top 10 to add some varitey for AOTW selections.
While I'm far from a disciple of his, I do think many of his selections are interesting, and worth checking out (such as Faust and Royal Trux, also in his top 10). Scaruffi tends to pick records that are avant garde, somewhat minimalist, and peculiar or challenging. Based on his inclusion of this record, I was expecting more instrumental weirdness.
Unfortunately, I didn't find much, if anything, in this record to live up to these moderate expectations, and I found the overall pace and minimalist content to be underwhelming and tedious to get through, even for such a short record.
I did like her voice, and I thought it stood nicely in the foreground. But this alone was not enough. On the contrary, it frustrated me more as a loss of potential. Vocally, these compositions felt apathetic.
After my first two listens, I realized that John Cale contributed all instruments (except trumpet), which makes this a Velvet Underground spin-off record. John Cale is an remarkable figure in the counter culture of art rock and avant garde, with an extensive catalog of his own, of which I would still like to check out more.
I think of John Cale as "the Lee Ranaldo of the VU" (Lou Reed would be the Thurston in this Sonic Youth Analogy.)
I feel like this pairing had potential. After learning this, I went back for a third, and final, listen, to see whether I could pick out nuances of Cale's work to change my mind. But they seemed to have had other ambitions for this project, different from those of the Velvets, and, in my mind, not nearly as innovative or memorable.
The last two songs picked up a bit. The ending of 'Mutterlein' (track 7/8) worked in some dissonant, ominous piano pounding, and wandering, disembodied horns, that hinted at possibility. But this tease was too little, too late.
'All that is my own' (track 8/8) had elements that could make up a record that would be interesting for a single listen, with some instrumentals (guitar maybe?) in the background that sounded reminiscent of the banana album. This song started to make up for what I saw as a big flaw in the record, which was the noticeable absence of rhythm and percussion.
So, some interesting elements, but nothing to cover what was otherwise an underwhelming and lack-luster impression.
4.25/10 by me
Death Grips - No Love Deep Web
I'm not the biggest death grips fan. I knew that going in. Not that I think they're a bad band, or anything like that, but I don't count myself among the cult-like fandom who consider their stuff GOAT tier (Greatest Of All Time). So we should know at that outset that I will be taking a contrarian position on this one, the only question is, just how far contrary will I go?
This was a first listen for me. I've heard Government Plates, Year of the Snitch, and the Money Store so far by them. Of those, I liked Money Store the best, scoring it 6.5. They weren't on my radar when this one was released back in 2012, and I just haven't been motivated to go back and work through their catalog, although I have been meaning to, which is one of the reasons I voted for it.
I like the *idea* of Death Grips. Experimental hip hop, aggressive, angry, angsty, with elements of trip hop and psychedelic arrangements. Those words sound good.
So I do see the attraction. They put together sounds in interesting and unusual ways, and they use crude and vulgar language and imagery that kids can use to piss off their parents. I can see why people who enjoy challenging music that isn't instantly accessible would be attracted to this sound.
I feel like I fully "get it". I see what they are doing, I see what makes it edgy and provocative and challenging, or, rather, I see it trying to be those things. I'm just not that impressed. A good record? sure. A great one? I don't see it.
Using creative and innovative sounds is a step in the right direction, I do give them credit for that. For some, maybe that's enough. But I feel like they need to take, not one, but two or three steps in the right direction, and construct a memorable, meaningful work of art from those exotic and unusual sounds, and here is where I feel they come up short. The songs seem to wander aimlessly, without any distinctive focal points or sense of direction, as though any twist or turn they could take is equally valuable, because these bizarre sounds are just so profound. Well, sorry, but no, they're not.
I'll use a Sonic Youth analogy. The death Grips records I've heard are like the early SY records. I'm waiting for them to make their "Evol". With "Confusion" and "Bad Moon", they rejected conventional song structures and experimented with noise and angsty sounds, laying waste traditional notions of melody, notes, chords, and accessible song-writing. The thing that Evol did first (expanded in later records), was to take the noise, and the rejection of conventional song structures, and build a new album structure on top of the pile of rubble. Concepts of chord, melody, etc, were reborn, but on their own terms. I think that, if Death Grips would take their past as a starting point, and reintroduce the notions of rhyme and rhythm from hip hop into their own context, they could make a great record. Unfortunately, I don't expect that to happen, because this band and their fans seem to feel like they have already arrived. They can keep doing "Confusion" and "Bad Moon" and everyone will be happy with that. Everyone except me.
I appreciate the fractured nature of the sound arrangements. There is an element of chaos suspended in time. Unfortunately, they fail to orchestrate any long-time-scale song patterns, or very few that I can connect to.
I do think this is an interesting record, and I'm glad I took the time to check it out. I do intend to work my way through the whole discography at some point, even if only so I don't have to hear from some hipster about how I would like them more if only I heard this one, or that one, or the other.
So I found it interesting for a single play through, but I also saw a record that is trying too hard to be profound and revolutionary, and that, instead, wanders between mildly interesting and mildly irritating. It's a quirky record, deliberately so I think, with quirks that are trying to be deep and "trippy", but what's missing is the song writing step where these weird and unusual elements are resolved into something clever. Where great hip hop is clever, this record is just unusual, where great hip is smooth and fluid with beats you can dance too, the only movement this one lends itself to is an award, jerky form of shoe gaze.
I wonder if some of their fans are in it for the status. If you throw out "Death Grips" as your favorite band in a bar conversation, you get to feel special that you listen to something edgy and sophisticated. It gives you good street cred. Another reason I voted for this record was that I know you guys like it, and I also know you are not in it for the status factor (I think I know you guys well enough to say that). So I am curious to hear why you hold this in high regard.
