Since this post is made up of other people's comments anyway, I figured it was OK that the concept was completely ripped off as well. My dear friend JMW, over at his blog A Special Way of Being Afraid, has been doing a concurrent Top 100 Albums list. For this week, he had the great idea of instead of waxing poetic about how wonderful his picks were, he would accompany his picks with negative Amazon.com reviews. I love it! So, I went over to Amazon and checked out all of the negative reviews for my latest picks on my Dez's Favorite 100 Rock/Pop Records, #'s 35-31. In the spirit of fairness, here are some alternate perspectives on the five records I discussed yesterday. And like JMW, I cleaned up some spelling and grammar..
35. Alice in Chains - Jar of Flies, 1994
I would swat six of these flies. They are no good. I know 2 hits came off of this: "No Excuses" and "I Stay Away," but they stink as well as "Whales and Wasp." It's a shame that they rushed this out after breaking through big time with Dirt but I guess the label knew best. The best on here is "Swing On This."
Dez: Or, alternatively, I liked this succinct review: "Don't buy this unless you are crazy."
34. The Tragically Hip - Road Apples, 1991
Dez: I am disappointed to report that there are no negative reviews of this record.
33. The Rolling Stones - Let It Bleed, 1969
The Rolling Stones suck. Always did and always will. Charlie Watts can't play, please. Let's be honest. He can't play drums. He's already dead sitting there. Keith Richard can't play lead guitar either. Mick Jagger just be quiet. Bill Wyman, go to sleep and Brian Jones, well he's ok. Unfortunally the only one worth it in that band died young.
32. Genesis - The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway, 1874
Am I the only one to believe that Peter Gabriel is a lousy singer? At least among the diehard prog rock fans who read these reviews, probably yes. But that guy was really terrible... Phil Collins was -still is!- so much better, but how can one say so without attracting a legion of pop hit ballad haters? Anyway, Lamb is lots of effect, little or no substance. I can picture poor bald Phil sitting behind the drums and thinking "man, I wish we would stop playing this crummy pretentious thing and play some good music for once, even if it does not have fifty chord changes per minute..."
31. Pink Floyd - Meddle, 1971
Lullabies for stoners. Man, this is a boring album. There's nothing offensively bad about it, but it's just all so achingly soulless. "One Of These Days." Oh! It's actually moderately catchy! For the first minute or so, that is. Dum badum badum badum badum badum etc... (and etc. etc. etc., and even etc.) I remember churning out something like this on the bass string of my guitar when I was 13. I didn't leave the tape running, though, so I didn't make millions from it..."Echoes." Oh! Duuuuude! A Floydian soundscape! Whooooaaaa! *toke* *toke* Well there were dozens of bands around this era who were doing better, bolder and stranger soundscapes and made PF's sonic wankery sound like Perry Cuomo in comparison...So overall it's hard to know what to make of this album. It's not melodic enough to be good pop, it definitely does not rock and as prog rock/ pyschedelia it's mediocre too. But still, you're not buying it for the music anyway but for the cool factor associated with this band.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
It's gonna be hard for me to not do this with the rest of my list. Those Amazon reviews can be really funny. Like the Pink Floyd review here. If "Lullabies for Stoners" hasn't been used as an album title by someone, it should be. Brilliant.
Yeah, that Pink Floyd review is awesome ("I played something like that on the bass string of my guitar when I was 13.") I also love the line in the review for JAR OF FLIES: "I would swat six of these flies." I've always loved reading Amazon's negative reviews. They are so much more fun that the praise.
There is a great book that I used to have, and I am so pissed I can't find it anymore. I must have lent it out years ago. But it was written by this music critic, and it was something like "The 100 Worst Albums", and it was hilarious. He would spend pages tearing into the likes of Billy Joel, Jethro Tull, etc. What a great book. I need to try and find it.
You loaned that book to me about ten years ago, but I'm pretty sure I gave it back to you. You're right, though...that was a fantastic book.
This was a brilliant idea, jmw.
Agree, this is a great feature, especially for those of us (cough cough) who aren't as enthused about some of these selections (and recall, with dazed sorrow, that "Low" placed in this list in the low 70s. So Low is WORSE than an ALICE IN CHAINS album? Hello? Is this America?)
I think the Meddle review is the best (toke toke). Dead on. I've always thought Pink Floyd was a band that could not be listened to if you were sober or over 18.
Anciant, keep in mind that the list is presented as mostly a subjective list (vs. objective). While I can defend each of the selections as objectively great on some level, that is not the intent. I'm not arguing that Alice in Chains put out a more worthy record than LOW, but I am saying that the Alice in Chains record hits me in a more immediate way and I get more out of that record than I do LOW. And it is all relative anyway. The fact is, considering how large my overall collection is, I worship every record that makes my Top 100.
If I were hired by Rolling Stone magazine or some such publication to draft a Top 100 Rock Records list, I would not make it so personal and I would try and look more at influence, importance, any sort of objective criteria I could find. In that case, LOW would be much higher, and Alice in Chains and Thomas Dolby would not be anywhere near the list. Nor would the record that will occupy my #3 slot. And I would feel obligated to list most of the Beatles discography on there, vs. only the two Beatles records that made my Top 100.
So, no, LOW is not a "worse" album than JAR OF FLIES. I just don't enjoy it quite as much. So the placement on the list is based on how much I enjoy the list (but with at least some objective consideration for it being a genuinely great record). And then my commentary is just there to try and explain the record a bit, and maybe to encourage readers to check it out if it sounds interesting to them.
I hope that explains the list a little bit better. On the other hand, please continue questioning some selection if you disagree. That is also one of the whole points of "listing" things. It should jump start good debate and discussion. It would be a boring exercise if everyone agreed with my selections.
Well, uhm, Dez, no music criticism is objective, nor can it be. All issues of taste are subjective. The question is to explain the bases of taste and to determine what, if any universalities can be drawn from said bases. I mean, just cause a bunch of people agree that Pet Sounds or Sgt Peppers is the Best Album ever doesn't mean it is. It just means the critical consensus is that way. But tastes change, and who can really know what will be listened to still in 50 years?
Except this: it won't be Alice In Chains.
No it will not.
OK. But in your view, can any album be said to be "better" than any other with certainty, or is it all just subjective? I know we've had these discussions before, but I believe that you can come to some criteria to be able to say that REVOLVER is better than Britney Spears' latest. And beyond just saying it is a matter of taste.
I know you've always had a problem with these lists. And you have good reasons. But I think you can make a list of favorites, and at least be able to defend your choices as worthwhile selections. Nobody says these lists are definitive, but they offer opportunities to share good tunes with each other and spark fun debates and discussions.
At the same time, I feel like you can intelligently make these lists and defend the choices with a degree of "objective" greatness, be it pointing out innovations, instrumental prowess, interesting songwriting, catchy hooks, etc.
Post a Comment