The Syndicate

THAT HANDSOME DEVIL: Getting a weird but enjoyable Outkast meets Nick Cave fusion going on in places here. I also hear the rockabilly/swing revival influence. I'm glad the band doesn't stay too close to that last sound because I'm a firm believer that that phase, while fun in the moment, has long since passed.

WOODKID: Honing in on a final rating.

WOODKID: This time through I noticed a very Coldplay-esque vibe, especially on the tracks when he's singing with a piano. I can hear Chris Martin singing some of these somber tunes. Also, I think this guy could write one heck of a James Bond theme. Some of the tunes possess arrangements that are big and brassy enough to sound ominous and hit the right chords for it.

THAT HANDSOME DEVIL: Didn't make it back to this one today.

Moving on to That Handsome Devil for the first listen. It's a niche product for sure but an enjoyable one. It wasn't the best first listen for me because I have a lot to do and it was a bit distracting. I get the feeling that this is an album best listened to in a certain state of mind. Right now I am not in it.

I think part of it for me is that I've become too much of an optimist to enjoy somber music (or music with sustained somber qualities) for great lengths of time (aka- a whole album's worth). I need that over-the-top element or upbeat nature lately if I'm not listening to something straight out of my collection that I am intimately familiar with.

MovingPictures07 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 23, 2017 11:17 pm

nutella wrote: ↑Sat Oct 21, 2017 3:29 am I don't understand (/am surprised/rather baffled by) the Adele comparison. Can you guys explain what you mean by that? Where's the similarity, other than that they're both very talented singers with unique voices? Does it have to do with the orchestral/"epic" sound of many of the tracks?

I find Woodkid's music to be quite unique and really beautiful, and I'm curious what you guys found boring or irritating about it.

I wouldn't even say that Adele is untalented; I just don't like her. I certainly wasn't trying to imply that about Woodkid either, just so it's clear.

The comparison doesn't arise necessarily due to the music itself or anything, just more so having a vocalist singing with somewhat similar delivery with "huge" sounding orchestration. Adele and Woodkid both have the same problem, at least in my mind -- the contrast between their vocals and the orchestration and the attempt to sound majestic sounds over the top for the sake of sounding over the top, yet comes off as incredibly contrived and substance-less.

The songs all blended together to me, and it all felt ridiculously disengaging to the point of being actively distracting. And unfortunately I really don't like his voice or delivery at all. His delivery sounded like he was trying to come across as passionate but I heard the opposite. I've found that some chamber pop and indie pop are more likely to come across to me like this than some other genres, uninteresting at best and with irritating unconvincing faux-passion at its worst. At times it was almost cringe-worthy, but not quite that irritating throughout thankfully.

That's all just me though. I only elaborate because you were curious. None of this is meant at all as a slight on anyone else enjoying it. I don't even like when I take negatively to any music; I wish I liked it. But certainly there's music out there I don't like. Hell, maybe I'm just an elitist.

I highlighted the parts I can agree with you on there, MP. The Adele comparison for me is strictly the sound. My views on pop create the following categories:

Conventional Pop: modern-day, overproduced music and vocals that forces as many natural and computer-generated elements in as possible

Bubblegum Pop: simple instrumentation based around an upbeat riff or beat

Traditional Pop: Michael Bublé, Harry Connick, Jr., and everyone else who patterns themselves after Sinatra, Crosby, Bennett and all the other 40s and 50s lounge lizards, and sometimes bordering on soft jazz

Dramatic Pop: Taking the classical instruments from Traditional Pop and mixing it with a dash or more of the overproduction of Conventional Pop to create a grand, sweeping, concert-hall-filling sound

My problem with Dramatic Pop, which both Adele and Woodkid fall into, is that it takes the orchestral flourishes that can take a song in almost any genre to the next level and stretches out that flourish and make it the entirety of the sound. It's all grand. It's all epic. It's all sweeping ear candy. But it's also exhausting after a while and can come across as showy and pretentious because after a while it sounds like the artist takes his or herself too seriously.

I don't agree with much of the other stuff MP posted. I can hear a love of music and a dedication to craftsmanship in Woodkid's music. I can tell it's there but Woodkid himself doesn't convey it well for me. His somber voice stays within (what my non-classically-trained ears perceive) a very narrow range. His voice is always quite even keel, which makes him sound a little flat against his lush orchestrated backdrop. He may love what he's doing but it never sounds (to me) like he digs down in and goes for it.

The singer for The Family Crest belts it out, which suits the dramatic scope of the music. I think Woodkid is too measured. He needs to belt it out at times for emphasis. He doesn't though, which is why some of the tracks feel samey and/or boring vocally.

If the point is to maintain a mood, then I would argue that the album is more successful than we give it credit for. I'm listening for what I'm listening for though, and I like a little more fun and zest than what Woodkid delivers. But I am a fan of what's one step beyond Dramatic Pop- Rock Opera, so that bias is hard to overcome.

I've listened only once so far this week. Lots of things going on at the office plus planning for the girls' birthday party this weekend will result in me falling behind with this.

First impressions of Woodkid:

-Sounds like a dude version of Adele but with less vocal range and passion
-Vocals seemed overpowered by the music at times
-The big orchestral sound gets a little samey by 2/3 of the way through
-Nod of approval for the artist being one of the composers for all the orchestral music and not just writing the vocal parts

Leucocyte

I am not, nor have I ever claimed to be, a jazz person. I have such a limited background with jazz (A Charlie Brown Christmas and having listened to every Miles Davis album for another musical project) that you might as well call me a jazz outsider. That keeps me consistent with a lot of the albums we've listened to. I'm an outsider to a lot of the stuff you folks like, it seems, so please bear with me once more.

