Empty Bookshelf Reviews

Yet another Ben Folds-related review. I'm probably not going to write anything about his new album that's coming out this fall, and since this is much more interesting, I'd rather substitute it anyway.

I found this article on RollingStone.com that discusses how this fake album came about, with bits about each song. Basically, he and his bassist and drummer got some studio time in Dublin and wrote six fake tracks, added three songs that are going to be on the album, and gave it to some guys to leak.

Obviously the songs aren't all going to be great, but for a free download that's basically been sanctioned it's not a half bad idea. There's the free media attention that you get from the music magazine, and the rest of the internet music community (google search for "fake album leaks" and you'll almost exclusively get pages about this specific one), which is always good for someone who could possibly be deemed irrelevant and past his prime.

It gets his fan base excited and talking, though that could be a good thing or a bad thing. Not coming out immediately and saying that it's fake leads to discussion about the new sound (judging from the Rolling Stone samples, he's got yet another new sound he's going for. Kudos for changing it up, but like the last time, it's going to take some getting used to). The risk here is that while it does drum up interest in the new album, the fanbase is most unanimously going to be buying the new album anyway, and by putting out sub-par songs you can only hurt your chances that some of these people will be willing to pay for the album when they can just download it (of course, thereby missing the meaning of releasing a fake pirated version in the first place).

This isn't to say that this fake album is all that bad, it's just a little bit below full-album standards. It's about on-par with the EPs that he put out between "Rockin the Suburbs" and "Songs for Silverman". A few of these songs (Brainwascht, Dr. Yang) actually sound like they could be on that first Ben Folds Five album from way back when, which is probably the first time in ages that you could say something like that (whether it's a good thing or a bad thing depends on the person I think).


"Bitch Went Nuts" will probably be a concert staple in the future.



"Cologne" is great, though it's going to be on the album in a modified version.


"Way to Normal" is just strange, not that the bulk of it isn't a perfectly normal song, but it's three distinctly different sections. I especially love the "Flash Gordon"-inspired opening. The other ones besides "Hiroshima" are pretty much forgettable, but it was free so I'm not complaining.

Putting (at least similar versions of) three of the actual songs that are going to be on the album is a smart move as well, tempering the cries of "I downloaded this for nothing", and serving as an actual preview of what's coming. It's basically the same as releasing a free three-song single.... with six bonus tracks.


Releasing a fake version of your album on the internet (with actual fake songs) gets four stars, as it can get you free media attention, the fan base, and maybe even some others, talking about the upcoming album, and serve as a preview of what the album is actually going to be like. The only negative is that since he didn't come out right away and say it was fake, there may have been some negative early reviews. Providing full-disclosure, which he eventually did, mitigates this a bit though. In the end, I think that no matter how mediocre, fans appreciate what is basically a free EP.

Quick (hopefully) post about last night's ben folds concert at lafayette college in easton, PA. I've been to six Ben Folds concerts now (since 2001 and most of them were relatively close to where i was at the time, but yes, it's still a lot), and I'd probably rank this as the second best of them all, with last year's Muhlenberg show taking the top spot. Reasoning for this is that the drumer and bassist add so much more to the sound, both instrumentally and vocally, and both of these past two shows didn't require me to sit through rufus wainwright sucking the energy out of the crowd.

Granted, we had to sit through an equally ill-picked opening act (the same as muhlenberg), a solo guitar player/"singer" whose songs consisted of mostly playing the same chord over and over again arhythmically, droning on and on about there being "evil in the world" until the words had no meaning, all while basically looking like Sam Rockwell doing his best Crispin Glover impression. He also seemed to be drunk?

Mr. Folds (as the New York Times would say), put on his normal, energetic show for about an hour and forty five minutes, adding new bits to established songs, and going back to the beginning of the catalogue, including seven Ben Folds Five songs, and playing four new songs. Apparently, they just finished recording the new album; didn't say anything about release dates. Overall, just a fast-paced, awesome show. Also of note, t-shirts being sold read "I [Heart]ed Ben Folds... before he sucked".

Setlist (I felt like a nerd writing the song titles down, and I probably was right in feeling that way) below.

New Song- Didn't hear the title or any of the words really. Possibly "Brainwashed"
Gone
Hiroshima- New song about falling off a stage in Japan and doing the show with a concussion.
Bastard- That vocal part in the middle (adjusted from the album to suit three people, still sounding like more) is ridiculous
Still Fighting It
Free Coffee- New song. Played with a cake pan inside the piano, and a distortion pedal on some of the keys. Really interesting sound.
You to Thank- Went to the 70s sounding keyboard to the side of the piano for part of the solo, and was actually playing tough parts on both at the same time, angled ninety degrees apart, for a bit.
Landed- Cameo by some tambourine player got major cheerage.
Annie Waits
B*tches aint Sh*t
Lullabye (rest of the band stepped down for this and luckiest)
Luckiest
Narcolepsy- Maybe the best version of this I've heard. Especially effective after the quiet sap-fest "Luckiest" (not that it's bad, it's just quiet and sappy). Narcolepsy was long, loud, and with a good bit of jamming in the middle.
Army- Didn't teach the audience the horn parts, but just kinda pointed, expecting them.
Kate
Rockin' The Suburbs- Claimed it was originally going to be about Bob Seger beating someone up with tire chains for robbing an old lady.
Underground
Zak and Sara
One Angry Dwarf- These last two are the normal, fast paced closers, amping up the energy until he throws the stool at the piano.

Encore
Effington- New Song. Nice three-part a cappella opening. Something about "If there's a god, he's laughing at us and our football team". Kinda sounded like a school fight song. Tambourine player reappeared to applause.
Philosophy- with the normal stuff added at the end.
Not the Same- w/ audience vocals.


Four and a half stars. Minus half for the draining opening act, the smallest crowd, and possibly least interested (though that's not to say they didn't bring the applause, maybe just didn't feel like singing) I've seen for a show, and opening his set with a new song that nobody knew.

When you read a review, you expect certain things. You want to hear some insightful positives and negatives regarding the thing being reviewed. You don't want to be talked down to. You hope to have an overall idea of whether said object is worth seeing/listening to/buying/reading/visiting/eating/doing/throwing things at. And after you've done any of those things, you want to come back and read that review again to determine whether you agree or think the reviewer is out of his mind. Basically, you expect reviews like this and this. Then you go to a website whose supposed specialty is reviews, and you see something like this. This "review" only manages to fit one of those criteria, that being the last one" that this reviewer is totally out of his mind.

A long time ago, when the second Franklin movie was being planned, our discussion took a long detour, with us arguing over the definition of the phrase "cop out". There were numerous e-mails sent back and forth trying to determine if an idea that I came up with was something that constituted this. You can read highlights here. This argument was never really solved, but I stand here today telling you once and for all, that this "review" is the definition of "cop out".

I can gather by the video clip shown here that the "reviewer" doesn't like Shine On, but I was interested in hearing some actual insight into what makes it good or bad. Granted, the CD wasn't that great (there were three songs on it that I thought were really good, but the rest was kinda mediocre), but it doesn't deserve to have its review have nothing interesting or meaningful to say at all. I don't know how a high-fallutin' website like pitchforkmedia decided that that was representative of their organization, but recently, they even put up a similar video, claiming it was a JET music video. Obviously, the pretentious music-lovers have a thing against the Aussies rockers, but I really can't figure out what it is.

The review of their first album, Get Born, gives us a little more understanding, but I use the word "little" literally. It's presented in the form of a discussion between the band and the owner of a venue where they're supposed to be putting on a concert. Things go wrong at the concert and the fans turn on the band. Sure there are opinions presented about the band, but I'm sure they're all completely over-the-top exaggerations from someone who's never seen them live or met them. I can't imagine a band (aside from the Flaming Lips or Ozzy Osbourne) actually demanding [thirty f%$&in' angry alligators with top hats on, Iggy Pop shooting out of that cannon, and midway through sending in the kid from the iPod commercial.] It may work as a review of the band, but as a review of the album it fails miserably.

