The Album Review Club - Week #145 - (page 1923) - Tellin' Stories - The Charlatans

[Saddleworth2]

Yeah I'll add the voice never bothered me one bit. I deliberately described it as singing style rather than voice, when saying I missed the lyrics.

It was a long post. Rather than intellectual posturing, I think it was more, emotional posturing from me.

I thought your post was emotionally intellectual mate. Either that or intellectually emotional.

 

[threespires]

I was going to respond to some of the points in a few of the excellent reviews like Bills, but I've probably already prattled on more than enough for most and what my opinions are on the use of diminished chords (tldr: RH use interesting a times but not in the same league as others) and atonality (tldr: have over the last 30 years come to the conclusion Schoenberg was talking through his arse) herein are probably moot at this point. So I'll demure and focus on something that has struck me reading all the comments.

It's been a lively discussion with a pretty widely distributed range of opinions and scores and lots of people have had very interesting things to say both for and against the album. Which leads me to wonder....

If the internet/www had existed in it's current form in 1997 would this album have been as successful? This came out at a time when Navigator had yet to be killed off by Internet Explorer, the very first iteration of Google had just launched, the smartphone didn't exist, the first iteration of Napster was 2 years away and though there were music forums on the likes of AOL many people were still barely online. Given all that I think people forget how influential print critics/journalists and music magazines and papers were back in the day and how much the record labels engaged with them. Whatever you think of this record it's hard to argue that the championing it got didn't contribute to it's success. But if people were more focused on their own and peer opinion rather than the press would it's trajectory have been different?

I know the mixed reception it's had on here this week is the result of looking back through a lens of nearly 30 years and it's entirely possible that the virtues championed by those promoting it would still have resulted in the same level of success but I do wonder.

 

[GornikDaze]

I certainly wouldn't have pegged you for giving this a lower score than Rob, so "No Surprises" you are not!

I'll stick to EPL wagers as yesterday was quite the (long - when picking a champion) haul if I'm to ever get to your small print. Hopefully a pint at the next City match we are attending together will start me on that right path.

A pint sounds good - sadly I didn’t make any games this season but will renew membership just in case next season.

 

[Coljj]

 

[stonerblue]

Of all the places I'd look for a steer on 'reality' I'm not sure a hugely successful rock star, be it Richards, Yorke or Waters, would be my starting place. Good theme for a (short) playlist, rock stars who are normal enough that you'd want to spend more than an evening with them.

They're all nutters mate. And like all of us, the older they get the nuttier they become.
I really don't care about the people behind the music I like

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

If the internet/www had existed in it's current form in 1997 would this album have been as successful? This came out at a time when Navigator had yet to be killed off by Internet Explorer, the very first iteration of Google had just launched, the smartphone didn't exist, the first iteration of Napster was 2 years away and though there were music forums on the likes of AOL many people were still barely online. Given all that I think people forget how influential print critics/journalists and music magazines and papers were back in the day and how much the record labels engaged with them. Whatever you think of this record it's hard to argue that the championing it got didn't contribute to it's success. But if people were more focused on their own and peer opinion rather than the press would it's trajectory have been different?

I know the mixed reception it's had on here this week is the result of looking back through a lens of nearly 30 years and it's entirely possible that the virtues championed by those promoting it would still have resulted in the same level of success but I do wonder.

I think this is a good point. I bought it originally even though I disliked their earlier singles because it was supposedly "different" from them (how ironic -- I read that as "better" than the early singles) and because the reviews were so nearly-uniformly great, even though the reviewer I like best panned it. After many fruitless hours trying to appreciate it on long car trips and at home, I couldn't. Had I a lot more information from other sources would I have thought more before purchasing it? I still probably would have -- but I was in my early 30s, married, both of us working just to afford living here, both my wife and I traveling constantly. I wasn't the audience. I think it was just a function of thinking "this is music for a person I am not, and never was. This is music for types I've never hung out with, and who are younger than I am." It really does come down to having no time for no hope.

