Sunday, April 6, 2014
Thursday, April 3, 2014
Dez Record Guides: Jeff Beck
What makes him, in my view, the greatest living electric guitarist? His greatness is not as immediately obvious as other guitar icons. But if you listen closely, his tone, his feel for notes (nobody bends like Beck), his complete mastery of the entire instrument (and I mean entire instrument, when I saw him live I saw him play most of a song with a slide on the strings just above the pick-ups…nobody does that), his use of effects, his placement and choices…just unmatched. He can play fast and impress you with technique, but he often doesn’t go that route. He is much more interested in sounds and textures that he can conjure than just playing a fast solo. I saw Beck and Stevie Ray Vaughan on a co-headlining tour in 1989. At the time I came away thinking that SRV definitely bested him. I didn’t really know what to think of the Beck set. First of all, it was about twice as loud as SRV’s. He works with volume too. I love SRV, and to my young ears his speed, grace and bombast were more obvious than Beck's talents. Now, though, I would rather listen to Jeff Beck play over SRV nine times out of ten.
He has always had a tough time keeping groups together. He notoriously cannot keep singers around. Some of the music he plays on (his own or as a guest for others) is honestly mediocre, but even there, his playing can be genius. It will be a completely mediocre song, he will step up and solo and blow you away, then step back and the song becomes mediocre once again. He is a cagey fellow with a wicked sense of humor. He enjoys restoring classic cars as much as playing, and will disappear from the music scene for years at a time to tinker in his garage. When he was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame as a member of The Yardbirds (years later he went in again on his own), he gave the funniest speech I have ever heard given at the Rockhall inductions. “I should be honored to be up here but I’m really not. They kicked me out of the band (turning to his former bandmates and Clapton and Page), so f*** you guys.”
Note: Jeff Beck was the lead guitarist for The Yardbirds from 1965-66, taking over after Eric Clapton left. There was a brief period where Beck and Jimmy Page shared lead duties, but then Beck was sacked. This discography begins after the Yardbirds.
Truth (Jeff Beck Group) (1968) ****
Beck-Ola (Jeff Beck Group) (1969) ****
Beck’s original line-up for his Group is the most celebrated, featuring Ron Wood on bass, Nicky Hopkins on piano and a young, gritty singer by the name of Rod Stewart. They had the chops and attitude to match the other classic rock groups of the day, like Zeppelin, Cream or The Who. But the Achilles Heel was lack of songwriting. Both records are full of covers, although they are appropriately turbo-charged, much like the blues numbers on early Zeppelin records. Truth, especially, is held up as a foundational record for hard rock and metal, although I personally prefer the ramshackle, offhanded, heavy yet loose Beck-Ola. With some more time and stronger material, this group could have been one of the giants.
Rough and Ready (Jeff Beck Group) (1971) **
Jeff Beck Group (Jeff Beck Group) (1972) **
After the disintegration of the first line-up, Beck organized mach II of his Group. A bit more faceless, although Max Middleton brings some songwriting and a jazzier influence to the table. It is a shame that this material is generally so mediocre and features vocals from third rate Robert Plant wannabes Alex Ligertwood and Bobby Tench, because Beck’s playing is more adventurous and interesting on these records than on the more celebrated first two releases under the Jeff Beck Group banner. They also explore some jazzier and funkier directions vs. the blues rock of the previous two records. “Ice Cream Cakes” from JBG is the perfect example of great yet crappy. A funky groove is ruined by generic cock rock lyrics and vocals, while Beck is throwing out killer licks and using subtle feedback brilliantly. I’d probably give these records at least an additional star each if they would just strip off the vocal tracks.
Beck, Bogert & Appice (Beck, Bogert & Appice) (1973) *
Live in Japan (live) (Beck, Bogert & Appice) (1973) *
Beck enters the power trio sweepstakes to leaden, dull hard rock effect.
Blow By Blow (1975) *****
Wired (1976) *****
Jeff Beck with the Jan Hammer Group Live (live) (with Jan Hammer Group) (1977) **
There and Back (1980) ***
Beck always had problems with vocalists, who tended to just get in the way. Even when it was Rod Stewart. So the solution is obvious - jettison the singer altogether. Beck would hardly ever work regularly with a vocalist again. This is his most celebrated period, and Blow By Blow is an undisputed fusion masterpiece. It all comes together on BBB, Beck’s brilliant tones and playing, and a backing band that matches his complexity, along with 5th Beatle George Martin producing. This stands up with any of the essential records of jazz/rock fusion. While most essential entries in that genre come primarily from the jazz side of the ledger, Beck approaches it from the rock side. “Scatterbrain,” “Cause We’ve Ended As Lovers” (the solo at the end is just gorgeous)and the immortal “Freeway Jam” are Beck’s most lasting works. Wired is almost as good, less jazzy but with a harder edge and much funkier. His live hook up with Jan Hammer and his group is pretty bad, but it is all Hammer’s fault, with his cheeseball bumblebee keyboard lines. Even Beck’s brilliant playing can’t save most of that record.