Track 1, "Decade," gets this album off on the wrong foot for me. It's sounds nice but it's slow and directionless to me (perhaps that's a thing with jazz that I will understand with time). It's also very short. Is it an intro or a stand-alone piece? I considered it a stand-alone, as it shared nothing with the track that followed. Track 2, "Premonition I. Earth," was both interesting and frustrating at the same time. The entire piece is a slow build, so much that I (with my boorish rock and roll sensibilities) didn't feel like there was a true climax. In my notes, I likened it to boiling a frog- it adds and builds inch by inch but with all the additions and subtle changes, there wasn't a clear and distinct energy transfer- no kicking it up a notch to bring it all home if you will. I liked it but I wish I could have loved it. Track 3, "Premonition 2. Contorted," sucked the energy back out. Perhaps this was a comedown track after "Earth." It was just slow-jam meandering with not my kind of energy. Adequate and pleasant but not engaging for me.

That was the story of much of the album for me. A lot of arty or meandering music that's better than anything I could ever hope to write myself but also not much that appeals to me. "Jazz" struck me as the most conventional piece on the album but it had zip and a few flourishes that kept it from feeling generic. It wasn't until the "Leucocyte" cycle that I perked up in a big way.

"Ab Initio" pounds at your brain. Is it electric guitar I hear? I'm genuinely curious since I don't see guitar listed on any album credits I dig up. It evokes a sense of danger and desperation but also builds in a way that satisfies for me. Believe it or not, I did not give the faux-track "Ab Interim" a zero like I said I would. I gave it a score just below indifference for reasons already stated. I think it disrupts the flow of "Initio" into "Mortem" too much. There's enough of a fade out to just roll into the next track.

"Ab Mortem" and "Ab Infinitum" are certainly companion pieces because of their similar sound and they way they blend together. This one-two punch was very beautiful. There's a little bit of distortion and a large expansive quality that suggests a vast and lonely landscape. Call me a nerd, but the first thing that popped into my head was the cosmos. With the droning elements and the reverberant echo at times, these two pieces sound as if they could be a sonata for the Voyager space probes. It's calming and yet sad at the same time.

If I had to take three tracks with me, I'd snatch up the "Leucocyte" cycle (minus that wasted minute of course). "Premonition I. Earth" comes close but something still feels incomplete. "Jazz" was also a strong contender but it lacks the distinctive personality of the "Leucocyte" cycle.

If you cut out "Ab Interim" and its dead air, the album would have hit 3.6 out of 5 (a B+ for me) on the strength of the "Leucocyte" cycle alone. But alas, that artsy fartsy bit of triviality holds it back. As an amusing consequence, this album came in just a notch or two below Original Sin, which ought to just thrill Rico.

G-Man Scale: 3.44 out of 5
Rico Scale: 3.5 out of 5

Shouldn't we still be allowed to vote on the order?

We can has new poll?

A Flock of Seagulls

"The 70s and the 80s? You're not missing anything, believe me. I've looked into it. There's a gas shortage and A Flock of Seagulls. That's about it."
-Austin Powers

For me, much of this album is ear candy. The older I get, the more nostalgic I become for the unadulterated fun inherent to a lot of 80s pop. This album falls lovingly into that category. A Flock of Seagulls may be a lyrically-flawed band but their music is engrossing and enveloping. It doesn't just sound big (a la U2).

This album also sounds deep, three-dimensional if you will. It surrounds you like an environment. It's a lot of studio trickery that couldn't be replicated in a live show (though nowadays you probably could add all the atmospherics) and some people take issue with that. I don't mind it. I like getting lost in the textures this album lays out on the table.

I listened to the UK version via the YouTube link I provided. It begins with "Modern Love is Automatic," a song that sounds out of place anywhere but the beginning of an album. From the very start, you know you are listening to something very rich and dense. The driving beat gets your feet tapping and the ending of this track segues perfectly into the next. "Messages" sounds like a companion piece to "Modern Love is Automatic," so much so that it borders on samey but that beat cannot be denied.

"Messages" concludes with a drop and fade to silence, which segues perfectly into the almost sinister intro to "I Ran," a staple of 80s pop lists and a song that has all but become a caricature of what 80s synth-based New Wave looked and sounded like. I have a personal attachment to this song, so I love it, even if it isn't the strongest song on the album. This creates a near-perfect opening trio of songs that makes me want more.

Unfortunately, the UK release of this album is very front-loaded. "Telecommunication" is corny, "Standing in the Doorway" has a bizarre intro that chews up half the track, "Tokyo" feels out of place with the rest of the album (funny, seeing as I insist on people listening to the UK version of the album), and "Man Made" is all Matrix-like in lyrical content but not a toe-tapper. They're all adequate tracks but nothing that makes my ears perk up and say "yeah!"

My favorite track on the album is "Space Age Love Song." The high and low synths soar and swirl around inside my head. The lyrics may not be deep and they're certainly repetitive but the vocals melt in with the music. This is 80s pop perfection for me- the kind of song that you fall in love to at the roller rink. I also scoop up "Modern Love is Automatic" for being a great opening track and "I Ran" for the aforementioned personal attachment. I also would take "D.N.A." with me because it's another roller rink pop confection and a terrific instrumental.

A Flock of Seagulls involves a fair amount of unconventional song structure- long intros that hog up almost half the track space and an absence of strict verse-chorus-verse formula on a few tracks. As a fan of Meat Loaf, I'm not scared off by unconventional song structure.