It's not a bad record, and I don't want to give it a "bad" score. I do give it points for creativity and originality. I listened to it twice, my typical minimum for a review. The second time through I was hoping to look deeper and get more out of it, but the repeat only solidified my previous impression, and some of the quirky parts that I dismissed the first time were a bit more annoying the second time, so it did not improve with age. Since I define 6 as "good for a second listen", I'm going to put this one at 5.75/10.
The Beatles - Abbey Road
A Day At The Museum
The Beatles, for me, have always been something like visiting a museum. I can see and appreciate it for what it is, but it's somehow not "mine".
For many people my age, Beatles records played around the house in their early childhood. My family didn't listen to a lot of music when I was young, and what they did play was more educational, religious, or maybe some form of country.
I ventured out on my own into the world of rock'n'roll. By the time I got to this point, Beatle mania felt like ancient history, something I would see on TV in black and white, or hear on the oldies radio stations.
As I explored 60's era music, the ones that most resonated with me at the time were The Velvet Underground, Bob Dylan, The Who, and some jazz. This was an exciting period in my life, with an exponential explosion in new music, and somehow, The Beatles remained stuck in ancient history. I did explore their music (how could you not?) and I remember the White Album being the most interesting to me at the time.
Nothing Extra
Those days have passed, and I am more open minded these days, without the boundaries around "our music", and it's fun to go back check out old records with a fresh perspective. Abbey Road was definitely a good listen, and a good memory refresher. I enjoyed the songs, and the instrumental arrangements. I like the clarity of the bass lines. Vocals worked pretty well for me. I thought it had a focused arrangement that got to the point.
I like the way the instruments can be clearly heard and followed. Every note has a place and a function in the song. It's been said that art is "nothing extra". I think the song writing here illustrates this concept, as everything going on contributes, and there is no filler, or excess.
The White Album
I also revisited the White Album this week, and was disappointed with that one. I thought I remembered it being the one I like by them, and, with some songs, that was the case. "Helter Skelter" in particular is still my favorite Beatles song (the one and only thing I have in common with Charles Manson). But other songs on that record were just too simplistic and dull for me to stay connected. It think it could be repackaged as two records, one with the "heavier" tracks, and another for the soft songs, but the way they were mixed together into such a long record made the White Album difficult for me to absorb. Of course, this is not a review of the White Album, but I bring this up to contrast Abbey Road, which had a more focused arrangement where everything belonged in its place.
BUT...
So overall, my impression of Abbey Road was favorable, but... here comes the but. The style is too clean cut for me to hold it as a personal favorite. It needs more of an edge, something more noisy, or abrasive, or experimental etc. If they took the edge of 'Helter Skelter' with the songs from Abbey Road, that would do it for me. "I Want You (She's So Heavy)" took a step in this direction. Seth used the word "grit" on another thread, I think that is a good way to describe what I find lacking. This is not a flaw in the record itself, I think it does well for what it is, it just reinforces the museum effect.
Observations:
While at the museum I'll observe that this record occupies a special time in history, at the end of the 1960's, the end of an era, and the end of the Beatles. Because they quit while they were ahead, they left behind a strong catalog that would hold the focus of fans and critics for decades to come. It is interesting to observe that they achieved a cross-over effect of mainstream popularity at that time, that has held up for half a century with pop fans and patrician music connoisseurs alike. Its cover is one of the most iconic images in music history.
I think it is a good record that deserves a good score, but not something that places among personal favorites. My score may be biased up slightly by an attempt to give credit where credit is due, but I"ll go in for:
7/10
Ornette Coleman et al. - Song X
I got into Ornette Coleman during my first of many jazz phases in my early 20's (so nearly 20 years ago). I found a copy of this record on vinyl at the local library, of all places. I used to check it out for weeks at a time and treat all my friends to a head fuck.
My mind is not so easily blown these days, but this remains on of the most impressive records in my collection.
The Lineup:
Charlie Haden - acoustic double bass:
A founding member of the original Ornette Coleman quartet, Haden was OC's right-hand man through many decades. He had a trademark call-and-response approach to accompany OC's many solos and experimental improvs. His glue helped hold these records together where many other free jazz records would fall apart into slop jazz.
Pat Metheny - guitar:
Famous smooth jazz guitarist with a very impressive catalog of his own, Metheny checked his signature sound at the door here and got into character to fulfill the vision of the composer. Well played Pat.
Jack DeJonette - drums:
This guy played with all the big names in the golden age of Jazz.
Ornette Coleman Sr - saxophone, (occasional) violin
my #1 favorite jazz titan
Denardo Coleman - drums:
One of my favorite drummers in any genre, the unsung hero of nearly every OC record after 1966.
The dual-drum dueling lineup makes this record rhythmically driven, complex, and satisfying.
Who's record is it, anyway?
This is sometimes credited as a Coleman record, sometimes as a Metheny creation. There is a debate among fans about who can claim credit. For me, the answer is obvious. Creative credits go to Coleman, with Metheny as a featured guest who played his role well. I'll offer two arguments to support this claim.
First, this record is clearly cast in the style of other Coleman records, with his signature free-jazz sound, and noticeably missing Metheny's signature lounge sound and world sounds. Secondly, the players, as described above, include a drummer with the name Coleman, and a founding member of the original quartet. None of Metheny's "boys" played on this record.
Call the DOC
For me, the Coleman catalog really got interesting when a very young Denardo joined. By the age of 10, Denardo Ornette Coleman was handling drum duties on professional studio recordings, and he was the primary drummer for the father/son duo through the latter half of the 60's until OC senior left us in 2015. He was about 30 years old when Song X was recorded.