It only mentions three songs from the CD (very briefly) and it only has two points that I gleaned from the whole thing. The first is that all their songs sound like other bands (citing AC/DC, Iggy Pop, Wallflowers, Oasis, Bon Jovi and the Rolling Stones). The second is that they have "insipid love songs that sound like wedding band covers" and "insipid lyrics, we say 'Come On!' and 'Oh Yeah!' every five seconds". So basically the guy only knows one insulting adjective. You know, there's a thesaurus feature in MS word, and I'd assume there's also one on the trendy Mac you also probably use. Insipid: dull, bland, wishy-washy, characterless, colorless, trite, tame, unexciting, uninteresting, boring. Maybe none of those words sounded smart/insulting to readers enough, though I'm partial to the word "trite"

Here's the thing that the review is missing. The music is fun. It's not meant to be high art. It's not meant to be genre-pushing. It's meant to be music with easy-to-learn lyrics and melodies that you can put in your car CD player, turn the volume way up on, roll down your windows and shout at the top of your lungs and have a good time. And it completely succeeds at that, something that this reviewer was competent enough to pick up on. There's a good mix of fast and slow songs (so the whole CD doesn't sound the same, a huge pet peeve of mine), and I like most of the slower songs. I understand that a lot of the faster songs sound similar, but they're catchy enough that it doesn't bother me (a problem that the second CD had), much like with critically lauded Franz Ferdinand. As far as the words go, I'm not expecting poetic lyrics, so why should I complain that they're not there? Did people who went to see Pirates of the Caribbean complain that there wasn't a deeper meaning in the dialogue, or that it wasn't a British period piece about some queen from the 17th century? I would hope not. They should be expecting to have fun. That's all I expect out of it. That's not to say that I shouldn't hold the band accountable for bad music, I just don't think that criticizing lyrics for this kind of music is really the way to go. Do critics complain about the lyrics to "SHOUT" or "MONY MONY"? Some of the songs on that Fountains of Wayne CD, Welcome Interstate Managers had TERRIBLE lyrics, but critics dismissed them because of how fun the melodies were.

Now some of you who are familiar with Aaron Copland's book, "What to Listen for in Music", would say that I'm only listening to this album on a "sensuous", or maybe an "expressive" level, and that to fully understand why music is good or bad, I have to be listening to it on a "sheerly musical" level as well, combining the three. Well, in response to that I would claim that there isn't too much to it on a musical level, but my musical knowledge is limited. I'm learning to increase what I hear when I listen, but I want to understand what makes this a musically good or bad album. That's why I went to a site where I knew I would find a harsh but intelligent criticism of the CD. But there was none of that there. Instead, all I got was a poorly-written, profanity-laced diatribe against the band for mimicking other bands. Personally, since there really isn't any truly popular band playing right now that sounds like them, I don't have too much of a problem with it, but I'm reviewing the review, and not the band or CD, so that doesn't really matter.


Zero stars for the cop-out Shine On so-called review.


½ star for the creativity to write a review for Get Born as a dialogue. Minus four and a half for not having any substance to it at all, not talking about the songs, and basically complaining because Jet has songs that sound like bands that lots of people like.

I guess I just don't understand the point. U2 needed a single for their approximately fifth greatest hits collection. Rather than come up with a really good song themselves, they enlisted the help of a band that while good, just doesn't seem like the right fit with U2: Green Day. Not that Green Day can't play, but the two bands' styles are just a little too different to mesh collectively, not unlike that time where about 16 different musicians got up onstage at the Grammys and butchered Lennon/McCartney's "Across the Universe". Paul's probably rolling in his grave. "twice


Getting back to the matter at hand, they decided to make their newest hit something for the people in New Orleans . Instead of going the traditional route involving thoughtful lyrics about the condition of the area, or people's struggles, they decided that the second half of the song should consist of the phrase "The Saints are Coming", repteated over and over and over again, in a musical phrase that has definitely been taken from somewhere that I can't quite place. They chose to debut this song at the reopening of the Superdome, for the Saints-Falcons Monday night game a few weeks ago, and it works perfectly as an opening theme song for the football team during games. I can't imagine, however, that this song is going to be remembered at all in even one year's time, and that's a shame considering that this is all that two of the most prolific bands of the last 15 years could come up with. It's almost like they weren't trying.

They could very well have been trying something new though. This could be the start of product placement within the music industry. Well, I guess that's not new" but maybe actually using the songs on the radio to promote something. It would be like the Eagles writing a song about how great the Philadelphia Eagles are, to get them pumped up, or AC DC writing a song for the Chargers (HA!), or Bad Company writing a song called "Bad Company" and using it at Enron meetings (BA-ZING).

And isn't Bono's thing Africa , anyway? Why didn't they use the power of song to put together a group to raise funds for Africa ". Oh wait" I forgot" Well, why didn't they do it again? A world-renowned, self-appointed ambassador to a far-off and underprivileged continent can't be taking time away from that to help another cause, especially one that's been nigh on forgotten by most of the world ( You know you're lost in your own logic when you can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not). I mean, you don't see Brangelina Polie out there helping America 's homeless people, or fighting drug abuse, or all the millions of issues people here face every day. And that's because they have character. They know that if they multi-task, not only do run the risk of reducing the importance of their cause, but they also reduce the importance of other, more useless celebrities. By doing double duty (I said Doody!... I guess that doesn't work as well when typed out) when it comes to activism, you're the one putting Rob Scheider out of a job. It's on your head Bono.

What was I talking about? Oh, this dumb song. Like I said, it may be good for the football team, but call me cold; I don't really care about the Saints. It was nice to see them play well, but not nice enough for me to listen to an awful song that could've been better.



One star for trying to bring some attention back to New Orleans , and making a song that they'll be playing forever at Saints games. Minus four stars for making the rest of us listen to it, and possibly starting a trend of individually-made rock songs for a specific sports team. The last thing we need is a re-made version of "Benny and the Jets" about New York's lesser football squad. We already have to deal with that annoying J-E-T-S cheer. That should be enough.

Let's see if I can get out some reviews for once...

I'm not being profound when I say that success is a great way to turn the less successful against you. In the burgeoning field of critical criticism, this fact is no more obvious than with music critics. Movie critics are relatively high profile (notably Roger Ebert), and there is a variety of widely known names in the field (Gene Shallit, Peter Travers, Leonard Maltin, etc.) and almost never write "I could make a better movie than this, I'm just choosing not to" types of reviews. If anything, for a really awful movie, they'll just say, "Anyone can't write (successful) music, but think that they can. This isn't where every music critic comes from, but it's a heckuva lot easier to say, "I'm going to tour the country, and sell my CDs to all the free-thinking Zydeco-Blues-Jamband-Trip Hop-New Wave-fans out there" and think you really have a chance than saying "I'm going to be a movie star," and actually believing your own hype.

But the weird thing is that with music (well, like movies, too), one doesn't necessarily need to be particularly talented to get really far with a career in it, for some amount of time, at least. Obviously, the poppy-est of pop music is the ultimate example of this. We're sort of in a dry spell for "bubblegum" pop at the moment, but it'll come back...it always does. Nsync sold (capital "M") Millions of records, made lots of money, achieved a huge amount of fame, and those people with musical dreams in the previous paragraph? Not so much. See the part above about success and the unsuccessful.