Flash (1985) *
Beck tries for mainstream rock/pop/hair metal success, and the results are predictably bad. Here he has a legion of faceless hair metal vocalists/screamers to get the songs on the radio. Only his gorgeous hit cover of “People Get Ready” with Rod Stewart on vocals is worth salvaging.
Jeff Beck’s Guitar Shop (1989) ****
I have spent many hours of my life listening to and thinking about this record. It is either a subtle, quirky masterpiece or a missed opportunity. Critics seem to be similarly split. Hooking up with keyboardist Tony Hymas and drummer Terry Bozio, you’d think it would be all hard rock bombast, but instead it is an eclectic mix of styles (reggae here, atmospherics there, hard rock and then a ballad…) Beck is uncharacteristically restrained on many tracks too, just playing fragments and laying back. Is he a bit timid since he has been out of the game for several years, or is he so confident that he doesn’t need to wow you every second? That is the thing, the record never really answers that or any other questions. So, I’ve decided that I love it. The fragmentary “Where Were You” may be the most beautiful thing Beck has ever recorded.
Beckology (compilation box set) (1989) ***
Frankie’s House (soundtrack) (1992) **
Crazy Legs (1993) **
Best of Beck (compilation) (1995) ****
The high profile he gained from Guitar Shop (and the accompanying co-headlining tour with Stevie Ray Vaughan) turned out to be a false dawn, at least for another decade or so. He was relatively quiet in the 90’s, recording an atmospheric soundtrack (Frankie’s House) and a note for note covers tribute album of the songs of Gene Vincent (with Beck meticulously recreating the solos of his hero Cliff Gallup) (Crazy Legs). Other than that, it was only a couple of compilations. Box set Beckology is fantastic for his early career with The Yardbirds and the Groups, but misses the mark when covering the fusion era, while Best of Beck is a necessarily scattershot single disc sampler that nonetheless does the trick for neophytes. The primary downside to both of these collections is that they were released before what is arguably his most exciting period.
Who Else! (1999) ****
You Had It Coming (2001) *****
Jeff (2003) ***
Live at BB King Blues Club (live) (2006) ***
Live in Tokyo ’99 (live) (1999/2006) ****
Official Bootleg USA ’06 (live) (2006/2007) ***
Live at Ronnie Scott’s (live) (2008) *****
Emotion & Commotion (2010) ***
Live and Exclusive From the Grammy Museum (live) (2010) ***
Rock and Roll Party Honoring Les Paul (live) (2011) ***
From 1999 forward, Jeff Beck has had his most prolific and many could argue (I would) his most interesting and daring period. Emerging from seeming oblivion, he came back with Who Else!, a record that explores modern electronic music with his guitar slashing, stabbing and darting every which way. He sounds completely at home in this completely modern environment. Those first three studio records form a trilogy of sorts and are a peak only matched by Blow By Blow and Wired. I think You Had It Coming is the most daring and best of them all. Live at Ronnie Scott’s is the definitive modern live Beck and is probably the best place to start for this period. But, since he is not shy about playing around with effects in the studio, in the live setting he is somewhat more limited in the sounds that he can conjure. So the Ronnie Scott’s set is not as sonically interesting or diverse as those studio efforts from 1999-2003. On the other hand, the band he has for the Ronnie Scott's set is out of this world good, and the setlist is fantastic.
ABOVE: Here is "Scatterbrain" from Live at Ronnie Scott's (also available on DVD)
Bottom Line: Beck has one of the more challenging discographies because of his own sporadic work habits, his inability to keep steady line-ups together beyond a couple of records, and the varying degree of quality of his material. While his playing is almost always brilliant, it is sometimes above the material. Truth is essential early blues rock (although I prefer the more fun Beck-Ola) from his initial Jeff Beck Group. Blow By Blow is his masterpiece and one of the finest fusion records ever made, and follow-up Wired is also essential. Who Else! and You Had It Coming are musts, and Live at Ronnie Scott’s is his best live outing. After you try those, head to Guitar Shop. None of the compilations do him justice simply because they are all pre-1999.
Monday, March 17, 2014
Rockhall Called Out on Its Own BS
Anyone who has followed Rock and Roll Hall of Fame news this year has witnessed a spectacle of dysfunction. When KISS's induction was finally announced, hell truly had frozen over. The KISS haters were still out in force. Blowhard critic Dave Marsh (who famously while on the Nominating Committee swore he would do everything in his power to keep KISS out) was still railing against reality this week. He asked readers of his blog to list bands not in the Hall but still better than KISS, inspiring invective from Gene Simmons, who questioned everything from Marsh's credentials as a critic to his penis size.
