The Album Review Club - Week #139 - (page 1815) - Jeff Wayne's Musical Version of The War Of The Worlds

[threespires]

My mother played that non stop when I was a lad.

My sympathies. I don't want to indulge in one downmanship but my mum would have stuff like that but it would normally be cover versions played by someone like a Franciscan monk on a guitar!

 

[RobMCFC]

It's a fair point but I do think there is something qualitatively different about it. As a rule of thumb stadium rock is just not my thing, and let's just say my views on Bon Jovi are pejorative in the extreme and leave it at that, so since you've posted this I've being trying to think why for me I found it the acceptable face of stadium rock. I'm not sure I have the answer yet but I think it's a mixture of relatively subtle shifts: sound, lyrics, attitude that make them neither exactly the same as that previous world but also not fully part of a more hardcore scene, they are more like a bridge between the two worlds (might have been Coaty who has already made that point?) and maybe that's why they ended up so popular.

Yes, I think that's a fair point - it's slick, but it does have EV's unique vocals and his lyrics are atypical of the slicker genre.

I'm not that surprised. If anything, I rated it lower than I would have, looking for faults with it now, decades later, rather than my memory and experience of it at the time. And looks like I am not alone either.

Unlike, for example, Revolver. When people just dropped 10s the minute it was posted, and then more or less fucked off. Which is probably what that 4 will do, preseve it in second when it was looking like this one would pip it.

Whilst we always welcome comments from all on here, this album is going to finish high because of votes from the regulars, which hopefully makes it feel like a major victory for BH.

I was going to say that I wasn't impressed with the ludicrous number of half points and even a 9.1, but maybe we should encourage it. We saw how last week The Tubes finished with an identical scoring record to a previous album, but if some of us started handing out 8.6s and 4.9s, the chance of identical records would be reduced.

 

[Coatigan]

Yes, I think that's a fair point - it's slick, but it does have EV's unique vocals and his lyrics are atypical of the slicker genre.


Whilst we always welcome comments from all on here, this album is going to finish high because of votes from the regulars, which hopefully makes it feel like a major victory for BH.

I was going to say that I wasn't impressed with the ludicrous number of half points and even a 9.1, but maybe we should encourage it. We saw how last week The Tubes finished with an identical scoring record to a previous album, but if some of us started handing out 8.6s and 4.9s, the chance of identical records would be reduced.

I think the .1 was symbolic mate.

You are the guy that has to do it all, but I would say it would be OTT. And half points avoided or only used when there is good reason. As you once advised me.

Not that I think scores are the important thing here, but the more meaningful measure would be to discount scores that don't really say anything. The number of times I've seen a last minute 'not for me, a 3' almost as an oh shit I forgot about this week afterthought.

 

[RobMCFC]

I think the .1 was symbolic mate.

You are the guy that has to do it all, but I would say it would be OTT. And half points avoided or only used when there is good reason. As you once advised me.

Not that I think scores are the important thing here, but the more meaningful measure would be to discount scores that don't really say anything. The number of times I've seen a lat minute 'not for me, a 3' almost as an oh shit I forgot about this week afterthought.

Yeah, I understand the 9.1 for 1991. In this vein, maybe we should consider Radiohead's first album as Year Zero.

I meant to add that it's not really an issue for me as I just plug the scores in my spreadsheet.

I understand what you are saying about discounting certain scores, but other than encouraging people to think about why they are giving such a low score, discarding it would feel a bit too much like playing God, which I don't want to do. As you say, the scores are not the most important aspect.

 

[Coatigan]

Yeah, I understand the 9.1 for 1991. In this vein, maybe we should consider Radiohead's first album as Year Zero.

I meant to add that it's not really an issue for me as I just plug the scores in my spreadsheet.

I understand what you are saying about discounting certain scores, but other than encouraging people to think about why they are giving such a low score, discarding it would feel a bit too much like playing God, which I don't want to do. As you say, the scores are not the most important aspect.

Sure. It wasn't a real suggestion btw. Just a quasi-philosophical point.

 

[RobMCFC]

Credit where credit's due, @BlueHammer85 has done it again. He's picked a well known album that has got everybody talking and at the same time bagged himself a second top ten entry. Pearl Jam's Ten scored an average of 7.51 from 12 voters and that puts them at number 8 in the Hall of Fame.

I still don't think we ever worked out what grunge was, though.

Next up is @bennyboy, so let's have your clues.

 

[bennyboy]

 

[bennyboy]

First set of clues above.

 

[denislawsbackheel]

I want to be kind and point out that Andy Stewart came from a different era but then he does his little 'dance' and I find that desire to be kind is stretched a bit too much.

Takes me back to the White Heather Club on tv or new years when BBC would switch to Scottish tv for a couple of hours.
Jeez it was rank!

 

[denislawsbackheel]

Mike Batt, a man who has brought many acts, both reasonable and heinous, to our attention. I consider the Wombles to be one of the less heinous.

Whatever you choose you'll be extending the gene pool which is always good.

Mike Batt’s Tarot Suite was a cracking album.