BimboBob
Well-Known Member
More of a "I'm awake let's type shit" response in my head. Thanks for the pick.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Album Review Club - Week #138 - (page 1790) - 1956 - Soul-Junk
- Thread starter RobMCFC
- Start date
mrbelfry
Well-Known Member
Nah don't do that self-deprecating thing even if you wrote it just to pass some time. Your experience mattersMore of a "I'm awake let's type shit" response in my head. Thanks for the pick.
Last edited:
RobMCFC
Well-Known Member
1956 – Soul-Junk
My main problem with this album is a pretty big one: not much hangs together as a song. It’s like cut ‘n’ paste in the studio gone mad. A nice little melody here, a strum of guitar there, and thousands of oddball sounds popping up here, there and everywhere. Nothing hangs around for too long and it’s on to the next (bad) idea.
Another problem for me was hearing what’s going on; or more to the point, hearing what’s being said. As I always lament at work when people send out bullshit documents full of buzzwords (“leveraging synergy” anybody?), the primary objective of communication is about making your message easily understood. Music is a form of communication and 100mph words spat out with little thought for enunciation is a big turn-off. I wouldn’t have had a clue that this was a religious-themed album had I not been told beforehand. Is that a good or bad thing? Just because you toss out a few religious images, names and phrases in your songs doesn’t necessarily make the music religion-based (artists such as Springsteen and Josh Ritter do this on a regular basis, but I wouldn’t say their albums are religious). I’m not saying this isn’t such an album.
Pretty much the first seven tracks are uniformly awful. I mean, I could say that I enjoyed the acoustic guitar and change of pace in “Sarpodyl”, but that’s only because the songs around it are so bad and nothing to do with any merits that it might have, because it sounds like a throwaway piece of studio time.
That’s not to say that it’s without merit because there are several tracks that are very listenable, and they all seem to arrive in an improved second half (maybe Pep gave them a talking to at half-time?) “Eyes, Externally” benefits from its mellow sound and frustratingly, one of the songs that sounded most interesting to me, “Monkeyflower & Yarrow”, was over in just over a minute. The Pacific North-West-influenced “Judah” was good. For some reason, the subject matter, rapped lyrics, sung chorus and zither combined to make “The Peacemaker” one of my favourite tracks on here.
“Dry Bones”, with its (relatively) sparse, trumpet-based arrangement was a pleasant listen and “Sweet to My Soul” was half good (the catchy chorus), the rest not so good.
This is definitely an album to listen to in chunks rather than as a complete album. In one hit, it’s just too much. Also, as others have commented, listening on YouTube is not ideal, but if anybody has a burning desire to select an album that is only available on YouTube, that’s reasonable.
I always say that Beck is much better when he stops twiddling all the knobs on the mixing desk in the studio. Unfortunately, for 80% of the running time, 1956 sounds like it’s picked up all the bad things that Beck successfully threw out when making his great albums.
It’s not really my cup of tea, but it’s most certainly not down at the Streets level – there’s a bit of melody here, but none of the bluster and posturing. 4/10
My main problem with this album is a pretty big one: not much hangs together as a song. It’s like cut ‘n’ paste in the studio gone mad. A nice little melody here, a strum of guitar there, and thousands of oddball sounds popping up here, there and everywhere. Nothing hangs around for too long and it’s on to the next (bad) idea.
Another problem for me was hearing what’s going on; or more to the point, hearing what’s being said. As I always lament at work when people send out bullshit documents full of buzzwords (“leveraging synergy” anybody?), the primary objective of communication is about making your message easily understood. Music is a form of communication and 100mph words spat out with little thought for enunciation is a big turn-off. I wouldn’t have had a clue that this was a religious-themed album had I not been told beforehand. Is that a good or bad thing? Just because you toss out a few religious images, names and phrases in your songs doesn’t necessarily make the music religion-based (artists such as Springsteen and Josh Ritter do this on a regular basis, but I wouldn’t say their albums are religious). I’m not saying this isn’t such an album.