The drama really got started early on when it was announced that only the original line up (Simmons, Paul Stanley, Ace Frehley, Peter Criss) would be inducted. Frehley and Criss left/were booted in the early 80's, and since then Stanley and Simmons have soldiered on with various replacement drummers and lead guitarists. Soon after the announcement of their induction, all four original members seemed open to performing together at the ceremony. But nothing is easy with KISS. Simmons and Stanley soon started making noise about wanting to honor all eras, past and current members. Ace and Peter refused to perform with current members (understandably so, as Tommy Thayer and Eric Singer both don the make-up of Ace and Peter, respectively, it would be a bit ridiculous with multiple Catmen and Space Aces sharing the same stage). Gene and Paul finally declared there would be no performance at all.
ABOVE: Ace and Peter's perspective - They do not want to perform with current members of KISS at the ceremony who wear their make-up. It was Ace Frehley who first broke the news that the original KISS would not be performing at the ceremony. In an act of kindness, he broke the news in an open letter right before tickets went on sale for the ceremony at Barclay's Arena, saving KISS fans lots of money.
My take:
If the Hall had been consistent all of these years, then they would be right to only induct the original four. It is the 70's work that got them here, they aren't going into the Hall of Fame for "Lick It Up". (No, it is the much deeper and mature work of their early days, with tunes like "Cold Gin," "Hotter Than Hell" and "Love Gun" that really made the impact).
So if the Hall treated every band this way (as in their stated position on the KISS issue: we only want members inducted from the most important eras), then fine. But that is not the way they have done business in the past. When the Grateful Dead went in, they asked the band who should go in. The Dead got about 257 people in, including lyricist (but non-band member) Robert Hunter and people who played very minor roles in the Dead's history. When Metallica went in, new bassist Robert Trujillo (who had played on one irrelevant album) was inducted. The Red Hot Chili Peppers got in most of their guitarists, some of whom were in the band for a short period of time during less significant periods. (On the other hand, fairly important members of Fleetwood Mac and Jefferson Airplane were omitted). Point is, there has been no rhyme or reason for how the Hall decides who will and who will not go in for any given band.
Paul Stanley's point is that while Nirvana's pre-Dave Grohl drummer (Chad something, who was in the band for two years and only played on Bleach) will be inducted this year with the rest of Nirvana, Bruce Kulick, Eric Carr, Tommy Thayer and Eric Singer are all being passed over in the KISS induction. These guys all played with KISS for about a decade or more. Why Robert Trujillo for Metallica but none of these guys, who played substantially larger roles in KISS than journeyman Trujillo has in Metallica? Why was The Grateful Dead asked to more or less submit a list of inductees, yet Simmons and Stanley were never consulted?
It has also come to light that the Hall told KISS that they could only perform in make up and only with the original line up. The Hall has never dictated a dress code to anyone else as a condition of performing, or told them who they could bring with them onstage. (Recall the notorious Blondie induction, where Debbie Harry performed with her hired guns, as some of the inducted/former members of Blondie heckled her from the audience. Yet the Hall did not tell her she could only perform with inducted members.)
The Hall has also supposedly restricted each member of KISS's acceptance speech to four minutes. As far as I know, that is unprecedented as well (although some speeches from the past could have benefited from a time limit). Undoubtedly this is in part due to very public criticism from Simmons and Stanley so far of this whole process, and the Hall wants to avoid prolonged rants from them at the self-congratulatory ceremony.
ABOVE: Gene and Paul's perspective - All significant members of KISS should be inducted, and they only want to perform if current members Tommy Thayer and Eric Singer are up there as well. Ace and Peter are significant historically to the band as co-founders, but are impossible to work with. Also, Gene insists that critic Dave Marsh is not well endowed.
In sum, I understand Ace and Peter's refusal to perform with posers like Thayer and Singer in the make-up and "characters" that they created (but the rights are now owned by KISS, Inc., which is Simmons and Stanley). They are the only good guys in this fiasco. Gene and Paul, as usual, are a-holes and have been basking in the public war of words with both their former bandmates and the Hall itself. They should just suck it up and play with Ace and Peter for one night for the fans. (Simmons says it is like being honored with your ex-wife but being unable to bring your current wife to the ceremonies). But they also are right with pointing out the Hall's hypocrisy and inconsistencies in inductions. If the Hall had been consistent in inducting only crucial members of bands all along, I would get it. But they haven't.
This reeks of sour grapes and reluctant acceptance of KISS, never a critical favorite, into the cool kids club. The Hall accepts them with disdain, demonstrated by their unprecedented stubbornness and "conditions" that simply have not applied to more critically beloved inductees. One thing is for sure, I will be interested in hearing the truncated speeches from Ace, Peter, Paul and Gene, as the sparks will be flying in all directions. At each other. At the Hall. At the critical establishment. It will be entertaining, for sure.
