I definitely think I could grow to like this more because the familiarity would make some of the mush become clearer in my ears. But I also know it would require effort I'm not willing to put in. I definitely enjoyed it more than I was expecting to and looking at some of their YouTube comments they do have a fan base that rates them very highly. Id need this in small doses but then it wouldn't become familiar so it's a bit of a catch 22 situationAs much as I like it, it’s hard to disagree with any of this. And this is why I think about this record as great junk and a guilty pleasure!
Having said that, I am a bit surprised by the low scores overall from a group of people who gave that Waterboys record a near-7.5!
I gave the Waterboys album a 10, and to me the difference between the two albums is like night and day.As much as I like it, it’s hard to disagree with any of this. And this is why I think about this record as great junk and a guilty pleasure!
Having said that, I am a bit surprised by the low scores overall from a group of people who gave that Waterboys record a near-7.5!
The instrumental variation is a difference. And I’d say “The Whole of the Moon” is better than anything here. But history tells you both these records are cut from the same “big music” cloth (those pompous Scots :)) and my complaint was that production was used to cover up thin melody on This Is The Sea whereas here production (it’s Steve Lilywhite, after all) is used to amplify melody.I gave the Waterboys album a 10, and to me the difference between the two albums is like night and day.
The main differences being one had a great set of songs and a lot less production.
Your comment has got me checking back to my review to see why liked it so much and didn't enjoy this week's album. Funnily enough, the word "bombastic" also appears in the Waterboys review as well, but I'll pull out some quotes that highlight the difference:-
"Don't Bang the Drum" starts with a lonesome trumpet that would fit right in with the opening of a Sergio Leone film
I don't think there's one "lonesome" instrument on Sparkle in the Rain.
"Spirit" – a short song - pretty much just Mike Scott and the piano, with a bit of synth for colour. A very pleasant song that breaks up the more bombastic songs nicely.
There's nothing to break up the bombastic nature of this week's album, on which "a bit of synth for colour" would feel like a luxury.
The fiddle playing is great here and the synth motif that follows the chorus gives it a bit of oomph.
Again - the fiddle is something different and the synth is used sparingly.
What really makes this album is Mike Scott’s terrific vocal delivery – I love his voice on this album.
I don't think Jim Kerr's voice is the problem with Sparkle in the Rain, but to my ears, it's not in the same league as Mike Scott's.
Obviously, all of the above is my take on it, which is all any one of us can provide and people respond to music in different ways. This is not me sticking the boot in, I was just interested in the difference between the two albums because they are both early/mid-80s by British/Irish artists, which is not generally in my wheelhouse.
I was a bit of a fan back in the day, but the 'mushy' production you describe has not aged well. I think in an effort to capture the energy of their live sound most of their mid-late 80s stuff sounds like it was recorded in an underground car park on a dictaphone :-(Sparkle in the Rain – Simple Minds
I’m familiar with one full Simple Minds album and about 3 or 4 other singles – none from Sparkle in the Rain.
My overriding feeling with this album is how mushy the production is. Whilst there are a few bits and pieces to like here and there, any potential for greatness, even not-that-badness, is swallowed up by the sounds of great big synths and slabs of keyboards. “Book of Brilliant Things” is a typical example of this overload but it’s not on its own.
“Waterfront” comes over all bombastic – that’s the word I’ve been searching for to describe most of this album – but for some reason I enjoyed this more than the tracks around it. Maybe it’s the tease that it was going to sound like The Doors’ “Roadhouse Blues” at the start, or the fact that it settles into a less bombastic sound for more than half its running time.
“C Moon Cry Like A Baby” is not bad either as it has a slightly less plasticky and more soulful feel.
“The Kick Inside of Me” injects some much-needed guitar, almost like Charlie Burchill has spent the album up to this point trying to find his six-string which has been buried beneath a pile of keyboards on the studio floor.
Sparkle in the Rain does have an upbeat, dancing in a dark club at midnight vibe to it, which is I’m sure why @FogBlueInSanFran likes it. Also, as he’s plainly stated, it reminds him of a certain time in his life, which we can all relate to. But I’m surprised any self-respecting music fan sporting an orange Mohican would find much to love here.
On the whole, it’s music that I just can’t connect with. There’s not enough space between the notes, with every potential space filled with some shiny new (for the time) toy keyboard sound. I notice that those who like this album don’t like what came later, but I’d pick “Belfast Child” as my favourite Simple Minds song – a wonderfully evocative piece that builds slowly with lots of great instrumental parts, not least the wonderful Lisa Germano on fiddle. And yes, it’s not lost on me that this is the old head versus moving feet thing.