Pretty much the first seven tracks are uniformly awful. I mean, I could say that I enjoyed the acoustic guitar and change of pace in “Sarpodyl”, but that’s only because the songs around it are so bad and nothing to do with any merits that it might have, because it sounds like a throwaway piece of studio time.
That’s not to say that it’s without merit because there are several tracks that are very listenable, and they all seem to arrive in an improved second half (maybe Pep gave them a talking to at half-time?) “Eyes, Externally” benefits from its mellow sound and frustratingly, one of the songs that sounded most interesting to me, “Monkeyflower & Yarrow”, was over in just over a minute. The Pacific North-West-influenced “Judah” was good. For some reason, the subject matter, rapped lyrics, sung chorus and zither combined to make “The Peacemaker” one of my favourite tracks on here.
“Dry Bones”, with its (relatively) sparse, trumpet-based arrangement was a pleasant listen and “Sweet to My Soul” was half good (the catchy chorus), the rest not so good.
This is definitely an album to listen to in chunks rather than as a complete album. In one hit, it’s just too much. Also, as others have commented, listening on YouTube is not ideal, but if anybody has a burning desire to select an album that is only available on YouTube, that’s reasonable.
I always say that Beck is much better when he stops twiddling all the knobs on the mixing desk in the studio. Unfortunately, for 80% of the running time, 1956 sounds like it’s picked up all the bad things that Beck successfully threw out when making his great albums.
It’s not really my cup of tea, but it’s most certainly not down at the Streets level – there’s a bit of melody here, but none of the bluster and posturing. 4/10
threespires
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 7 Aug 2019
- Messages
- 5,655
- Team supported
- City
For clarity, none of the following is intended to be pejorative!
It makes sense to me that our (IMO) most WTF contributor should nominate possibly the most WTF choice so far. Not unlike his reviews, you do a double take and it’s sometimes hard to parse the meaning. Is there actually any meaning, how serious is he being?
To answer some of the specific questions Mr B has raised so far…
Re. lyrics, I’m good with
It’s easy if you try,
No need to gouge your earholes,
or put an axe through your hi-fi.
So, the degree to which I like a lyric is much less based on whether I agree with any underlying sentiments than how well executed it is. There are limits to this of course, but is it even possible to write something beautifully poetic if you’re just being racist etc, isn’t that just intrinsically ugly however you try and dress it up?
For what it’s worth, the lyrics I can actually decipher on this pick I’m fine with. I’m a paid-up member of the Jesus is magic squad, so it was unlikely to grind my gears unless it was using Jesus as an ungodly cover story to do something hateful which it doesn’t seem to be. All that said my bigger issue is how much of it can I actually understand, either sonically or lyrically. Which brings me back to my initial point.
It’s rare I read one of Mr B’s posts and get it straight away, but there’s generally enough intrigue there for me to have a second read. Half the time I can never work out if he is saying something profound or simple being absurdist, but I like it and it keeps me on my toes. We will see if the same can be said of Glen Galaxy by this time next Wednesday.
So, my score for this will be a direct function of how much I persist with it. If I continue to try and decipher what on earth is going on musically (for example I’m pretty sure I can hear something like a child’s Bontempi organ in there) and lyrically (I get that the little old ladies in the church pews don’t get him but is he dissing them, mocking himself or is he just on a stream of consciousness ramble?) then it’ll score well.
I don’t necessarily expect to find any meaning in there but it’s as much about the journey as the destination and the two are intertwined. If I’m still journeying by end Tues next week, it’ll clearly be worthy of a decent score. If I've given up then less so. It's still possible that I might just like it's general vibe but I'm not convinced about that.
Mr B has also made the point about this being a counterpoint to the over sincerity of most contemporary Christian music. Without wanting to open up too much of a niche tributary from the mainstream discussion, I do have a lot of sympathy with this viewpoint. I always feel a bit bad disliking any genuinely held worship music (of any faith) but I frequently do. It’s one of the reasons I tend to stick to older liturgical music.
However, I’m not sure I yet see Soul-Junk's ‘gibbering for Jesus’ as the antidote to this but maybe my viewpoint will change over the next few days?