It's far from perfect but I think it's a great example of early 80s poppy new wave. The band may be lyrically stunted but, to my ears, they are strong musicians. They aimed high and scored big with a sound that was adopted by many bands that followed. The strength of the first half of the album resulted in a higher score that I predicted. The bar is now set high for my SAW Top 10 albums.

G-Man Scale: 3.98 out of 5
Rico Scale: 4 out of 5

MovingPictures07 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2017 11:21 am Listening to A Flock of Seagulls again myself, I think I'm going to downgrade it to a strong 3.0. I do agree it can be a bit patchy, though "I Ran" is still my least favorite -- don't care much for it. Still an enjoyable listen for what it is though, but I feel it as mood-dependent and flawed enough to bump it down a bit.

I've made a determination on this album of the week. I think part of my problem yesterday was I was trying to listen to it at work, which can be a noisy place at times and I try to keep my music low enough that it's not a distraction to anyone else in the office. For this reason, I could not hear some of the softer elements. When I thought all I was hearing was bass and drums, I was missing some ethereal guitar/electronic stuff.

Another problem was the pace at which I was working yesterday. When I need to get work done, I need music conducive to getting work done. I need energy, pep, and a driving beat. This album had none of those qualities for the state of mind I was in at the time.

I listened to some of the album last night with my headphones on and it was a better experience. I think I'm going to leave this one alone until Friday and Saturday night. My wife will be away at a women's retreat, so I can throw the headphones on and hear the album in full. Still annoyed by the fat that they gave track space to dead air though, if it even was air that they recorded.

I'm merely interpreting what the musicians present as their finished product. I'd rate the individual movements of a symphony, so why not the individual movements and an arty jazz record? It just so happens that I interpret this one part as unnecessary.

For me, a soundless track does not a movement make. It doesn't take any skill to add a minute of dead air to a recording. At least field recordings involve effort.

When I listen to music, I want to hear the fruits of the musician(s)'s labors. I want to hear their skill with sound. Silence may not technically exist but what you hear when a performer is silent is not something they can take credit for. They didn't create any of the sounds the environment or the people in that environment made during that pause.

To ascribe meaning to a soundless track or to sit silently as your performance is an act of performance art, not musical ability (my interpretation). It is just not in my nature to interpret international silence as meaningful. I will judge this track as any other track we've listened to, which means it will get a zero and pull down the album's overall score.

I get what you say about music being about sound and silence but I will argue that music is about sound and silence within a composition. To claim silence as a composition in and of itself is something I cannot agree with. If you want to add a minute of silence, add it at the end of a track (you could do it at the beginning of a track but why start with a pause? awkward). You get the same effect without falling into this very debate we are in. I'm fine with incorporating a minute of silence for flavor and all that but I see no reason to give it its own space, regardless of how clever the "track" title is.

I agree with you about hidden tracks. They may have been cute back in the days of cassette tapes but in the digital age they're just silly.

Ricochet wrote: ↑Mon Oct 09, 2017 4:20 pm Ad interim is one minute of silence.

Here's the thing: to me, giving one minute of silence its own track space and track title smacks of pretension. It's silence. It's not created. It's not intellectual property. To treat it as such preposterous. That "track" alone is going to hurt the album's score in a big way.

Hoo boy. Let's just put this out there as a conversation starter:

I enjoyed the final two tracks on Leucocyte. Track 4 was decent too. Otherwise, I was either bored or left disappointed because tracks lacked the crescendo or climax I was hoping for.

Also, was my Spotify flaking out or does track 8 "Ad Interim" feature a low-frequency sound? I didn't hear anything but I'm not listening through headphones. The office is noisy today.

Murgur De Fluier

This was a neat listen. I don't have many albums where the lyrics are sung in a different language. I don't need the words sung in English but foreign-language lyrics aren't mainstream in America, so I stick to what I can get. What I got from this album was a good time.

The opening track, "Lasa Lasa, Pt. 1" (forgive me for not having the time to find all the right punctuation marks on song titles), pulled me in. I enjoyed the slow, tribal start and was hooked when it cranked the tempo up halfway through. The chanting is equal parts haunting and riveting. Track 2, "Pavel Chinezu, Leat 1479," kicks off with a thumping bass line that sounds like Jack White ripped it off for "The Hardest Button to Button." I was taken aback by the songs witch into late 60s/early 70s rock conventions. It highlighted just how slow some things took to trickle past the Iron Curtain.

I didn't dock points for the band's recycling the sounds of Cream and Deep Purple, however, because it sounded good. If it was fresh for them, then that can't be held against them. At least I don't think so. I'd have to listen to earlier albums to make that determination though. The third track, "Strunga," while good, sucked some of the energy and momentum out of the air.

I ran into a dilemma with this album though. I scored the first Lasa Lasa track on it's own because I felt that it wasn't an introduction to track 2 and it was long enough to stand on its own. The remaining Lasa Lasa tracks forced me to think about how to score them. They are not songs in their own right but, as Rico pointed out, sort of like interludes sprinkled throughout the album. I like them but I couldn't score them as stand-alone songs. So, I ended up scoring the first Lasa Lasa on its own and the remaining four as a combined unit. Somehow, I felt that was fair.

My favorites would be the entire Lasa Lasa component, "Pavel Chinezu, Leat 1479," and "Ochii Negri, Ochi De Tigan." Tracks 6, 9, and 12 didn't captivate me like the rest of the album but I was never indifferent. I like the fusion of folk elements and rock instruments. They could have been singing about brushing their teeth and watching anime and I wouldn't know the difference but the vocals have an alluring quality. They aren't a harsh or distracting foreign sound. They have good flow and tone, which I can't say the same for the Fishmans album we listened to at the outset of this listening group. That makes a big difference but I realize that has a lot to do with personal preference.