ABOVE: Dave Marsh's perspective - KISS sucks. Marsh is notorious for trying to influence the Hall's decisions. A hater of everything West Coast (although KISS hails from New York), he argued against The Doors, The Grateful Dead...many significant West Coast bands. Along with KISS, he is also a well known vocal despiser of Journey. Steve Perry of Journey has called Marsh an "odd little man" who tries to rewrite rock and roll history.
UPDATE: it turns out that early Nirvana drummer Chad Channing will not be inducted after all. He mistook an invitation to the ceremony as notification that he would be inducted. In a move that exudes class, the powers that be informed him via a curt text message to Nirvana management along the lines of "please tell Chad..." He had been telling news sources that he was being inducted along with the classic line up.
The drama really got started early on when it was announced that only the original line up (Simmons, Paul Stanley, Ace Frehley, Peter Criss) would be inducted. Frehley and Criss left/were booted in the early 80's, and since then Stanley and Simmons have soldiered on with various replacement drummers and lead guitarists. Soon after the announcement of their induction, all four original members seemed open to performing together at the ceremony. But nothing is easy with KISS. Simmons and Stanley soon started making noise about wanting to honor all eras, past and current members. Ace and Peter refused to perform with current members (understandably so, as Tommy Thayer and Eric Singer both don the make-up of Ace and Peter, respectively, it would be a bit ridiculous with multiple Catmen and Space Aces sharing the same stage). Gene and Paul finally declared there would be no performance at all.
My take:
If the Hall had been consistent all of these years, then they would be right to only induct the original four. It is the 70's work that got them here, they aren't going into the Hall of Fame for "Lick It Up". (No, it is the much deeper and mature work of their early days, with tunes like "Cold Gin," "Hotter Than Hell" and "Love Gun" that really made the impact).
So if the Hall treated every band this way (as in their stated position on the KISS issue: we only want members inducted from the most important eras), then fine. But that is not the way they have done business in the past. When the Grateful Dead went in, they asked the band who should go in. The Dead got about 257 people in, including lyricist (but non-band member) Robert Hunter and people who played very minor roles in the Dead's history. When Metallica went in, new bassist Robert Trujillo (who had played on one irrelevant album) was inducted. The Red Hot Chili Peppers got in most of their guitarists, some of whom were in the band for a short period of time during less significant periods. (On the other hand, fairly important members of Fleetwood Mac and Jefferson Airplane were omitted). Point is, there has been no rhyme or reason for how the Hall decides who will and who will not go in for any given band.
Paul Stanley's point is that while Nirvana's pre-Dave Grohl drummer (Chad something, who was in the band for two years and only played on Bleach) will be inducted this year with the rest of Nirvana, Bruce Kulick, Eric Carr, Tommy Thayer and Eric Singer are all being passed over in the KISS induction. These guys all played with KISS for about a decade or more. Why Robert Trujillo for Metallica but none of these guys, who played substantially larger roles in KISS than journeyman Trujillo has in Metallica? Why was The Grateful Dead asked to more or less submit a list of inductees, yet Simmons and Stanley were never consulted?
It has also come to light that the Hall told KISS that they could only perform in make up and only with the original line up. The Hall has never dictated a dress code to anyone else as a condition of performing, or told them who they could bring with them onstage. (Recall the notorious Blondie induction, where Debbie Harry performed with her hired guns, as some of the inducted/former members of Blondie heckled her from the audience. Yet the Hall did not tell her she could only perform with inducted members.)
The Hall has also supposedly restricted each member of KISS's acceptance speech to four minutes. As far as I know, that is unprecedented as well (although some speeches from the past could have benefited from a time limit). Undoubtedly this is in part due to very public criticism from Simmons and Stanley so far of this whole process, and the Hall wants to avoid prolonged rants from them at the self-congratulatory ceremony.
In sum, I understand Ace and Peter's refusal to perform with posers like Thayer and Singer in the make-up and "characters" that they created (but the rights are now owned by KISS, Inc., which is Simmons and Stanley). They are the only good guys in this fiasco. Gene and Paul, as usual, are a-holes and have been basking in the public war of words with both their former bandmates and the Hall itself. They should just suck it up and play with Ace and Peter for one night for the fans. (Simmons says it is like being honored with your ex-wife but being unable to bring your current wife to the ceremonies). But they also are right with pointing out the Hall's hypocrisy and inconsistencies in inductions. If the Hall had been consistent in inducting only crucial members of bands all along, I would get it. But they haven't.
