The Album Review Club - Week #191 (page 1286) - Harlequin Dream - Boy & Bear

threespires said:
Lol, I have actually stood on that bridge and declared Ah, Tam ah, Tam thou'll get thy fairin' in a completely inappropriate (but not intentionally offensive) accent! The kids ran off and Mrs Spires dragged me away before I got my head kicked in.
Click to expand...
Ah yes, A bam's a bam for all that!

But it's aw' affa posh oot there, nae heid kickin'.
 
Coatigan said:
Ah yes, A bam's a bam for all that!

But it's aw' affa posh oot there, nae heid kickin'.
Click to expand...

Something my long suffering spouse would concur with.

It is indeed a 'genteel' part of the world; previously said to Mrs Spires if they won't have us in Italy we could do worse than being abused as blown-ins round there.
 
Last edited:
Normally its a case of listening when driving, but this morning with the wife annoying me by not messaging and being delayed in work I had the chance to listen to this almost fully through twice.

It is an album I actually own but haven't revisited in about 20years so it was good to see how I thought it had aged.
I found it interesting that I recalled liking side 1 more when younger, whereas from these most recent listens I was drawn more to side 2. Barring Waterfront, I wasn't that enamoured of the first half and like many others did find myself starting to get a little annoyed at Kerr.

The band themselves I liked, the bass and especially Mel's drums, but all spoiled a little by someone saying look at me.
The comparisons with Bono seem so so true from this and obviously only became more and more evident later on.

Another couple of listens over the weekend and I may change my mind again on this, but so far, it's lost a little of its sparkle.
 
Saddleworth2 said:
I 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
Click to expand...
Ha ha ha a review worthy of framing!

One question though: did Simple Minds ever have any finer instincts?

I am enjoying how many people seem to dislike it and for all the right reasons, but I didn’t think it’d cause so much fuss! It’s always been like fast food for me but the implications are that this lot were once Michelin three star chefs.
 
FogBlueInSanFran said:
Ha ha ha a review worthy of framing!

One question though: did Simple Minds ever have any finer instincts?

I am enjoying how many people seem to dislike it and for all the right reasons, but I didn’t think it’d cause so much fuss! It’s always been like fast food for me but the implications are that this lot were once Michelin three star chefs.
Click to expand...
If I’m honest mate, I was merely practicing my CSM pastiche review writing for the benefit of drone. I don’t hate them that much and will put on a proper review in the next couple of days.
 
Saddleworth2 said:
If I’m honest mate, I was merely practicing my CSM pastiche review writing for the benefit of drone. I don’t hate them that much and will put on a proper review in the next couple of days.
Click to expand...
I knew calling him into the thread via an @ was a mixed blessing! That said, he’s still regularly the funniest bloke on Bluemoon. Intentionally funniest I mean.
 
FogBlueInSanFran said:
I knew calling him into the thread via an @ was a mixed blessing! That said, he’s still regularly the funniest bloke on Bluemoon. Intentionally funniest I mean.
Click to expand...
Based on the small sample of his “wit” in this thread, I’m in even more disagreement with you than on John Hughes’ films.
 
so I have listened another few times to an album i knew anyway. I'm afraid it didn't really move me much from my initial rather glib review. I really, really don't like Jim Kerr as a performer. With this album he was already well down the road to pastiche of what he thought a rock star and accompanying musicians should be. He went further on 'Once upon a time' which has even more anthemic toons on it and I have to say I prefer it if i'm really pissed and want a laugh at a karioke.

I enjoyed the review and get that you can like something whilst still recognising it for all its flaws. I just think if you want to go down that route there was better and more interesting music in 84.

REM, Echo and the Bunnymen, The Smiths, Prefab Sprout, The Cure.....

So I start at 5 with an album, and add points or knock them off depending on likes/dislikes. 5 is an average.
I'll stretch this to a 4 but only coz I like Foggy's review.
 
Saddleworth2 said:
so I have listened another few times to an album i knew anyway. I'm afraid it didn't really move me much from my initial rather glib review. I really, really don't like Jim Kerr as a performer. With this album he was already well down the road to pastiche of what he thought a rock star and accompanying musicians should be. He went further on 'Once upon a time' which has even more anthemic toons on it and I have to say I prefer it if i'm really pissed and want a laugh at a karioke.

I enjoyed the review and get that you can like something whilst still recognising it for all its flaws. I just think if you want to go down that route there was better and more interesting music in 84.