Overall, this was a solid album. Spotify seems to be lacking, with only three other Phoenix albums in their database, so if I ever do want to wander back into the mystical sounds of Phoenix, I'll have to YouTube some of it. It may be a while if I ever come back around but it would be interesting to see if the sounds I liked on this album continue to please on other albums or if my unrefined musical sensibilities would count this as a one-off novelty.

G-Man Scale: 3.92 out of 5
Rico Scale: 4 out of 5

After two focused listens, I'm pretty close to my final rating already. Being familiar with the album helps I suppose.

I'm very curious to see initial reactions. Most people just know the band because of their appearance in the video and promotional material for one song- "I Ran." I look forward to Ricochet expounding upon his apparent bias against this song and what he thinks of the entire product.

Ricochet wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2017 5:03 pm

(is this seriously the band that wrote the song I Ran? Am I about to willingly listen to I Ran? :blobglare:)

Bite me, Rico.

So here's my little intro to this album:

This is not my favorite album. I don't even own this album. I just like this album. Back in 2009 when I hosted the first Secret Mafia game, I used "I Ran" as the mood music for one of my night posts. It was quite possibly one of the best night posts I've ever written. Naturally, it's lost forever since The Piano died. The song stayed with me (I'm also a product/child of the 1980s) and I ended up finding the YouTube playlist and took in the whole album.

Along with the Tears For Fears albums we listened to a few weeks ago, A Flock of Seagulls is one of those albums that you could hold up and say, "This is what music in the 80s sounded like." The sound is very dated but the sound is also very rich. The band received praise from critics and producers back in 1982 and even won a Grammy award for Best Rock Instrumental Performance for the track "D.N.A." Their deep, layered tracks and use of stereo tricks makes for an enveloping sound on several of the tracks.

I highly recommend you listen to the YouTube playlist and NOT Spotify. The YouTube link is the original UK pressing of the album. Spotify only has the American release. The American release discards one track ("Tokyo") and it mixes the song order up. Since I listened to the UK release first, I prefer that version to the American release. The songs flow better together and the first four tracks on the UK release front-load the album with good stuff.

Most Americans (and maybe certain Romanian elitist music snobs) dismiss A Flock of Seagulls as a one-hit-wonder from a time when one-hit-wonders were a dime a dozen. If you like the density of Phil Spector's Wall of Sound production style, you'll enjoy this album. It's far from perfect. The lyrics are vague at times. Depending on who you talk to, this album is even supposed to be a concept album about a guy who falls in love with a girl (possibly a cyborg) and they're abducted by aliens.

It's equal parts cheesy and awesome. In other words, it's the 80s!

"Strunga" feels a bit overlong to me. Coming off the first Lasa and "Pavel..." it sucked a little bit of the energy down a bit.

The album as a whole is a curious thing. It came out, according to the OP, in 1974, yet it feels like an amalgamation of fads the mid- to late-1960s British and American rock. Two that come readily to mind are: "Pavel..." has a Cream-esque feel to it, and "Dansul Codrilor" has a sitar-like sound going on. There are also tunes that feel psychedelic due to the instrumentation. The funny part is that this doesn't suck any of the enjoyment out of the music.

Any idea if Phoenix was slow to tap into these musical fads (whether it just took a little extra time for those sounds to seep into Romania popular music or a conscious decision) or are these "similar sounds" just a coincidence due to the band throwing Romanian folk influence into rock music?

I gave Phoenix a spin this afternoon. It's pretty darn cool. No language barriers for me because the vocals are enchanting at times. The rock elements sound familiar and yet the ethnic/folk components sound foreign and intriguing. This should get a strong rating. I wouldn't be surprised to see it nudge its way into my top 10 so far.

I wish the Lasa Lasa tunes were all one extended piece. Rico, can you give me any insight on what those tunes say or are going for contextually? They really jam.

Classics

This was a straight-up pleasant album, though it never really made my ears perk up. The opening tune ("Montanita") felt a little generic but was still enjoyable. It sets the tone for the rest of the album- instrumental, easy-listening, chill music. The second track ("Lex") was, to me, a kind of Daft Punk meets Bach on the harpsichord. It worked enough to sound decent. Track three ("Gettysburg") reminded me of The Strokes and I liked the organ part in the middle. So the trajectory picked up at the end of my three-song make-or-break system.

My three favorites are probably "Gettysburg," "Wildcat," and "Montanita." I find this amusing, because I live half an hour from Gettysburg, PA and my high school mascot was the wildcat. "Montanita" is a bit of a cheat for my third favorite, mostly because it's the opener and tone-setter. I got a Beatles-esque feel from "Tropicana" and another slight Strokes vibe from "Kennedy" but neither satisfied quite as much as "Montanita." The rest of the album didn't remind me of anything in particular and largely stood on its own as adequate background music.

I've never really listened to an instrumental indie rock album before, so I'm a little unsure about my thoughts on this one. Some of the tunes seem to beg for a visual element to run in tandem with. The opener reminds me of joyride music and a few others sound like they'd play well over a montage of clips of people interacting or a plan being executed. It's music that begs for a narrative. Perhaps that's why I felt like something was lacking, even though the listening experience was pleasant.

Not much else to say. Some of the tracks have a better trajectory than others. Some just repeat with minimal interruption or fail to go for the wow factor. I liked it but I probably won't remember any of these tunes except for "Wildcat" in a year's time.

G-Man Scale: 3.25 out of 5
Rico Scale: 3 out of 5

Gave it another listen. A few tracks sound rooted in other bands/sounds. A couple of tracks don't trigger any memories in my mind, and I find that these tracks are the ones that don't do a whole lot beyond being a hip jam. It's pretty good all around but there's not much that's distinctive. We'll see what additional listens do for it.