See, I have nothing against NSync (or any of those groups). First (and what should be the most obvious), I'm not and I never was their target market. It's not my money spent on their CDs, merchandise, etc. If I'm that offended by their existence, I can change the channel, the radio station, whatever implement of the mass media on which I'd see them. And second, in interviews, they seemed like perfectly friendly guys who had a lot of fun and realized they were really a product of the current time, and they'd be "done" when they needed to be "done." (to be fair to the "haters," the Backstreet Boys didn't seem to have quite as much perspective/insight into their fleetingness). Second-and-a-half-ly, there's something to be said for making somewhat listenable music that gets played on Top 40 radio: I can't stand most of their catalog, but "Bye, bye, bye" is a darn good song, you're just afraid to admit it.

And third (where the music critic thing comes in), no matter how "unmusical" they might've been, it really doesn't matter. Someone would laugh out loud if anyone in Nsync said he was "living his dream of being a musician," but if he said, "I'm living my dream of being famous," well, you really can't argue with that. Toward the end of their popularity, you could tell that their "handlers" thought they could gain more fans if they were involved (in some nebulous capacity) in the writing of their music (as opposed just the performance of it), but the writing was already on the wall for their genre of "pop" as "real" signer-songwriters like Avril Leveigne took the torch and were equally not the type of music someone like me would in the market for.

But did these boy band members have any talent? Easy answer: of course not, they sold millions of records because of the people pulling their strings. Not-so-easy answer: they sold millions of more than one record, and no matter how smart the people behind the scenes were, there were five guys that needed to keep a rather limited "schtick" interesting.

Justin Timberlake, undoubtedly the most musically successful of the former members, gets the worst rap. He was probably the most popular among the ladies during his days with Nsync and let's not forget his white-boy-fro: plenty of reasons to hate the guy. Basically, he managed to turn a boy band career into a "leading man in music" type of trajectory with one CD, and his upcoming CD will cement his role even further. Of course, he won't be able to shake the "boy band" thing, but there's something to be said for people always being interested in your next CD, if only so they can complain about it loudly, inadvertently helping to promote it.

Which brings us to the actual center of this review, a seemingly innocuous review of one of the new singles on Justin Timberlake's new CD. Once again, let me call out pitchfork media. Now, I've not heard the song in question, but the review of "My Love" is the issue. But wait, you say, "Dan, but the review got five out of five stars, and pitchfork media doesn't like anything." I say, "Look more closely." Sure, it got five big stars, but look to see why. It certainly doesn't have much to do with Justin Timberlake according to the writer. Timbaland produced the song, which as we know, in hip-hop means he did either a whole lot or a whole little. It would appear that Timbaland, for this song, did "a whole lot." In fact, according to the review, it'd look like he did the whole darn thing. As if there's no way that someone who was, *gasp* in a boy band (much less one of the most successful ever) could accomplish anything after that on his own merits after this. Stereotyping and generalizing all people bitter at boy bands' success to be like pitchfork media, it's weird that they'd be so invested in seeing him fail, and if no one heeds their (the holier-than-thou's) warnings, then they need to explain away how the guy got successful (Timbaland supposedly writing the perfect song, etc. without any help from a former boy bander). I'm still not the target market for Justin Timberlake's music, but that doesn't mean he deserves to fail.



The Unfair Critical Treatment of Former Boy Band Members gets two stars due to the fact that it seems like some people just can't get past the fact that someone who became successful doing something unfathomable to them (doing a good job lipsynching while dancing, mainly) could go on to something larger and somehow respectable outside of the realm of middle-school girls. Like I said, a lack of success breeds a bitterness towards the successful. The two stars come from the fact that there is plenty of insignificant music churned out by former boy band members that even I (who's half taking the role of Devil's Advocate in this) couldn't defend.

This one may balloon to huge proportions again like the season 2 LOST review. That being said, I'm officially starting it on Friday August 18th... we'll see how long it takes to finish.




I'm not so much the fan of "reality TV". Call me a TV snob, but I find the amount of manipulation in the genre to be completely too much. Manipulation of people to do certain things. Manipulation of actual events to make things look a certain way. Manipulation of audience emotions to make us feel empathetic or hateful. Certain people who are even more cynical than I am about such things might say that all of these manipulations are used in any sort of narrative/fiction work, and so therefore I shouldn't be complaining, because nearly all of my favorite shows are fictional. The difference here is the illusion of reality that exists in the non-fiction genre. Shows like Laguna Beach, Survivor, Big Brother, and yes, even "The Real World", all have producers influencing actions of characters, the editing of actions to portray people in a certain light, and of course the casting of people to fill certain roles on the show... because without an antagonist, there's no drama, and without drama, there's no point. And they manage it by making us believe that these are people without outside influence... as they really are.

Of course in competition reality shows, usually that antagonist comes in the form of a person who isn't performing upto the standards set by the other competitors, but miraculously does not get voted off, with a much more solid competitor taking that bottom spot. Then there's always a big "shock" when a popular contestant gets kicked off (once a year without fail), and somehow the one we all seem to hate stays on for another week, until finally they get shelved and we all rejoice.

Where am I going with this? I'm still gonna need another paragraph to get there. You see, I always hated American Idol. HATED it. Even when I was forced to live with it at work every single day of the week. That might've actually made me hate it more. The next January though, I was among a high concentration of people who wanted to watch the audition episodes. I knew where it was going to go. A slew of bad singers hoping to be the next William Hung were going to come on and be completely oblivious to their lack of talent and then be exploited to sell advertising space. AHH America! What I never realized though, was that these horrible singers were actually selling the remainder of the season. Sprinkled in with the talentless souls are a handful of people who are either gorgeous and good singers, or they're unattractive but have overcome obstacles in order to be able to sing the way they do. And while you think they're just telling you more about the person, they're filling your head with sympathy or lust. And that's where they hook you. The personalities. American Idol is a personality contest as much, if not more than it is a singing contest, with terribly bland arrangements, stiff contestants who are oftentimes "pitchy", and don't really know how to entertain a crowd for the most part. And product placement. Lots of product placement. Of course I fell into the trap, but I thought I was being anti-Idol by rooting for the completely awesome Bo Bice (still the best contestant they've ever had on the show). "The Man" still won though, because by being the provider of such "anti-Idol" material, they got me to watch it. CURSE THEM!

I realized that American Idol was like that terrible contestant who nobody seemed to dislike enough to get kicked off. It's flashy, attractive and diverse/bland enough for EVERYBODY to like something about it. The problem is that it's not good. But last year after Idol's season ended I found a show on CBS that did everything that Idol did, nearly five times better, but nobody really knew about.

Rockstar: INXS was a talent competition to find a new lead singer for the band INXS, probably unknown to most people my age. The show had incredible production design, better camerawork, better direction, better judges, a much much better results show, a phenominal house band, better arrangements week after week, and at least six singers that probably could've won Idol. In fact, the top six contestants were so uniquely awesome that any one of them could've had a successful solo career had people actually watched the show. There was half-hour backstage episode every week that took a look at the personal interactions of the contestants, challenges and sort of rockstar-seminar things, and song selection/arrangement, which was a very interesting supplement, but got moved to VH1 because of bad ratings. Also, the show had Brooke Burke wearing conveniently revealing outfits. And it was all on during the summer, when nothing else is on. What more could you ask for?

Season 2 definitely has a different feel, and for good reason. The contestants are auditioning for a different band, a new band without any released material, and without a former lead singer. Called Supernova consists of Tommy Lee, former Metallica bassist Jason Newsted, and former Guns N' Roses guitarist Gilby Clarke, who, like INXS in season one, serve as judge and executioner. I'm going to break this all down in good and bad as compared to last season.