This reeks of sour grapes and reluctant acceptance of KISS, never a critical favorite, into the cool kids club. The Hall accepts them with disdain, demonstrated by their unprecedented stubbornness and "conditions" that simply have not applied to more critically beloved inductees. One thing is for sure, I will be interested in hearing the truncated speeches from Ace, Peter, Paul and Gene, as the sparks will be flying in all directions. At each other. At the Hall. At the critical establishment. It will be entertaining, for sure.
UPDATE: it turns out that early Nirvana drummer Chad Channing will not be inducted after all. He mistook an invitation to the ceremony as notification that he would be inducted. In a move that exudes class, the powers that be informed him via a curt text message to Nirvana management along the lines of "please tell Chad..." He had been telling news sources that he was being inducted along with the classic line up.
Saturday, February 22, 2014
My Kids and Music
One of the more pressing issues when looking to the years ahead with my daughters is: A. will they be big music fans, and B. if so, what will they be into? The massive implications of these matters are so obvious that I hardly need to spell them out for you here.
So far, I think my eight month old has more of a natural affinity for music than my 4 year old. She seems to get excited when I put on a variety of tunes in the house. Hard to tell, though, since she's still so young.
I've got a better idea with my 4 year old. She of course loves the music of the classic Disney films that she watches. She especially enjoys the 'Lady and the Tramp' soundtrack, which makes sense. That was a favorite film of hers for a long time. But I am more interested in her response to real music. Mozart worked well when she was younger to get her to sleep.
Honestly, she has been fairly indifferent to most of my music. It is on a lot in the house, and I don't see much response to it. There have been two recent exceptions, though. The other day I was listening to some Peter Murphy (singer for goth originators, Bauhaus. Although, we were listening to his more pop oriented solo work). She said "Daddy, this is scary music. Turn it off." I guess that makes sense, Murphy being the man who wrote "Bela Lugosi's Dead." On the other end of the spectrum, she absolutely lights up and starts dancing around the kitchen whenever I put on some Roxy Music (see post below). It is like a light switch. Her favorite non-Disney song seems to be Roxy's "Both Ends Burning." I put that song on and she gets up on a chair in the kitchen and dances like crazy. She will then jump down and run around the room. It seems to have the same effect of her eating two pounds of sugar. So far, that has been the only song to get that reaction. But almost any Roxy Music (even some of the artrock earlier period) will at least get her head bobbing.
So far, I think my eight month old has more of a natural affinity for music than my 4 year old. She seems to get excited when I put on a variety of tunes in the house. Hard to tell, though, since she's still so young.
I've got a better idea with my 4 year old. She of course loves the music of the classic Disney films that she watches. She especially enjoys the 'Lady and the Tramp' soundtrack, which makes sense. That was a favorite film of hers for a long time. But I am more interested in her response to real music. Mozart worked well when she was younger to get her to sleep.
Honestly, she has been fairly indifferent to most of my music. It is on a lot in the house, and I don't see much response to it. There have been two recent exceptions, though. The other day I was listening to some Peter Murphy (singer for goth originators, Bauhaus. Although, we were listening to his more pop oriented solo work). She said "Daddy, this is scary music. Turn it off." I guess that makes sense, Murphy being the man who wrote "Bela Lugosi's Dead." On the other end of the spectrum, she absolutely lights up and starts dancing around the kitchen whenever I put on some Roxy Music (see post below). It is like a light switch. Her favorite non-Disney song seems to be Roxy's "Both Ends Burning." I put that song on and she gets up on a chair in the kitchen and dances like crazy. She will then jump down and run around the room. It seems to have the same effect of her eating two pounds of sugar. So far, that has been the only song to get that reaction. But almost any Roxy Music (even some of the artrock earlier period) will at least get her head bobbing.
Friday, February 14, 2014
Dez Record Guides: Roxy Music
You know, this is why I still get jazzed about music. No matter how much you think know, there is always more. I, of course, have heard of Roxy Music for some time. I've owned a hits collection for years. But for for some reason it just recently clicked, and I have been obsessed with their music for weeks. I cannot get enough and I've got that feeling of fresh musical discovery that honestly I have not had in a long time. It started when I got into Brian Eno's 70's solo work. After obsessing over some of those records for awhile, I remembered that he was in Roxy Music early on, so I decided pull out that old Roxy Music hits collection that I had never really cared for. Wow, these are great songs! Before I knew it, I had all of their studio albums and was delving into each of their considerable charms. It has been a steady Roxy diet ever since. After much listening and research, I think I've got enough of a handle on their material to present a good and balanced Dez Record Guide, but this is a first for the series. All of the others have been for bands or artists that I have been a fan of for years, this is a relatively new obsession. But I can deliver the same hard hitting objectivity that you have come to expect from the Dez Record Guides. And if it inspires any of you to pick up a copy of Country Life, then mission accomplished.
