|
Post by Kapitan on Sept 29, 2020 15:04:43 GMT
I should add that famous rock critic Robert Christgau, then of the Village Voice, wrote this about this album (quoted from Wikipedia):
"This is a breakthrough for Petty because for the first time the Heartbreakers ... are rocking as powerfully as he's writing. But whether Petty has any need to rock out beyond the sheer doing of it—whether he has anything to say—remains shrouded in banality. Thus he establishes himself as the perfect rock and roller for those who want good—very good, because Petty really knows his stuff—rock and roll that can be forgotten as soon as the record or the concert is over, rock and roll that won't disturb your sleep, your conscience, or your precious bodily rhythms.”
In short, my reaction to that is that Christgau can suck it. The elitism of that statement, as if the better form of rock and roll were some meaningful thing, something that WOULD "disturb your sleep, your conscience, or your precious bodily rhythms," is so annoying. I'm not saying it SHOULDN'T, but there's no reason it SHOULD, either. And if I had to lean one way or the other, it would be against "meaning."
Because at its heart, it is (or grew out of) popular/folk art. This isn't classical music. It's the soundtrack to nights at the bar, nights with your friends, road trips, etc. It's fun, a release, not how to solve world problems.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Sept 29, 2020 15:08:24 GMT
One could compile a very thick book of music critics being total asshats through the years. Ease up Bob, not every artist needs to change the world.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Sept 29, 2020 15:13:03 GMT
One could compile a very thick book of music critics being total asshats through the years. Ease up Bob, not every artist needs to change the world. YES.
In that way, Bob Dylan screwed up the scene in the '60s by going "pop." Just like the Beatles made everyone think they had to write their own songs and be a self-contained unit as a band, Dylan seems to have made people think they had to "have something to say."
It's just not true. I mean, it's fine. But not necessary.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Sept 29, 2020 15:14:47 GMT
Brief but fun Christgau-related aside: the podcast "Why I Hate This Album" often plays "the Robert Christgau game," in which one guy reads the copy of the review and the other tries to guess the rating assigned ... because often you couldn't guess one from the other. It's hilarious. That guy is shithouse crazy.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Sept 29, 2020 15:17:37 GMT
One could compile a very thick book of music critics being total asshats through the years. Ease up Bob, not every artist needs to change the world. YES.
In that way, Bob Dylan screwed up the scene in the '60s by going "pop." Just like the Beatles made everyone think they had to write their own songs and be a self-contained unit as a band, Dylan seems to have made people think they had to "have something to say."
It's just not true. I mean, it's fine. But not necessary.
I just read one of Martin Popoff's books on the original Black Sabbath, and he uses several quotes from critics at the time their 70s albums were released. I think its one thing if you want to critique a band's music, but to go so far as to insult their audience (one referred to anyone who likes Sabbath as a "knuckle dragger") is a bit far for a critic IMO. But, the level of self importance by critics is astounding at times.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Sept 29, 2020 15:25:34 GMT
I think that's exactly why hard rock and heavy metal tend not to be critically acclaimed: historically (in the U.S.) they are mostly music by and for working class people, especially in the heartland. Sure, bands often ended up going to L.A. or New York to make it, but how many great rock bands are from Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc.? Even "coastal" hard rock bands are more New Jersey or upstate New York, or Gainesville, or San Diego, as opposed to Manhattan, Miami, or San Francisco.
The fans, too. If you want to see people excited for a lot of those bands, you see them in Des Moines, in Omaha, in Oklahoma City, in Milwaukee, in Cleveland. I think the energy, the relative simplicity, and the passion makes a lot of sense to "regular people," as opposed to highbrow avant garde art rock. (Not to belittle Midwesterners as incapable of highbrow music or for that matter, coastal elites as incapable of Big Dumb Rawk. But it seems to be a trend.)
So writers in Brooklyn or LA or Seattle or San Francisco? As we see in their writing about basically every other subject outside of music, so too do we see in music that they condescend toward the rest of us.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Sept 29, 2020 15:39:13 GMT
And, oddly enough on the flip side, many critics seem to hate prog rock because "it's too pretentious or faux intellectual."