First the good.
1. The judges are better than last year. Call me ignorant, but I never knew who INXS was, and I could never tell the band members apart when they were giving their comments to the singers. Not only does Supernova have members that stand out on their own, but are telegenic, and give really good advice much of the time. Of course Tommy Lee is gonna flirt with all the women, and there's gonna be all sorts of innuendo, but there's also genuinely constructive criticism.

2. The shows use of alternative media is staggering. They took the backstage show off the air, and put it where people who really would make the effort to watch it have the ability to watch it... the internet. The show's website has a plethora of activites and information, including "mix-tape" tracklist of contestants, band members, and the houseband's favorite songs, which you can then buy from MSN.com's service. You also can vote for your favorite performer online, as well as by phone. During this week, viewers were actually able to vote which songs contestants would sing, from a list of four per singer.

3. No INXS songs. Even though it served all of its purposes in season 1, I couldn't help but be a bit bored by performances of these songs, mostly because I didn't know them. I understand that this was partially done so I could get to know them, and that people who once liked INXS would probably like them, but I didn't. Because Supernova doesn't have any previously recorded songs, the people in the bottom three pick which songs they're going to sing for survival. I'm not exactly sure at what point they pick their songs or rehearse with the house band, but it always comes off great.

4. Zayra Alverez. This woman could easily go under the "Bad" column, but I'm gonna count her as "so bad it's good". She's not bad in a William Hung way though. Zayra is what Bjork would be if she were a Latin music performer. She obviously never stood a chance of becoming the lead singer for this band, yet she somehow managed to escape elimination twice... I think because the band thought she'd make good TV, and they knew they'd kick her off eventually. Watch for yourself here. The best ones are Razorblade, and 8675-309. Trust me when I tell you that you have never seen anything on TV like it. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is up in the air, but at the very least, it's incredibly compelling TV.

5. The job to be won is a much more difficult one. Becoming the new lead singer for INXS is tough, no doubt. But you've already been given a blueprint and a catalogue of songs to work with. Here, not only will you be creating your own original sound and direction for the band, but the winner is also going to have to hold his own with these three incredibly charismatic musicians, something that INXS didn't have. Thus the competition is harder and therefore makes for better TV.

The Bad
1. Brooke Burke. I really hate to say it, cause she's freakin gorgeous, but she's got no personality this year. Not that she was amazing last year, but she had some life to her. This year, it's like she forgot how to read over the summer, then started learning again, just in time for the new season. Complete lack of energy, enthusiasm, and sincerity. Come back old Brooke.

2. "ROCKER". I hate this word. I hate hate hate hate hate this word. I hate the fact that it supposedly stands for individuality and anti-authority, but has become both a stereotype and a tool of the man. When American Idol took it and used it as their own word.... exclusively using it to refer to two or three people, rather than calling them singers, it got to me. It reminds me of how the wrestler A.J. Styles in TNA has to be referred to at all times as "The Phenominal" A.J. styles. Or how wrestlers in WWE are ALWAYS referred to as "Superstars" and not wrestlers. Not only is it lumping all the singers into one stereotype, but they're using the same word over and over again. I swear I heard the word "rocker" used 4 times in the first five minutes last week. Seriously, I know you're trying to prove yourself as the anti-Idol, but get a damn thesaurus, and make the script sound a little more natural. Looking on the website, "Rockers" actually has a capital "R" because, obviously, it's a proper noun.

3. The SAME songs. They have changed it up a bit, but for every "Zombie" by The Cranberries, there's a "We are the Champions". How many times must I hear "Creep", or the four overplayed combined hits of Jefferson Airplane and Janis Joplin. Does Nirvana really deserve to have had eight performances of their songs? And if i have to hear Interstate Love Song, Bring Me to Life, or Cult of Personality one more time, I'm totally going to illegally download the Supernova CD instead of buying it. And I'll convince all my friends to download it instead of buying it as well. That'll show them. It's just like stealing from them, but I deserve it for having to sit through repeats. Please, more songs like "Starman", "One Headlight", and "Helter Skelter".

4. Tommy Lee acting like a sleazebag. I guess it's hard for him not to, but come on. Grow up.

5. Dave hasn't played guitar yet. Granted, there still four weeks to go I think, but it's about time we see him show off his guitar chops and see if the singers can keep up.

6. Enough with the voting info. I understand the need to make it clear to the audience, but it's way too much to give me the info 15 times in an hourlong show.


As far as contestants go, I'd say that last years group was stronger, but I can't really remember anyone other than the top six. We're still at seven right now, so I'm sure that with two more weeks of showing off and getting better, the top five could probably match last years top five. After all, I wasn't the biggest fan of last years top two, instead liking 3rd-6th place a lot more. This year's group is a little more hard-edge with the obligatory tatoos and piercings than last years was and that's for good reason, because the band and its music is more that style. While Mig had last year's breakout performance with this song, so far there have been at least two really memorable performances this one and this one, both by Ryan Star. His "smoldering intensity" might just be enough to get him to the finals, and as he's due to sing an original song this week, we'll see how far his skill set goes. Even if the top six aren't better than last year, whoever makes the top three has the potential to surpass the IXS top three. It's all a matter of whoever has the better single, which, in my opinion is why J.D. Fortune won last year.



What I've seen of this year's Rockstar: Supernova show gets a 3.5 star rating by showing constant improvement, a willingness to be different, and the potential to give the band a really tough choice when it comes to the top three. If only Brooke Burke would be able to stop using the word "Rocker".

So here we are at the first of what may be a few reviews of our first milestone, 100 reviews. Not only is this the first review of this milestone, but of what could be very many milestones. We here at the Bookshelf like the word "milestone", and don't believe in Thesauruses. So here we go, our first hundred in a nutshell.

The first actual review happened way back in October of 2005... remember that time before the Steelers won the superbowl, before "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" movie, before Dick Cheny accidentally shot his friend while hunting, and before Bristol, United Kingdom celebrated the 200th birthday of Isambard Kingdom Brunel (actually April 9) by relighting the Clifton Suspension Bridge?

Dan's first review was aimed at complaining about post-game hype surrounding an extremely long baseball game. Of course our readers probably care about boring Astros-Braves baseball games as much as they seemed to care about my terrible review of the dictionary. Even though that picture was good, it was nowhere near the five star quality of this image. I too tried my hand at reviewing food, but it was an utter failure. On the plus side, my review of the letter to the editor is one of my favorites, and my first review actually got eight comments, including this link. The few following that grilled chese review focused mostly on music, my opinion of "Good Night, and Good Luck", a particular episode of Trading Spouses, and Dan's opinion of My opinion of "Good Night, and Good Luck". Dan also said that the Colbert report wouldn't last, which seems to have been proven false.

October seemed to be us finding our footing.





November saw Dan's Cleveland Trifecta, a diatribe against horses, a road that he liked, an episode of "Coach", and his complaints about how much he aches, now that he's an old man. I started the month strong with the Beth review, but struggled through the rest of it, with lame reviews like Thursday, a type of tooth"paste" that doesn't work for me, and an insightful, yet completely unnecessary complaint about my nosebleeds. My FAO Schwarz review kinda made up for them, but the highlight of the month involved Dan and I sparring about how Christmas is coming earlier every year, and something about me being a time-traveling sheep.

November didn't see much improvement over October, but the Christmas stuff was entertaining.




December got a bit better, even with a few less reviews. I busted out the old NES games, for a few reviews that I swear are not trying to copy off of XE, another personal favorite, Christmas Cards, Adam's first review, Dan throwing the hate down on Pitchfork media, and a suprising amount of people commenting on Roger Ebert's take on video games. The biggest advance in December was the pop-ins, that added added some clarity to our parentheses-obsessed-writing.

December was a highly engaging and entertaining month, even with only nine reviews.