But the fact that he began so young is not what impresses me most, it is the way his drum work sounds bigger, more elaborate, and more organized compared to any other free jazz drummer I can think of. There is something multi-dimensional in his work that really impresses me. I've tried playing drums myself, and the dynamic duo actually inspired me to give up, because I realized just how much I sucked by comparison.
My thing with Metheny:
I'm convinced that Pat Metheny is a skilled and able guitar player. He is versatile, and his signature style is instantly recognizable. At the same time, many of his records leave me wanting more. There is a smooth lounge feel to them that lacks direction and purpose. I can come in in the middle of the record, get into it for a while, then tune out. I don't feel like I get much from consuming an entire record in order. It is more like stepping into an elevator and hearing some smooth jazz that sounds good, but not feeling compelled to commit to the entire performance.
But Song X is the opposite. Each song has its own character, its own instrumental story to tell, and it matters greatly whether I hear each song or not. The raucous full-court press of 'Endangered Species' is quite unlike the warm charm of 'Kathelin Gray', with each one complimenting the other.
Although there are some fast-paced aggressive parts (which I love!), the overall profile of the record is balanced by several smooth and melodic songs, each easily distinguished from the others. If you were to remove or reorder songs, it would be a different record. This is not so easy to do in a genre without vocals or lyrics, both of which help to add personality to a song. Here, the sax takes on that role.
Metheny is like an actor who takes on the part of his role, rather than bring his own identity to the piece. In this case -- give the man an Oscar! because he nailed this role just right. It is clear that he understands Coleman's music, and his vision for this record, and Metheny forms it just right.
Other than this record, Metheny has never made anything close to a 10 for me, although he does have a very interesting discography, from those that I've heard. He appears in many cases, as here, as a collaborator.
The Value of Free Jazz
Sources I've consulted classify this as a "free jazz" record, as with almost everything recorded by OC, almost by definition. But there is a distinction I would like to make. In the common vernacular, "free jazz" often implies a disordered, free-form improvisation session. Many records in the genre digress into what I call "slop jazz" with the disorder taking over, and the sound becoming sloppy. But in this case, there are carefully arranged song structures that appear to be rehearsed and repeatable. There is nothing sloppy about anything on this record. I think it carries the free jazz label by default, because OC pioneered the genre, and, because there is not a better name for it. If you ask for a better word, I would struggle. Personally, in my lexicon, I would call this record "spunk jazz", but that wouldn't have much meaning outside my little blog.
So I won't waste too much time arguing over genre words, but I do want to applaud the clarity and compositional rigor this record brings to what can be a cluttered genre.
Possible Criticisms
I can see how some might find this record front-half loaded. The second half has some gems like 'Video Games' and 'Trigonometry' but the last two tracks in particular slow things down. For me, this is not a flaw, as I value the variation in tempo and profile. But I can see how interest might dwindle at the end for some.
There are times in the record when I wish Charlie Haden's acoustic bass was more pronounced in the mix. This is a criticism of the mixing and production, not the musical content itself, and it is a small flaw at worst.
Ornette Coleman never really played the saxophone with a conventional style (think Kenny G), and some might find his tone harsh, shrill, or off-putting. He is my favorite jazz musician, and I have this hang-up with a few of his records, but not here.
Not My Typical 10
I recently promoted this record into my personal top-10. It has several features that are unusual in that group.
This is the only record in my top 10 by an artist I have not experienced live. Most artists in that group I've seen 2 or 3 times or more, and the live experience contributes to the overall impression.
This is the only record in my top 10 without vocals. I am quite vocally focused these days, and most of the records near the top of my chart got there because of strong, energetic vocals delivered by a big voice with a distinctive stage presence.
This is the only record in my top 10 that is not under the great umbrella of the rock genre.
Conclusion
This was a gateway record for me, into a world of shapes and sounds that were bigger, stranger, and more elaborate than what I had known before. To this day, I have never found another to measure up.
It has the raucous, high-energy intensity that I look for in jazz, with a clarity of focus, and careful song construction, that offer more and more upon multiple listens. Even after playing it a few times in the recent week, I have a craving to hear it again.
I feel like all the pieces in the Coleman catalog (already impressive as a whole) came together just right in this session.
This one's a 10 for me.
Miles Davis - Kind of Blue
This is the kind of record that, I think, should be considered in its historical context.
Taken on its own, in present-day context, this record would seem commonplace and unremarkable, perhaps even generic relative to the jazz records that have appeared in the 60 years since its time.
But, in 1959, jazz records like this were not commonplace. The 1950's was the end of the big band era, and records from that decade, including this one, foreshadowed a new era of jazz to come.
I should say up front that, when it comes to jazz, I tend to go for the higher energy cacophonous sounds of free, avant-garde, and thrash jazz, most of which emerged post 1970. I personally don't respond as strongly to the softer side, and, when I do, it is to loose, funky, and clever rhythms. So this will not be a top-tier favorite for me, and my rating will reflect that.
To me, there are (at least) four notable features to this record:
1) Transitional period from classical-based big band and swing styles, to a more free-form, open approach
2) A simple mood valued over complex instrumental acrobatics.
3) Template for contemporary and future jazz players, in the new style
4) Critical acclaim
let's unpack these...
1) A transitional period from classical-based big band and swing styles, to a more free-form, open approach that would set the stage for free jazz in the coming decades. 'Transition from tonal song structures to modal song structures' is the more technically precise way to say this. I don't know that this was literally the first record ever to do so (I doubt it), rather, this is typical of the period of the late 1950's. Still, this record is a good all-around example of what is called 'modal jazz', which would be a precursor to avant-garde and free jazz in the 60's. On a larger scale, this was a progression from the structured, predictable arrangements reminiscent of classical compositions used in big-band styles in the previous few decades (Duke Ellington, Count Basie, Glenn Campbell, etc.) into the experimental and improvisational styles that would emerge a few years later to characterize the 1960's.
