FogBlueInSanFran
Well-Known Member
Ha, I assure you every one of my reviews is wholly unfair! Admittedly, my reviews are to some degree a bit "meta." I do think a lot about artist motivations, influences, novelty, originality, purposes and impact on others, rather than just "Does this stick in my ears?" which probably clouds my judgment both for good and for bad. It's a totally fair criticism of my criticism in this case that I was sorely disappointed by his move to blues and jazz after liking his first two records so much. Maybe I should give him more points for having the courage/desire to do so. But . . .Interesting how this one, not unlike many others, is dividing opinion. Funnily enough, I do not have a strong opinion either way - it's not an album I would ever buy, and I won't be in a rush to play it again, but it's much better than the 2/10 scores that are being bandied about.
I enjoyed reading @FogBlueInSanFran 's review as usual, and his brass turned up to 82 comment had me chuckling for a few minutes, but I also think that when judging the album as a whole, it was a little unfair. There are two terrible tracks in the middle of the running order- horrible, soulless 80s, over-produced rubbish, but there are also moments of genuine quality and my overriding memory of this album was the tasteful piano, sax solos and noir atmosphere. Don't get me wrong, this is not my kind of music - there's nothing that rocks and there's no earthy twang within a 100 miles, but given a choice between this and our go-to yardstick of Talking heads, it'd be JJ every time.
But only 5/10.
As such, while this isn't my kind of music either, which definitely pressed down my score, the other part of my issue here is that this record is Joe Jackson fiddling around with genres that I'm pretty sure have been done by many other artists better than he will ever do them. Which makes this in effect an album of "covers", even though they aren't covers, or copies, and worse, covers/copies with almost nothing new nor interesting to say. He doesn't make these songs his own other than his voice is unique (I've always liked his voice). When Talking Heads cover Al Green's "Take Me To The River", e.g. they make it wholly their own song.
A small part of this also offends me, because Joe has a recording contract, which allows him to get away with putting out average copies of other people's genres and still make money, whereas other bands who specialize in these genres and probably do far better work remain unknown/unheralded. Read the wikipedia entry on this record which talks about how it was made -- in a way no mere Latin jazz band of any repute could afford. I actually just learned this now but it strengthens my initial perspective that this record was much more about style than substance.
Last edited: