|
Post by Kapitan on May 21, 2021 17:43:43 GMT
Pop and rock stars have released "alter-ego" records before: Chris Gaines, Sasha Fierce, The Fireman, various David Bowie characters, Prince as Camille, etc. It's usually promoted and obvious what's going on.
Mariah Carey apparently released an alt-rock album under the band/artist name Chick in the mid-90s, and nobody knew about it until now. Crazy story.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on May 22, 2021 13:02:51 GMT
Thom Yorke and Jonny Greenwood of Radiohead, drummer Tony Skinner, and producer Nigel Godrich (who works with Radiohead among many others) formed a new band, the Smile, which will debut tonight for the Glastonbury livestream.
I wonder how different it will be from Radiohead considering 3/4 of it is from there, and, if not much, why it isn't just a new Radiohead project.
Also, presumably of interest at a board like this, the name comes from a Ted Hughes poem, not a legendary Beach Boys album or an early Brian May/Roger Taylor band.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on May 27, 2021 17:00:31 GMT
There was an interesting feature from Pitchfork the other day about their history, especially of reviews, and more especially of going from mostly indie rock to a more broad spectrum including rap, pop, R&B etc. Well, they also released a very interesting summary of their reviews by the numbers. Regardless of what one thinks of Pitchfork*, that "statistical" review is interesting.
*My own opinion has certainly dropped over the years, as, for better or worse, I guess I was one of those then-20something elitist indie-loving white guys who are very out of fashion. While I welcome more diverse music being rated (and always would've), I just happen to hate a lot of their focus now, probably because I'm older than their demographic.
|
|
|
Post by kds on May 27, 2021 18:25:05 GMT
They seem to dislike Weezer, so they're not all bad.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on May 27, 2021 18:36:21 GMT
I thought it was interesting that they doled out nine perfect 10s to new releases in their first six years of existence (1996-02, and only two since (one in 2010 and one in 2020).
And also that they've doled out almost as many 0s (9) as 10s (11)--including one band that got one of each, the Flaming Lips with a 0 for Zaireeka and a 10 for its follow-up, The Soft Bulletin.
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on May 28, 2021 1:56:56 GMT
The Weezer shade caught my attention. I'm surprised they have the lowest rating of all artists with 10+ reviews (so, of popular/successful artists). Then I see Foo Fighters and Coldplay and Madonna, etc, are also amongst this group and I've never thought of them as being bad, and certainly not among the worst of anything. Looking at the ratings they gave Weezer, I see they've given them two 10s (Blue album and Pinkerton), so, KDS, they're not all bad. But, they gave Make Believe a 0.4!? That's the sole reason they are even on that list of lowest rated. The review couldn't be more self-important, pitiful, drivel (OK, it probably could, but it's a doozy). At least they admitted upfront that they weren't reviewing it on its own merit but the expectations they had for Weezer based on their first two albums. Humorously, the reviewer bemoans the "miles of slack" awarded Weezer's 3rd and 4th albums...except, Pitchfork gave Maladroit a 5.4 and the Green album a 4.0. For the record, I never thought I'd be defending Make Believe, but a 0.4 is idiocy. And, now that expectations have changed, so have the ratings. So, an album like the White album gets a 6.2. Uh, honestly, I think they are of about equal quality - middle-of-the-road Weezer, if that. One isn't 15 times better than the other, that's for damn sure. In honor of Rob Mitchum's review, I've enjoyed listening to Make Believe tonight.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on May 28, 2021 11:27:06 GMT