All these reviews both good and bad have made me wonder had I been ten years younger, in school, more worried about the future, high regularly, more frequently bored, angrier and/or depressed more often, would I have liked it? I still don't think so but there'd likely have been a better chance.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

I think this is a good point. I bought it originally even though I disliked their earlier singles because it was supposedly "different" from them (how ironic -- I read that as "better" than the early singles) and because the reviews were so nearly-uniformly great, even though the reviewer I like best panned it. After many fruitless hours trying to appreciate it on long car trips and at home, I couldn't. Had I a lot more information from other sources would I have thought more before purchasing it? I still probably would have -- but I was in my early 30s, married, both of us working just to afford living here, both my wife and I traveling constantly. I wasn't the audience. I think it was just a function of thinking "this is music for a person I am not, and never was. This is music for types I've never hung out with, and who are younger than I am." It really does come down to having no time for no hope.

All these reviews both good and bad have made me wonder had I been ten years younger, in school, more worried about the future, high regularly, more frequently bored, angrier and/or depressed more often, would I have liked it? I still don't think so but there'd likely have been a better chance.

To continue -- the thing is, my two favo(u)rite records of all time (both are ahead by some distance) are also from points of view I don't/didn't have: one is unabashedly Marxist; the other is unabashedly female/feminist. But what I got from those records is an education, and I empathiz(s)ed/understood the perspectives whether I agreed or not. They shook me up. They made me think and question my own being, and my choices. To me they were revolutionary (both musically and lyrically) and the messages were distinct, strong and new to me.

Maybe that's where I struggle: the "message" here, if there is one, is nihilistic. In effect, it's a perspective easy to adopt, not hard, and it might even be considered a cop-out. But that said, nihilism might also be a perspective earned after years/decades of suffering, toil and struggle. And then we are right back where we started with this band: what did they go through to drive this record? Even if you say it doesn't matter -- no one knows Thom's inner torment -- it still isn't specific about it. And that's when his generalities get frustrating, and appear to be an act, not a mystery worth solving. But if the LISTENER has been through suffering, toil and struggle, then this record might speak to them in ways it wouldn't/couldn't to me.

And then we arrive at the real irony of my views: a spoiled rotten person calling this band spoiled rotten!

 

[Bill Walker]

I was going to respond to some of the points in a few of the excellent reviews like Bills, but I've probably already prattled on more than enough for most and what my opinions are on the use of diminished chords (tldr: RH use interesting a times but not in the same league as others) and atonality (tldr: have over the last 30 years come to the conclusion Schoenberg was talking through his arse) herein are probably moot at this point. So I'll demure and focus on something that has struck me reading all the comments.

It's been a lively discussion with a pretty widely distributed range of opinions and scores and lots of people have had very interesting things to say both for and against the album. Which leads me to wonder....

If the internet/www had existed in it's current form in 1997 would this album have been as successful? This came out at a time when Navigator had yet to be killed off by Internet Explorer, the very first iteration of Google had just launched, the smartphone didn't exist, the first iteration of Napster was 2 years away and though there were music forums on the likes of AOL many people were still barely online. Given all that I think people forget how influential print critics/journalists and music magazines and papers were back in the day and how much the record labels engaged with them. Whatever you think of this record it's hard to argue that the championing it got didn't contribute to it's success. But if people were more focused on their own and peer opinion rather than the press would it's trajectory have been different?

I know the mixed reception it's had on here this week is the result of looking back through a lens of nearly 30 years and it's entirely possible that the virtues championed by those promoting it would still have resulted in the same level of success but I do wonder.

I think it was just a function of thinking "this is music for a person I am not, and never was. This is music for types I've never hung out with, and who are younger than I am." It really does come down to having no time for no hope.

