The Album Review Club - Week #146 - (page 1935) - Ocean Rain - Echo and the Bunnymen

[bennyboy]

I was at the Etihad having a pint before the game and I heard a guy standing next to me with a big floppy hat say ‘ahhhm frae Falkirk’ It wasn’t you was it?

No.A big floppy head only.

 

[threespires]

I'm not sure how much I have ever actively listened to this without the visuals but my initial thoughts in doing so this week are why would you? It's still quite interesting as a live album but then I find myself picturing the concert . So what it's really made me want to do is dig out my freebie Observer DVD. No doubt about it as a concert film it's phenomenal, not quite sure how to score it as an album. There are two or three great versions of songs on there and I shouldn't really downgrade it because of the lack of visuals but I think that's where I'm heading.

 

[journolud]

I've no objection to a live album being nominated but a film, well that's a stretch. I realise it's optional but in for a penny in for a pound. Or £3.49 to be more precise which is what it cost me to rent it. The first thing to note about it, if you weren't already aware, is the absolute hyperbole. The best concert film ever? The best concert ever? Well, you would have to be predisposed to the Talking Heads in the first place to think so.

Don't think I've heard such outlandish claims since a certain football manager and his acolytes was declaring he had the best goalkeeper in the world. And the best centre half. And full backs. Etc Still you don't win prizes just because of what people say about you. Except on here you do, sort of, if you get enough high marks. Although you still don't actually win anything.

I'd listened to the album once before watching the film. I don't know quite what I was expecting and to give it it's due, it's a high energy concert, the band seem to be enjoying themselves and David Byrne is a decent enough front man. Quirky even.

But it's just a film of a concert. Maybe I'm missing the point but Pink Floyd at Pompeii and as far as I remember it The Song Remains The Same offer much more than just a recording of the concert and are better documents of a place and time.

You could choose any concert film and proclaim it the best if it was featuring a band you love on top form. I don't love the Talking Heads.

I don't really know the Talking Heads. I have got Remain in Light but from what I can remember of when my brother was into them and other times I thought I'd give them a listen that album is a bit different to the rest of theirs which, well sort of borders on being a bit dull.

I won't be unique in saying Byrne's presentation makes up for the weakness of his delivery. And I'm sure others will disagree. I imagine if you are a Talking Heads fan then one of their concerns is great and I come again to the joy the performers seem to have just in being there. But I felt a bit like the person sat outside the party watching through the windows, half wishing I could be in there and half thinking, well it looks a bit meh.

I got a bit bored watching the film. I wanted to see some of the backstage stuff, the interactions, the soundchecks, etc. Probably missing the point altogether. But the music of the Talking Heads isn't enough to keep my interest over an hour and a half, whether watching or listening.

It is due another listen before I score it. Either the penny is going to drop for me or it's hovering around the five or six mark. We'll see...

 

[journolud]

Meanwhile, on REM. Makes me laugh a bit to be honest this insistence that anything after a certain point in time isn't the "real" REM. Seems they owe their true fans an apology for evolving. Although I'm pretty sure that there was discussion very early on this thread about how bands should evolve and not churn out the same stuff all the time. I don't necessarily hold that view, horses for courses and all that but as a late comer to REM, who has come to like their early stuff as well I declare that they were just getting going up to Green, a great album and thereafter we started to see the real REM... Well up to Up which I didn't like much and had me hankering back to the glorious period of Out of Time, Automatic For the People and the unexpected magnificence of New Adventures in Hi-Fi and the blast that was Accelerate.

Now there is probably a band that I loved from their early days that you Johnny Come Lately's that are into their later stuff just don't realise isn't any good because it's not the real them. Or something like that.

 

[hilts]

No point having a 0-10 scoring system if it's not fully utilised...

Sure sure you gave an honest score, move on Ludvig:-)

 

[Coatigan]

You're lucky I didn't.get into being harsh on comprehending posts because I didn't call bimbo on his taste in music just on his dishonesty in scoring.

I would score your post a 1/10 but I have read many worse, I mean it's a pretty bad post but a 1? Nah I don't have the need for hyperbole to suggest that. Below average I would say being the honest guy I am.

Live part a distraction? Haha
You need to know the songs to get into them? What????

3/10 I'm in a good mood.