It makes sense to me that our (IMO) most WTF contributor should nominate possibly the most WTF choice so far. Not unlike his reviews, you do a double take and it’s sometimes hard to parse the meaning. Is there actually any meaning, how serious is he being?
To answer some of the specific questions Mr B has raised so far…
Re. lyrics, I’m good with
- Lyrics that say something meaningful about the human condition
- Lyrics that speak meaningfully to the world around us
- Lyrics that are either fully or partially nonsense but sonically spot on for the music
- Lyrics that show a sense of humour (subjective I know)
- Lyrics that are none of the above but still have some sense of poetry about them
- No lyrics
- Inane lyrics that are held up as something profound either by artist or fans
It’s easy if you try,
No need to gouge your earholes,
or put an axe through your hi-fi.
So, the degree to which I like a lyric is much less based on whether I agree with any underlying sentiments than how well executed it is. There are limits to this of course, but is it even possible to write something beautifully poetic if you’re just being racist etc, isn’t that just intrinsically ugly however you try and dress it up?
For what it’s worth, the lyrics I can actually decipher on this pick I’m fine with. I’m a paid-up member of the Jesus is magic squad, so it was unlikely to grind my gears unless it was using Jesus as an ungodly cover story to do something hateful which it doesn’t seem to be. All that said my bigger issue is how much of it can I actually understand, either sonically or lyrically. Which brings me back to my initial point.
It’s rare I read one of Mr B’s posts and get it straight away, but there’s generally enough intrigue there for me to have a second read. Half the time I can never work out if he is saying something profound or simple being absurdist, but I like it and it keeps me on my toes. We will see if the same can be said of Glen Galaxy by this time next Wednesday.
So, my score for this will be a direct function of how much I persist with it. If I continue to try and decipher what on earth is going on musically (for example I’m pretty sure I can hear something like a child’s Bontempi organ in there) and lyrically (I get that the little old ladies in the church pews don’t get him but is he dissing them, mocking himself or is he just on a stream of consciousness ramble?) then it’ll score well.
I don’t necessarily expect to find any meaning in there but it’s as much about the journey as the destination and the two are intertwined. If I’m still journeying by end Tues next week, it’ll clearly be worthy of a decent score. If I've given up then less so. It's still possible that I might just like it's general vibe but I'm not convinced about that.
Mr B has also made the point about this being a counterpoint to the over sincerity of most contemporary Christian music. Without wanting to open up too much of a niche tributary from the mainstream discussion, I do have a lot of sympathy with this viewpoint. I always feel a bit bad disliking any genuinely held worship music (of any faith) but I frequently do. It’s one of the reasons I tend to stick to older liturgical music.
However, I’m not sure I yet see Soul-Junk's ‘gibbering for Jesus’ as the antidote to this but maybe my viewpoint will change over the next few days?
mrbelfry
Well-Known Member
Thoughtful stuff. Thanks for taking the album seriously. Your point re communication is good but communication can also be used to obscure and challenge. I think the space between what is said and what is heard is interesting. Memory may be failing me here but I think Kubrick lamented that Full Metal Jacket that he intended as an anti-war movie actually inspired people to join the army1956 – Soul-Junk
My main problem with this album is a pretty big one: not much hangs together as a song. It’s like cut ‘n’ paste in the studio gone mad. A nice little melody here, a strum of guitar there, and thousands of oddball sounds popping up here, there and everywhere. Nothing hangs around for too long and it’s on to the next (bad) idea.
Another problem for me was hearing what’s going on; or more to the point, hearing what’s being said. As I always lament at work when people send out bullshit documents full of buzzwords (“leveraging synergy” anybody?), the primary objective of communication is about making your message easily understood. Music is a form of communication and 100mph words spat out with little thought for enunciation is a big turn-off. I wouldn’t have had a clue that this was a religious-themed album had I not been told beforehand. Is that a good or bad thing? Just because you toss out a few religious images, names and phrases in your songs doesn’t necessarily make the music religion-based (artists such as Springsteen and Josh Ritter do this on a regular basis, but I wouldn’t say their albums are religious). I’m not saying this isn’t such an album.