This record is a piece in that progression, and was among the earliest compositions to transition from tonal song structures to modal song structures. The modal form being less predictable, without the function of classical chord progressions to naturally, or logically steer the direction of the song. Instead, the players have more room, or "freedom" to improvise within the song structure and to explore where the song may take them. If the tonal approach was a scripted speech, the modal approach would be like an unscripted conversation, with each player's instrumental solos being their contribution to the discourse.
This record is a piece in that progression, and was among the earliest compositions to transition from tonal song structures to modal song structures. The modal form being less predictable, without the function of classical chord progressions to naturally, or logically steer the direction of the song. Instead, the players have more room, or "freedom" to improvise within the song structure and to explore where the song may take them. If the tonal approach was a scripted speech, the modal approach would be like an unscripted conversation, with each player's instrumental solos being their contribution to the discourse.
This can be tricky, and a lot of jazz records run amock, because it can lead to random, stream of consciousness ramblings that are just sloppy. But this record doesn't fall into that trap. It maintains a sense of purpose and direction, and maintains a mood.
which leads to...
2) A simple mood valued over complex instrumental acrobatics.
From the beginning, this album sets a mood that is warm and inviting. Horns float atop a light bed of smooth rythmns, piano key mumble softly and comfortably.
This record sets a mood and holds it throughout. It is a soft, intimate mood, that captures the quintessential feel of a jazz record, the sounds you would expect to hear in the background in a movie with a scene in a dark, smoky jazz club in New Orleans, New York, or San Francisco.
But it is understated in the sound. In fact, almost every thing about this record is understated and subtle. At first glance, it is not the most progressive, not the most stimulating, not the most revolutionary thing you ever heard. There really are no superlatives that come to my mind to describe it.
3) Template for contemporary and future jazz players, in the new style
So I can add a new one to my list of unpopular opinions: "Kind of Blue isn't even the best jazz record from 1959."
I think that Miles Davis and John Coltrane (who also plays on this record) did a lot of great work in the 50's to pave the way for the jazz of later decades that I most relate to, and I do think they deserve credit for that.
4) Critical Acclaim
This record has an impressive critical reputation. It appears on many lists of "greatest jazz records". It is the type of record that is used to teach music in school, like those books everyone reads, such as Lord of the Flies, or The Scarlett Letter, or maybe a Shakespeare play. It's the record your music teacher talked about when teaching about jazz. I can see why it has this status, it is the textbook example of jazz in general, and modal jazz in particular.
This gives the record a "class room effect". If you want a well-rounded example of modal jazz from the period, this record is probably as good a choice as any. I haven't listened to enough 50's-era jazz records to call it "best", but that seems to be the prevailing view.
This is one of the highest rated records of all time on RYM, rated by nearly 20,000 people, with nearly half of them scoring it the equivalent of 10/10, and over 90% at 8/10 or above, so I am clearly in the minority.
In conclusion:
I think this is an important record to be aware of. It would serve nicely as background music with a soft mood. I can understand, academically, why it is held in in such high regard. But for me personally, jazz from the 50's is quite tame, at least by comparison to what would come later. Viewed in the historical context of its period, this is a seminal record with some relevance to music today, although it would be a footnote in my history book, not a highlight. It was an interesting record to review, and I had a good time recently studying old-school jazz for context to assess this classic. Unfortunately, I'm going to have to go against the current on this one.
6/10 from me.
*****************************************************************
Neutral Milk Hotel - In The Aeroplane Over The Sea
I've now listened to this record 3 times, which is more than I typically listen to a record I don't like, but, considering the cult-like fandom surrounding this record, it is one I should at least be familiar with.
I think I have 4 main problems/criticisms with this record
1) genre, Indie folk is not generally my thing
2) under-whelming minimalism
3) irritating and annoying vocals, (generic indie dude caterwauling)
4) pointless song writing
4) Song writing
The stream of consciousness song-writing style resembles the ramblings of a senile old man. Songs wander aimlessly, with no sense of direction. By "stream of consciousness" I mean scattered, disorganized, and wandering, without focus or pre-intent.
This record has neither clever melodies nor challenging instrumental arrangements, just an apathetic, basic, rambling song-writing approach
3) Vocals: Bellyaching, caterwauling, fart-knocker wankery. make it stop.
2) Minimalism
How can you have a song that is just plain guitar strumming and vocals? How is that enough to create a satisfying listening experience? Maybe if the song is touching, or emotionally deep, maybe, later in the lineup on a record that has already paid the ass-kicking cost of admission, maybe then that minimalism can be used to some good effect, in moderation, but large periods of this record are composed of nothing but simple strumming and whiny vocals with no clear direction to the songs. And then, occasionally, the monotony gets broken up with some added horns or bagpipes, which, compared to the strumming/vocals only, may be a step up, but it is a very small one at that.
1) Genre
I don't generally get into indie folk. I don't like Mount Eerie, I don't like Modest Mouse, and I'm only mildly impressed by Weezer or Jeff Rosenstock (at least those last two write clever songs). Perhaps the furthest I go in this direction is Bob Dylan, who offers many examples with what is wrong with ITAOS. Bob Dylan's song are carefully crafted to tell a story and take a journey, Dylan 1, NMH 0. His lyrics are insightful and witty, Dylan 2. He delivers his style with an attitude that keeps the nerdyness in check. 3-0.