I've listened to Classics twice today but it's been relegated to background music for the most part. I like "Wildcat" for the animal sound effect. Overall, it's been a steady, pleasant listen. We'll see if anything stands out to me one way or the other when I can focus on it a little more intently.

Townes Van Zandt

Country music gets a bad rap. It comes from "the South" and plenty of people who don't hail from the southeastern United States like to dump on that region by generalizing its residents as Confederate Flag-waving, inarticulate, Republican imbeciles. It's easy to dump on country music because there's a long tradition of conservative values in the songs and stars that come out of the genre.

If it weren't for country music, however, rock and roll would never have formed. Country has always been and still is a broad term. Seeing as country is one of the two big genres that don't normally appeal to me (rap being the other), my personal biases have formed only two classifications for country music: good country music and bad country music. Townes Van Zandt's eponymous album is good country music.

Everything falls into place for my ears. The arrangements are simple but they aren't sparse. This is not just guitar + lyrics tunes. The guitar work feels familiar and inviting. The backing instrumentation adds depth to the sound. The vocals, as I mentioned before, possess just the right amount of twang. It's not a facade. This is a man writing and singing songs that he knows how to write and play.

The opening number hit me hard. The notion of singing for the sake of the song opened my mind to consider all the ways I've fought for the sake of having a fight, been a jerk for the sake of being a jerk, and being an obnoxious whiner for the sake of being an obnoxious whiner. That gets magnified when you realize just how often you've done that to loved ones. The second track was, for me, the least interesting tune on the album but it was sill a good number. It just felt like the kind of song any country star could slap on an album. Track three, "Waiting Around To Die," brings back the heart. It's the kind of gritty country song that country music detractors forget or don't realize exist. That's Storytelling 101 right there.

Each of the remaining songs find a way to stand out in their own unique way. In some, it's the story being told. In others its the instrumentation or the structure. It's almost hard for me to believe that this album isn't a compilation album. At least two-thirds of these songs sound like they could be hits. My three favorites wound up being "For the Sake of the Song," "Waiting Around to Die," and "Fair Thee Well, Miss Carousel" but this is an album I wouldn't hesitate to listen to in full again. I might even buy it.

G-Man Scale: 4.13 out of 5
Rico Scale: 4 out of 5

You might also be too young to appreciate some of the lyrics. I've found myself connecting more to a lot of music that I used to brush off in a similar manner now that I'm older and have lived through more things. Songs of experience are oftentimes lost on the inexperienced.

I've enjoyed this album quite a bit. There's a lot of country music that makes me roll my eyes but the pure stuff is always nice to hear. Some of the songs are great and powerful. While the simplistic acoustic style of Mariee Sioux (and lots of other folk music) felt like a novelty, this album didn't fade as hard for me. It's got good flow between great and good songs, which helps. Van Zandt has just the right amount of twang in his voice. He's not leaning on it as a country crutch nor is it too twangy to the point of distraction.

Good heartfelt music. This should rate pretty high on my scale.

Fetish Bones

Despite the pulsating noise on track 1 driving my tinnitus bonkers, I thought the lyrics were interesting. The next two tracks fell flat for me though, so it took me a while to get back into the album/art project Moor Mother created. I stand by what I said before- the album as a whole is more interesting on a lyrical content level than on a musical/compositional level.

In my mind, this is not an album one listens to for pleasure. Rather, it is one you listen to either as art or social commentary. I don't have a problem with either pursuit but that's not how I tend to approach audio recordings that can be described as music. For me, music is a distraction away from everything going on in the world, including the things Moor Mother preaches, growls, and shouts about.

As a person of almost entirely white, European ancestry, I don't like it when "white people" is used as an all-encompassing term to describe an antagonist. Being portrayed as some kind of enemy or oppressor isn't exactly going to invite me further in but I respect the artist's decision to make her art as approachable or personal as she sees fit. It's not a deal-breaker for me, nor does it lead me to put up an walls.

Some of the personal content on these tracks are thought-provoking and informative to Moor Mother's background. I did a little research and she is certainly genuine. She grew up in the projects and saw lots of horrible stuff growing up. That eliminates any cynicism on my part. I think I would like to encounter and engage in discussion people with her kind of background to help broaden my perspective. I don't necessarily agree with some of her worldview as stated in her personal art but discussion would clear up what is genuine opinion and what is emotional rage for the sake of art.

I liked the use of audio clips and some of the samples. Sometimes you can say more by letting others speak for you and that worked on a couple of tracks in a big way. The final two tracks really stood out to me the most. Track one his harsh but intriguing as well. Track 6 could have been something special but Moor Mother kind of wastes the final minute of that track after some potent build-up.

Overall, it's obviously not my thing but it was a unique experience that I don't regret. It may not match the focus and sharpness of Rage Against the Machine's massive militant poetry but I felt Moor Mother is a kindred spirit of sorts. This album made me miss Rage Against the Machine. I wish we had them around these days.

G-Man Scale: 2.93 out of 5
Rico Scale: 3 out of 5

First thoughts on Fetish Bone:
-lyrically interesting
-compositionally uninteresting
-robot poetry slam
-hostile at times
-makes me yearn for some Rage Against the Machine

So, Moor Mother.

A Person seems to enjoy albums that trigger my tinnitus.

Songs from the Big Chair

It's amazing what a difference a good pair of headphones makes. I listened to this album several times at work on cheap but mostly decent accessory speakers. When listening to it at home on my good-quality, moderately priced headphones, I was blown away at times by the depth, richness, and fullness of the sound Tears For Fears accomplished here.