Pretty much the first seven tracks are uniformly awful. I mean, I could say that I enjoyed the acoustic guitar and change of pace in “Sarpodyl”, but that’s only because the songs around it are so bad and nothing to do with any merits that it might have, because it sounds like a throwaway piece of studio time.
That’s not to say that it’s without merit because there are several tracks that are very listenable, and they all seem to arrive in an improved second half (maybe Pep gave them a talking to at half-time?) “Eyes, Externally” benefits from its mellow sound and frustratingly, one of the songs that sounded most interesting to me, “Monkeyflower & Yarrow”, was over in just over a minute. The Pacific North-West-influenced “Judah” was good. For some reason, the subject matter, rapped lyrics, sung chorus and zither combined to make “The Peacemaker” one of my favourite tracks on here.
“Dry Bones”, with its (relatively) sparse, trumpet-based arrangement was a pleasant listen and “Sweet to My Soul” was half good (the catchy chorus), the rest not so good.
This is definitely an album to listen to in chunks rather than as a complete album. In one hit, it’s just too much. Also, as others have commented, listening on YouTube is not ideal, but if anybody has a burning desire to select an album that is only available on YouTube, that’s reasonable.
I always say that Beck is much better when he stops twiddling all the knobs on the mixing desk in the studio. Unfortunately, for 80% of the running time, 1956 sounds like it’s picked up all the bad things that Beck successfully threw out when making his great albums.
It’s not really my cup of tea, but it’s most certainly not down at the Streets level – there’s a bit of melody here, but none of the bluster and posturing. 4/10
mrbelfry
Well-Known Member
I think i'm taking all my reviews serious - at least i'm trying to consider my response to them honestly to give respect to the person nominating even if i am sometimes quite rude about an album. Sometimes in the rush to write the review i'll maybe get overexcited for example I stated i really liked the Jam album but haven't listened to it since. And I didnt really like last weeks album but i have listened to bits of it even this week. It's honest in the moment but i reserve the right to change my mind - my opinion isn't that important that i need to be bound by it. I present my reviews seriously but they should not be taken seriously.For clarity, none of the following is intended to be pejorative!
It makes sense to me that our (IMO) most WTF contributor should nominate possibly the most WTF choice so far. Not unlike his reviews, you do a double take and it’s sometimes hard to parse the meaning. Is there actually any meaning, how serious is he being?
by nature i'm a little contrarian so i like to take something inane and elevate it and by contrast take something sincere and make fun of it. i think most of it is just stupid rather than absurdist and if it's not obvious who i'm making fun of i'm making fun of myself. And genuinely i like to discuss things no one else seems to care about - it's kind of my brand. my family joke that no matter where i am or what im doing i will eventually start talking about nazi's. That's pretty much all you need to know about me to parse my reviews - i'm really quite vanilla and straightfoward but mostly irritating.
Last edited:
threespires
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 7 Aug 2019
- Messages
- 5,655
- Team supported
- City
1956 – Soul-Junk
It’s not really my cup of tea, but it’s most certainly not down at the Streets level – there’s a bit of melody here, but none of the bluster and posturing. 4/10
As we have a slight biblical slant this week I'm officially declaring you a Philistine!
More seriously, you are indefatigable in your determination to give everything a proper listen and a thoughtful review. The day you post a 'bag o shite' review is probably when we should all run to the hills for fear of the imminent end times.
RobMCFC
Well-Known Member
I accept the Philistine badge with pride, and will wear it alongside my luddite's rosette.As we have a slight biblical slant this week I'm officially declaring you a Philistine!
More seriously, you are indefatigable in your determination to give everything a proper listen and a thoughtful review. The day you post a 'bag o shite' review is probably when we should all run to the hills for fear of the imminent end times.
I only made it through two listens, and that was enough. But I do want to listen to every nomination enough to at least understand why I don't like it.