I tried to find redeeming value in this recrod, I tried to keep an open mind. The best I could come up with were a few moments where the songs got moving, and were at least "all right", but those were few and far between. I guess the guy has some vocal ability, and instrumentally, they can at least play, meaning not completely incompetent (an easy mark to meet), but I did not hear anything in the instrumentation that interested me, or anything that would challenge a skilled player. Now, I don't mean to imply that complexity equals quality. I realize a simple musical arrangement can be quite powerful emotionally, but this record was just simple, without the power. Basic instrumental arrangements, basic guitar strumming, basic vocal whining, that swayed between tolerable and irritating.
Perhaps the most interesting thing about this record is not the music itself, but the fandom. I will note that this opinion is popular within certain circles, and not so much elsewhere. I've never believed that popularity makes quality in music, and this record is no exception, but I do think it is interesting that so many people gravitate to this record. There must be something special about this record, and it is interesting to contemplate what that might be.
But I aint buying it. 3.5/10
******************************************************
The Clash - London Calling
This was a pleasant surprise for me.
I got a copy of "Combat Rock" on vinyl years ago when I found it, by chance, at a thrift store. At that time, I had heard very little by them, but they had a good reputation, so I took a chance.
I was very much into New York punk, no wave, and noise rock back then, like Teenage Jesus and the Jerks, Jame Chance, Glenn Branca, DNA, etc. and I was looking for something more like that, something with noise, dissonance, something avant-garde. Because The Clash was associated with the late 70's punk scene (on the other side of the pond), I had expectations for something different. When I played Combat Rock, I found it underwhelming and boring, relative to my expectations at the time, and I got it in my head that "I don't like the clash."
as the years went by, I would hear some of their songs in passing, out of the context of a full record (such as London Calling, the song). None of those songs ever changed my mind.
There's a theme that I've been observing over the last few years, which is that a lot of those rough and noisy avant-garde punk records don't hold up. I go back and listen to them again, and they sound less ground-breaking and more amateurish. There are still some stand-outs from that era, such as Branca and Television, but TJ&J, DNA, Mars, Chance, a lot of that stuff just doesn't pass the test of time for me.
So I thought it would be interesting to revisit something from that era that I may not have given a fair shot.
London Calling, as a full record, was a first listen, and I was pleasantly surprised. Taken as a whole, this is a very satisfying record, with a lot of solid songs. The instrumentation takes time to develop over the course of the record, and makes for a cohesive whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. Individual songs, taken out of context, might still underwhelm, but the composition of the record as a whole really delivers, it has enough solid composition to pull off the challenge of a long, double-disc LP.
I liked the diversity of the blended sounds, there were elements of the late-70's London Punk that I expected, but a lot of ska and rockabilly stuff I never realized they went that way. Now, ska is not an instant winner for me. In fact, it is more often a turn-off. It tends to sound very derivative and repetitive to me.. like "I've heard ska, what else is new?". But this one didn't feel that way. It didn't feel old from the beginning like a lot of ska, but rather fresh and innovative. This might be my favorite ska record. But beyond this genre word or that, I felt the instrumentation was very well arranged and executed, it did not have that amateurish feel I mentioned before. Another record that had this impression on me was Television's Marquee Moon, which stands out as a rose among thorns from the late-70's New York scene. I think the Clash had a similar accomplishment with London Calling. Although London-punk and ska/rockabilly is not exactly "my style", meaning not the sound nearest and dearest to my heart, I can still appreciate this record for what it is.
On to the vocals. This is where I start to lose touch. The vocal style on this record is awkward and uncomfortable. There is a muffled, slurred, drunken feel to his vocal delivery that would limit the re-listen potential of this record for me. I don't hold this against the record as a big flaw, but more of a missed opportunity. I think that, with different/better vocals, this could be a top tier record for me. I had a thought, that the Clash is to London what Blondie was to New York. And there it is, substitute Debbie Harry on vocals and this would be an instant favorite. Coming from the NYC punk scene, Blondie incorporated elements of disco and reggae, having more to do with punk by location than by genre.
So the vocals are a dud for me, not a big turnoff, but lackluster. I could easily score this record at least one point higher with a more interesting vocal style. There may a Bob Dylan effect, maybe some people get the off-kilter vocals. maybe for some.
Overall, I think record is iconic from its era, and deserves its good reputation. Not a favorite for me, but I recognize it for what it is.
7/10
************************************************************************
Bob Dylan - Highway 61 Revisited
There is a lot I could say about this record. Bob Dylan and I go way back, and this is my favorite one of his. I have this one on vinyl, years ago I got it from my older step brother in a trade. It cost me a Ramones record, a trade I never regretted.
I could break down every song, phrase by phrase, and ramble on about why I think each one is profound.
Set to the backdrop of 1965, a pivotal period in music culture in general, and rock music in particular. 1965, to me, marks the moment when oldies rock'n'roll (Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly, Little Richard, Elvis) transitioned to classic rock (Beatles, Stones, Zeppelin, Doors, Floyd, Dylan).
In keeping with this shift, Highway 61 marks Bob Dylan's transition from folk with southern country overtones ala Woody Guthrie, to a more rock-focused sound, as part of the new wave of the times.
In a very general sense, folk is not really my thing. There is something about that style that is boring and unnecessary to me, like - who is this fart-knocker, and why is he bellyaching like this?
But not Bob. Bob Dylan, especially in the 1960's, steered clear of the pitfalls associated with the genre, one he helped create. He wrote songs with a sense of purpose, the necessary voice of a generation. And his vocal delivery was fresh and unique, at times sarcastic, at times a bit abrasive, with irreverence for anything sacred from traditional music theory. Some people fault him for his singing voice and style. I can see that it is an acquired taste, but for me, the vocal stylings are essential to the Bob Dylan experience, and add, not detract. It is precisely because he sings in a distinctive, unique way that doesn't fit the mold that makes his music stand out against his peers. Sure, the Birds, or whomever could play his songs in a more classically pleasing way, but that shit's tired and boring, I'd rather hear Bob spit it out in his own sassy way. For me, this is what allows him to pull of folk in an interesting way.. it's the attitude and the poetry, as well as the music.