All these reviews both good and bad have made me wonder had I been ten years younger, in school, more worried about the future, high regularly, more frequently bored, angrier and/or depressed more often, would I have liked it? I still don't think so but there'd likely have been a better chance.

Speaking for myself I've never been that interested in whether a record is massively successful or not. It doesn't matter to me. I hear something and if it resonates with me I explore it further.
For me it has to be musically interesting, that is the main criteria, lyrics are not that important (but I do love the lyrics in Norwegian Wood).
When I heard "Paranoid Android" on the radio I was very interested in it. It sounded complex (and it is).
Anyway Foggy...I wasn't a snotty student at odds with the world or some spaced out Goth type smoking loads of dope and hating the bourgeoise. I was a happily married guy with 2 young kids and a very good well paid job.

Musically PA is complex, but great.
Even the intro section to PA is awesome.
Without getting too boringly technical the opening acoustic passage opens on Cminor, moving to Cminor7th the F7 added 9th resolving on Gminor but then Gminor added 9th, each 9th chord has a diminished 5th (tritone).
This is great. These lads have studied music.

The interesting thing is every word Thom sang is on the offbeat;

Please could you stop the noise?
I'm tryna get some rest
From all the unborn chicken
Voices in my head

Every word is between the 4 beats (to a bar), giving us = Syncopation. Which I always like. This opening section to PA shows knowledge and technical ability, setting RH apart from seemingly everything I was hearing on the radio (since Prog) unless you listen to Jazz stations.

Anyhow just that opening passage, which was the first RH I ever heard is a lightyear away from Oasis, I'm not knocking Oasis, they wrote some great songs but nothing that interested me, just straight CFG7 kinda stuff.

Anyway, an attempt to explain myself and why I like this album.

 

[Saddleworth2]

I can appreciate a great film without knowing diddly squat about the director.
I can appreciate a great meal at a restaurant without knowing the chefs background.
I believe Mozart was a childish **** but I still think some of his stuff is ok.
I can like the themes of a record without any real life empathy for them. In fact i would say it’s impossible to like a wide range of music if that was a criteria for enjoying it. One of my favourite Albums is Pet Sounds. I like it for the songwriting and harmonies that sound like they were made in heaven. I have zero connection with what the songs are about. I am as far from a love sick Californian wannabe surfer dude dominated by his dad as it’s possible to get but god I love Brian Wilson.
I don’t need to understand the note sequence on Airbag to think it’s a good opening track. My ears (or nowadays my left ear) tells me that.

This week has made blindingly obvious how we appreciate music is completely different, from those that simply want to listen and enjoy, to those at the other end of the scale. Isnt it great that we are all so unique.

 

[RobMCFC]

I can appreciate a great film without knowing diddly squat about the director.
I can appreciate a great meal at a restaurant without knowing the chefs background.
I believe Mozart was a childish **** but I still think some of his stuff is ok.
I can like the themes of a record without any real life empathy for them. In fact i would say it’s impossible to like a wide range of music if that was a criteria for enjoying it. One of my favourite Albums is Pet Sounds. I like it for the songwriting and harmonies that sound like they were made in heaven. I have zero connection with what the songs are about. I am as far from a love sick Californian wannabe surfer dude dominated by his dad as it’s possible to get but god I love Brian Wilson.
I don’t need to understand the note sequence on Airbag to think it’s a good opening track. My ears (or nowadays my left ear) tells me that.

This week has made blindingly obvious how we appreciate music is completely different, from those that simply want to listen and enjoy, to those at the other end of the scale. Isnt it great that we are all so unique.

Kind of related .....

I love a good 10 or 15 Beach Boys tracks but have never delved into their background.

However, on the back of one song nomination in the playlist thread - Dennis Wilson's incredible "River Song", which I had never heard before - and a bit of background reading, I have lined up a Beach Boys book (Catch a Wave by Peter Ames Carlin) for later in the year and am looking forward to the upcoming documentary on Disney+.