REM, Echo and the Bunnymen, The Smiths, Prefab Sprout, The Cure.....

So I start at 5 with an album, and add points or knock them off depending on likes/dislikes. 5 is an average.
I'll stretch this to a 4 but only coz I like Foggy's review.
Click to expand...
Ah, you generous soul!

There is lots of music from 84 I like and more than this record. I picked The Replacements Let It Be first on this thread in fact, but also Husker Du’s Zen Arcade (though I like later records of theirs even more), Laurie Anderson’s Mister Heartbreak, Minutemen’s Double Nickels on the Dime, and others (including REM’s Reckoning)! But none of them are quite as disposable as this :).
 
I have always found it difficult to dislike someone more than Bonio, but Jim Kerr always seemed to run him a close second!

I never really took to Simple Minds, probably because they were a bit to poppy and too much post New Romantic. Looking back at what I was listening to when this was released, I was in to heavier darker stuff - The Cult (before they found Top of the Pops), Danse Society plus all the rock/metal stuff that was blossoming following the NWOBHM take off.

Up on the Catwalk was a tune I disliked at the time and am pleased to say I still do. For me it highlights Kerr and his pretentious look at me vocals. Speed Your Love to Me and Waterfront I can tolerate, but the rest was thin gruel. Turns out I do prefer lyrics in a different language with much more pleasant music!

Credit to @FogBlueInSanFran for nailing another pick out of a few recent ones, which highlight an album that have deep personal meaning. I saw your post about the Texas flood, and am sorry to hear how this has affected you and your friends.

A very wobbly 4 from me this week
 
BlueHammer85 said:
Really good watch this.

www.bbc.co.uk

Simple Minds: Everything Is Possible

The inspirational story of how a group of working-class kids growing up in post-industrial Glasgow dared to dream and became one of Scotland's biggest bands.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...

Not normally something I would notice or seek out on iPlayer but I enjoyed it thanks. For large chunks of it, it made more predisposed to them which was a significant worry but then we got on to Jim in Taormina and I was able to return to my initial position ;-) As you say a good watch.
 
I’m conscious that several of us, myself included, have at times played the man rather than the ball this week. Whilst I feel bad about this, I think it is in part inevitable given the approach that Kerr takes to his craft, I get that some people really like it but it’s not for me. I think my feeling about this album can be summed up as ‘too bloated’, be it the ideas, the vocal delivery or the arrangements and general production.

Paradoxically, it’s permanent ‘bigness’ meant I became somewhat inured to it, and it receded into the background somewhat. I listen to The Kick Inside of Me and thought with a different treatment this would be a decent song I would probably rather like, but they simply can’t seem to help the excess.

It’s not my thing but that said I can understand why people like the big anthemic approach and how it evokes a time and place for people; I also had a bit of fun listening to their earlier albums which though not big favourites were more my cup of tea. It did occur to me that at some point in time, soaring bombast would have been quite fresh and wouldn’t have sounded cliched. When this was, and how long that lasted for, I do not know. Even if these guys were pioneers of this sound any credit they might accrue is offset by the fact it probably put unhelpful ideas in Bono’s head.

In their favour though, it wasn’t Once Upon A Time and he isn’t Bono, also I can’t really blame him for liking Taormina - it is lovely albeit a bit chocolate boxy or should that be limoncello labely ?

Also part of me has some significant sympathy with working class kids who go down a certain route when they make it. As the (very watchable) BBC documentary that BH linked earlier I think alludes to, they ended up playing the type of music they did by degrees as they chased sustained success. It might have been the direction they were always going to go in anyway, but once they were on the merry-go-round it strikes me that they made decisions that were as much about ensuring that they didn't find themselves back at square one as about 'art'. Perhaps a simpler and kinder perspective is that they were predominantly a live band and as their audiences became bigger they felt their sound needed to be bigger. Eventually it seems they became secure enough to make choices that were entirely theirs, arguably to their commercial detriment, but this was only when any demons of losing their dream were no longer relevant. I'd recommend the documentary which overall made me more predisposed to them.

I'm glad we had this nomination tbh more because I enjoyed aspects other than the album itself which gets 5.5/10.
 
