smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | "Stuart Kazanow" <mumford67@msn.com> |
| Subject | Re: New Joe Jackson |
| Date | Wed, 26 Mar 2003 03:17:06 -0500 |
[Part 1 text/plain iso-8859-1 (4.6 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
Jason wrote:
>
> So out of curiosity, does anyone else that the new Joe Jackson disc is a
huge
> disappointment? I mean, I didn't expect much since most of his output
since
> "Night and Day" has been indulgent and often frankly awful (the two
> exceptions, I believe, are the pretty-good, not-great "Big World" and
> "Laughter and Lust" albums), but with the reunited lineup and the renewed
> interest in making pop music, well, I was expecting something at least
> listenable.
>
> But if this is a return to any old Joe Jackson sound, IMO, it's the sound
of
> "Blaze of Glory"--yes, it's "pop" music, but the songs have uniformly
bland
> and undeveloped hooks, plus the band seems to lack even the hint of a
spark.
> Yes, it sounds like they're trying to sound like a cross between "Night
and
> Day" and "Look Sharp"--and they're trying way too hard.
>
> On a semi-related note, does anyone know why "Beat Crazy" is like,
impossible
> to find? I would've rather had a reissue of that. --Jason
>
Different stokes for different folks, I guess. I've always considered
"Night and Day" to be the most over-rated of his albums. The second side is
great, but the first is a mess. Sure..."Target" and "Another World" are
still highlights from his catalog but songs like "Chinatown" and "TV Age"
are some of the worst things he has written, and sound like rejects from
"Beat Crazy" (which I find to be his weakest album, overall). I find his
output AFTER "Night and Day" to be much more to my liking. Give me "Big
World" or "Night Music" or "Heaven and Hell" and day. Personally, I think
"Blaze of Glory" might be his strongest studio album overall (though I tend
to prefer his live recordings), and likely my favorite concept album. Hooks
only account for part of the puzzle for me...if they were everything, I'd
likely be listening to some teen top 40 crap right this second. What you
see to be indulgence, I see a successful attempt to combine the key
influences on Jackson. Jackson is a classically trained musician who ended
up playing punk-influenced pub rock instead of the other way around. I find
BoG exquisitely produced and musically inventive. It contains some of
Jackson's best lyrics and best vocals. Plus, I have great respect for a
songwriter who realizes that sometimes his voice might not be the best
suited for what he has written, happily giving the spotlight to someone
else. "Sentimental Thing," with its operatic string arrangements and Joy
askew's faux "Madame Butterfly" style vocals at the end, might be the single
best song ever to sum up the feelings of resentment and loss tied to a
divorce. There's more to the emotional spectrum than anger.
It's much like what Costello has had to put up with for years. For some
people, his worth lie only in three recordings made between 1977 and 1980.
Any attempt to stray from the Attractions-sound is seen as some form of
heresy. Yet, somehow, in doing so, they mave missed some of his best
songwriting and his development as one of the best vocalists alive. I was
enthralled when he played "Deep Dark Truthful Mirror" at the Rock and Roll
Hall of fame ceremonies this year, instead of just sticking to the hits as
others did. Sure, he gave them PL&U, but he also reminded them that his
career didn't end with that song.
As for the new Joe Jackson Band record, no, it's not "Look Sharp." And one
shouldn't expect it to be. Jackson is older and has developed as a person
and a musician since then. I totally disagree with your statement about the
band...I think they are as tight and energetic as they've always
been...they're just playing different material than they used to. Songs
like "Take It Like a Man" and "Little Bit Stupid" are most reflective of
their old sound, and would have fit well on "I'm the Man." But songs like
"Still Alive" (sounding like Steely Dan's "Barrytown," as interpreted by the
Beatles) and "Blue Flame" have a different dynamic, and wouldn't fit the
bass and drums up front sound of the band's early output. And while I'm not
a big fan of the bonus live CD (a bit too sterile-sounding for my tastes), I
find no fault in their playing. Compared to a bootleg I have of the band
from 1979, I see little to no difference in their energy or sound. Is
"Volume 4" a great album? No. Is it good? Yes, very good.
BTW, where do you hear the "Night and Day" influence on the record? It is
largely guitar, drums and bass driven, with little of the front and center
keyboards of "Night and Day." I hear much more "Laughter and Lust" in there.
Your not the first to mention it, but I just don't hear it. Just curious.
-Stuart
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.