The Album Review Club - Week #141 - (page 1860) - JPEG Raw - Gary Clark Jr.

threespires said:
Just had a look at the BM Jan 2023 Top 100 Poll. RG came 16th so clearly BM has more of a clue than Rolling Stone.

It's quite a fun couple of threads, @OB1 explaining that his 'short' list was at 100 and growing! For comparison, the collective BM wisdom was...

1. Page
2. Hendrix
3. Gilmour
4. EVH
5. Marr
6. Clapton
7. Blackmore
8. Moore
9. Richards
10. Hackett
Click to expand...
Now that's what I call a competent list of top rock guitarists.

Gallagher is defo top ten. I probably wouldn't have Marr, Blackmore quite as high but small margins.
 
Saddleworth2 said:
Now that's what I call a competent list of top rock guitarists.

Gallagher is defo top ten. I probably wouldn't have Marr, Blackmore quite as high but small margins.
Click to expand...

If memory serves me right there was a healthy debate around JM, was he there by benefiting from local bias or was he there on merit with his invention and the fact that a lot of other guitarist cite him as an influence etc.
 
threespires said:
Blimey a lot to unpack there, if you could just lie on the couch for me and I'll be with you in a minute ;-)

"Like anyone that says they were a breath of fresh air in a dire decade, clearly isn't someone that spent any real time listening to music in that time period"

I think it's reasonable to say that at a commercial radio play level, they helped usher in a bit of a renaissance in British guitar bands. Was it a breath of fresh air musically?, not really in and of itself, but in terms of what was in the average radio listeners consciousness at the time it was different I think. Obviously that spiralled into the media idiocy of Britpop but you can't blame that (entirely) on them.

"My relationship with Oasis fans and fanbase, has been even worse. Irreparable perhaps."

I have occasionally bumped into the odd 50 year old who is bizarrely still treating Liam as some form of role model but by and large I don't think I've had the same experience as you. You mentioned the Radiohead comparison and I've probably had more arguments with RH fans than I ever have with Oasis fans despite considering both of them to be overrated. What I would say is that the limited number of run ins I've had with Oasis fans have been less cerebral affairs but that's ok. I have been accused on more than one occasion of not being a proper manc because of both my very generic somewhat northern accent and my lack of love for Oasis; but at some point along the line I just stopped caring about my identity in that sense.

"It is then impossible for me, to separate those two things from the experience of listening to their music or to attempt to take it at face value."

I'd normally be inclined to say well try a bit harder then, but I do think Oasis are one of those bands for whom where the music ends and all the other stuff starts is that much harder to discern and compartmentalise. In many ways this is to their credit as it does mark them out as cultural phenomenon as much or more so than musicians,

I've had three listens to try and focus solely on the music and it's kind of confirmed where I was all along. If you listen solely to the music as it is committed to tape they are one thing. If you look more broadly then it and they take on another dimension. I think this is to do with how they tap into certain aspects of communality in music, where less is often more.

"What it has made me appreciate, is that as their debut, their intentions would have been good. Honest guys trying something they felt like."

I think the timing of this album straight after The Jam is good fun. I waxed lyrical about the youthful nature of All Mod Cons, well you can't get a much more youthful outlook than DM so how come I feel quite different about the two albums. I think it's in their vision of what it means to be young and their respective intent, I can get why people love Oasis's take on it but that's just not me as a person. I think there's an irony in that Oasis are in theory the antidote to the musical nihilism of the 90's but in many ways they simply replace it with a swaggering vacuity than is simply adjacent to that nihilism.
Click to expand...

I don't really know how to respond to this or whether I should. But your last sentence is quite good.

Saddleworth2 said:
No not really. I’m guessing you are talking about the equivalent of Oasis ‘Swifties’ rather than those that like the band as part of their list of go to bands. I was at a HFB concert that was full of Liam clones all trying to outdo bad behaviour. Is that the type who you are referring to?
Click to expand...

Possibly, wasn't there. Harsh on the swifties, that comparison ;).

I mean it when I say the exposure to Oasis fans on this forum has been a welcome bit of balance, to the ones I have come across over the decades. But it is not a point I want to dwell on any more, it was one bit of context in an otherwise fuller post.
 
FogBlueInSanFran said:
I think that Shakermaker is an objectively bad song. I also think Supersonic is an objectively great song. And so it goes.
Click to expand...
It was generally the stuff that I’m unfamiliar with that I found more acceptable.
I agree about Shakermaker, but wouldn’t be overly fond of Supersonic.

Nothing much jumped out at me after the two I mentioned.
Columbia benefits from the harmony of Noel’s voice, but the best riff on the album as far as I’m concerned, is on Up In The Sky.

I do have one observation of them as a band that I will keep for the third listen. It’s a comparison with a certain Dublin band, but I’ll leave it until later.

Back to impressions on second listen , though. I do get the raw feeling that is more pronounced perhaps intentionally, as a debut album. I read a bit about it and I think they weren’t satisfied with the first take which was recorded individually per instrument. They brought in another guy who didn’t quite do it all in one take but recorded the bulk of it together as a band and put a few overdubs over it.

Personally I like this idea of nearing a live feel, however I do feel a lot of the dynamics of what would probably be great live, is lost in what I think is poor production that contrarily does the album no favours.

I did enjoy this listen better than the first time. I’m trying my best to get over my own prejudices but another thing I thought about regarding, what do I actually like by the band?
I think one of my favourites is the theme tune to ‘The Royle Family’ - Half the world Away.
A simple melodic sweet tune. Why am I drawn to this?
Well it’s well written like many of Noel’s tunes. I think more pertinent though, Noel sings it. Not Liam.
I think Liam may be a major stumbling block with me. Noel puts the emotion he felt when writing a tune into his vocalising it.
I just don’t like how Liam delivers even the best of their stuff.

‘I live my life for the stars that she-ine’

‘Is it my imagina-she-un’
Act-she-un
Sun-she—ine

It’s nasal. It drones. He effects the end of each line downwards on the scale and it becomes very annoying.

Now I fully appreciate that these same things that grate with me are great with fans of the band.

Would I appreciate the band better without Liam fronting it?
Good question. I’ll have to consider that on third listen.

I’m sure there are fans in hear thinking that’s sacrilege.
 
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
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.