Post by Sheriff John Stone on Jun 30, 2020 12:30:03 GMT
Oh well, I thought "Time Will Tell" would fare better. I think it's an excellent song and an excellent Beach Boys' salute. Back in the 70's and 80's, in various places, "Time Will Tell" did get some praise and recognition in Beach Boys' circles. OK, carry on. (I just wanted to use this emoticon. What is its significance?)
I'm not a fan of either song, really, but I'll take Blondie's version of "The Tide is High" over the BBs here. And since the version bellbottoms posted may not be available in your country--it isn't in mine at the moment--here is another version that might be.
It's coincidental that these came up, as I had just been thinking about "The Tide is High" when listening to "Los Angeles" on the new Haim album.
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Jun 30, 2020 16:14:58 GMT
Never cared much for "Island Girl". It's only OK. Carl's part is the only part that I really like. Always thought it was another inferior attempt at the "Kokomo" formula. They brought Brian into the mix to supply some yelling.
"The Tide Is High" wasn't Blondie's best, but it did sound pretty good on the car radio. When I was DJing, I used to work it into the limbo line.
Wow, bellbottoms, they are very similar! Worthy of the 'songs that remind you...' thread. I was all ready to vote in favor of "Island Girl", being familiar with it, and liking it, but I think "The Tide Is High" is better. I really enjoyed that. Maybe it's my familiarity with the Beach Boys' (and Buddy Holly's) music working against it, but as much as I enjoy it, "Island Girl" just feels much more derivative by comparison. As for Brian and Carl's vocal performances, I don't think Carl is singing with much less force or in a significantly more appealing way. I think Al out-sings all the Beach Boys, and non-Beach Boys, on that track.
Thanks for the alternate youtube link, Kap. Sorry about that folks!
I really like both of these songs and I'm torn as to which one is better. I prefer the tempo of Island Girl and Al's rock-out vocal moment, but The Tide is High is just a little bit more pulled together. I also love Debbie Harry's vocal on it. It's very close. I thought there might be more of an even split, but Tide is clearly winning, and there is a part of me that wants to just say Island Girl for the hell of it.
The Tide is High is just a little bit more pulled together.
Part of that, for me at least, is the production. I think the production is tighter and less dated.
Yeah, I think I agree. Tide is definitely tighter with better sounding instrumentation. But it's also repetitive. And the relative looseness of Island Girl gives it variability, which earns it a point.
Have you ever listened to a solo album and thought "If this album has been released by (artist X)'s former band, it would be far more popular / revered"? Two of my favorite groups of all time are Pink Floyd and The Beach Boys. Roger Waters and Brian Wilson each launched solo careers in the 1980s, and predictably, their solo careers haven't exactly set the world on fire like Paul McCartney, Ozzy Osbourne, or (sigh) Sting. But, each artist managed to release an album that, had it been released under the banner of their old band, might be more well known outside their loyal fanbases.
Roger Waters - Amused to Death (1992) v Brian Wilson - That Lucky Old Sun (2008)
Among Floyd fans, Waters' Amused to Death album is generally considered his best post Floyd album, and for good reason. Songs like What God Wants Part 2, Perfect Sense, The Bravery of Being Out of Range, Three Wishes, It's a Miracle, and the title track among others evoke that classic Floyd sound far more than Roger's previous two solo albums. Had these songs been Pink Floyd songs, it's possible you might hear them on classic rock radio as often as Learning to Fly.
With Brian, TLOS is often cited as his best solo album (that didn't begin life as a Beach Boys album in the 60s). Had Forever You'll Be My Surfer Girl, Goin Home, Midnight's Another Day, or Southern California been Beach Boys songs, they might be more well known.
So, which solo album is better? I'm going with Brian here. Clocking in at 72 minutes, ATD lags a bit in the middle, Roger having made that 1990s CD era mistake of trying to fill out a disk. Brian's album at a brisk 45 minutes, doesn't really lag. And, the lowlights (spoken word bits) don't linger.