On the subject of biblical lyrics, I always thought The Rainmakers came out with some not-so-serious gems:-
Moses went up to the mountain high
To find out from God, "Why did you make us? Why?"
Secret words in a secret room
He said, "Wop-bop-a-lu-bop-a-lop-bam-boom"
OB1
Well-Known Member
No apology necessary, except for making my eyes get a little moist.I love a good clear lyric, be it ABC singing about lost love, I hope and I pray, that maybe someday, you'll walk in the room with my heart, or Depeche Mode's seminal offering from Enjoy The Silence, All I ever wanted, all I ever needed, is here, in my arms, words are very, unnecessary, they can only do harm to Pink Floyd singing about fishbowls. Such a beautiful fishbowl. I'm imagining a small underwater castle. And funny coloured gravel.
Lyrics speak to me, remind me of so called hard times, when I've won or lost love, when I've felt a little down, and believe me I'm not a person who gets down a lot, it's an experience, move on. Even my cancer hasn't caused me to lose sleep, it's just angered me enough to think, fuck it, I'll fight you, you bastard thing.
Song lyrics can evoke so much in the human mind. And when a lyric is sung clearly, with heart felt timbre and just the right amount of gravitates it hits you. Bloody hell, that is what I felt, that's exactly what I was feeling. It's sometimes hard to quantify. It just hits you.
I gave the JJ Cale album on here a high score because, at the time I was properly angrily battling terminal cancer, chemo and it's lovely side effects, hospitals, waiting rooms, corridors, hospital beds, losing 5 stone battling, death door battling, mumbling, Wife bedside crying, always battling, drifting in and out of conscious, yes lighted tunnels, and it hit me. Beautiful lyrics. I felt most of them. It resonated. It was far too short, each song was far too short, but oh my it was beautiful stuff. I cried listening to it. That rarely happens. I think my review gave nothing away. Except I loved it. I apologise. OB1, I owe you so much for that nomination. More than I probably gave away with the review I gave it. Thank you. I can't thank you enough.
So yes, I love a good lyric. But it needs to hit me, clever or not, it needs to make feel like I'm singing very loudly with mates at a drunken party, oh how I've missed a drunken party, but on my own. In my music room. Loudly. Just to annoy the mutt. Above all it needs to trigger something in my brain.
Someone mentioned Oasis. I never got them because the lyrics were nonsense and the guitar work felt old, rehashed. I've always felt that if you are going to write rubbish/ banal lyrics then hit me with something to amplify them or drown them out. This didn't happen. They then carried on with the same. Regurgitate and repeat. it was a winning formulae so why change it? Except my brain wouldn't and still doesn't compute. And I'm not having a go at people who love them, my Wife included, they just didn't hit the part of my brain that needed hitting.
This album also isn't doing that. I can take mumbling , I can take weird and bizarre lyrics, I can take lyrics that mean nothing to me but I find it very hard to get worked up over something that passes me by musically and lyrically. And before anyone jumps all over me I'm a big fan of old school Rap/ hip hop. Lyrics really meant nothing, rhyming is hard sometimes, but the exciting mixes, odd samples from songs I knew, and nice use of beats meant a lot of it stood out. See It's Tricky by Run DMC for a commercial offering. Or for more of an extreme example, Din Daa Daa by George Kranz. God I love that 12".
Notice my choices on the other thread which might show how my brain works. Rocket From a Crypt? Madness. But I love it. Awful lyrics but what a banging tune.
This album has neither lyrics I can relate to or music I can get down with. Man. I'm loathed to mark it down to my usual base offering, oh I sometimes hate my scoring system, as it's something different in what feels like a sea of predictability at times but I fear I have to. I got nothing from it. Sorry about that.
1/10
Last edited:
OB1
Well-Known Member
Thank you but I did spot. I don't read every word of every post though so...Bravo, sir.
I'm re-quoting this in full because 1) As others have said, it's very moving and this is what this thread is all about, and 2) It's a long text that @OB1 might miss or not see the important bit, so I'm tagging him to give him the best chance of seeing your thanks.