The Weezer shade caught my attention. I'm surprised they have the lowest rating of all artists with 10+ reviews (so, of popular/successful artists). Then I see Foo Fighters and Coldplay and Madonna, etc, are also amongst this group and I've never thought of them as being bad, and certainly not among the worst of anything. Looking at the ratings they gave Weezer, I see they've given them two 10s (Blue album and Pinkerton), so, KDS, they're not all bad. But, they gave Make Believe a 0.4!? That's the sole reason they are even on that list of lowest rated. The review couldn't be more self-important, pitiful, drivel (OK, it probably could, but it's a doozy). At least they admitted upfront that they weren't reviewing it on its own merit but the expectations they had for Weezer based on their first two albums. Humorously, the reviewer bemoans the "miles of slack" awarded Weezer's 3rd and 4th albums...except, Pitchfork gave Maladroit a 5.4 and the Green album a 4.0. For the record, I never thought I'd be defending Make Believe, but a 0.4 is idiocy. And, now that expectations have changed, so have the ratings. So, an album like the White album gets a 6.2. Uh, honestly, I think they are of about equal quality - middle-of-the-road Weezer, if that. One isn't 15 times better than the other, that's for damn sure. In honor of Rob Mitchum's review, I've enjoyed listening to Make Believe tonight. The ratings especially in that first decade or 15 years have that issue of being very early Rolling Stone-ish, meaning so dedicated to being elitist and cool for their territory--which was indie rock--that they end up looking stupid. And you can see it by looking at the bands they hated, mentioned above. Popular acts. Weezer, Madonna, Foo Fighters, Coldplay: what do they have in common? Massive success. It just comes across as bratty and maybe even jealous. Thou doth protest a bit too much.
That's part of why it is funny seeing them the past few years as champions of mainstream pop.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on May 30, 2021 15:19:48 GMT
I didn't want to interrupt the Beatles thread since this deals with an album we're well past, but here is a little Ray Davies review of Revolver. It's not the glowing review the album gets today!
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on May 30, 2021 15:37:50 GMT
He doesn’t come off like someone particularly knowledgable or interested in the Beatles music. Has he reviewed any of his own albums track-by-track? I’m thinking those would be more glowing.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on May 30, 2021 15:59:24 GMT
I thought his favorites being "I'm Only Sleeping" and "Good Day Sunshine" made sense: they're very Ray Davies-ey compared to others. And what might be "Here There and Everywhere" (his third favorite) but another along those lines, if a little busier. And what's his comment? "[T]here are a lot of busy chords in it" but "it's nice."
Things that go a direction he doesn't relate to, he just clearly isn't interested, or jokes about. ("Tomorrow Never Knows," for example.)
Still, interesting to read, in hindsight.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jun 29, 2021 21:58:32 GMT
Some of you being big Sparks fans, here's a newish (June 27) review of the new documentary.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Jun 29, 2021 23:19:06 GMT
Some of you being big Sparks fans, here's a newish (June 27) review of the new documentary.
Thank you for the link. Now THAT is an outstanding review. I really hope this documentary attracts more fans and gives Ron and Russell Mael the recognition they deserve. I've learned through Beach Boys' boxed sets and documentaries that those wishes don't always come true, but, again like The Beach Boys, I'LL ENJOY IT!
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Aug 25, 2021 18:28:41 GMT
Here's a column from the longtime Star Tribune music critic Jon Bream suggesting that the Stones ought to hang it up rather than continue without Charlie Watts.
The cheeky conclusion, after he recounts some history and the assorted shows he's seen with Watts:
"Out of respect, they should postpone the trek, not to mention that COVID is raging once more. And if the Stones decide to hit the road again at some point, call it what it is: the Glimmer Twins, the Mick and Keith Show."
|
|
|
Post by kds on Aug 25, 2021 18:35:39 GMT
Poor Ron Wood. He's been in the Stones nearly 50 years, and he'll always be the "new guy."
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Aug 31, 2021 23:32:54 GMT
Absolutely fascinating information from the legendary bassist Ron Carter (Miles Davis among many, many others) with Rick Beato about the music business and recording process of the jazz scene through the decades. Carter is so interesting. I know I've seen him interviewed before and been similarly blown away.
The implication I guess is that the musicians with Miles in the '60s, there was so much intellect. They weren't just good-looking. Not just charismatic. Not just exciting. They were goddamn smart.
|
|