Like a Rolling Stone sets the opening mood of a wanderer, of an artist, in fact a generation, embarking on a journey of discovery. It sets a tone of vitality and desperation, a strange juxtaposition, but just right for this pivotal time. It speaks to struggle to survive, and struggle to live authentically, containing one of my favorite lyrics: "you never understood that it aint no good, you shouldn't let other people get your kicks for you."
Tombstone kicks up the tempo with a snappy take that speaks to the poverty and social climate of the time, "mama's in the factory, she got no shoes" and features one of the most famously absurd non-sequiturs of all time "the sun's not yellow, it's chicken".
"It takes a lot to laugh" transitions to a more emotive, introspective approach, with a piano-led chorus that I can't resist to sing along. The feeling of this song gets me every time.
"Ballad of a Thin Man" speaks to the times.. "something is happening, but you don't know what is." This song sets an ominous, mysterious tone that reminds me of a David Lynch film.
Classic harmonica at the end of "Desolation Row" rounds out the record on a soft, yet strong, note
This record does not contain all of Bob's defining moments, but I think it holds together as one of his strongest overall compositions, and embodies much of what I appreciate in his work. It represents his catalog on my top-100 chart, in the 9.0/10 tier.
****************************************************************************************
Nine Inch Nails - The Downward Spiral
The year was 1994. Hard rock was swimming in the MTV mainstream. And it was a coming-of-age era for the "Xennial" generation.*
Kurt Cobain gave up on life. Green Day laid an apathetic Dookie in our smoked-out boring rooms. Beavis and Butthead were role models. Beck was a loser, The Offspring were suckers with no self esteem. Bad Religion was better off dead, and the Cranberries weren't sure anyone cared. Beastie Boys were on a rampage of Sabotage. The hit of the summer at the movie theater was called "Reality Bites", and "The Crow" gave a young generation a sense of their own mortality. SoundGarden fell on Black Days, and Trent Reznor hurt himself to see if he'd still feel. Courtney Love lived through it all, but Kristen Pfaff did not. Even the clean cut guys from R.E.M. cast a dark, monstrous, persona. Pearl Jam thought they could change the world, or, at least TicketMaster.
It was the best of times and the worst of times. We were young and facing the world. Despite these dark threads of nihilism and teen angst, this was the music of our generation.. an "alternative" to the 80's glam of our older siblings, and the 70's excesses and 60's oldies of our parents, and our sound was fresh and exciting.
NIN Brought a contemporary industrial edge to the mix that was a sound all their own, but still fit right in with the feel of the times. The Downward Spiral had the bleak, nihilistic lyrics, and the big fuck off to god that allowed kids to reject their Sunday-school upbringings in a way that felt philosophically sound, and cool at the same time. It would be a few years before South Park would use the word fuck on TV, but somehow, the words "I wanna fuck you like an animal" seemed appropriate for a house party.
It was interesting to go back and listen to this one again, to see how well it would hold up. It has an art-rock composition that stands out among the many groups riding the wave of grunge, that propelled lesser groups like Bush, Better than Ezra, Candlebox, and maybe Green Day into the spotlight (yea, I said it). (BTW, I would prefer to leave Weezer in 1994 as well, but I won't get started on that.)
I think that, compared to a lot of those that are better left stuck in the 90's, this record has a sense of creative composition that stands the test of time. The drums and rhythm patterns of the songs have a complex, progressive construction. The instrumentals fuse strong, crisp industrial guitar, with a variety of electronic sounds and noise, to weave a layered fabric of sound. Although I personally connect more with Pretty Hate Machine, Trent's artistic vision was in full bloom on this one.
I do think it suffers from a sophomore complex. Its predecessor, Pretty Hate Machine, captured the NIN feel more spontaneously, and, for me, has the most relatable songs. It didn't get the commercial splash until we all went to the mall to buy the other Nails record with allowance money, or with the check from our first job. This delay was due, I suppose, to PHM being a few years ahead of its time.
The sophomore complex is seen in the distant, abstract feel of many of the songs on this record, that seem like they could be outtakes or B-sides from the more focused Pretty Hate Machine. There is a saying - you spend your whole life writing your first record, and the next year writing your second. It does feel at times like Trent put together these songs as more of a follow-up than a manifesto. I won't fault this record too heavily for this though. Somewhat ironically, the sophomore record was his first speaker heard round the world, and I think it remains to this day his defining moment.
Pretty Hate Machine has a spot on my top-100 chart in the 8.5 tier. The Downward Spiral doesn't quite hit that level for me. Although I think every song on this record is interesting and creative, I don't connect as well to them. It is close to "personal favorites" 8 tier, but I think I'll park it at 7.75.
*http://www.businessinsider.com/people-born-between-gen-x-millennials-xennials-2017-11
***********************************************************************************
Naked City - Naked City
John Zorn is on my short list of favorite jazz musicians/composers - Ornette Coleman, Sun Ra, John Zorn, Miles Davis, Thelonious Monk. Of these, Zorn is likey the most genre-diverse and prolific. A quick RYM search showed 137 records to Zorn’s credit, and I’m sure there are hundreds more where he appears as a guest or producer in some form.
But, in this Naked City record, he found just the right context of players, and the elements of his sound fell into place just right.
The lineup is the best of any of his groups imo.
Guitar: Bill Frissell - generally a smooth jazz guy, a great selection to add the juxtaposition of smooth with harsh
Drums: Joey Baron - among Zorn’s most consistent and coherent drummers (also played with Bowie), one of the few jazz drummers with the chops to hold together so much madness.