Track one, "Shout," is an old favorite, so that was a great way to start things off. I grew to like "The Working Hour" the more I listened to it but it's still a step down from "Shout." "Everybody Wants To Rule The World" has been so overplayed over the years that I couldn't put it on par with "Shout." It's a classic example of the stereotypical 80's sound but it elicits half an eyeroll just because I heard it so many freaking times on the radio growing up.

But, as a product the 80s (and a child of the 90s), this music is part of my cultural DNA. Hearing music like Tears For Fears brings me back to a hard-to-define point of origin. It's not just a cliched throwback to be kept at arms length. I'm old enough to be considered either tail-end Gen-X or proto-Millennial. In some weird way, listening to this stuff is akin to coming home. With good headphones, it was an eye-opener.

Overall, 80s new wave isn't exactly my genre but I can appreciate it for the pop constructions that make it up. I didn't love everything about this album but I was impressed by how well-crafted all these songs are. The only track I didn't consider 'good' or better was "I Believe" because it was too mellow the whole way through and missed some chances to build up to something better.

This is a fine album overall and I can understand anyone who might think it should be taken as is. To pick three though, isn't too difficult. I'd take "Shout," "Mothers Talk," and "Head Over Heals/Broken." I passed on "Everybody Wants To Rule The World" because of the biases I mentioned earlier. Still a fine little pop tune but after the whatever-thousandth time hearing it, I just half to side-step it for something I hadn't heard before.

G-Man Scale: 3.98 out of 5
Rico Scale: 4 out of 5

I'm going to go with a choice that will probably make me look like a copycat of Epi, but I've been waiting to suggest this one.

A Flock of Seagulls' debut album, A Flock of Seagulls. This comes with a stipulation though. I am submitting the original, UK release version. It is only available through YouTube. Spotify uses the US release version of the album, which omits a song and has a very different (and in my opinion, inferior) track order.


A Flock of Seagulls
A Flock of Seagulls
Released 4/30/1982
New Wave / Synth-Pop
11 Tracks, 41:06

Faces in the Rocks

The first two tracks on this album were really good and they helped set the tone for the entire album. Sioux may be pulling from a portion of her heritage but it never sounds like she's exploiting it. Track three was on the fence between pleasant and good but fell over to the pleasant side. The rest of the album failed to climb back on that fence for me. After three tracks, I was still interested in hearing what the artist brought to the table.

"Bravitzlana Rubakalva" was a curious track, as it brought out the Eastern- and Central European roots of Sioux just a little bit. I think this was the point where the lyrics started to stand out to me in a weird way. They became a little to odd and referential to things that the artist herself only heard from her mother growing up. She didn't grow up on a reservation or surrounded by people of her mother's tribal affiliation. So the cynic in me felt she started making more Native American-sounding references for the sake of sounding more Native American.

While the lyrics started to lose their luster, the music remained good the whole way through. The longer songs lacked much musical variation, which wore me down near album's end. Sometimes simplicity works very well. Stretching simplicity out too long, however, doesn't always work. Here it did not.

I'd say my three favorites are the first three tracks. They set the tone and made a decent first impression. Then the novelty wore off. Yes, I still find this simple, folksy style of music a novelty. I can't help it. I didn't grow up around this kind of stuff so I am biased against it slightly. She's got a good voice but she needs to expand her sound a little.

G-Man Scale: 3.28 out of 5
Rico Scale: 3.5 out of 5

I finished my listens of Marie Sioux, I just never put my thoughts together. I'll take care of that this weekend. It didn't make a big impact on me.

As for Tears for Fears, I was pleasantly surprised. While their sound is completely dated (seriously, there is no chance anyone could misplace the decade any of those songs come from), listening to it within the context of "this is an 80s album" was rewarding. Prior to this listen, I could have only recognized two Tears for Fears songs from listening to them (both on this album). It was nice to hear the full scope of their sound beyond their two songs still played on classic rock stations.

I've always enjoyed "Shout" and not just because of this cover from my high school days...

My second listen was considerably better than the first. Rather than looking forward to its conclusion, by track six, the novelty of the soft, simple sound had faded for me. As my exposure to folk music has been very limited, I do consider it something of a novelty.

Mariee Sioux's voice reminds me of Delores O'Riordan at times, especially when it's layered for harmony. That's a good thing. The lyrics do become a bit too emphasized in the second half of the album, so I'm with Quin on that front.

First listen of Faces in the Rocks was a bit of a struggle. I put it on while balancing my checkbook. Perhaps the tedious work of personal finances made the music feel tedious. Maybe it was the fact that some of these songs are really long without doing much structurally. Maybe it was some kind of subconscious Eurocentric hatefulness that made me slightly cynical of the artist after hearing countless Native American themes and references (I guess I have a limit to how many references to buffalo and mama bears I can take in at one time). Maybe it was a combination of all three. Either way, by about the halfway point, I was looking forward to it being over.

It's pretty music, but it wasn't engaging me enough while I fiddled with numbers. I'll give it another spin tomorrow.

First Utterance

This was a weird album that was very broad musically. While I'm okay with a certain amount of creepiness inherent to a song, the first track, "Diana," seemed to exceed my creepy quotient. It was the song I was most torn over. I marked it as pleasant instead of a solid good. Track 2 was too long for my taste but it was pretty music. It's almost like two musical ideas put together. Pretty but not gripping or attention-getting. Track 3 is really where the album picked up for me. "Drip Drip" is probably overlong but it pays off for its indulgence. It builds well and I could follow the narrative a little better than other minstrely tunes I've listened to around these parts.