Another point that I forgot to make about ATD. Roger Waters was never what I'd call a gifted vocalist. But, his vocals on Amused to Death are the worst of his career. Waters didn't really adjust to his worn vocal cords until he became a touring artist again in 1999. By the time TLOS was released, Brian had adjusted to his vocal issues.
OK, while my listen count is far from fair (probably 100+ full TLOS listens compared to precisely 1 AtD listen), it isn't a hard choice for me: TLOS by a landslide.
Both albums are a little on the pretentious side. I was disappointed at the time of TLOS that it went the "cram it into a concept album" format with the interludes, etc., and still hold that same criticism. But Waters being Waters goes far further in the concept direction.
I share KDS's critique of Waters' voice. But I think it's made worse by an album that doesn't really have a lot in terms of memorable melodies or hooks to begin with. I saw that AllMusic gave it 4.5/5 stars and was amazed. It's probably more in the 3/5 range for me. It isn't BAD. Plenty of good players involved, decent production for the time (though I don't love that either). Overlong, not especially memorable, not especially interesting. No fun at all, and not good enough to overcome that absence.
Translated to a 10 scale, I think this would be something like TLOS 8, AtD 5.5 or 6.
jk: That's good news, Sheriff. And good news from you too, Cap'n.
Sept 21, 2021 10:12:14 GMT
carllove: Sheriff and Kapitan, totally understand! Just let us know when there is an update. I am enjoying both! I really appreciate both of your efforts!
Sept 21, 2021 13:44:37 GMT
carllove: Looks like Sheriff has already added to the Sparks history! Yay!
Sept 21, 2021 13:46:01 GMT
Kapitan: Shamed, I began a new Prince thread post. But work rudely interrupted by wanting me to, you know, work. So it'll have to wait.
Sept 21, 2021 19:31:50 GMT
jk: Ooohh, we need a new "year" -- preferably from someone who hasn't chosen one yet...
Sept 22, 2021 9:59:24 GMT
Kapitan: Yes, let's keep it going. If you're not sure which years we've covered, check the first post of the thread: I've edited it to list each year we've touched upon.
Sept 22, 2021 13:10:08 GMT
jk: If no one jumps in soon, I'll go for 1997, which is 13 years back from 2010. Fact is, we haven't had a '90s year yet.
Sept 22, 2021 13:46:32 GMT
Kapitan: No, but we do have a whole '90s thread that covered a lot of that territory. (In fact, that's what inspired the idea, to some extent)
Sept 22, 2021 13:52:28 GMT
Kapitan: Not that I'm opposed to a '90s year, mind you
Sept 22, 2021 13:52:58 GMT
jk: I see where you're coming from, Cap'n. I even did a double-take when looking through 1997 albums and songs (these look familiar!). My next suggestion is that we go back 13 years from 1972 to 1959.
Sept 22, 2021 17:04:34 GMT
jk: OK, it's one of the "doldrum years" but it was crammed full of goodies that even register with folks who weren't born for another 20 years. Of course, if anyone has a better idea, I'm all for it.
Sept 22, 2021 17:05:59 GMT
Kapitan: That would make sense; we also haven't really touched the early to mid 80s, which I'm sure people (mostly) recall. And of course EVERY year in the '60s seems loaded...
Sept 22, 2021 17:06:53 GMT
jk: Yes, the early-ish '80s also came to mind. But let's see who else joins in...
Sept 22, 2021 17:08:04 GMT
Kapitan: So far we've had me, jk, kds, and carllove choosing years. Would love to expand that circle.
Sept 22, 2021 17:13:20 GMT
Kapitan: Which, I guess with four of us so far, is more a square.
Sept 22, 2021 17:13:38 GMT
jk: Ha, yes. Sheriff? B.E.? sockit? The Kid?... We'll see.
Sept 22, 2021 17:16:41 GMT