Musaic - Simon and Bard
(Flying Fish)
Fred Simon and Michael
Bard, a pianist and multiple
reedman respectively who ve
been around the jazz scene
virtually unknown the past
few years, here emerge from
relative obscurity with their
first record Musaic, an effort
that strikes me as an example
of playing-it-safe: the
melodies are pleasant and
draw on a number of
recognizable sources, the
rhythm section does its
chores competently, and the
solos display the requisite
knowledge of technique. But, the music never takes
chances. Admittedly the skill level is high, but Simon and
Bard s insist on tilling styles that have been farmed too long to less bountiful yields: their sources sound like an
overly-familiar crossbreeding
of Paul Winter,
Oregon and Bruebeck: with a
dash of Ellington thrown in
for good measure - makes
the stuff on Musaic merely
run of the mill. Even Larry
Coryell's appearance on the
funk jam "Fancy Frog" fails to liven things up. The
usually idiosyncratic
guitarist sounds more than
happy to merely cruise along
with the flow of things,
content to only dish out cliche
blues licks and occasional
fast runs instead of really
pushing himself or anyone
for that matter. Bear in mind, the music is
not atrocious. It's nice and
would make the ideal
backdrop for when your
mother was over for dinner. Otherwise, your time would be better spent catching up on your sleep, or staying up all night watching black and white movies highlighting big lizards devastating Japanese coastal cities.
Are You Gonna Be The One--Robert Gordon
For a number of years
Robert Gordon has, in his
own way, been trying to
revive the spirit of rockabilly
music. For all the sweat
that's soaked his satin shirts
because of his efforts, he's
hardly scratched the surface
of authenticity, let alone
come close to the essence of , grease.
The problem isn't Gordon's lack of vocal apparatus - his voice is impressively
clear and demonstrates a
better-than-average range - but rather that he too
obviously relishes the. cliches
of his chosen form. The title
tune "Are You Gonna Be the
One" has him affecting a low
voice called from one of those
baritone backup singers, and
"She's Not Mine" is a ballad
wherein he offers a fragile
Presley-like falsetto (something
in Elvis's singing that
I never liked, all corn pone
and no guts). Obviously the
The Guardian
list of syllogistic borrowings
goes on, and throughout the
album, Gordon sounds too
exacting, with each phrase
sounding as though he's
practiced them through a
tape recorder so he'd capture
the right nuance; he never allows himself to truly mess with the format or defile the expectations of the potential audience. This leaves little to talk about, praise or condemn , really, and makes this more about his skill as an impostor than an artist who can revive styles from decades before his own.This is not the duty of an
interpreter of a style. Though
the comparison is tenuous,
early rock and roll, like jazz,
did have an element of
spontaneity, and the magic of
the best rockabilly was a kind
of barely-contained craziness
that was reflected both
through the singer's voice
and the near-anarchism of
the band. Gordon comes
across like a stand-up comic
impressionist: a ' soon a the
shock of recognition ion fades,
Robert Gordon
it's readily apparent that he's
not the real thing. Gordon, however, does
show promise in another
style. "Standing on the
Outside of Her Door" is a
change of pace. a country and
western ballad in the most
maudlin sense. Gordon's
voice sound comfortable for
once, resonating, low and
caressing as he milk every
bit of tear-in-the-beer pathos
from the lyrics, which are 0
sentimentally sticky they
drip down on you like
stereophonic tapioca. Not
exactly my cup of tea - I
would like to hear someone do
some rockabilly that didn 't
'SOund like a rusty door hinge - but I might suggest t that
Gordon shed his rolled up t-
13
shirt and buy an outfit from
Nudies.
Escape Artist - Garland
Jeffreys
(Epic)
You'd think that Garland
Jeffreys' multiple-racial
identity - strains of Puerto
Rican and Afro-American
twined with a strong
immersion in the White
culture of the Bronx - would
enable him to devise a cross-cultural
rock and roll fusion
that would unify the
variegated elements of the
Big Beat into an exhilarating,
cogent synthesis. Things being as they are,
however, Jeffreys' never
attained the heights critics
have long predicted for him,
nor the high water mark
aspirations he 's set for
himself. Instead, he is a
rather likable sort who can
deliver, now and again, with
a great song and remains
naught but an interesting
minor talent.