Bass: Fred Frith - usually a lead jazz guitar player, putting this guy on bass is a great way to put bass melodies to front and center, one of the features I like about this record. Frith is more of a collaberater than a solo artist, having played with many big names in avant garde, including Brian Eno and Mike Patton
Keyboards: Wayne Horvitz - known for genre blending, Horvitz has played in a variety of bands, and done a lot of film scores as well, an obvious contributor to the record's show tunes vibe.
John Zorn was local to the downtown NYC music scene of the mid-to-late 70’s, the fertile grounds that spawned no wave, and much of punk. Although London had an analogous punk scene, no other region was to the Avant Garde what NYC was in that period. It is hard to imagine a group like Naked City forming anywhere else.
Although it is almost invisible in this particular record, I feel this geographical connection link his stuff to the No Wave scene of Sonic Youth and Glen Branca fame. There are a few tangible connections to no wave - Legendary no-wave band DNA released a record on Zorn's label, but the connection to no wave is more geographical than genre. Most of Zorn's own defining work was done yeas later (this one is a 1990 release, for instance).
More specifically to this record, it seems one of the most obvious features of this record are the changes in time signature that are abrupt and frequent. It is really all over the place in style. But it is not not just for the novelty of fast/slow-fast/slow, it’s that all the scattered fragments individually glisten and shine. When they do smooth lounge jazz, it sounds fresh and inviting, when they do fast thrash, it is clean and still carries an edge that is pleasing to the ear (or at least, to my ear). I say this because, a lot lesser jazz groups would diverge into sloppy, irritating sounds, if they attempted to pull off a record like this.
With the exception of a few absurdly screamed vocals, there is not much overly abrasive to this record. Those are few enough, and far enough between, to work well as the occasional upset to the continuity of the record. This absurdity starts to make sense, when we realize that this record is continually upsetting its own continuity, as a matter of routine.
These absurd vocals don’t really appear until Hammerhead and Demon Sanctuary, about half way through the record. By that time, I’ve relaxed into the record enough to not mind, although these same vocals, used more often, and earlier in the lineup, would irritate the hell out of me. Many other records, even other Naked City records, fall into that trap, but here the vocals are added in just the right proportion.
Another noticeable feature is the use of show tunes - there is a version of Batman and James Bond themes. I’m not sure, but I think these featured on the soundtrack of one film from each of those franchises.
The placement of the second track is questionable. Sometimes when I’m in the mood to get my ass kicked by some thrash jazz, that one feels out of place, and too early. On the other hand, it sets a more relaxed tone, and shows, just in case there was any doubt, that they actually can hold a coherent mood.
Reanimator brings the hard punches, and then disintegrates into near silence in less than two minutes.
A shot in the dark begins with a disembodied noise style, which is just one of the many styles mixed in, but the majority of that song has memorable sax and bass melodies that give it a catchy feel. I really like that. It is the opposite of what I call “slop jazz”, where the whole song just remains disembodied and incoherent. I’ve heard way too many slop jazz records, and not nearly enough that are both clever and noisy. There is a lot of craziness and absurdity thrown at the listener in rapid succession, but there is also clever blending of catchy tunes and sax and bass melodies. This mix of the absurd with the clever, of the avant garde with the lounge grooves, is what makes this record stand out in my mind as a rose among Zorns. This record really delivered on what I was looking for in a Jazz record at the time I found it years ago. It remains among the most interesting in my collection, and sits in the second tier on my top-100 chart. Hence, 9.5/10.
************************************************************************************************
The Fall of Troy - Doppleganger
I first heard Fall of Troy a few years ago, in passing with some friends. I recognized it as a style that I typically like, or at least, have liked before. I also recognized a vocal turnoff typical for the genre (more on that later). I didn't really take a close look until I on a friend's top-10 list. I like to be aware of the favorites of people I knew who are enthusiastic about music the way I am, so I checked it out again.
At that point, as now, I was quite impressed with the instrumentals. Fast forward a few months, and I've had a chance to chew on it a few more times, and I has really held its own as a solid listen.
There is a vocal feature to this record that is a turn-off for me, I'm going to call it "snarling screamo", and come back to it later. I am going to try not to dwell on it. Instead, I'm going to try to focus on the record as a whole..
Instrumentally, I think this record is very strong. There is an element akin to jazz, where patterns repeat, but not exactly. The guitar and rhythm section work together to keep the listener on their toes. I never quite know what to expect from the next move. Even after several plays, I'm never sure what to expect next.
Now, this style is not an instant winner for me. If you're going to play this way, you have to be able to pull it off, or the sound will fall flat on its face. An analogy comes to mind of a boxer. This record is like a boxer that is constantly dodging, ducking, and dancing in an unpredictable pattern - deliberately unpredictable to throw off their opponent. If the boxer is not good enough, they'll just trip and fall. This record keeps me on my toes the whole way through, yet it manages to keep its balance, and keep moving at a brisk pace. This is another point I'll make, that a lot of bands that attempt this style end up with a syncopated start-stop pattern that creates drag (The Locust is an example I've listened to recently). What this record does really well, I think, is to integrated these fractured patterns into a song that keeps the beat moving and doesn't drag to multiple stops within a song. This keeps me engaged throughout.
There is an element of tightly knit chaos, that holds together so tightly, it almost doesn't seem chaotic. The word "chaos" has multiple connotations. One could be random and aimless. That is not what I mean. I'm thinking more of a fractal pattern that occurs in nature, such as weather or coastlines, where large-scale patterns emerge from seemingly unrelated small-scale phenomena. The composition of each song emerges from seemingly random patterns. This effect can make many other rock records seem simple and repetitive by comparison.