2006 rolled around, and January saw Dan get political, review half of a book, not like warm winters a lot. I only contributed three of ten reviews that month, but all three of them were relatively alright, mostly because "Where In Time is Carmen Sandiego", and "The Simpsons" after season 9 is so easy to complain about.

January's topics fell off a little.




February, while being the shortest month, was also a monster for us, as far as number goes. A whopping twenty-one reviews. To be fair, 17 of them came in our envelope-pushing live superbowl reviews, the biggest stunt pulled in the history of reviewing anything and everything on a five star scale. The only other reviews of any substance were my Gauntlet Review of the Beatles albums, and Dan's digging up of our one-issue underground high-school newspaper.

Despite the big stunt, and two good reviews, February was kinda lacking.




March just plain sucked. Four reviews total. One by me. Three mega-reviews by Dan.





April was slightly better, with another of my top five of my reviews, Legacy of the Wizard. The other four I would give an average of 3 stars to, but since there were only four during the month, that's going to cancel out the Legacy of the Wizard bonus and take it down a half star.





For my money, May was our best month yet. Dan's contribution was the lengthy three-part TV landscape review. I threw out quality stuff with my Songs for Silverman, and Degree Navigator reviews. The shorter American Dreamz and Davinci Code video game reviews were serviceable, but my immense LOST season 2 review tops everything.





June fell off a bit. Four reviews total. Split two and two. Mine were based on a ridiculous news story, and anger at other people for coincidentally coming up with the same ideas as me. Dan tried to put everything into perspective by seeing how well the entire history of human ingenuity and artistry stacked up in the interstellar community, and complained a little about how the national geography of roadways isn't designed to suit his needs.





July was filled with the (I gotta admit my ignorance as to the relevance of this phrase... and wikipedia does nothing to help) Navel Gazing set. I was had for a few minutes by a Jimmy Kimmel hoax, and I thought the critics were a little too harsh on Shayamalan. Despite the mediocre numbers for the month, I'd give it a 3.5




This gives us a per-month average of 3 stars, which isn't too shabby.

In my first ever review, I reviewed the concept of this website. I claimed that we wouldn't be able to keep it fresh, that we'd run out of ideas, and that we wouldn't be able to stay somewhat funny at least. I believe my exact quote was "It has the potential to provide hours of entertainment for readers, and shape their lives for years to come. However, the downside is that it could get old real soon, and provide us with nothing but an excuse not to get real jobs."

Well, I think we've significantly proven wrong every single point that I just brought up. We have 29 categories, 19 subcategories, and even two sub-sub categories. We're still writing about reasonably different things, and while we may have slacked on the funny in recent months, we still bring the 'A' game on occasion. As far as my quote goes, I'd be willing to bet that we've provided maybe a few hours of entertainment for a handful of people, which probably did nothing to shape their lives for even the near fututre. On the upside, it hasn't gotten old, and we have gotten real-ish jobs.

For all of these reasons, I'm willing to up our star rating by half a star, over the average rating of 3. I've also realized that my method of calculating the rating might not be the best, so I'm gonna throw in another half star for a final rating of 4 stars out of five.



And for those of you playing along at home, yes, this technically is the 100th review and so therefore should be included. This review receives 3 stars for not having much to offer in the way of witty musings, and for having a faulty overall rating method, but for packing so many subjects and links into one review.

I've got a bit of a dilemma. I'm a huuuge Ben Folds/Ben Folds Five fan.... as I'm sure most of you already know. If you asked me to put the albums in order of my favorites, I'd probably be able to do it.The problem is that it wouldn't be the same orderthat I would rank the overall album quality. "Songs for Silverman", his first solo full-length album in at least 3 years, has such a high concentration of songs that I would deem "best he's ever recorded", that I would put it just slightly ahead of "Whatever and Ever Amen", on my favorites, however, there are a few songs that are weaker than anything on the earlier Ben Folds Five release, dropping the actual star rating below WAEA.

While WAEA was a collection of good songs, varying fast and slow, deep and shallow, "Songs for Silverman" is more uniform, and at the risk of sounding like a press release, more "mature". The songs are for the most part slower, have more instrumentation and vocals, more thoughtful lyrics... and just overall, more ambition. To understand a bit better, a brief history, that will probably turn into a bit longer than I intended.

Ben Folds Five was founded as a "fun" piano-electric(usually) bass-drums trio that specialized in "punk rock for wusses" as it was put. The first album was filled with mostly fast, piano-driven songs that were pretty light and enjoyable, with mostly good melodies and a fairly sloppy production quality that had a feeling of spontaneity. The second album, WAEA, had more of a polished feel, with more strings, some slower songs, a "mouth keyboard" of sorts in some of the songs, and more complex three-part backing vocals. The band moved forward even more with the third album, "The Unauthorized Biography of Reinhold Messner", a "concept album" that used mainly slower, even more introspective songs, more experimental instrumentation, and a definite album cohesiveness, including lyrical and musical ideas that were carried over into multiple tracks.

The progress stalled though, when the band broke up, and Folds went solo. His next album, "Rocking the Suburbs" seemed to basically be a sequel to WAEA in style and substance, in fact including a sequel song to one on the first album. He played all the instruments on the album, even though some songs sounded like they had electronic drums in places. The problem though, was that he was touring without a backup band or singers, and so he was writing songs that he could play without backing vocals (actually many of the tracks on the album had overdubbed Folds vocal tracks in the background) or extensive instrumentation.

Back to the present, and he now has a more-than-capable drummer and bassist duo behind him. With this in mind, the album at times has a feeling like it might be where the original band could've eventually progressed to, but that's a moot point. What's important is that with the exception of a few weak tracks in the middle, this album is filled with jam-packed songs that range from jazz and blues riffs to pop to classical-style, sometimes in the same song. The songs are dense, and for the most part under five minutes, yet some of them I'd say are epic. I would especially say this of "Jesusland", and the last track "Prison Food", a song that's moved up to my number two favorite, with an ending that is built up so much and has so much going on between the furious drumming and bass playing, pulsing piano part, the too-many-to-guess-part harmonies going on, and the mood-setting steel guitar, which brings me to my next point.

When this album came out the online Ben Folds community didn't accept it right away... to tell you the truth it took a few listens for me to get to like it. The songs and tone of the entire album (we'll get to individual songs in a minute), were completely different than anything that came before, even including concerts the previous summer and the 3 EPs released the year before. The biggest issue for a lot of people was the guitar. Yes, for the first time in any of the tracks that I can remember, there's a non-bass guitar. In fact one song has a regular acoustic guitar, but another has a 12-string, and two have lap-steel guitars in them, enhancing the fullness of the sound that much more.

Many of the songs borrow short musical ideas, or tones (in the English class sense of the word, not the musical one), from previous songs... including "Jesusland" borrowing an opening from "The Ascent of Stan", and the tempo and drum styling from "Mess"; "Landed" borrowing the main piano riff from "Philosophy" and turning it inside out; "Give Judy My Notice", upgrading a solo-piano version from one of the EPs (adding backing vocals, steel guitar, drums, etc.); "Sentimental Guy", borrowing the bluesiness (is that a word?) of "All U Can Eat" from another of the EPs; "Time" sounding eerily similar to, but a bit more somber than a song called "Bruised" that he recorded with Ben Lee and Ben Kweller; and "Prison Food"'s main piano part coming from a superfan community favorite that was released on a collection of rareties, "Emaline". I know that's a long list, but I sincerely believe that the songs as a whole are different enough, and in most cases, completely better than the songs containing the borrowed ideas. "Landed"'s been featured as the theme for the kennel club dog show, and now on the Hilton ads, "Judy" was slow and kinda empty without the added music and faster pace, and "Jesusland", "Time", and especially "Prison Food" are among the best on the album, if not the best he's ever recorded.

