|
Odds & Sods
LIST OF REVIEWS: Laura Branigan: Laura Branigan (1982)
Leave your thoughts about this pagehere.
Laura Branigan: Laura Branigan (1982)Album Score: 6Laura Branigan died in 2004 very unfortunately of a brain aneurysm at 47. I felt horrible about it even though I never really liked her music. I mean, I like the song "Gloria," but Branigan had nothing to do with it other than sing it with boring studio musicians. "Gloria" was a reworking of a big hit in Italy, which sounded like an Alan Parsons Project track sung in Italian. Naturally, it took an English speaking singer to turn it into an international hit! Well, it's a keeper, certainly, although the instrumentation is boring and strictly by-the-book. That put quite a damper on the melodies throughout the effort, which weren't too bad. The opening ballad "All Night With Me" is the album's second best track though it doesn't come close to matching Gloria's glory. The melody is rather catchy and the instrumentation doesn't spoil anything. That's more than I can say for the other tracks, which are so bland that it hurts. It hurts me because each song had good melodic elements that had the potential to be decently average songs, but the producer/arranger had no vision and didn't do anything justice! This is one flat album!!! The fact that there's only one real embarrassment in here, the appropriately titled "Down Like a Rock," makes that even more tragic! Branigan had a capable voice, but it wasn't anything special. She could hit all the right notes, but the voice had no personality. Hey, she did look good in those sweet leather pants!! I do wish her debut album was more creative, but this is corporate-rock after all. You can't expect art from non-artists! That doesn't mean you have to like it. Thumbs down, baby! Now, rest in peace! Read the track reviews and reader comments:
Chicago: Chicago Transit Authority (1969)Album Score: 12Before Chicago sucked, they didn't suck. Right now, I'm not too sure at what point in their career they started to suck. But I do know that Chicago was a sucky band, at the latest, by the 1980s. In 1969, Chicago didn't suck. OK, that's sorted out. (Oh, and they were officially called "Chicago Transit Authority," but I'm going to refer to them as "Chicago" here on out.) I took a music appreciation course a long time ago, and for some reason the professor singled out Chicago as one of the great rock bands of all time. He admitted that he didn't know much about rock music (obviously). But apparently a friend of his dragged him to a Chicago concert before they were famous in '60s, and they left quite an impression on him. He was also a trumpet player. That probably explains it. Anyway, let's not talk about some professor whose name I can't even remember. Let's talk about this wonderful album. It's HUGE. You see that there's only 12 tracks in this album, but know that this thing is 1.3 hours long. It was unusual for a rock band to be allowed to cut a double album as their debut, but here is this monstrosity. The story seems to be that they were originally going to make a normal, full-length album, but they recorded too much material for it. So, they decided to go ahead and record more material to make it a double. Honestly, this album probably would have been better if they would have just stuck with the full-length. When you see tracks like the utterly useless guitar solo "Free Form Guitar" and the rather excessive 15-minute rock jam "Liberation" tacked on at the end, you're going to think that brevity might have been the better option for them. At the same time, the epic quality of these tracks, in general, is one of the album's main benefits, so how can you rightly want to cut it all down to 40-50 minutes? Nah, keep the lengthy tracks. Just know that this is also one of the album's primary pitfalls. This will inevitably become a chore to sit through except among the most patient of people. Now let's talk about this album's greatness. These songs are wonderful! Their trademark horn sound works beautifully throughout this. That brought some unique sound to these already wonderful songs. My favorite work on here is clearly "Questions 67 & 68," which is also their most poppy track. That's the best of both worlds, in my opinion --- great melody and instrumentation. This is a remarkably solid album, despite its excessive length. The instrumentation, all around, is remarkable. I'd wager to say this is among the best of all rock 'n' roll... It was quite a product, and it manages to stick out in its year of release, 1969, which seems to be the year when rock hit its peak. That's weird to think of about Chicago if you only know them for their '80s work, but it's all true. (Likewise, you'd probably be surprised that the Bee Gees also created an interesting, near masterpiece in 1969 called Odessa.) Well, such was the magic of 1969, I guess. All of that said, it's not difficult to imagine these guys were capable of making a perfect album, but they decided to stuff this up with filler instead. Well, apart from "Free Form Guitar," at least it's glorious filler. Read the track reviews and reader comments:
Melissa Etheridge: Melissa Etheridge (1988)Album Score: 5Everybody loves Melissa Etheridge. She's one of our most beloved contemporary singer-songwriters. She's also one of the predominent Hollywood forces in left-wing politics. (OK, so I guess Republicans don't love Melissa Etheridge, but they're worse because they like Toby Keith.) She has an extremely powerful voice that's especially suited for her brand of loud and "expressionate" alternative-rock. She sings with as much verve and passion as the bowel movement she's trying to achieve on the album cover. Despite all that, Melissa Etheridge is soooooo boring. Give her credit for that wailing voice of hers, but she doesn't put it to good use. At least in this debut, her songwriting and creative talents are completely worthless. I sit through this album and wait for her to do something interesting, but I'm afraid my efforts were in vein. What a freaking frustrating album! There's nothing in here that can even constitute a highlight. It's all either mediocre or bad. This is particularly bad news since I can't think of too many albums that are mildly respectable that can get a score less than a 6.0. I mean, there's Kiss' and Michael Bolton, but they suck on purpose. Etheridge seems to genuinely want to be a singer-songwriter, but she has zero ideas. I like a few of the songs that she would do in the '90s, but she honestly comes off as one of those singer-songwriters who's more interested in making money and being a public lesbian than actually being a musician. Etheridge and her record company would venemously disagree with that of course, and then they'll go cash in the latest royalty check and make plans for remodelling that $5 million mansion. It's true that Etheridge has her legion of fans, and I fully expect to get spirited e-mails from a few of them. Etheridge likes her fans, too, because they pay ungodly amounts of money to go to her concerts! (Not that I was actually looking into going to a Melissa Etheridge concert. I can sleep at home!! I looked up the ticket prices, though, and I've never made that much in a week!) Anyway, there's absolutely nothing in this album. Who knows why this went multi-platinum. I guess people also buy Twinkies. You'd think she'd at least be able to come up with one memorable hit here, but I guess that would mean actually making an effort! Read the track reviews and reader comments:
A Flock of Seagulls: A Flock of Seagulls (1982)Album Score: 9So, this album has the hit single "I Ran (So Far Away)" on it. But is it actually notable for anything else? That's up to argument as anything, I suppose, but ... well, they don't consider A Flock of Seagulls a one-hit wonder for nothing! Unfortunately, this is just another example of a rock band with just one good hit in them and nothing else. This hit made them household names (also, their haircuts), but I do feel sorry for everyone who rushed to the record store and bought their eponymous album hoping for even more hits. The other tracks that are worth noting really don't come close to measuring up. It's also most unfortunate that its greatest shortcomings lie in their melodies. Apart from the hit track, it's bland melody after bland melody! Yeesh!!!! Now is a good time to mention that I am a considerable fan of "Standing in the Doorway." If they weren't trying to do an Oingo Boingo impression with that, then they sure fooled me! They completely nailed the creepy mood and the melody is even above average for this album. Unfortunately, the melody *is* pretty weak, which is ultimately why we'd never confuse this for something composed by Danny Elfman. Many of the other tracks work well in a similarly orchestral fashion. I do like the atmospheres (or 'synthscapes' as they're known) they develop here. Some of them are so weird that it's difficult for me to dismiss the song despite the melodic shortcomings. Some tracks are developed better than others, but this album is mostly an atmospheric success story. If that's all you care about (coupled with this album's general sci-fi lyrical themes), then this might be a recommended album for you. But, for the love of god, don't expect anything other than the hit track to linger in that mind of yours after the album finishes playing! Read the track reviews and reader comments:
Philip Glass: 1000 Airplanes on the Roof (1988)Album Score: 121000 Airplanes on the Roof might be the best place to start with Philip Glass if you are a rock fan. The reason for that is it's a synthesizer-heavy release, and he hired Linda Ronstadt to sing the vocals. That said, this is definitely not a rock album, and Ronstadt only sings "aaah" as if her voice was a synthesizer instrument. This album is almost campy like a '50s B-grade sci-fi flick ... and it's something you can become obsessively engulfed in if you're the right sort of (weird) person. Philip Glass is a definitely love-him-or-hate-him kind of guy. Me? I love him, and I'm going to score his albums as such. I recommended this album to rock fans interested in getting into Glass, but also note that this album isn't close to his masterpiece ... It's a fair place for a "warm up" though! It's also smack dab in the middle of his minimalism period and his cinematic period ... so you're sort of getting a sample of both of his worlds! However, rock fans who like David Bowie might rather check out Glass' takes on Low (1992) and Heroes (1996). Those are fabulous! Although those tend to have less to do with the sound of his early period. Philip Glass known for "popularizing" the style of classical music called "minimalism." His grand statement in the genre came in the late '70s with Einstein on the Beach. That album almost like listening to a motor engine running --- it's extremely repetitive (emphasis on the *extremely*) and utterly hypnotizing. You'll either be engrossed, or you'll go crazy. I suppose some critics of the style dislike it because composing in it might be considered lazy ... But if you dare listen to that previously mentioned work, you'll note that his textures are so complex and wild that it's far from lazy. For reasons I'm assuming had to do with exhaustion, Glass started to write more accessible music using minimalism as a launching pad. 1000 Airplanes on the Roof is quite accessible. Appealing more to the nerd in me, this is a science fiction opera (though the alien, Linda Ronstadt, doesn't know any words apparently). It sounds pretty wild and exotic to me, which is an accomplishment that you can consider amazing since there doesn't seem to be a whole lot to the songwriting. Although any wannabe composers trying to sit down and write something like this are going to quickly learn that making a successful minimal song is a lot harder than you think. Glass was interested in seeing what kind of textures he could create, and what sort of moods they would generate. I find the style of music interesting. Surely, it's a different type of music and one that many people aren't used to .... Skeptics might be put off by the idea of the genre, but they should at least give 1000 Airplanes a listen, because by all accounts it's minimalism-lite. Read the track reviews and reader comments:
Hall & Oates: Private Eyes (1981)Album Score: 10Someone on a message board was discussing the merits of Hall & Oates, and he recommended Private Eyes to me. Generally speaking, I'm pleasantly happy with this release although it's certainly not going to make a dent in my Top 100 albums list. I doubt it would even threaten my Top 250. Why? Well, because it's so freaking bland. That's not to say that blandness can't be good. At least, for the love of furry woodland creatures, this isn't cheesy. They weren't pandering to the fads of 1981 --- there's no synth-pop, disco beats or grimey synthscapes. (There are, however, some disco grooves, but not to a bad effect.) This is your straight, ordinary pop album with a minimum amount of production. I do compliment the production although that does manage to contribute to the blandness that I've been complaining about. No matter how much I like complimenting their arrangements for what they didn't do (which is probably against some rhetoric law somewhere), that doesn't forgive the fact that the arrangements weren't exactly inspiring. Despite those thoughts, the arrangements aren't actually the significant contributor to this album's downfall. It's the melodies. Simply put, a great melody is what pop albums need. Sure, you can make a good song without a catchy melody, but that's the *one* thing that can guarantee a great pop song. Unfortunately, Hall & Oates fall considerably short. Much of their melodies are instantly forgettable. Some of them are fine and mildly catchy, but as I'm sitting here writing this, I have a tough time recalling any of them. Nonetheless, this is a perfectly pleasant album, and I mildly recommend it to pop fans. If you can find it used for a cheap price, it's probably worth it depending on how much money you earn and if you already own the 4,000 more recommendable albums currently on this planet. It was a huge seller in the 1980s, and I think the consumers were given a perfectly nice product. Thanks to the limited production, it doesn't sound badly dated. So, there you have it. Now, drink up! Read the track reviews and reader comments:
Barry Manilow: Barry Manilow II (1974)Album Score: 8At least I can say that this album starts out like it's going to take over China. "I Want to Be Somebody's Baby" is incredibly enjoyable and upbeat. It's has Manilow's '70s Vegas vibe and with a slightly strange, off-kilter feeling about it. It's quite an interesting song. He follows that up with a stellar song "Early Morning Strangers," a conventional soft-rock number but enough interesting ideas strewn throughout to keep it interesting. And of course "Mandy" follows after that, which I'm sure everybody has heard. Even people who hate Barry Manilow seem to like that song ... although he didn't write that song. The following three songs are entirely tolerable although it seems clear that it's dropped off considerably in quality. "Two Of Us" is a ballad that never takes off when it should --- but at least it's pretty. The following two tracks are enjoyable though they're not too striking in my opinion. After that, there's the strangely out-of-place "Avenue C," which sounds like a '50s commercial jingle. This worked on his more pointedly diverse previous album, but here it seems to stick out like a sore thumb. Despite that, I actually enjoy the song --- but it ruins the general feel of the album that Manilow seemed to be shooting for. Well, at any rate, I'd take "Avenue C" on the boring ballads that follow it any day of the week. "My Baby Loves Me," "Sandra" and "Home Again" consists of the Axis of Evil even though "Home Again" is slightly less eviler than the others. All three of them are hopelessly corny ballads without great melodies. They are what preventing me from having good, overall words to say about this release. It's been correctly pointed out that this is where Manilow decides what direction he wanted to take his career. This is also much more focused on cheesy ballads and Vegas-oriented pop music than his previous album, Manilow I! Well, this album loses some of the needed diversity though the switch. Simply put, this album is pretty boring to sit through... apart from the three opening tracks, that is. Read the track reviews and reader comments:
The Monkees: The Birds, The Bees & The Monkees (1968)Album Score: 11I don't want to say that Michael Nesmith is a John Lennon or anything, but this guy is freaking great! He doesn't do anything fundamentally different from many other songwriters of this era --- 1968 was a pretty strange year for music and the peak of psychedelia. But Nesmith takes these ideas and doesn't reduce them to the common denominator. He sounds fresh and vibrant! He takes on The Byrds' country-rock, jangly ideas for all they were worth on "Auntie's Municipal Court" and a wild hodge podge of ideas in "Tapioca Tundra." He also writes a wholly enjoyable old-timey jazz pop tune "Magnolia Simms" as well as *ahem* Pink Floyd in "Writing Wrongs." These are some of the best songs on the album --- pretty good for a manufactured band, I'd say! It's a shame Christina Aguilera can't reach this level of creativity with a 20-foot pole. Not to say that The Birds, The Bees and The Monkees is a great work of art, but --- it's an interesting pop album. Naturally, the melodies are the principal reason to give this a listen. Of course, Nesmith's melodies are lovely. Probably the most famous melody is "Daydream Believer" from an outside songwriter --- what a great chorus! Also, Boyce and Hart contribute their answer to The Magical Mystery Tour "P. O. Box 9847." That track is a blast! I like Davey Jones' contributions as well. "Dream World" is an enjoyable pop number that also has something slightly off about it. His "The Poster" isn't as highly recommendable, but it's pretty good considering it's one of the album's weaker tracks. Oddly, his sunshine-pop song "I'm Gonna Try" in the bonus tracks is a real gem if you like that genre. Certainly they could have replaced the too-simplistic and generic "We Were Made For Each Other" (from outside songwriters) with that one in the regular album. Oh well... We still get to hear it at any rate. This is just a good album. It's notably weaker than the predecessor Pisces, Aquarius, Capricorn & Jones, LTD, but possibly stranger. Well, that's definitely worth something! Thumbs up. Read the track reviews and reader comments:
The Monkees: Head (1968)Album Score: 12Geez, this is some piece of work, and it's faaaaaaar from what you'd expect if you only know The Monkees for being those manufactured sunshine boys who were responsible for "I'm a Believer" and "Theme from The Monkees." Even if you were paying attention to their excellent and artistically inclined 1967 and 1968 albums, you would never have expected something like this. They're not so much taking hints from The Beatles any longer, but --- *gasp* --- Frank Zappa!!! This is an assembly of soundbytes to create a sort of extended avant-garde sound collage! Now don't let your imagination get too out of hand. This is nowhere near as weird as Zappa, and there's still real songs in it. And hey, listen to these songs! There are six of them!! They're awesome!!! The soundbytes tend to be lines of dialogue that seem out of old movies except out-of-whack. (Here are a few examples: "And, I'd like a cold glass of cold gravy with a hair in it, please." Immediately after that there's "Sounds like a a lot of supernatural baloney to me / Supernatural, perhaps. Baloney, perhaps not.") So, what about the pop songs? Well, they're excellent that's what. They're not particularly strange or anything, but they're interesting and even artistic. The usual bunch of outside songwriters such as Carole King and Harry Nilsson can be seen here, and they seemed to take this opportunity to pen some wonderful tunes for the Monkees movie! The crowning achievement must be King's epic "Porpoise Song," which is so artsy and convincing that it even puts The Moody Blues to shame --- sometimes. The fact that there are only six real songs on here might phase a few potential buyers. They might think that it must mean there's a lot of "sound collage." Well not really. This album's less than 30 minutes long, which I guess proves that The Beach Boys were not the only fading pop stars releasing short records. But at least that gives you the chance to back out of this album if it's too weird for ya!! Eh, this won't be too weird for ya. If you think this is weird, then just consider it preparation for Zappa or Can or ... whatever ... You're not going to be able to get out of this life if you don't hear those, you know. ... Or maybe you will. Hm. One day I'm going to watch the movie, which will be a day that I'm sure will be glorious. Other than enjoying the soundtrack, there are also plenty of other "perks." For one, the script was co-written by actor Jack Nicholson, so there must be a lot of cussing in it. Also, there's a cameo from Frank Zappa. (Alas, that must mean he approved of The Monkees! ... Well that's no surprise, an open-minded guy such as that.) Anyway, this is an enjoyable album, and it begs to be heard. May everybody get some Head. Read the track reviews and reader comments:
Os Mutantes: Os Mutantes (1968)Album Score: 14YES!!! This Brazilian psychedelic group is absolutely brilliant. They're also so unique that people who fancy themselves as explorers in the world of rock 'n' roll must take some time to chart these waters. Trust me, anyone who enjoys music for the art of it will find much to love about this group. The group sings mainly in Portugese, so that might put off some listeners. But it shouldn't. Musically, these guys are innovative, experimental and usually quite delightful. There's so much, musically, in this album, that I find it difficult to know what to start talking about. So, let's start talking about the history of the group. This is a band that has obviously done a lot of listening to the Beatles. They're also Brazillian, so the influence of bossa nova and samba shows in their music. But describing Os Mutantes as a mere cross between British psychedelia and bossa nova doesn't do it justice. They also inject their own, custom-made brand of crazy weirdness in the mix!!! And I love this crazy weirdness!!!! I can't even describe this crazy weirdness 90 percent of the time. If I did, my track reviews would be 20 pages long. That's how brilliant this all is. Also, an important point, they're also not being weird just to be weird (which is often a complaint I have of Frank Zappa). Their weird music is tasteful. It's even accessible as long as you're listening to it with the proper ears. Naturally, any mainstream audience (i.e., people who waste their music-listening life to a certain genre of music) won't get this music, but that's their loss. If you love music that dares to strive beyond complacency (music as it's supposed to be), then you'll love Os Mutantes. If you want to know more about how this music sounds like, then please read my track reviews!!! Read the track reviews and reader comments:
Pearls Before Swine: Balaklava (1968)Album Score: 9This is going to be my favorite freaky, avant-garde psychedelic band until I can come up with a better one. Psychedelia was subject to some of the worst examples of excess... not to mention avant garde music. But at the same time, this album is hilarious. These guys are really awesome at sucking. This is actually their second album, but it's the earliest one they have on Rhapsody's database at the moment (but I do have their first album from my emusic account --- and I haven't listened to it yet). The founder and principal member of this group is Tom Rapp. I'm pretty sure he's the guy who sings... what a distinctly mediocre voice. Sometimes it sounds like he had spit dribbling out of his mouth, but when he's not singing like a doofus, I don't care much for the tone of it. It's just not pleasant sounding. They might be a psychedelic band (which were kinduva dime a dozen back then), I think you would be hard pressed to find a band that was this SPACED OUT. I mean, I could be wrong. If there is a stranger band, then I'll probably listen to them one day and then check myself into the nearest mental institution the following morning. When it comes right down to it, I love hearing weird, weird music. The problem with this is that it's just not that entertaining. It's definitely interesting, though. Their arrangements, in particular, are quite intriguing. Rarely do I ever run across anything as bizarre as that backing music for "Images of April." The closing track "Ring Thing" also has an interesting texture. This at least proves that they had some sort of goal in mind when they recorded this flabbergasting album. Another quality I like about this band is they take advantage of a wide array of instruments apart from the usual rock combo. Among other things, I hear organs, beautiful piano, violin, woodwind, bagpipes(!!!!), random sound effects, etc... But in a few of these songs, like "There Was a Man," it merely consists simply of singing and an acoustic guitar. The diversity is at least valuable even though this can be a difficult album to listen to. And my last compliment: At least I don't get the impression that they're pandering to the lowest common denominator... In fact, I'm sure there's examples of psychedelia that would make me grate my teeth and forsake the genre forever. As far as all that nonsense was ever worth, Pearls Before Swine manage to be fairly worthwhile. I read on Wikipedia that this album is a huge anti-war protest statement. Well maybe they were trend-followers, after all. From what little I bothered getting out of the lyrics, they seemed pretty spaced out and hippie-esque, so they don't bother me. Also realize that analyzing lyrics is something that generally doesn't interest me... Well this is definitely something... I'll have you read the track reviews, if you don't mind! Read the track reviews and reader comments:
The Turtles: Happy Together (1967)Album Score: 12I suppose that so many bands in the '60s valued melodic songwriting, which is why groups such as The Turtles get swept under the rug. The critics aren't too interested in giving them a re-appraisal, because they have a reputation for being throwaway sunshine-pop guys. The public's certainly not interested in this, because they're so busy watching American Idol that they don't even bother wiping up the dribble that's dangling off their lips. At least indie-music fans have a chance to discover them since their discography has been available cheaply at emusic.com. These guys have such a gift for melody that I can't imagine you would need to have a fetish for '60s pop music to enjoy it. Even among other bands of their day, they're decidedly above average. Their 'throwaway sunshine pop' reputation should be debunked immediately. It's true these guys seem like they must have overdosed on Prozac before they went into the recording studio, but their music is far from throwaway. Not only are they good melody writers, but they prove to be quite good with the arrangements as well. Take the most famous song on the album, "Happy Together" for example. Its melody would have been a hit no matter what they did to it. But, they have things like interesting orchestral build-ups, a short section where there's gorgeous but subtle little horn solo, some nice flutes ....... very good stuff, and it's all quite tasteful. The Turtles were far from revolutionary, but that's hardly a reason to criticize them. They took the musical stylings of the time, and reaped the benefits! They're so melodic and prone to put a smile on your face that they deserve to be heard. They're the Johann Strauss of the '60s. There's a fair amount of diversity in here. OK, not really, but the songs are distinctive enough from each other to keep the effort from getting too boring. It's mostly dominated by pop songs of the "Happy Together" variety, but they also throw in happy ballads ("I Think I'll Run Away" and "Like the Season") and a number of orchestral songs ("You Know What I Mean" and "Is it Any Wonder"). They even take a moment to be utterly goofy (but still tasteful, musically) with "Rugs of the Woods and Flowers." I do like happy music as long as it's melodic and tasteful. The Turtles fit the bill exactly. Read the track reviews and reader comments:
|
All reviews are written by Michael Lawrence.