So, had I one with my three-track gut check, I'd have been in a bit of a pickle. The first two tracks didn't cut it for me but the third track would keep me invested to see what comes next. Luckily, tracks 4 and 5 are also very good. I don't know why but "Song To Comus" evoked a Tenacious D vibe for me. It's a little bit cheesy, a little bit over-serious, and a little bit awesome. I'd love to hear the D perform a cover of this one. There seemed to be a full-cycle narrative on the second half of the album that I could follow for the most part.

I don't feel that track 6, "Bitten," works on its own outside of the narrative of the preceding tracks. The closing track didn't grab me either, so this album peaked in the middle, a trajectory I found perplexing. I like albums to start strong and end strong. First Utterance starts semi-strong and ends semi-soft.

I you couldn't guess, I would take "Drip Drip," "Song To Comus," and "The Bite" with me. The rest are just either too pretty or weird for me to throw another listen at. Comus strikes me as a band that got signed because they drew crowds at concert festivals. I see little to no mass-market appeal from their genre or style but that's not to say they didn't do a good job; they're just not for the majority of music fans.

I liked the acoustic instrumentation. As my record collection is largely plugged-in, it's nice to hear something eclectically acoustic from time to time. I've no desire to talk them up or down should they come up in conversation anywhere else. I this album should ever come up, I think the best and worst I can say for it is that I found it interesting.

G-Man Scale: 3.39 out of 5
Rico Scale: 3.5 out of 5

The Comus album is definitely different. I hear the folk and the prog but I also hear something at times that I want to call psychedelic. Does that make sense?

Also, the length and number of tracks on the YouTube video is different from the information listed in the OP for this album. Is there an extra song on this video a la a special edition?

Mobius Trip and Hadron Kaleido

Like some of the other albums that fall around it score-wise, Michael Guy Bowman's offering strikes me as a niche product. Musically, I found it to be quite good. Lyrically, it was neither here nor there. Vocally, I was pretty meh on it. Thus is the subjectivity of music appreciation.

The first, "Forever," track sets a really good, moody, ethereal tone. It feels like it's setting the album up to be far more serious than it turned out to be. Despite my enjoyment of the MacGyver-esque beat and the 2001: A Space Odyssey references, track 2, "Dawn of Man," was a bit of a letdown for me. It's a competent enough song, but it didn't carry the momentum of "Forever" like I thought it might. Track 3, "Beta Version," got me back into the groove. There's quite a bit going on with all the elements and I liked it.

The rest of the album was pretty hit or miss for me but you have to appreciate the consistency of sound Bowman accomplished. His voice does nothing for me and at times verged on irking me. I guess the nerdy sound of his voice matched the nerdy-niche sound of his music well enough not to pull me out of it. Some of the tracks have a very 80s throwback vibe to them. I liked those. Other songs just kind of meandered, to my ears anyway.

I almost feel like a jerk to say this but my three favorite tracks were the instrumentals. "Forever" is a strong piece, as is "Beta Version." The closing track, "The Deeper You Go," reminded me of some old-school Moby instrumentals, which are always enjoyable. Instrumental synth-pop/electronic music is probably a fierce battlefield for listeners, but I feel Bowman is more suited to that avenue than music with lyrics.

Overall, the album was light, easy to digest, and pleasant for the most part. My musical biases favor energy, flair, and showmanship, which don't seem to be Bowman's concern. And that's okay. For me, it's caught somewhere between memorable and forgettable but I'm not sure where exactly it falls.

G-Man Scale: 3.19 out of 5
Rico Scale: 3 out of 5

Once again, I voted for the shortest ones. I get more listens in that way.

Epi should be due for nominating something. Bug him for an album.

"Dawn of Man" is still the standout track with vocals but here's the funny thing- the beat on that song (duh-duh DUNNN, duh-duh DUNNN) reminds me of the incidental music that plays during episodes of MacGyver (the original series, not the inferior remake version that's on now) when Mac is scrambling around and assembling things to help out of a jam. I'm not sure if that hurts or helps this song yet.

I think the only Flaming Lips song I know is "Bad Days" from the Batman Forever soundtrack, which I still own on cassette. That one doesn't sound anything like this album.

sprityo wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2017 7:15 pm @Gman so you'd agree that, for whatever odd reason, listening for a second time was more enjoyable?

I didn't fall in love with it but yes, it was more enjoyable. I think the first time through I reacted too harshly to the difference in sound/style between the opening instrumental and the second track.

My first time through I was kind of night-and-day. I much preferred the instrumentals to any of the tracks where the guy sings. Today I listened again but it was noisy in the office, which enabled me to take in the lyricist as an instrument instead of hearing the words. I liked it more. I'm probably not going to be a good judge of what good synthpop sounds like and what bad synthpop sounds like, so I'm curious to see what some of the RYM folk have to say on this one.

A pleasant experience all in all and I got a kick out of all the 2001: A Space Odyssey references in "Dawn of Man."

sprityo wrote: ↑Thu Aug 03, 2017 10:44 pm man makes me consider if i should change my selection to something ive listened to more, since i more so submitted this album on a whim and "wouldn't this be cool to get a review of?" But that's more for you guys to decide, otherwise i always have the next queue in which i can submit something ive listened to dozens of times

I wouldn't sweat it. I listened to a few tracks off of your submission tonight. It should make for interesting discussion. Also, I plan on submitting an album I've never even listened to at some point, just to see what some of the pickier listeners think.

Fun House

For me, this is a near-perfect album. My dad was into punk rock music when he was in middle and high school (when it was new). He's got at least one album from each of the major punk acts from the 70s and early 80s- Sex Pistols, Clash, Dead Kennedys, The Ramones, and the list goes on. As I hit the age of paying attention to the radio, the glam metal/hair band era that my father's punk sensibilities despised was crumbling with the arrival of grunge rock. Between grunge and early post grunge, there was a lot of punk-influenced music that he steered me toward.