Escape Artist, his most
recent release, suffers less
from Jeffreys' seemingly
habitual confusing of
identities. His cover of the Question Mark and the Mysterians oldie "96
Tears," is a delightfully
tacky clone of the original
version, with his voice
sounding expressively sleazy
against the farfisa organ. "Modern Romance " and
"Christine" are straight
forward as he deals with the
problems of boy ·girl
relationship. Some of the other rockers su~est the
influences of Spnngsteen
and Costello. Jeffreys,
though, does again stumble
.on his bad habits in his
reggae numbers which sound
as limp and washed out as
they've ever been. His stabs
at clarifying profundity, as in
"Miami Beach," only tread
the obvious polemics. What Jeffreys needs is a
sense of irony, a demonstrations of some kind of street- sharpened wit that would
reinforce his particular world
view. Presently he seems like
someone who tries a little too
hard with the options in front
of him. A little loosening of
the music could make
Jeffreys more comfortable
with himself as a performer,
and to us as listeners. B
minus.
Tuesday, August 15, 2017
Sunday, August 13, 2017
A ramble about my record collection in one paragraph. Do not look for a formal thesis
It was after I slid into my forties where the other songs and albums by Led Zeppelin reemerged on my radar and revealed a band that was more diverse, musically, than the popular invective allows. Where I lived at the time, Zeppelin fans were just as likely to be listening to the Band, Van Morrison and CS&N, along with other folk "sissy" artists as they were the macho sounds of hard rock. By the time I turned 48, how I perceived the world at 18 - 21 is irrelevant to the fact that they've made some good, sometimes brilliant tunes. Hardly perfect: the lyrics are an embarrassment, but the band is about riff and sound, as Richard Cobeen said in the Lennon thread by way of dismissing the band, but is something I think is crucial to their rock and roll success: riffs and sounds over laid on a varied set of styles and influences that work, sonically, more often than they don't. The lyrics, with the vocals, were just part of the overlay, a part of the texture. Like the Beatles, Steely Dan, and Led Zeppelin were studio artists, where the studio was the proverbial third instrument. Live, they were one of the worst bands I've ever seen--though they sounded pretty damned good when I saw them in '67 (?) on their first US tour with Jethro Tull--but in the studio , their music was finessed and honed, typical in those days. For all his faults as a faulty technician in live circumstances, he is a producer who brought a fresh ear to the recording process, and came up with ideas that circumvented the routine dullness and rigor that's become the bane of less able hard rock and metal bands after his Zeppelin's break up. It was after I slid into my forties where the other songs and albums by Zeppelin again got my attention. What the new fascination revealed was a band that was more diverse, musically, than what the fidgeting knocks against them at the time allowed.Led Zeppelin IV is their high water mark for track-by-track knockouts and variety of sounds, but Houses of the Holy is where the band really stretched beyond the comfort of the hard rock style they created. I think they do reggae fine, and "The Crunge" is quite funked up-- Plant's Brown vamping is inspired, and the lyrics are , in turn, somewhat surreal without losing a greasy, fry-cooked crease in the seam.The only real bad aftershock of " Sgt Pepper's" and other "concept albums" from the period was the mistaken notion by other artists that there had to be one grandiose and grandiloquent theme running through both sides of their albums in order for the their work to be current with the mood of the art rock of the period. The Beatles succeeded with "Sgt.Pepper", "Magical Mystery Tour", and, and "Abbey Road" ( easily their most consistent set of material, I think) because they never abandoned the idea that the album needs to be a collection of good songs that sound good in a set: over lapping themes, lyrically,