As noted by others, Jim Kerr gives it all with the vocals and I can respect a band that’s playing their thing, but this reminds me of all the stuff that my fellow classmates were falling over themselves to like in the 80s, and I was left wondering what all the fuss what about. 5/10.
Yes, I wouldn't argue that both bands come under the "big music" label that also includes U2 and The Alarm.The instrumental variation is a difference. And I’d say “The Whole of the Moon” is better than anything here. But history tells you both these records are cut from the same “big music” cloth (those pompous Scots :)) and my complaint was that production was used to cover up thin melody on This Is The Sea whereas here production (it’s Steve Lilywhite, after all) is used to amplify melody.
It's more stadium rock than anything else. The synths, so often at the forefront in previous records, have been relegated to backing singers on this album and the later ones. The production has also muddled the situation.Yeah wasn't having a pop. You're right it's a bit of a mouthful but it is in that kind of hybrid space, which in and of itself isn't a problem if you just like the songs for what they are but to me makes it a bit wishy-washy at times.
It's more stadium rock than anything else. The synths, so often at the forefront in previous records, have been relegated to backing singers on this album and the later ones. The production has also muddled the situation.
Synth pop for me isn't this. Synth pop is Visage, early DM, pre Heaven 17 Human League, later Kraftwerk, OMD etc etc...music where the synth is front and centre, driving the record.
Yup. And it's annoying as I loved their early stuff. Had a bit of a SMfest yesterday. Stopped after New Gold Dream.I think we're in agreement, their first two albums did that much more but this bears little resemblance.
It occurs to me that a number of people are making a similar argument to this as I did about Depeche Mode’s Violator which I did not like and thought was a sell-out to the “heavier” sound of the day. This is in essence worse because the sell-out was to the desire to fill 50K seat arenas. Fair dos. I note that despite all of this (which I mention in my review), I still like it (also noting that it doesn’t mean anything).Yup. And it's annoying as I loved their early stuff. Had a bit of a SMfest yesterday. Stopped after New Gold Dream.
You mean Songs Of Faith...It occurs to me that a number of people are making a similar argument to this as I did about Depeche Mode’s Violator which I did not like and thought was a sell-out to the “heavier” sound of the day. This is in essence worse because the sell-out was to the desire to fill 50K seat arenas. Fair dos. I note that despite all of this (which I mention in my review), I still like it (also noting that it doesn’t mean anything).
Yes you’re right.You mean Songs Of Faith...
Violator is synth heaven.
While I haven't scored this yet, this album to me doesn't come close to the Waterboys, which was one of the top finds for me on this thread. That album was much more than "The Whole of the Moon" too.As much as I like it, it’s hard to disagree with any of this. And this is why I think about this record as great junk and a guilty pleasure!
Having said that, I am a bit surprised by the low scores overall from a group of people who gave that Waterboys record a near-7.5!
I model myself more on NME personally.Great album. All you haters with your Melody Maker lite reviews can suck Jim Kerr’s (allegedly huge) cock
Fucking hell. Because I’m Jim Kerr and I’ve got more musical talent in the smegma within my huge bell end than you lot put together. And Charlie Burchill bummed yer maI model myself more on NME personally.
A triumph of sound over soul. Steve Lillywhite's production is as subtle as a wrecking ball. It's drowned in reverb, gated drums, and declarations from Kerr, who has become less singer more messiah. This is a slow-burning tragedy of an album. The sound of a once promising band methodically entombing their finer instincts beneath layers of bombast and arena-ready abstraction.
I hate it with such a passion I refuse to give it a score.
you don't mention why you think its great btw
Because, it is very different from the Waterboys?As much as I like it, it’s hard to disagree with any of this. And this is why I think about this record as great junk and a guilty pleasure!
Having said that, I am a bit surprised by the low scores overall from a group of people who gave that Waterboys record a near-7.5!
Mr Burns or Rabbie?Because, it is very different from the Waterboys?
Ok, they are both Scottish. And loud. They have similar wails, and passion. But there the comparisons kind of end for me. But I can see why on a surface level what you might mean.
But then, that said, Brig O'Doon is indeed a rain dirty valley.
(Where Spires once worked as a Burns impersonator. Probably ;))
KennyMr Burns or Rabbie?
Because, it is very different from the Waterboys?
Ok, they are both Scottish. And loud. They have similar wails, and passion. But there the comparisons kind of end for me. But I can see why on a surface level what you might mean.
But then, that said, Brig O'Doon is indeed a rain dirty valley.
(Where Spires once worked as a Burns impersonator. Probably ;))