For the most part, these songs include what could possibly be considered the most difficult piano parts he's written (especially the first four), and a large number (every one excluding "You to Thank"; "Gracie", and "Sentimental Guy") having what might be his most complicated backing vocals to date.

Overall the album is very intriguing and complex, and grows on you the more you listen to it, as long as you don't get bogged down by a few slower songs in the middle, and the sappy, yet completely understandable, "Gracie".



"Songs for Silverman" gets four and a half stars, as it's more complicated and pleasing to listen to than most every pop recording you can find these days, a few of the songs stand out among my top favorites (which is enough to counteract the sub-par ones), and it has a cohesiveness to it, with only "Gracie" feeling akward and out of place.

In case you're wondering, I'd rate the rest of them, in order of my favorites: "WAEA"- Five Stars; "Rocking the Suburbs"- Four Stars; "TUBORM"- Three and a half stars; and "Ben Folds Five"- Three stars. Not included in those are "Fear of Pop: Volume One", "Ben Folds Live", "Naked Baby Photos", "William Shatner: Has Been", or any of the EPs.

At this point, I've realized that the readership is very selective in terms of what it considers interesting enough about which to read an entire review. Being that Nate's and my interests, though not identical, can be said to not be all that enthralling to whatever we'd consider the readership-at-large, and this is another one of those reviews that is more-than-likely out of the realm of interest for most of you, feel free to suggest future topics as you gloss over this one.

My short list of best albums ever is very short. #3 tends to vary depending on any number of factors, #2 is always "Wish You Were Here" by Pink Floyd, and #1 has been "Keasbey Nights" by Catch 22 since the first time I heard it in 1998. I'd evangelize for it (if that's a correct usage of that word), but it's music that is only appealing those that already like that type of music. This part will sound like every other description/write-up of the album in 1998, but it combined punk, ska, and hardcore elements in a way that didn't simply add a ska-inspired brass section to a punk band (Less Than Jake, I like you, but I'm looking in your direction) or a lead singer who alternated between hardcore yelling and regular singing so he could, you know, "show that he had a sensitive side." I'm not one to get much out of the simple fact that people in band are (or aren't) skilled musicians, if I were, I'd be a Rush fan, but most write-ups of Catch 22's album in 1998 mention the "chops" of the brass section.

Though a hugely popular album, "Keasbey Nights [1998]" is part of a genre where popularity is usually measured on one or two scales of magnitude down from "pop" popular music. Pretty much any fan of non-MTV punk music and what people with too much time on their hands call the 3rd Wave [of] Ska has heard of the album; they might not all consider it the best album ever, but it is generally held in universally very high regard.

In briefest terms, "Keasbey Nights, Vol.2" is a 2006 released re-recording of that same album that came out in 1998 by a different band (Streetlight Manifesto) that includes some of the original members of Catch 22, notably the original lead singer who was also the one who was the songwriter for the whole thing. Oh yeah, he also left Catch 22 less than one year after Keasbey Nights came out. Moreso, he's the founder of Streetlight Manifesto. Not to turn this into story time, but we see how there is a lot more to this, um, "re-album" than you might expect...

Like I said earlier, the album was popular among a very limited group of people, but if anything, that group is rather passionate. If you look around the internet, you'll see numerous "stories" about why that lead singer/songwriter, Tomas Kalnoky, left Catch 22, and not to contribute to "the internet," but I think I remember hearing an audio interview with him where he said that he left to go to college and touring definitely wasn't conducive to that. A fair number of websites say that there was a dispute between him and the record company, though I'm not sure why he'd choose to distribute his new band's CDs through that same label though. To be honest, the reason he left doesn't matter to anyone but him and 1998 Catch 22 (like a lot of 5+ person bands, they've shuffled their lineup a bit, just like Streetlight Manifesto). But, to contribute to "the internet," let's assume that the mystery situation that made it so he felt compelled to re-record and re-release a CD from 8 years ago, let's unsafely jump to some unfair conclusions that, being that we're decidedly removed from the actual people involved (and it's not our business), will attempt to explain why.

No matter the talents of the original members of Catch 22, the strength of the album came from Kalnoky's songwriting. Catch 22's follow-up album, "Alone in a Crowd," was mediocre at best. To be fair, their most recent album, "Dinosaur Sounds," is perfectly acceptable, as it seems they got comfortable writing songs that weren't trying to sound like ones that Kalnoky would have written. Kalnoky's leaving relatively soon after the release of Keasbey Nights created a number of problems:

1. The other guys in Catch 22 were aware of the success of the album (for a time, it was Victory Records' all-time highest selling album, and Victory is not an insignificant record label in the punk/hardcore world). When the reason for their success (Kalnoky) left for whatever reason, they were probably pretty miffed at him as he was almost singularly responsible for their success. So, that's the band being mad at the all-of-a-sudden checked-out lead singer and songwriter.
2. Instead of calling it quits or re-organizing under a different name, Catch 22 shuffled the lineup and continued being a band whose drawing power was defined by someone no longer affiliated with the band in any way. Not that Kalnoky considered Catch 22 his baby, but Catch 22's livelihood stemmed from his songs. Not to judge anyone's moral character, but he would have been crossing a long asking them to break up the band when he quit, while they would have been crossing a line if they would've said he would've been being unreasonable had he asked for that. Again, who knows what happened, but it ties into the release of "Keasbey Nights, Vol. 2." So, that makes the checked-out lead singer and songwriter miffed at his former (by his choice) band.
3. At two Catch 22 concerts I attended in 2003 and 2004, the audience had huge reactions for "Keasbey Nights" songs and merely receptive reactions for anything made by the band since Kalnoky's departure 5+ years earlier. This'll be enough to get those in Catch 22 a little miffed at themselves, if only for the fact that their most popular work was done by someone else more than half a decade ago. It's weird to think of it in these terms, but at the time I said to the friend with whom I went to concerts that it's like Catch 22 became their own cover band. The thing was, they weren't even a very good one. Songs from Keasbey Nights, even though they received the biggest reactions, were played with the littlest precision or care for getting the right notes, or most tellingly, were played at obscenely fast tempos, giving the impression they were trying to get them over with. Now that Catch 22 has two (and supposedly a 3rd coming out in June 2006) post-Keasbey Nights albums, they have enough material to play only their "own" songs, though "Catch 22" is still emblazed on their fans' favorite album, so there will be fans upset that they didn't play any of the "old" songs.
4. One of the tracks which included spoken "thank-yous" on the 1998 album now has two computer voices doing a question and answer about why the record exists. Apparently someone was planning on a re-release of the 1998 album, and Kalnoky says that the recording quality of the original album was so bad that he'd feel like the fans were getting screwed over if they were going to be buying the same album. Significantly, the fact that Kalnoky is no longer in Catch 22 and most likely had nothing to do with the decision to repackage the original CD means that his re-recording of the album with Streetlight Manifesto makes it so any re-release of the unenhanced 1998 album is entirely pointless "artistically" and commercially for both the current Catch 22 and the record label both bands share. In fact any other re-release of the 1998 won't go over well at all now that it's been done.
5. Being that the world of punk and ska music isn't exactly the realm of millionaires, a feud doesn't really accomplish much beyond the principle of it all. Kalnoky has sort of gone out of his way saying that there's no bad blood anymore, and everything's fine, but it's doubtful that "Keasbey Nights, vol. 2," which has a computer voice saying "In the end, this will piss people off, and that's all that really matters" isn't related to this non-existent feud.

