When you're a legend like Neil Young, you sometimes start to act like one. Remember Trans? Or Everybody's Rocking? Or This Note's For You? Or even Mirror Ball? Albums of musical styles that were not really in his wheelhouse but that, seemingly on a whim, he wanted to play. Most artists used to be forced to keep these tapes to themselves. In the internet age you can put them out digitally on your own "label."
Not for Neil, however. All of the albums listed above were released on whatever label he was on at the time. So if fans just went out an picked up the latest Neil Young album and got one of these without hearing anything about it first, they may well have been a bit disappointed.
Neil's newest album is title Americana and is being put out on Reprise Records. He is pushing it heavily on his web-site and on Facebook and if you are so inclined you can listen to the entire album for a short time at Rolling Stone (http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/album-premiere-neil-young-and-crazy-horse-americana-20120528).
The album's premise is taking old folk songs and doing them Crazy Horse style, or as Neil puts it: "They're songs we all know from kindergarden, but Crazy Horse has rearranged them, and they now belong to us."
The results are no different than you might expect. Crashing guitars and bad harmonies are a staple of the Crazy Horse sound and they are front and center here. Most songs have been so rearranged that they bear little resemblance to the original other than you remember the lyrics.
While there are few interesting moments ("This Land is My Land" and "God Save the Queen"), the result is bad. I am a fan of the sloppy Crazy Horse treatment of many of Neil's songs, but it just doesn't work here.
As I alluded to at the outset, this should have been a private release album (if at all) at a reduced price for his fans. Neil has always followed the beat of a different drummer and this album is no exception.
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
SBL Starting a Qu'ran Society?
In a news release the Society for Biblical Literature announced that it had received a grant to start a corresponding society to study the Qu'ran. According to the news release, it would be a separate organization doing for the Qu'ran what SBL does for the Bible (insert your own liberal joke here).
This is not going to be some alarmist post about Islam taking over the Bible or some such nonsense. I might have more serious questions if it were going to be done within SBL, but have no problem with a separate organization.
But I do have questions and really wonder how well this has been thought out.
1. Are there enough Islamic scholars that such an organization could be self-sustaining? There are obviously enough Muslims in the world, but college-level scholars? Perhaps I will be surprised at the number.
2. Islam has not exactly been tolerant of non-religious study of the Qu'ran. Non-religious scholars within SBL are always moaning about those of us who see more than sociology in the Bible but want to talk about theology. It's one thing for churchmen to get upset with scholars who don't toe their own theological line, but what will happen when some paper is presented at SQS (proposed name--Society for Qu'ranic Studies) casting doubt on the origins of the Qu'ran or point out that it is hostile to women? Will the society and its scholars receive the Salman Rushdie treatment?
I don't know how this is going to work out, but those are my initial thoughts.
This is not going to be some alarmist post about Islam taking over the Bible or some such nonsense. I might have more serious questions if it were going to be done within SBL, but have no problem with a separate organization.
But I do have questions and really wonder how well this has been thought out.
1. Are there enough Islamic scholars that such an organization could be self-sustaining? There are obviously enough Muslims in the world, but college-level scholars? Perhaps I will be surprised at the number.
2. Islam has not exactly been tolerant of non-religious study of the Qu'ran. Non-religious scholars within SBL are always moaning about those of us who see more than sociology in the Bible but want to talk about theology. It's one thing for churchmen to get upset with scholars who don't toe their own theological line, but what will happen when some paper is presented at SQS (proposed name--Society for Qu'ranic Studies) casting doubt on the origins of the Qu'ran or point out that it is hostile to women? Will the society and its scholars receive the Salman Rushdie treatment?
I don't know how this is going to work out, but those are my initial thoughts.
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Review of John Mayer's Born and Raised
In the past, I have ignored John Mayer. Besides having all the morals of an alley-cat, his music was just pure pop and I don't care much for it.
I did catch him on TV a couple of times in his blues phase and was pleasantly surprised. He is actually a very good blues guitarist.
The other day a friend told me that the new album, Born and Raised, was supposed to be a folk album and pretty good. So I sat down and gave it three listens on Spotify.
Short version: I might happily listen to the album again on Spotify, but I have no intention of buying it.
Longer version: Critics have been favorably impressed. They seem to think that this is a departure from his pop days and is a blend of folk and Americana. Some have even invoked the names Bob Dylan and Neil Young. I'm sorry, but it takes more than adding a harmonica to mix it up with that company.
It's not a bad record. It's just a little dull without any standout lyrics or melodies to cut through the mellowness. The name that most often came into my head while listening was Jack Johnson; it definitely has that kind of a vibe but, unfortunately, of his mellower cuts.
I don't want to talk about individual tracks because one is pretty much like another.
If you already like John Mayer, I think this album will satisfy you. If you like Jack Johnson, you will also probably like this album. If you want real Americana music, you will be disappointed.
I did catch him on TV a couple of times in his blues phase and was pleasantly surprised. He is actually a very good blues guitarist.
The other day a friend told me that the new album, Born and Raised, was supposed to be a folk album and pretty good. So I sat down and gave it three listens on Spotify.
Short version: I might happily listen to the album again on Spotify, but I have no intention of buying it.
Longer version: Critics have been favorably impressed. They seem to think that this is a departure from his pop days and is a blend of folk and Americana. Some have even invoked the names Bob Dylan and Neil Young. I'm sorry, but it takes more than adding a harmonica to mix it up with that company.
It's not a bad record. It's just a little dull without any standout lyrics or melodies to cut through the mellowness. The name that most often came into my head while listening was Jack Johnson; it definitely has that kind of a vibe but, unfortunately, of his mellower cuts.
I don't want to talk about individual tracks because one is pretty much like another.
If you already like John Mayer, I think this album will satisfy you. If you like Jack Johnson, you will also probably like this album. If you want real Americana music, you will be disappointed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