To understand the breadth of Roxy Music's stylistic changes over a ten year period of recording, just check out the genres that Wikipedia lists in their entry: "art rock, glam rock, protopunk, progressive rock, new wave, soft rock." Within one decade, the band can be categorized as "protopunk" and then "soft rock," and many things in between. They were one of the first rock bands of the 70's to focus on style and image as key components of their overall package, with singer/songwriter Bryan Ferry usually front and center. Fortunately, they also had some incredible music to make it worthwhile. Bryan Ferry is one of those great expressive singers, emotional yet cynical, and he developed a supercool croon in the later years. There is, of course, one Brian Eno, who was in Roxy for their first two records until leaving/being pushed out, due to creative tensions with Ferry. Phil Manzanera is a dazzling guitarist, capable of making those stylistic jumps with ease. Roxy Music can generally be divided into two eras: 1972-74 they were more experimental and art rock/glam. From 1975's Siren on, they began working more within the pop music of the time, albeit often brilliantly. Their influence is immense, whether on their contemporaries who also in turn influenced them (Bowie, Elton John) or their New Wave and early 80's progeny. The Cars, Depeche Mode and Morrissey all have cited Roxy as an influence, but none more than Duran Duran, who (successfully, I think) tried to pick up their mantle and carry it forward. Listening to Roxy Music, you can really get a better idea of what the often misunderstood Duran Duran were really trying to do, at least in the 80's.
Roxy Music (1972) ***
Some bands burst out of the gate fully formed on their debut, while others are still trying to find their way. With Roxy Music, I think, it is the latter. The raw talent of Ferry, Eno, Manzanera and the others guarantee that this is at least good and interesting, but they are still trying to find an identity. The creative tension between Ferry and Eno is present from the beginning, with Eno trying to pull the band into more experimental territory, but that tension would not fully (and often brilliantly) explode until the sophomore effort.
For Your Pleasure (1973) *****
Brian Eno's last record with Roxy Music, and it does present the intriguing question of what would they have done had Ferry and Eno been able to coexist for a couple of more records. But what is here is a thrilling creative tug of war (often within the same song: "The Bogus Man" and the title track) between Eno's desire for sonic experiments and Ferry's more grounded leanings. They manage to experiment with sounds but still, for the most part, keep it very listenable. The nine minute groove of "The Bogus Man" is fantastic, and I wish they had done more of this later, although it is probably heavily Eno.
Creative tensions between Brian Eno (ABOVE) and Bryan Ferry became too much to bear, so Eno was pushed out. He's done alright since, releasing his own pioneering records and helping to create entire genres of music, collaborating with giants such as Bowie, U2 and Talking Heads, and becoming one of the premier producers in the business
Stranded (1973) ***1/2
I know that critical consensus would have this rated much higher (even Eno, although he had just been booted from the band, feels it is their best), I just haven't been able to connect with a lot of this material. Opener "Street Life" rocks hard, "Amazona" is a mini artrock/funk fusion masterpiece, and of course "Mother of Pearl" is one of Roxy's greatest songs, featuring Ferry at his lyrical best. But "Song For Europe" and the eight minute "Psalm" sound over-wrought to me, even by Ferry's standards.
Country Life (1974) *****
The culmination of everything great about Roxy Music’s arty/proggish early period. The playing is dazzling, it is their strongest single set of songs, and the ability that they have to play in a multitude of styles and moods is impressive. What really stands out to me, though, is the artrock/progressive ambition that is grounded by an almost savage rock and roll energy at times (“Out of the Blue,” “The Thrill of It All”). “Bitter Sweet” would sound at home on Lou Reed’s Berlin. Overall, a remarkable record and one of the standout records of the 70’s.
Siren (1975) ****
I’ll use the word “remarkable” again, but this time regarding their stylistic shift. What they lose in their experimentalism (although they never completely drop it), they gain in a full embrace of some of the pop sounds of the day. That may not sound as appealing as their daring arty days, but in the hands of Roxy and especially with Bryan Ferry’s evolving cynical romantic sophisticate persona, it works beautifully. It also helps that this is a killer set of songs from start to finish. Singles “Both Ends Burning” and “Love Is the Drug” (“Love is the drug and I need a fix” croons Ferry) stand out as two of the greatest pop/rock singles of the era.
ABOVE: The album cover for Siren is typical of their arty and racy artwork. That is model Jerry Hall, who dated Byran Ferry for awhile before running off with Mick Jagger. Ferry was romantically linked with several supermodels and centerfolds throughout the 70's.
Viva! (live) (1976/1973-75) ***
Roxy was about to go on an extended hiatus so members could explore various solo or other group projects, so in one sense this is clearly a placeholder release, a live hodgepodge covering about a three year period of performances. But if you just take it at face value, it is an awesome live record. While only “If There Is Something” and “Pyjamarama” can really be said to have improved upon their studio counterparts and the back-up singers caterwauling on “Both Ends Burning” kind of ruin an otherwise burning version of the song, the whole thing has a driving energy and the song choice is interesting. My only complaint is that making it a double would have allowed it to really be a definitive statement of the band up to this point. As is, it is just a kick-ass live album.