So, aside from making it so a Catch 22 (in name) re-release won't ever happen, Keasbey Nights, Vol.2 also makes it so Catch 22 will be put in a tough spot in concert, considering that their already one-step-removed connection to the songs on Keasbey Nights was strained even more with the guy who actually singularly wrote the songs re-recording them with his new band. At that point, one could argue that Catch 22 really needs to move on and face the fact that other than their name is on the album, they're more Kalnoky's songs than theirs. Also, related to the previous point, when I saw Streetlight Manifesto, once in 2003 and once in 2004, Kalnoky was definitely not into playing any of "his" Catch 22 songs. There's no way he wouldn't expect the fans to want to hear some of them, so I was surprised that the only Catch 22 song the band played was "Giving Up, Giving In" which is probably the last song fans would want to hear from Keasbey Nights. In some figurative sense, his re-recording of the album with his band might re-establish some sense of artistic "ownership." To be honest, I'm obviously sort of into "only they know what's going on" territory, and my life would be enhanced in no way if I knew what was really going on as they say. I'd say that I'd rather everyone get along and they all get filthy rich from the sheer awesomeness of even the 1998 Keasbey Nights album. If they don't have the personalities to mesh well in a band, that can be that.

Oddly enough, I'm thinking I haven't actually covered the CD itself. I guess I was so enthusiastic about the original album and I was sort of caught by surprise by the release last Tuesday, that the whole situation seems interesting in a "behind the music" sort of way. Of course, I'm not a journalist; I'm just some schmuck that can use Google, like everyone else on the internet. Speaking of "the internet," Tomas Kalnoky has quite the collection of fanboys out there. Few of them will admit that Catch 22's post-Keasbey Nights albums have any redeeming value, and just as baffling, they'll say that Streetlight Manifesto plays perfectly in concert, which having been to two concerts and having MP3's of two others, the music is just too fast to be played perfectly by anyone except robots. I don't expect perfection, but when people trash one band (Catch 22) for missing notes while ignoring the fact that another (Streetlight Manifesto) does the same thing, the whole "fanboy" thing is obvious. (Note, my take on how Catch 22 plays their "old" songs is a different issue than whether or not they miss notes.)

Anyway, the album itself... Well, imagine pizza is your favorite food for effectively forever. You really like pizza. Then imagine that someone just showed you that unknowingly, you've just been eating plain pizza, and there are toppings out there that make it even better. It's like that.

I sort of literally know the original album backward and forward, so it was immensely familiar while the enhanced fidelity of the recording (specifically, that you can hear the words instead of vocal mush, and each instrument can be heard individually) made it something new. Small lyrical changes are peppered here and there while there are numerous inconsequential (but not pointless) musical changes, namely in the horn riffs. You get the impression that Kalnoky said, "I've always wished that trombone part went bum-bum-bah instead of bah-bah-bum." For those that listened to the heck out of the original album, it's fun to listen to what's really the same CD without with being exactly the same, similar to listening to a live version of favorite song. Universally the solos are stronger than on the original album. What little negative I have to say about the new recording might be just a sign that I don't know much about audio recording, but it sounds like in addressing one of the issues of the first recording (the different instruments, singing, etc.) sort of getting lost in the audio mix, they over-boosted the trebles. The tracks were hard to listen to with headphones in my MP3 player which had a zeroed equalizer and the headphones I always use without issue. Boosting the treble makes the sound stick out and more "piercing" but I can't say it doesn't sound a bit tinny. Also, specifically on the first track, "Dear Sergio," the mix just sounds "off:" the lead vocal seems to only be mixed into the right channel while the harmony is only in the left, and I'm not sure that's how it's usually done. The "problem" is less pronounced depending on where I'm listening to the track, but it was annoying the first time I heard it. But that's nitpicking.



Keasbey Nights, Vol. 2 by Streetlight Manifesto receives five stars due to the strength of its source material and the whole "toppings make pizza better" thing. It's not an album that has been "covered," it's more-or-less the same people (sort of) just doing it over, better with higher quality recording equipment. The original album would also receive five big stars whether or not this re-recording existed. The issue is whether it's worth buying the new if you already have the old...I'd say yes, as for those that hold the album in high esteem, the two versions are more accurately "different" than "better" and "worse." Many of you are familiar with my dislike of "gimmicky" anythings, so if you ever listen to this album (either version, though the fidelity of the newer one makes it more obvious) you might notice how Pachelbel's Canon is D is more or less inserted into track #07. Yes, this would obviously be a gimmicky thing, but when you take the time to write in the 4th, 5th, and 6th(?) parts of the Canon, it's not gimmicky, it's ambitious.

This is a huge mega gauntlet review. I wanted to write a review of the first two albums above, kinda comparing them, etc., but then I realized that I had these rather interesting cover albums, and it would be a total shame if I didn't write about them in some capacity (one of them being decidedly stranger than the other), so I've ballooned this up to epic scale. I've also kinda assumed that everyone is at least familiar with the more popular song titles.





Up first: Rubber Soul is quickly becoming one of my favorite Beatles albums, partially because of how underrated it is, but more because it is THE bridge between what the Beatles were and what they became, and also because of the amount of creativity and musicianship put into it. First off, to name the tracks that everyone should already know: Drive my Car, Norwegian Wood, Nowhere Man, Michelle (which somehow won the "Song of the Year" grammy for that year, even though there are plenty of songs on this album that are better, and it didn't even hit number one on the singles charts... granted i don't know the effect that it had on pop culture, but from a musical standpoint, I don't get it... not that the Grammys judge anything by musical standards anyway), Girl, I'm Looking Through You, and In my Life. That's a lot of songs that were major hit singles, although none of them ever hit the number one spot. Not only is that an impressive feat, but this was the second album they released that year, in addition to the movie "Help!". With the exception of maybe 4 slow to moderately paced songs, all of the tracks are upbeat. All, except maybe one George Harrison-written song are catchy, and all contain at least two-part vocal harmonies, with most of them containing consistent three-part vocals. The tone as a whole, as well as the musicality, is consistent. In addition, this is the first of the albums to begin experimenting with other sounds, and more diverse lyrics. Norwegian Wood, with it's sitar, and In My Life, with the sped up piano solo in the middle of it, giving it a baroque sound, are prime examples of advancements in both sound and lyrics beyond those of cheeky love songs. The album carries a romantically jaded lyrical tone to it, with songs about manipulation, death threats, and being in relationships you don't want to be in. All in all, a very pleasurable and underrated album that paved the way to their first real change to the pop music scene, and the record that was voted the greatest album of all time by a crapload of magazines and music stations, (even though I find it to be highly spotty) Revolver.


The album gets four stars, due to the two or three lackluster songs in the bunch. The rest are gold, and work very well together. The songs form a coherent album, not just a collection of tracks that were thrown together to get past a deadline.