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Sept 29, 2020 19:12:46 GMT
I had Hard Promises on through lunch and some work and realized as it ended that the only two songs I could remember anything about were "The Waiting" (which was the only song from the album I'd ever heard before) and "You Can Still Change Your Mind," which had just ended.
To be fair, it was on in the background. But the fact that it didn't stick with me at all without me taking notes doesn't bode well for my opinion of that album. That said, I heard nothing annoying or offensive to my sensibilities. It was just background music.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Sept 29, 2020 19:21:24 GMT
I'm listening to Hard Promises right now. I'm at "Something Big" which actually sounds to me like a lot of the more samey sounding Petty songs from the 90s and 00s. I've heard Woman in Love before, as I think it's one of those non hits that used to get played on classic rock stations.
I preface this by saying I'm breezing through these albums, Damn the Torpedoes was really good. But, for the others I'm feeling like it's the hits............and everything else.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Sept 29, 2020 19:24:13 GMT
I preface this by saying I'm breezing through these albums, Damn the Torpedoes was really good. But, for the others I'm feeling like it's the hits............and everything else. That's roughly where I am, too, with the caveat that the "everything else" is rarely or never bad. A lot of albums, a lot of bands--even good ones--seem to have more material I flat-out dislike. Here I'm finding a lot of casual "hey, that's pretty good," a decent amount (3-5 songs per album?) of "wow, I like that!" and then the hits that are obviously hits for a reason.
So that's my disagreement, if we have one: I don't hear anything to be ashamed of, for example. The worst of it is decent, even if unmemorable on first or second listen.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Sept 29, 2020 19:26:15 GMT
I preface this by saying I'm breezing through these albums, Damn the Torpedoes was really good. But, for the others I'm feeling like it's the hits............and everything else. That's roughly where I am, too, with the caveat that the "everything else" is rarely or never bad. A lot of albums, a lot of bands--even good ones--seem to have more material I flat-out dislike. Here I'm finding a lot of casual "hey, that's pretty good," a decent amount (3-5 songs per album?) of "wow, I like that!" and then the hits that are obviously hits for a reason.
So that's my disagreement, if we have one: I don't hear anything to be ashamed of, for example. The worst of it is decent, even if unmemorable on first or second listen.
I'd agree with that. And I could see some of these songs growing on me upon future listens. That's if I feel motivated to listen again.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Sept 29, 2020 19:30:19 GMT
That "repeated listens" idea occurred to me. That has happened to me countless times with countless bands. And those end up being things where when I'm talking to some friend about music, I'm advocating for some non-single album cut on some average album, and they're just not hearing it. But I, having heard this album 400 times, have developed a love for it. (Some of the Wild Honey songs, for example, would fit this description.)
That could easily happen with some of these.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Sept 29, 2020 19:38:32 GMT
That "repeated listens" idea occurred to me. That has happened to me countless times with countless bands. And those end up being things where when I'm talking to some friend about music, I'm advocating for some non-single album cut on some average album, and they're just not hearing it. But I, having heard this album 400 times, have developed a love for it. (Some of the Wild Honey songs, for example, would fit this description.)
That could easily happen with some of these.
I worked in radio briefly in my 20s, and we had a Music Director who always said that you need to listen to an album at least three times to really get a feel for it. In my experience, I've found that to be true. I wasn't exactly blown away the first time I listened to Dark Side of the Moon, Quadrophenia, or Pet Sounds after all. So, we'll see if I give some of these Petty albums further listens. I will say I'm finding them more enjoyable than the 90s and 00s albums (his post Greatest Hits catalog) that I own.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Sept 29, 2020 19:54:11 GMT
I'd agree with that general idea: it is almost common sense. For example, I've heard a kid has to try a food 14 times before they know whether they might like it. (I assume the number goes down with adults because we've tasted more flavors and textures by then so we have a point of reference.)
The same sentiment applies in "serious" (meaning what is called classical) music, for sure. There might be things that jump out here and there immediately, but anything that's challenging is, well, challenging.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Sept 29, 2020 20:09:31 GMT
The best thing about the length of these albums is that I can pretty easily give them a few listens to get more of a feel for them. So, I'll have to decide if I just want to keep plowing through the catalog or stop and try to get a better feel for the first four albums I've listened to.
|
|