are absent in the Beatles work, unless you consider the reprise of the Pepper theme song on a leitmotif of any real significance (it's use was cosmetic), although musical ideas did give the feel of conceptual unity track to track, album to album. Lennon and McCartney and Harrison's greatest contribution to rock music was their dedication to having each one of their songs be the best they could do before slating it for album release. For other bands, the stabs at concept albums were routinely disastrous, witnessed by the Stones attempt to best their competitors with the regrettable 'Satanic Majesties Requests". The Who with "Tommy" and "Who’s Next" and the Kinks , best of all, with "Lola", "Muswell Hillbillies" and "Village Green" , both were rare, if visible exceptions to the rule. "Revolver" and "Yesterday and Today" are amazing song collections, united by grand ideas or not. I buy albums; finally, on the hope that the music is good, the songs are good, not the ideas confirm or critique the Western Tradition. Conventional wisdom is often wrong, but not always, and I think the popular opinion that Pepper is a better disc, song by song, than Satanic Majesties is on the mark. Majesties had The Stones basically playing catch up with the Beatles with their emergent eclecticism and failing, for the most part. That they didn't have George Martin producing and finessing the rough spots of unfinished songs marks the difference. Majesties, though does have at least one great song, "2000 Man", and a brilliant one, "She's A Rainbow" For the rest, it sounds like a noisy party in the apartment next door. The album sounds like a collection of affectations instead of a cohesive set of songs. Cohere is exactly what the tunes on Pepper did, good, great, brilliant, and mediocre. The sounded like they belonged together. Authenticity is such an elusive quality that it's mostly useless when judging as subjective as whether someone's music is legitimate. It's a nice way to chase your own tail, though, which is what many like to do. Better to consider whether the music is at least
honest, or better yet, if it's done well: whether music, lyrics, voice, style work on their own terms, makes for a more interesting set of topics, and a more compelling record collection. I would say that "She's Leaving Home" is one of the most atrociously three-hankie wank fests ever written, but I would say that "Good Morning Good Morning" has a lyric that is defensible: it serves the purpose, it's lines and images are clipped, fitting the beats, and the words don't address anything larger than what they're supposed to, a bad mood on a fast morning. It's a self-contained set of references, locked in a particular frame of mind. It is not Lennon's subtlest work, but it's not embarrassing at all. "Catch the Wind" is a lovely song, with a beautifully tendered lyric. Though obviously coming into public view on Dylan's coattails, Donavan was no talentless amateur: he wrote good material in his "new Dylan" period, and did, remarkably, go in a direction quite distinct from Dylan's. He had his moments of good work. Anyone who is still complaining about Zep's less-than-Eliot lyrics has spent too much time staring at their lyric sheets while wearing headphones. It's better to consider Sgt. Pepper as a good album as a good album as a good album, with its historical importance set to the side. There are several good songs on it that have worn well over the decades that keep it from becoming the equivalent of the nutty uncle you don't want your pals to see. Realizing which songs were good after the fact isn't nostalgia, it's common sense. Catcher in the Rye remains what it is, certainly the classic of growing up twisted and feeling put upon. It makes no sense to trash it just because your reading habits became more sophisticated.