The "Let It Be" album is another that's moving up on my list, and could very well be at the top. It's at the opposite end of the spectrum entirely in terms of tone and presentation from Rubber Soul. Whereas all of Rubber Soul's songs are tightly compacted, and cleanly put together, Let It Be plays like the closest thing they have to a concert album, mostly due to the fact that many tracks were live recordings, some from their famous rooftop concert, and others being raw takes from the studio. Wikipedia has a more detailed version of the story, including specifics of how each track was pieced together, but basically the story is that these tracks were going to be for a soundtrack to a documentary film that was being made about the making of a Beatles album called "Get Back". The band was starting to have their fights though, and the material got shelved in order to put out the Abbey Road album. After they had been broken up for about a year, Phil Spector managed to piece together the audio clips from the various takes, and the album was released. Of particular interest (among the individual song details) is the details of the various guitar solos on the actual track "Let it Be". I prefer the album version with the 1970 guitar solo over the single version, which is kinda weak as far as the guitar part goes. Anyway, the album is a lot of fun, and it has a very casual mood to it. There are audio clips of the band goofing off in between songs, certain tracks that are kinda "spur of the moment" messing around-type songs that fall apart after 40 seconds or so, but are still fun, and of course the famous closing line, "we'd like to thank you all, and we hope we passed the audition", or something to that extent. Famous tracks include, "Let It Be" (obviously), "Across the Universe", "The Long and Winding Road" (the most infamously criticized of the tracks, due to Phil Spector's inserted overpowering and sappy orchestration), and "Get Back". Other standout tracks include the band showing off their blues-rock influence with the live "I've Got a Feeling" and "One after 909", and the last released of the McCartney-Lennon dual lead vocal tracks, "Two of Us". The most interesting thing is how different the band sounds here than on any album between Rubber Soul and this one, with the possible exception of the White Album. Even though Sgt. Pepper is supposed to be fun, and Abbey Road and Revolver have some fun songs, it doesn't seem like the band is enjoying itself, and that's what really shows through here. Even though apparently they were at the peak of their fighting, the musicianship seems pure and easily accomplished, rather than worked on and overdubbed and experimented with. It seems spontaneous and lighthearted (with the exception of three tracks), and they again seem like a band that you would like to have playing at a party, rather than one who would rather be perfect and pristine. The other thing of note is that again, like many bands who go through big changes musically, if you play these two albums back to back (you can actually fit them both onto one CD) you wouldn't realize that they could be the same band, especially considering that they were only four years apart.... just look at Scott Stapp.


"Let It Be" (the album) is an incredibly fun listen, mostly because you can hear the fun that the band (at least by all outward appearances) had while making it, and we'd all rather imagine them that way instead of arguing. The only weak spot is that although I really like "The Long and Winding Road" (and hate the acoustic version on the "Let It Be: Naked" album), it really has no place with the rest of the songs. The orchestration completely separates it from the tone of everything else, especially between the roots-rock of "One After 909", and the folksy acoustic blues of "For You Blue". It might have been better suited to end the album, after "Get Back", especially knowing as Phil Spector did at the time that it was going to be the last Beatles album.


Onto the cover albums.



For the 2001 movie about a mentally handicapped Sean Penn raising his daughter Lucy, (Dakota Fanning), the producers wanted to get the most fitting of soundtrack material. Someone decided to make the movie heavy on the Beatles references, including the fact that Lucy is named after "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds", so it was a prerequisite that their songs be included. They had trouble getting the rights to the songs, or at least the original performances of them, so they worked around it by getting a bunch of musicians to play them, with Eddie Vedder, Sarah McLachlan and Sheryl Crow being the highest profile names. The full track list can be found here. The album runs hot and cold, with the first three-fourths being well translated, and the second half going more for mood than preservation of the original intent. In fact, the only miscue before track 13 is "I'm Only Sleeping" by the Vines, and that's mostly because the song is a weak one to begin with. Maybe the song fit thematically with the movie, but the skip button usually gets pushed when it comes on. The aforementioned three artists do perfectly competent (in Vedder's case more like near perfect) recreations of the original versions of their respective songs. Rufus Wainwright, Stereophonics, Wallflowers, and Chocolate Genius (presenting a track that's one of my favorites from the White Album), successfully update the songs with more contemporary instrumentation and vocal styles. Aimee Mann and Sean's brother Michael blend their voices perfectly on the opener "Two of Us" (what I would consider, along with Rufus' "Across the Universe" as the two standout tracks). Ben Folds iisn't given enough to do with "Golden Slumbers" (the original goes on into two other songs, with a drum solo in the middle that he could've pulled off well... yes he does play the drums too... and bass... and probably a few other instruments), Ben Harper's "Strawberry Fields" is light before turning into the noisiest of the tracks, and the Black Crowes' track is perfectly forgettable. The album turns after track 12, with slow acoustic versions of "We Can Work It Out", "Help", and "Nowhere Man" by two people I've never heard of and Howie Day. Someone forgot that "Help" was urgent for a reason and that the best part of "Nowhere Man" was that the whole thing was sung in three parts, and not a whiny Bob Dylan impresion. The album finishes off with a simple, solemn, baritone version of "Let it Be" that gets the point and shows the hope-tinged sadness of the original. The worst track is Grandaddy's "Revolution", that changes the tune entirely and removes the bluesy synchopation that made both the album and the single version of the original worth listening to, in addition to singing with an apathetic tone instead of one of cynicism.



The I Am Sam Soundtrack is probably the best compliation of Beatles covers available, and I'm sure that there are people out there who like the tracks 13-16 but they aren't me. Three stars for all of the aforementioned reasons.



In case you couldn't guess by the above caption, this album is a total wash and the only purpose it serves is for comic relief when telling other people about it, and the fact that anyone would want to make something like it, especially someone like George Martin. For those of you unfamiliar with the man, you can view a detailed biography here.
Basically, he produced every Beatles album from 1962 until 1969 (essentially just leaving off the Phil Spector-produced "Let It Be"), and is oftentimes called "The Fifth Beatle", although I think that's kinda lame... just like this album coincidentally. Anyway, this CD came out in 1998, when Martin decided that he wanted to go out on his own terms, with his last work. So of course, you'd think that he would try to get interesting musicians, and probably have the means with which to get them to do it. You would think that, but instead we get people like Goldie Hawn, Robin Williams & Bobby McFerrin, Phil Collins, Celine Dion, and of course Sean Connery and Jim Carrey. Yep. That's who does the songs. Not only that, but they managed to make some very good songs into mostly terrible songs. Out of that list, you wouldn't expect that the best one would be from Jim Carrey, but it is. His version of "I am the Walrus" was something that I would play for other people and not tell them who was singing it. Nobody could ever figure it out, because it sounds nothing like Jim Carrey, except for the few ad-libbed lines he threw in, and, in the most knowing line on the album, the part at the end where exclaims, "There! I've defiled a timeless piece of art! For my next trick I'll paint a clown face on the Mona Lisa while using the Shroud of Turin as a dropcloth". Celine Dion turns a rather bland song ("Here, There, and Everywhere") into one of her terrible sappy love songs right up there with the Titanic song. Goldie Hawn destroys "A Hard Day's Night" by making it a lounge ballad. Robin Williams and Bobby McFerrin do a serviceable job with "Come Together", but it's completely overshadowed by Jim Carrey pretty much doing the same thing but better. Phil Collins provides a highlight with his full version of "Golden Slumbers" including an extended drum solo, something that Ben Folds should've been allowed to do. Sean Connery reads "In My Life" like he wants to be William Shatner, but with a Scottish accent. It's okay, if you don't care about the actual tune of the song. Other tracks of note are electric guitarist Jeff Beck playing the melody of "A Day in the Life" note-for-note without adding much else, classical guitarist John Williams outdoing Beck with his acoustic guitar version of "Here Comes the Sun", and George Martin conducting a new version of the Pepperland Suite from the "Yellow Submarine" movie. Other tracks of ill-repute include Billy Connolly and his Scottish accent portraying a ringmaster for "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite", and the biggest travesty of them all, making the decision to can the best part of the second best of the Beatles' three-part harmony songs, "Because", in favor of having electric violinist and fad at the time, Vanessa Mae give us her instrumental version. I believe that covers the entirety of the album. It's a very obscure compilation that not that many people really know about, and it should be kept that way.



This album gets one star due to a few tracks that would be enjoyable to people who've never heard the original versions. Also, other tracks are guilty pleasures as you listen and wonder why anyone, especially someone with this much music industry power, would do something like this. Then you realize that in the liner notes he actually explained each decision individually. These explanations are worth about as much to me as the explanation for the movie "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band", the lowest regarded of anything even vaguely having to do with their music, and an entirely different subject that perhaps one day I'll tell you all about.