Last edited:
I'm finding it very hard to score this album as Simple Minds and I go back a long way. 1979 in fact. Life In A Day tour. They were rather good in concert which was slightly unusual for a new-ish band. Of course I had no idea that they had honed their craft in and around Glasgow for ages. The last tour I went to was to promote New Gold Dream, the last good Simple Minds album.
I did buy Sparkle In The Rain and immediately noticed a different style. To be fair to them it had been coming, the expansive sound, aimed at a bigger audience. All bands wanted this really didn't they? Bigger crowds at their gigs, huge record sales, breaking America. It would take Depeche Mode until 1988 to do this. So why do I have a problem with them post New Gold Dream?

Early songs were exciting, different, listen to I Travel, a stunning song that still holds up now. Then the sound shifted to a mid Atlantic stadium rock derivative. In a word, dull. It was neither here nor there. Bands like OMD, who were fantastic pioneers in synth pop, did the same. Bands like Depeche Mode didn't. Stuck to their principles.

The album then. It's over produced. Every known concept has been thrown at it from the mixing desk. A small slight on them probably as at the time most bands were going down this route and it's Steve Lillywhite. While I like a few of his productions, Drums and Wires, Boy, Gabriel 3, the rest, especially his later stuff, are exactly what Simple Minds wanted. Big, expansive, mixed to death but crucially easy to replicate in a live arena.
It's not a good album for someone who likes their early synth style. Then the synths were front and centre. After that, as I have said before, they became a backing singer. There are a few saving graces...Waterfront still packs a kick even if tails off at the end. Shake Off The Ghosts is a decent ending. The rest is just mush.

After watching that excellent documentary, thanks @BlueHammer85 , I understand why they did it. That doesn't excuse them though. Or OMD. Or U2. Or any other band that chased big bucks over their own musical ideals. Especially a band that had such a promising start to their career.

Score? It's mush, but it's Simple Minds mush and the still fabulous Waterfront is on it.

4/10
 
BimboBob said:
I'm finding it very hard to score this album as Simple Minds and I go back a long way. 1979 in fact. Life In A Day tour. They were rather good in concert which was slightly unusual for a new-ish band. Of course I had no idea that they had honed their craft in and around Glasgow for ages. The last tour I went to was to promote New Gold Dream, the last good Simple Minds album.
I did buy Sparkle In The Rain and immediately noticed a different style. To be fair to them it had been coming, the expansive sound, aimed at a bigger audience. All bands wanted this really didn't they? Bigger crowds at their gigs, huge record sales, breaking America. It would take Depeche Mode until 1988 to do this. So why do I have a problem with them post New Gold Dream?

Early songs were exciting, different, listen to I Travel, a stunning song that still holds up now. Then the sound shifted to a mid Atlantic stadium rock derivative. In a word, dull. It was neither here nor there. Bands like OMD, who were fantastic pioneers in synth pop, did the same. Bands like Depeche Mode didn't. Stuck to their principles.

The album then. It's over produced. Every known concept has been thrown at it from the mixing desk. A small slight on them probably as at the time most bands were going down this route and it's Steve Lillywhite. While I like a few of his productions, Drums and Wires, Boy, Gabriel 3, the rest, especially his later stuff, are exactly what Simple Minds wanted. Big, expansive, mixed to death but crucially easy to replicate in a live arena.
It's not a good album for someone who likes their early synth style. Then the synths were front and centre. After that, as I have said before, they became a backing singer. There are a few saving graces...Waterfront still packs a kick even if tails off at the end. Shake Off The Ghosts is a decent ending. The rest is just mush.

After watching that excellent documentary, thanks @BlueHammer85 , I understand why they did it. That doesn't excuse them though. Or OMD. Or U2. Or any other band that chased big bucks over their own musical ideals. Especially a band that had such a promising start to their career.

Score? It's mush, but it's Simple Minds mush and the still fabulous Waterfront is on it.

4/10
Click to expand...

I Travel is a great song.

Good point about DM - to get that big whilst retaining and arguably leaning further into your identity is no mean feat. Trying to think of contemporaries who did it, you could argue New Order were true to where JD were heading and retained their identity in similar fashion though admittedly they weren't as huge as DM (though more influential :-) ).
 
threespires said:
I Travel is a great song.

Good point about DM - to get that big whilst retaining and arguably leaning further into your identity is no mean feat. Trying to think of contemporaries who did it, you could argue New Order were true to where JD were heading and retained their identity in similar fashion though admittedly they weren't as huge as DM (though more influential :-) ).
Click to expand...
More influential...hmmmmm...;)

JD...then yes, Dave Gahan said bands like them, early OMD, Human League, Bowie etc etc were an influence. Not sure NO can be mentioned in the same breath though...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top