Good Reviews

December 03, 2004

Click here for Toronto's NOW magazinereview of the NV record.

It’s pretty good and the gentleman compliments us highly at times. I've found it really interesting to be reading these reviews and pasting them into my site without editing. When you are the one who actually makes the record you have to be really careful in reading these short blasts that claim to sum up your work. Some musicians can't even read them. Others get all worked up and snipe back at the scribes. I wanted to make a few of my quiet observations of the process. My modus operandi stands within the cliché of the Canadian way.

Qualifier: I put this up on the site and then read it. That's how I work. I thought I was treading on some thin ice trying to explain musical criticism from this side of the fence. One always comes off sounding like a whiner. I also thought I should mention that it is not a jab at music critics. Hell...I'm an armchair quarterback in that department. It should be taken as a sympathetic yet practical view. That said...

Here's the overall critical picture. The critics seem to really like the record but can't give it all the stars because it is not "innovative" enough – they throw that one in near the end because the negative elements will better be remembered that way. I understand. That's a critic’s job. They have to appear to know a little more than the reader. They have to state that they understand the artist's true underlying intentions. Just like your college peotry prof they have tapped into the hidden agenda. This is the angle that helps them keep their jobs. Short critiques are often like that conversational technique called, “its really great …but”. It’s rare to read one that says out front, “despite these two minor flaws I found the record to be a fabulous listen. Here’s why”. Anyway..."All good" reviews always seem like they were bought by someone or are part of some crazy Christian message. We don't want those.
In a lot of cases critics do know quite a lot about music. Every musician knows who those people are. Still they are all obliged to hit you with the same sound bites in the quick story. I am flattered by the high praise for our song craft. Comparisons to artists I admire are also fun to read. Keep in mind that a lot of critics might listen to most of an album once through (but maybe not even that much). Its entertaining to know when they are just cutting out bits of the one page bio that was sent to them. Sometimes they cleverly paraphrase it. Sometimes they just print what is there. People are sometimes just too busy to go deep. Karl Rove has a field day with this notion. You can see how George Bush can win an election.

One reviewer states that the album may be lacking in innovation and profundity. He's probably right. Compared to what is deemed innovative and profound in the popular music world ... we don't come close. Do we want to? A classic sounding song is a classic sounding song because the words seem to flow over you like something you’ve heard before. Within those phrases and couplets are things that make the song resonate for years to come. Songwriters spend hours and hours labouring to make the words flow out effortlessly. They are trying to make each word singable. No word should derail the voice as it heads straight up from the soul. That is the definition of “soul music”. So called “plain speech”, upon repetition takes on added meaning. You don’t hear too many ersatz and obviously arty words in soul music. It just wouldn’t seem right. It is music that can achieve a feeling without seeming to work so hard. There are people I love who make very obviously "arty" records. They can often make music that is strange for strange’s sake. Sometimes there is something truly new in it and other times it’s a kind of studied eccentricity that makes me laugh. “Artists” aim to challenge the listener but at the worst times they just wish to showcase their winning alternative attitudes. It’s a bit like the emperor’s new clothes. I know there are unlistenable records that get great reviews. I know that Lou Reed’s “Metal Machine Music” must have got a few great reviews in its day (a double album of white noise). He's Lou Reed for christsakes! That's enough to prove the point. I know that the Rolling Stones “Exile on Main Street” was panned when it came out. The Stones just weren’t pushing the envelope. “Popular bad boys lost in a druggy haze wrapped around an unflattering and imitative infatuation with American R&B” – I just made that up. I wonder which one people would put on now when a party was starting at their house.
It’s the sing-along and bonding rituals I want to be a part of. I want to be heard after the mom finds weed in her son's sock drawer. I want to be heard by people alone in their cars driving snowy roads or by couples rubbing up against each other. Real life. I’d truly love to be on one of those albums that people keep coming back to for some sense of comfort, indulgence or fun. I love it best when someone says, “Now I get what you meant by that. That’s really funny. I was too busy ignoring the words and just listening to the music”. The profound is never forced [sic]. It should just happen on its own. It has more chance to be true that way. Profound things happen when a singer and a song combine in the right context. The audience is a big part of that context. Keep listening and the aphorisms show themselves. I am sometimes embarrassed by the times I tried to shoot a flaming arrow out of a song with a clever turn or obtuse chord. How was I to know? How was a 70's music critic to know that "Try a Little Tenderness" was still a thousand times heavier than all of the first three "Yes" albums? Its a long learning curve.
It has been noted that our new record is a bunch of unadorned first take recordings by good musicians playing together in a studio. Is that not innovative in this day and age? Ashlee? Back me up on this. Not even a click track to ensure easier editing in post-production? Is that not balls to the wall, double daring, and completely outside?

Shave a couple of stars off the top and keep the qualified kind words coming. Like “Vanilla Ice” I just want them to spell our names right. Give me that "Vanilla Sanchez". Its got a good beat and I can dance to it. I give it a 73.