My dad was too young for the Stooges. I think he might have liked them. Listening to them on this album is an experience every time. With rock and roll beginning around 1955, Fun House is only 15 years removed from Chuck Berry's "Maybellene," Little Richard's "Tutti Frutti," and Elvis Presley's rendition of "That's All Right." It also comes just seven years after The Beatles first performed on the Ed Sullivan Show and took America by storm, and (as I mentioned before) less than a year after Woodstock. The journey of rock and roll is truly astounding.

We live in an era when most commercially successful/"popular" bands and artists struggle to put 7 good songs on an hour-long album. Fun House is not even 40 minutes long and contains only seven tracks and not a one of them is filler. "Down On the Street" begins with either a whip crack or gunshot (take your pick) of snare and guitar and immediately throws you into Iggy Pop's primal hoots and howls. "Loose" ups the tempo, the aggression, and the sexual tension in what I can only conclude is a head-banging song that pre-dates head-banging. "T.V. Eye" somehow finds a way to take the intensity even higher, with Iggy Pop announcing its beginning with the raging howl of a maniac. Later in the song, his shouting suggests that he may actually want to kill someone.

"Dirt" is the only song on the album that falls short for me but I understand its necessity. If this album captures their live show as they intended, the entire band needs a break after one of the best three-song sets I've ever heard. "Dirt" slows it down but it has a creepy tone, suggestive of a sexual predator. It's slow and yearning structure is sexy and unsettling but it didn't quite rock my world like the rest of the album.

"1970" starts firing things back up. Between Iggy's higher pitched "I feel alright!" cries and the surprising introduction of a saxophone, it keeps the album compelling. The titular track see the band cutting loose. The bass really asserts itself and the saxophone wanders wherever it damn well pleases, creating an almost funky groove for Iggy to strut through. When I move around to this song, all the motion emanates from the pelvis. It's too dead sexy to do otherwise. "L.A. Blues," while containing no traditional song structure whatsoever, is mesmerizing. The cacophony of sounds competing against each other for your attention sucks you in only to leave you completely shattered by Iggy Pop howling like a mountain lion.

I can't pick three songs from this album. It's almost too hard. If you cut out "Dirt," you'd have the hardest rocking non-metal album ever made but you'd also do yourself a disservice. The listener needs a mid-album break just like the band because it'd be too overwhelming to cope without it. It's no wonder hat this album (or probably more so The Stooges' live shows) influenced a generation of punk rockers my dad grew up with, who, in turn, influenced the music and artists that I grew up with. Fun House is pure, unadulterated rock and roll. No pretension. No phoniness. Nothing but in-your-face energy. Shut up, take my money, and please sir, may I have another?

G-Man Scale: 4.82 out of 5
Rico Scale: 5 out of 5

I find myself stuck on the track "1970." Once I pin down an opinion on that track, I'll be ready to post a review.

I can see where some of you are coming. Obviously music is subjective. I think I'm less picky when it comes to music than with movies. The jury is still out on books. Iggy Pop is singing through a hand-held microphone, like he would on stage. From what little I gleaned from my music recording technology major roommate in college, that switch changes the sound dynamics quite a bit. Perhaps that adds the harshness that may not appeal to you @nutella

@MovingPictures07 commented about needing to be in the right mood to enjoy this album to the fullest reminds me of Robert Christgau's split opinion on the album. While I find the guy to generally be an elitist d-bag, his opinions on Fun House amused me. From Wikipedia:

Christgau wrote in his original review for The Village Voice that the Stooges' competent monotony and incorporation of saxophone had intellectual appeal, but questioned whether it was healthy as a listener for "[me] to have to be in a certain mood of desperate abandon before I can get on with them musically". He later said his criticism had been based on the album's "inaccessibility" as popular music. He also stated:

Now I regret all the times I've used words like 'power' and 'energy' to describe rock and roll, because this is what such rhetoric should have been saved for. Shall I compare it to an atom bomb? a wrecker's ball? a hydroelectric plant? Language wasn't designed for the job.

Until my thoughts are compiled, here is a two-part video where Henry Rollins talks about his futile obsession with showing up Iggy Pop in concert (watch out, it's vulgar!):

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: ↑Tue Aug 01, 2017 4:50 am It had been a long time since I'd listened to The Stooges, so I decided to play this week Rico style by running through more than one album -- I covered the three from '69 to '73 that made them famous. Go figure, I enjoyed the other two more than Fun House. They're all worthwhile though, and their influence over punk rock is obvious. I think my favorite of the three was Raw Power, since that one was a little more eclectic (they even gave blues rock a shot for at least one track).

The best quality of these albums is that they're short and very easy to digest. Put 'em on, rock out for a bit, and go about your day. 3 stars for Fun House.

Truth be told, I was torn between submitting Fun House and Raw Power. I like both albums (remember Mad Max Mafia and how I used Stooges song titles for some of the post titles?) and listen to them both with regularity. I think I went with Fun House for the shock value and the rawness of it. At the time, it had to be a bit jarring compared to all the sunshine pop and psychedelic rock of the latter half of the 60s. Raw Power is a delight too though. It's got an almost early-glam sleaze to its swagger and is a much more fun album to listen to than Fun House. How about that? Fun House is more raw and Raw Power is more fun.

I guess that's where I draw a line when choosing between the two. When I want to feel alive and pound on stuff, I go with Fun House. When I want to strut around and have fun, I opt for Raw Power.