Manifesto (1979) ***
I don’t get why this record is generally so disliked (although critic Robert Christgau is a noted fan). It essentially picks up where Siren left off, albeit with lesser compositions and it has much slicker production. But it captures the disco pop times pretty well, I think, while still maintaining some rock and roll spirit.
Flesh + Blood (1980) **
Rather bloodless and is the most overproduced sounding record in their whole catalogue, this is where Roxy sounds, for the first time, uninspired. The record as a whole is not good, but the three singles stand apart and are fantastic, especially “Same Old Scene,” whose spirit and mood Duran Duran made a career out of trying to replicate between about 1981-88.
Avalon (1982) *****
Bryan Ferry perfects his sophisticate cynical/romantic croon and also sets the template for his solo career, although he never came close to matching Avalon on his own. It is a subtle record, one that can easily fade into the background if you let it. But it very much rewards close listening. Avalon sets a late night mood that is unrivaled, and every track reveals additional charms within the sonic details upon repeated listening. For what it is trying to do, I find it flawless.
ABOVE: After Roxy Music's demise, Bryan Ferry continued on with a successful solo career, further developing his suave crooner shtick
Heart Still Beating (live) (1990/1982) **1/2
Concerto (live) (2001/1979) NR
Roxy Music Live (live) (2003/2001) NR
Since breaking up after Avalon, they have released some archival live records, including one chronicling the 2001 reunion tour. Heart Still Beating contains some interesting Roxified covers (Neil Young’s “Like a Hurricane,” John Lennon’s “Jealous Guy”) and features some inspired playing from Manzanera, but it doesn’t really add anything to the legacy and considering it is from the Avalon tour, it has some curious omissions.
Compilations:
Roxy Music has quite a few compilations out there, many of which combine Roxy Music with Bryan Ferry solo tracks, doing neither full justice. Roxy Music is rather unique in that while their albums all are cohesive and in some respects are greater wholes than their individual parts, they were also a killer singles band and individual songs can stand alone. So, a very good compilation could do them justice. I just haven’t come across a satisfactory one yet.
Solo work:
Many members have had substantial solo careers or other projects. Brian Eno, of course, is BRIAN ENO and deserves his own entry so I can’t really delve into him here. Bryan Ferry released a lot of solo material as well, and while I like some individual songs of his, overall I think it pales next to Roxy’s output. Phil Manzanera was also quite active outside of Roxy Music.
To understand the breadth of Roxy Music's stylistic changes over a ten year period of recording, just check out the genres that Wikipedia lists in their entry: "art rock, glam rock, protopunk, progressive rock, new wave, soft rock." Within one decade, the band can be categorized as "protopunk" and then "soft rock," and many things in between. They were one of the first rock bands of the 70's to focus on style and image as key components of their overall package, with singer/songwriter Bryan Ferry usually front and center. Fortunately, they also had some incredible music to make it worthwhile. Bryan Ferry is one of those great expressive singers, emotional yet cynical, and he developed a supercool croon in the later years. There is, of course, one Brian Eno, who was in Roxy for their first two records until leaving/being pushed out, due to creative tensions with Ferry. Phil Manzanera is a dazzling guitarist, capable of making those stylistic jumps with ease. Roxy Music can generally be divided into two eras: 1972-74 they were more experimental and art rock/glam. From 1975's Siren on, they began working more within the pop music of the time, albeit often brilliantly. Their influence is immense, whether on their contemporaries who also in turn influenced them (Bowie, Elton John) or their New Wave and early 80's progeny. The Cars, Depeche Mode and Morrissey all have cited Roxy as an influence, but none more than Duran Duran, who (successfully, I think) tried to pick up their mantle and carry it forward. Listening to Roxy Music, you can really get a better idea of what the often misunderstood Duran Duran were really trying to do, at least in the 80's.
Roxy Music (1972) ***
Some bands burst out of the gate fully formed on their debut, while others are still trying to find their way. With Roxy Music, I think, it is the latter. The raw talent of Ferry, Eno, Manzanera and the others guarantee that this is at least good and interesting, but they are still trying to find an identity. The creative tension between Ferry and Eno is present from the beginning, with Eno trying to pull the band into more experimental territory, but that tension would not fully (and often brilliantly) explode until the sophomore effort.
For Your Pleasure (1973) *****
Brian Eno's last record with Roxy Music, and it does present the intriguing question of what would they have done had Ferry and Eno been able to coexist for a couple of more records. But what is here is a thrilling creative tug of war (often within the same song: "The Bogus Man" and the title track) between Eno's desire for sonic experiments and Ferry's more grounded leanings. They manage to experiment with sounds but still, for the most part, keep it very listenable. The nine minute groove of "The Bogus Man" is fantastic, and I wish they had done more of this later, although it is probably heavily Eno.