Yes, I really care what you think.

10/10 for continuing to completely miss the irony here though.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

Meanwhile, on REM. Makes me laugh a bit to be honest this insistence that anything after a certain point in time isn't the "real" REM. Seems they owe their true fans an apology for evolving. Although I'm pretty sure that there was discussion very early on this thread about how bands should evolve and not churn out the same stuff all the time. I don't necessarily hold that view, horses for courses and all that but as a late comer to REM, who has come to like their early stuff as well I declare that they were just getting going up to Green, a great album and thereafter we started to see the real REM... Well up to Up which I didn't like much and had me hankering back to the glorious period of Out of Time, Automatic For the People and the unexpected magnificence of New Adventures in Hi-Fi and the blast that was Accelerate.

Now there is probably a band that I loved from their early days that you Johnny Come Lately's that are into their later stuff just don't realise isn't any good because it's not the real them. Or something like that.

I don’t think late REM isn’t real; I just don’t think it’s as good or interesting as early REM. EVERY early REM fan thinks this. All of us. It’s unique to the band. I mean, what the fuck do you expect when a band ditches IRS to go to Warner Brothers because no one in the UK has heard of them? It isn’t even that early REM fans dislike the later stuff. I like OOT a lot for example. It’s just that the band changed their sound radically. Stipe started enunciating; instrumentation moved away from the three piece; tempos shifted; subject matters changed. Green was their first record on the Big Label and not uncoincidentally, their first uneven record. Was this better than what they were? I don’t think so, but before they weren’t trying to be U2, so are they better because they were able to somehow become more like U2? Lots of people adore U2 and REM 2.0, so I guess congratulations on the evolution, fellas.

 

[bennyboy]

I don’t think late REM isn’t real; I just don’t think it’s as good or interesting as early REM. EVERY early REM fan thinks this. All of us. It’s unique to the band. I mean, what the fuck do you expect when a band ditches IRS to go to Warner Brothers because no one in the UK has heard of them? It isn’t even that early REM fans dislike the later stuff. I like OOT a lot for example. It’s just that the band changed their sound radically. Stipe started enunciating; instrumentation moved away from the three piece; tempos shifted; subject matters changed. Green was their first record on the Big Label and not uncoincidentally, their first uneven record. Was this better than what they were? I don’t think so, but before they weren’t trying to be U2, so are they better because they were able to somehow become more like U2? Lots of people adore U2 and REM 2.0, so I guess congratulations on the evolution, fellas.

Green was the start of me losing interest in REM.
Never thought of the label change theory before.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

I've no objection to a live album being nominated but a film, well that's a stretch. I realise it's optional but in for a penny in for a pound. Or £3.49 to be more precise which is what it cost me to rent it. The first thing to note about it, if you weren't already aware, is the absolute hyperbole. The best concert film ever? The best concert ever? Well, you would have to be predisposed to the Talking Heads in the first place to think so.

Don't think I've heard such outlandish claims since a certain football manager and his acolytes was declaring he had the best goalkeeper in the world. And the best centre half. And full backs. Etc Still you don't win prizes just because of what people say about you. Except on here you do, sort of, if you get enough high marks. Although you still don't actually win anything.

I'd listened to the album once before watching the film. I don't know quite what I was expecting and to give it it's due, it's a high energy concert, the band seem to be enjoying themselves and David Byrne is a decent enough front man. Quirky even.

But it's just a film of a concert. Maybe I'm missing the point but Pink Floyd at Pompeii and as far as I remember it The Song Remains The Same offer much more than just a recording of the concert and are better documents of a place and time.

You could choose any concert film and proclaim it the best if it was featuring a band you love on top form. I don't love the Talking Heads.

I don't really know the Talking Heads. I have got Remain in Light but from what I can remember of when my brother was into them and other times I thought I'd give them a listen that album is a bit different to the rest of theirs which, well sort of borders on being a bit dull.

I won't be unique in saying Byrne's presentation makes up for the weakness of his delivery. And I'm sure others will disagree. I imagine if you are a Talking Heads fan then one of their concerns is great and I come again to the joy the performers seem to have just in being there. But I felt a bit like the person sat outside the party watching through the windows, half wishing I could be in there and half thinking, well it looks a bit meh.