are absent in the Beatles work, unless you consider the reprise of the Pepper theme song on a leitmotif of any real significance (it's use was cosmetic), although musical ideas did give the feel of conceptual unity track to track, album to album. Lennon and McCartney and Harrison's greatest contribution to rock music was their dedication to having each one of their songs be the best they could do before slating it for album release. For other bands, the stabs at concept albums were routinely disastrous, witnessed by the Stones attempt to best their competitors with the regrettable 'Satanic Majesties Requests". The Who with "Tommy" and "Who’s Next" and the Kinks , best of all, with "Lola", "Muswell Hillbillies" and "Village Green" , both were rare, if visible exceptions to the rule. "Revolver" and "Yesterday and Today" are amazing song collections, united by grand ideas or not. I buy albums; finally, on the hope that the music is good, the songs are good, not the ideas confirm or critique the Western Tradition. Conventional wisdom is often wrong, but not always, and I think the popular opinion that Pepper is a better disc, song by song, than Satanic Majesties is on the mark. Majesties had The Stones basically playing catch up with the Beatles with their emergent eclecticism and failing, for the most part. That they didn't have George Martin producing and finessing the rough spots of unfinished songs marks the difference. Majesties, though does have at least one great song, "2000 Man", and a brilliant one, "She's A Rainbow" For the rest, it sounds like a noisy party in the apartment next door. The album sounds like a collection of affectations instead of a cohesive set of songs. Cohere is exactly what the tunes on Pepper did, good, great, brilliant, and mediocre. The sounded like they belonged together. Authenticity is such an elusive quality that it's mostly useless when judging as subjective as whether someone's music is legitimate. It's a nice way to chase your own tail, though, which is what many like to do. Better to consider whether the music is at least
honest, or better yet, if it's done well: whether music, lyrics, voice, style work on their own terms, makes for a more interesting set of topics, and a more compelling record collection. I would say that "She's Leaving Home" is one of the most atrociously three-hankie wank fests ever written, but I would say that "Good Morning Good Morning" has a lyric that is defensible: it serves the purpose, it's lines and images are clipped, fitting the beats, and the words don't address anything larger than what they're supposed to, a bad mood on a fast morning. It's a self-contained set of references, locked in a particular frame of mind. It is not Lennon's subtlest work, but it's not embarrassing at all. "Catch the Wind" is a lovely song, with a beautifully tendered lyric. Though obviously coming into public view on Dylan's coattails, Donavan was no talentless amateur: he wrote good material in his "new Dylan" period, and did, remarkably, go in a direction quite distinct from Dylan's. He had his moments of good work. Anyone who is still complaining about Zep's less-than-Eliot lyrics has spent too much time staring at their lyric sheets while wearing headphones. It's better to consider Sgt. Pepper as a good album as a good album as a good album, with its historical importance set to the side. There are several good songs on it that have worn well over the decades that keep it from becoming the equivalent of the nutty uncle you don't want your pals to see. Realizing which songs were good after the fact isn't nostalgia, it's common sense. Catcher in the Rye remains what it is, certainly the classic of growing up twisted and feeling put upon. It makes no sense to trash it just because your reading habits became more sophisticated.
Chet Baker's return home in 1977
You Can't Go Home Again-- Chet Baker |
Monday, August 7, 2017
The Dark Tower
The Dark Tower, directed by Nikolaj Arcel, is a missed opportunity for the following quality sci/fi fantasy series. Initially, a nine-novel sequence penned by Stephen King has the ingredients for a continuing saga revolving around protecting the titular dark tower that exists between realities and stabilizes the varied facts within its domain. This being based on a potent and endlessly unfolding Stephen King narrative, which is to say that the original series of novels takes side trips and falls into distracting, if entertaining rabbit holes at many turns of the story, has the central element of this problematic phantasmagoria to be children, one child in particular, who has the power to create all things or cure the ailments that threaten everything that lives. Lots of characters, superpowers, magic, betrayal, good versus evil, a gifted child with abilities far beyond those of men and gods; King certainly provides quite a bit for multi-season streaming drama.
The film, though, is brutally condensed, curt, and abrupt in transition both in scenery and idea. It would be kind to suggest that the movie is breathless in its pacing. One should be admiring the briskness in which a great deal of thematic material from Stephen King's writing they manage to wedge into the 90 minute time but do so, for me, would be dishonest. Where others think breathless, I say, gasping for breath, the singular tone being someone who wants this project done much sooner rather than a way later. For all the explanations that might be given for how slipshod the storytelling is, think of that one kid in high school, yourself perhaps, who tried to ad-lib their way through an assigned oral report they hadn't prepared for. This is precisely what The Dark Tower feels like for its duration.
The film, though, is brutally condensed, curt, and abrupt in transition both in scenery and idea. It would be kind to suggest that the movie is breathless in its pacing. One should be admiring the briskness in which a great deal of thematic material from Stephen King's writing they manage to wedge into the 90 minute time but do so, for me, would be dishonest. Where others think breathless, I say, gasping for breath, the singular tone being someone who wants this project done much sooner rather than a way later. For all the explanations that might be given for how slipshod the storytelling is, think of that one kid in high school, yourself perhaps, who tried to ad-lib their way through an assigned oral report they hadn't prepared for. This is precisely what The Dark Tower feels like for its duration.