Stranded (1973) ***1/2
I know that critical consensus would have this rated much higher (even Eno, although he had just been booted from the band, feels it is their best), I just haven't been able to connect with a lot of this material. Opener "Street Life" rocks hard, "Amazona" is a mini artrock/funk fusion masterpiece, and of course "Mother of Pearl" is one of Roxy's greatest songs, featuring Ferry at his lyrical best. But "Song For Europe" and the eight minute "Psalm" sound over-wrought to me, even by Ferry's standards.
Country Life (1974) *****
The culmination of everything great about Roxy Music’s arty/proggish early period. The playing is dazzling, it is their strongest single set of songs, and the ability that they have to play in a multitude of styles and moods is impressive. What really stands out to me, though, is the artrock/progressive ambition that is grounded by an almost savage rock and roll energy at times (“Out of the Blue,” “The Thrill of It All”). “Bitter Sweet” would sound at home on Lou Reed’s Berlin. Overall, a remarkable record and one of the standout records of the 70’s.
Siren (1975) ****
I’ll use the word “remarkable” again, but this time regarding their stylistic shift. What they lose in their experimentalism (although they never completely drop it), they gain in a full embrace of some of the pop sounds of the day. That may not sound as appealing as their daring arty days, but in the hands of Roxy and especially with Bryan Ferry’s evolving cynical romantic sophisticate persona, it works beautifully. It also helps that this is a killer set of songs from start to finish. Singles “Both Ends Burning” and “Love Is the Drug” (“Love is the drug and I need a fix” croons Ferry) stand out as two of the greatest pop/rock singles of the era.
Viva! (live) (1976/1973-75) ***
Roxy was about to go on an extended hiatus so members could explore various solo or other group projects, so in one sense this is clearly a placeholder release, a live hodgepodge covering about a three year period of performances. But if you just take it at face value, it is an awesome live record. While only “If There Is Something” and “Pyjamarama” can really be said to have improved upon their studio counterparts and the back-up singers caterwauling on “Both Ends Burning” kind of ruin an otherwise burning version of the song, the whole thing has a driving energy and the song choice is interesting. My only complaint is that making it a double would have allowed it to really be a definitive statement of the band up to this point. As is, it is just a kick-ass live album.
Manifesto (1979) ***
I don’t get why this record is generally so disliked (although critic Robert Christgau is a noted fan). It essentially picks up where Siren left off, albeit with lesser compositions and it has much slicker production. But it captures the disco pop times pretty well, I think, while still maintaining some rock and roll spirit.
Flesh + Blood (1980) **
Rather bloodless and is the most overproduced sounding record in their whole catalogue, this is where Roxy sounds, for the first time, uninspired. The record as a whole is not good, but the three singles stand apart and are fantastic, especially “Same Old Scene,” whose spirit and mood Duran Duran made a career out of trying to replicate between about 1981-88.
Avalon (1982) *****
Bryan Ferry perfects his sophisticate cynical/romantic croon and also sets the template for his solo career, although he never came close to matching Avalon on his own. It is a subtle record, one that can easily fade into the background if you let it. But it very much rewards close listening. Avalon sets a late night mood that is unrivaled, and every track reveals additional charms within the sonic details upon repeated listening. For what it is trying to do, I find it flawless.
Heart Still Beating (live) (1990/1982) **1/2
Concerto (live) (2001/1979) NR
Roxy Music Live (live) (2003/2001) NR
Since breaking up after Avalon, they have released some archival live records, including one chronicling the 2001 reunion tour. Heart Still Beating contains some interesting Roxified covers (Neil Young’s “Like a Hurricane,” John Lennon’s “Jealous Guy”) and features some inspired playing from Manzanera, but it doesn’t really add anything to the legacy and considering it is from the Avalon tour, it has some curious omissions.
Compilations:
Roxy Music has quite a few compilations out there, many of which combine Roxy Music with Bryan Ferry solo tracks, doing neither full justice. Roxy Music is rather unique in that while their albums all are cohesive and in some respects are greater wholes than their individual parts, they were also a killer singles band and individual songs can stand alone. So, a very good compilation could do them justice. I just haven’t come across a satisfactory one yet.
Solo work:
Many members have had substantial solo careers or other projects. Brian Eno, of course, is BRIAN ENO and deserves his own entry so I can’t really delve into him here. Bryan Ferry released a lot of solo material as well, and while I like some individual songs of his, overall I think it pales next to Roxy’s output. Phil Manzanera was also quite active outside of Roxy Music.
Thursday, January 16, 2014
Wednesday, January 15, 2014
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