But this can be a double-edged sword. It is very interesting to me from an intellectual point of view. There was a time in my life when I was really interested in records that could do this. 20 years ago I would have been even more excited about this record, because that was an effect I was looking for.
Although these days, it is less an attraction for me, I still have that perspective to appreciate it.. Listening to this record was an exercise in connecting to my past self, and I think that helped me find the goodness in it.
On the other edge of the sword, the tightly knit chaos can leave the songs without an emotional focal point or a memorable melody. It also makes it difficult to add vocals that fit the tone. So this is where modern-day Joel may get sidetracked.
This brings me to the vocals. It should be no secret that I don't generally like harsh, abrasive screaming vocals. For me, this style wrecks a lot of otherwise good metal and hardcore records (using genre words loosely). This record has two distinct vocal styles that I assume are from the same person (without a connection at the moment, can't look up the lineup). One style I'll call "snarling screamo" and the other I'll just call "singing" to distinguish the two. It should be obvious what I mean from any song on the record. For me, the screamo style is unnecessary, out of place, and only detracts from my enjoyment. Strangely, this record isn't really as "heavy" as would typically be associated with this vocal style. I would describe this record as more intricate and precise than heavy, which makes this vocal style feel even more out of place.
I'm not saying this style is not valid, or wrong in any technical sense, but only that for my enjoyment, this is a negative, and I don't see what value it contributes to the band's sound. Maybe someone will see it otherwise, but this is where I'm at.
That leaves me thinking, what vocal style would be appropriate? This is not an instrumental style that would be easy to jump into as a vocalist. I do think the singing parts of the record work well, and they could just stop there and quit while they're ahead. I also asked myself, would this be better as an instrumental record? I think not. I think that would only exacerbate a problem they have with keeping a relatable human connection, a challenge inherent to the style (which style I do think they deliver quite well). So no, not instrumental. I had a thought that this could be interesting with a jazz setup, where a saxophone could replace, or supplement vocals. I think these players could do an outstanding jazz-rock fusion, as many of the elements here that work for me are more commonly found in jazz. I can play around with how the vocals might be done better, but ultimately, they are what they are, and I can either get stuck on them or not. For me, this prevents this record from being a favorite, or being something I could enjoy for many plays. The good news is that there are plenty of instrumental moments, and moments with the singing style. So I have been able to suspend my distaste, and to focus on everything else going on is this record, all of which has been quite rewarding. This makes it difficult to pin down a single number for a rating. I can't quite put it into the 8+ favorite tier, at least, not at this point in my life. In the past, I probably would have. I do think its instrumental chops warrant a high score. I'll settle on 7.75/10
****************************************************************************
Quicksand - Slip
I saw this band live circa 1995, opening for The Offspring (that's right, I'm plebian enough to go to an Offspring show, at least I was back then.)
I enjoyed the quicksand opening set, but I wasn't blown away, or otherwise moved to pursue them further.
Fast forward 22 years, to 2017. Quicksand had a reunion release. I checked that one out, because that's what I do these days, I listen to new releases, and I was pleasantly surprised. I enjoyed it a good deal, at least for a single play. So that added to my interest to go back and check out their original stuff.
Being a 1993 alt-rock release, this was an easy like for me. This is the music of my youth, and there is always room for one more. So I was happy to give this record a go. I also went back and listened to their 1990 debut EP for some more context.
I am usually reluctant to make a "sounds like" comparison (band A "sounds like" band B). I generally find these comparisons uninformative. But in this case, I think the similarity to peers from the era is significant. The two that strike me the most are Tool and Soundgarden. Those two bands, I consider stand-outs from the era, whose records stand the test of time and are relevant today. I'm not sure I can say the same about Quicksand. One difference is in the vocals. Tool and Soundgarden both have (had) exceptionally strong vocalists, which gave their records a radio-friendly accessible first impression, but also gave them an enduring quality. The vocals on this one are, I think, mediocre, at best. Instrumentally, I think Tool and Soundgarden also eclipsed anything this band could do.
I also hear similarities to archetypal grunge bands like the Melvins, and, in their first one, to Mudhoney. So, I think the combination of these two records is a piece of the puzzle in the development of grunge and early 90's alt-rock. Not a corner piece, or even an edge, but a piece nonetheless. I would only recommend this record for a connoisseur who wants to fill in their grunge collection. While I do think this record has a place in the story of grunge, it is more a foot note than a paragraph or chapter.
This will lead me to do something else I usually try to avoid: arguments about genre classification. To me, this record sounds mostly like a "grunge" record, yet RYM and LastFM both have it tagged as "Post-Hardcore" with no mention of grunge. After further reflection, I concluded that both genre words apply. But I wonder if the grunge connection is missed by those communities because it doesn't fit with the narrative that grunge arose in the Pacific Northwest region.
This does fit with my narrative that grunge did not start exclusively in Seattle, but, rather had diverse and scattered evolutionary origins, including proto-grunge in NYC with Sonic Youth being a big player years before grunge fully formed as a genre-entity in itself.
What I deduce from this is that Slip is a "missing link" between grunge and post-hardcore, making this record of interest to musical taxonomists, if not to the general public.
Considering that, the years of release for this pair (1990, 1993) are noteworthy. They formed in the early days of both alt-rock and 90's post-hardcore (as I understand the term today), meaning, I think this group deserves some creative credit. While Tool would go on to blow them away in terms of sound quality, I think the seeds of that sound that are found in this pair of records are significant in terms of evolutionary origin.
I think this is more than just another grunge record in the pile, and its extra value lies more in its progression of genres than in its listen-ability. I'll give it an extra point for this value.
Recommended for collectors, archivists, or anyone nostalgic for the early-to-mid 90's alt-rock of our youth. Otherwise, I'd say pass.
6/10
Template - Record Name
text....