Matters of a plot point, explanations of thematic conceptions, and revelations of what's been going on are passed off in a hurry through cavalier bits of expository dialogue. The Man in Black, watching the Gunslinger wondrously dispatch minions with his weapons, reveals that legend has it his guns were forged from the same metal that made the mystical sword Excalibur. And that's it, which is annoying since that's an intriguing notion worth expanding on. The skillful expansion isn't the aim here, but rather contraction, and this feels more like a Quick Notes summary than anything else. I was never beyond the feeling that what I was watching was the usual prelude before a new episode of a television drama as to what's occurred earlier in the season in a quick montage. It's a shame since the premise is attractive, and Movies with Iris Alba and Matthew McConaughey should leave you breathless from their performance, not scratching your head wondering why they bothered with this.
Saturday, August 5, 2017
Album reviews: SWING LOW, SWING HIGH
Petite Fleur -Zzmzzy
Quartet
(Art Hurts Records)
This originally appeared in The San Diego Troubadour. Used with kind permission. |
And whimsy it is, as this time
honored music is performed by four skilled musicians (Beston Barnett on guitar
vocals, Matt Gill on clarinet, Paul Hormick on upright bass, Peter Miesner on
guitar and lead vocals) who move through
the snaky and occasionally minor key melodies
and occasionally acrobatic chord progressions with contagious good humor . This
is hardly a stiff resurrection of an old timey style; this is music that
pulses, moves, swings indeed, performed by some guys who continually find the
sweet spot in the heart of the songs. Principle in this effect is the sultry
and sonorous playing of clarinetist Gill,
who provides a tone that is rich and finds the right emotion a song’s
melody suggests, either doleful or exhalting,
gleeful or meditative. His
reading of the title tune, Sidney Becket’s “Petite Fluer”, rises and ebbs
fluidly, each note a smooth caress against a steady and sympathetic back
up of guitarists Barnett and Miesner
and the resonant bass work of Hormick.
Zzmzzy Quartet, in turn, sweetens the pot with
fine medley of Duke Ellington’s “In a Sentimental Mood / Solitude”, a beautiful
guitar figure framing Gill’s nuanced reading of the melody and a brooding
improvisation that joins the contrasting melodies of both songs. Sweetness abounds again with a jaunty take on
“Lazy River” by Hoagy Carmichael, jumping and jamming with piquant guitar and
reed making marvelous miracles though out.
There is quite a bit of splendidly played music on this music, not of
this time but timeless in the sense of joy very fine tunes provide when played
with the love and inspiration Zzmzzy Quartet obviously has.
Those of you who
like their swing jazz rousing, spiky and fleet fingered are in for a treat with
the album’s last track, a robust take on “Sweet Georgia Brown”. Guitar,
clarinet, trombone (form guest artist Billy Hawkins) take turns twisting and
rocking the melody, the rhythm firmly propulsive, all before a wonderfully
plaintive vocal from Miesner and Barnett.
This has been playing at least once a day as of this writing, which is
to say that Zzmzzy Quartet’s Petite Fleur
is cool and keen and a wonderful reminder that there is little in this life
that good music can’t make better.
Saturday, July 29, 2017
Michiko Kakutani Steps Down as NY Time's Chief Book Critic
Michiko Kakutani has stepped down as the NY Time's principle book critic, an event I say is 38 years beyond the expiration date of her worth as a cultural commentator. Her prose was remarkable for its lack of cadence or rhythm or music of any sort. She wrote to the beat of the metronome, and her thinking followed suit, hewing to safe formulation, received recyclings of conventional wisdom. Her espousal made her seem less like the critic than it made her resemble the World's Smartest Typist. I intend no slight to competent typists, but the quality of Kakutani's praise or criticism for author were exceedingly ordinary and seemed, really, to be little more than the sort of compliments one gets from dutiful host, polite and icy, or the complaints one of your friends who has fashioned a better-phrased brand of snark and sarcasm.