I got a bit bored watching the film. I wanted to see some of the backstage stuff, the interactions, the soundchecks, etc. Probably missing the point altogether. But the music of the Talking Heads isn't enough to keep my interest over an hour and a half, whether watching or listening.

It is due another listen before I score it. Either the penny is going to drop for me or it's hovering around the five or six mark. We'll see...

You ARE missing the point of the film, but that doesn't mean you're wrong at all. I think "The Rise And Fall of Western Civilization" and even (especially) "Spinal Tap" are better movies about music, bands and music performances, but neither are concert films per se. I too would have loved to see the backstage, the prep and all that stuff. And I completely agree -- if you don't already like Talking Heads -- maybe if you don't already LOVE them -- it's hard for the film to carry the same weight. I liked the film for the music, sure, but also the visuals, the joy and energy of the players, the unique "introduction" of the members at the beginning, the way the back-up percussion, singers, keyboards and guitar all add a depth to the original songs (as others have written) which made many of the ones I really like better and brought life to many of the ones I thought were just okay (except Naive Melody, which I like better in its quieter studio version). But if the music doesn't speak to you, how the hell can the film? And as noted -- I can totally see how TH isn't everyone's cup of tea.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

I've no objection to a live album being nominated but a film, well that's a stretch. I realise it's optional but in for a penny in for a pound. Or £3.49 to be more precise which is what it cost me to rent it. The first thing to note about it, if you weren't already aware, is the absolute hyperbole. The best concert film ever? The best concert ever? Well, you would have to be predisposed to the Talking Heads in the first place to think so.

Don't think I've heard such outlandish claims since a certain football manager and his acolytes was declaring he had the best goalkeeper in the world. And the best centre half. And full backs. Etc Still you don't win prizes just because of what people say about you. Except on here you do, sort of, if you get enough high marks. Although you still don't actually win anything.

I'd listened to the album once before watching the film. I don't know quite what I was expecting and to give it it's due, it's a high energy concert, the band seem to be enjoying themselves and David Byrne is a decent enough front man. Quirky even.

But it's just a film of a concert. Maybe I'm missing the point but Pink Floyd at Pompeii and as far as I remember it The Song Remains The Same offer much more than just a recording of the concert and are better documents of a place and time.

You could choose any concert film and proclaim it the best if it was featuring a band you love on top form. I don't love the Talking Heads.

I don't really know the Talking Heads. I have got Remain in Light but from what I can remember of when my brother was into them and other times I thought I'd give them a listen that album is a bit different to the rest of theirs which, well sort of borders on being a bit dull.

I won't be unique in saying Byrne's presentation makes up for the weakness of his delivery. And I'm sure others will disagree. I imagine if you are a Talking Heads fan then one of their concerns is great and I come again to the joy the performers seem to have just in being there. But I felt a bit like the person sat outside the party watching through the windows, half wishing I could be in there and half thinking, well it looks a bit meh.

I got a bit bored watching the film. I wanted to see some of the backstage stuff, the interactions, the soundchecks, etc. Probably missing the point altogether. But the music of the Talking Heads isn't enough to keep my interest over an hour and a half, whether watching or listening.

It is due another listen before I score it. Either the penny is going to drop for me or it's hovering around the five or six mark. We'll see...

I was going to send a joke reply to you, reminding you of the 6 score you gave Rory Irish Tour ‘74 ( I know where you live);-) but I decided against it. ( be careful).
No seriously, I think I introduced the first live album in here with that choice. I purposely left the film or video out of the choice however, as I didn’t like the editing of many of the songs in it as a whole even though I thoroughly enjoyed the film.
With this album/movie, I personally feel the movie is the real product and the album was put out as an audio representation of what is in the movie. The original album didn’t do that very well.

Whether that’s fair or not in here, doesn’t really occur to me. One of my main reasons for being in here is to sample something new or get a new perspective to something I thought I knew.
This choice does neither for me. I know my feelings inside out on this choice. It was a huge part of my twenties. It brings wonderful memories flooding back to me, when I was at my peak. Stop sniggering down the back. I had a peak… once.

If you are looking for a completely different live performance on film that I think is as good or better than any you mentioned, check out Jeff Beck live at Ronnie Scott’s. Another performance that caught me cold and swept me off my feet into a whole new appreciation of the man.