Her intentions, too often, were rather obviously not critical thinking but character assassination; her repetitive riffs against Mailer, Franzen, Nick Hornby and Don DeLillo went for quite a few years; a dutiful editor at the Times ought to noted this and instructed her to (1) find some other authors to write about with a much less glaring set of preconceived judgments and (2), to start writing reviews that steered away from the short list of tropes she used without end as a means to praise or damn and instead do some real critical thinking. Kakutani was an ethically bankrupt critic of no discernible into or passion for the literary arts she presumed to judge. She was a long time disgrace to the critic's trade and craft. Banal and annoying are exactly the right words to describe her. Calling her a critic grossly overstates what she did for a living, which was to produce, assembly line fashion, formulaic judgements that riled authors and readers alike for the perfunctory competence she brought to her job. In a paper otherwise blessed with the best staff of art critics, culture writers and columnists, she was the tone-deaf embarrassment.
Her intentions, too often, were rather obviously not critical thinking but character assassination; her repetitive riffs against Mailer, Franzen, Nick Hornby and Don DeLillo went for quite a few years; a dutiful editor at the Times ought to noted this and instructed her to (1) find some other authors to write about with a much less glaring set of preconceived judgments and (2), to start writing reviews that steered away from the short list of tropes she used without end as a means to praise or damn and instead do some real critical thinking. Kakutani was an ethically bankrupt critic of no discernible into or passion for the literary arts she presumed to judge. She was a long time disgrace to the critic's trade and craft. Banal and annoying are exactly the right words to describe her. Calling her a critic grossly overstates what she did for a living, which was to produce, assembly line fashion, formulaic judgements that riled authors and readers alike for the perfunctory competence she brought to her job. In a paper otherwise blessed with the best staff of art critics, culture writers and columnists, she was the tone-deaf embarrassment.
Thursday, July 27, 2017
Valerian: a movie so empty of worth you can use it for a sock drawer
Valerian is among the most boring movies I've ever seen. Two hours long, it felt like three and all the admittedly eye-popping visuals and after a short while giving you the feeling of being a frog in a blender, the last thing you see is a nauseating blur of bright lights and dark tones before the blades of the machine turn you into minced effluvia. The actors Dane DeHaan and Cara Delevingne are creaking and mechanical in their banter and flirting; they have the appeal of shucked corn. Luc Besson, writer, and director of this protracted and expensive sedative, mistakes expense, expanse and excess as enough for a true thrill ride. For this movie, he should have his head placed against a brick so we may throw a wall at it. The primary problem with the love story, or the flirtation that led up to the eventual profession of love, was that it was a major focus in the narrative; I thought the banter was inane and repetitive; an element made more onerous by that porcelain presence of leads DeHaan and Delevingne, who had zero chemistry. Rather than the matching the qualities we loved seeing in Tracy and Hepburn, Cary Grant and Rosalind Russel l(His Gal Friday)l or Cybill Sheppard and Bruce Willis (Moonlighting), this pair didn't manage facial expressions much beyond his responsibilities to look dreamy and hers to sustain a puckering pout. I don't insist that coherence be central to films I think are brilliant--in cases like Chandler's Big Sleep (novel and the Howard Hawks film adaptation), the author's style and ability to create a nuanced and tangible mood more than compensates for what sense it didn't make. Also, I am quite fond of Zack Snyder's Sucker Punch, which I've seen several times; critics and moviegoers lambasted its WTF plotline, but the set pieces in the films, the fantasy action sequences, are simply brilliant bits of kinetic visual art, a spectacular recreation of the sort of Jack Kirby style gatefold two-pagers that handily disorient and reorient the senses and makes you aware that this space is not where the usual laws of nature apply. For what Valerian was attempting to do, the kind of story they wanted to tell, we have, I think, is a mess of a project that fails to engage, enthrall, or convince me to forget about how long the film seems. It seemed interminable. One mind-blowing visual after another just made this noisy, cluttered and restlessly frantic without any momentum.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
here
-
The Atlantic a month ago ran a pig-headed bit of snark-slamming prog rock as "The Whitest Music Ever, "a catchy bit of clickbait...