I had this idea for a series called "Mic Drop." It came to me when I found an elusive vinyl copy of Soul Asylum's "Let Your Dim Light Shine." This was the follow-up to the band's commercial breakthrough, "Grave Dancers Union" and a record, that I personally think is their best, leading things off with the amazing single "Misery."
Soul Asylum released four more records after "Let Your Dim Light Shine' and I don't recall hearing a note off of any of them. So, the idea for "Mic Drop" is basically, a band or song that peaks personally, and then, BOOM...you're done. Mic drop!
Then, I became curious about those four other records, so I went to the All Music Guide and noticed a lame two-star review for "Dim Light." Here is what Stephen Thomas Erlewine had to say:
"Following the same pattern and approach as Grave Dancer's Union, Let Your Dim Light Shine firmly positions Soul Asylum as a mainstream rock & roll band. Gone are the breakneck punk rockers, replaced with searching, introspective ballads and socially conscious mid-tempo rockers. In itself, that wouldn't be a problem, but Dave Pirner has taken the weight of the world upon his shoulders, which becomes apparent from the lyrics. Pirner's lyrics are so overwrought that they not only approach self-parody, they go completely beyond it. Every lyric is weighted with such self-importance, making it easy to overlook the relative merits of the music, which isn't quite as impressive as that of their previous records."
Well, color me surprised.
I then read Erlewine's review of the next record, "Candy From A Stranger." Here it is:
"With Let Your Dim Light Shine, Soul Asylum hit the skids, unintentionally spinning into middle-of-the-road territory. It was an uninspired and careerist record, one that dropped off the charts as quickly as it entered, tarnishing the group's image, both as alternative heroes and hitmakers. For their follow-up, Candy From a Stranger, Soul Asylum stubbornly continued in the post-Tom Petty mainstream rock tradition that marked their first two albums for Columbia. It only made sense -- a return to the sloppy rave-ups of Twin/Tone, or even their hard-rocking A&M records, would have seemed forced. And Candy From a Stranger is better than the near-disastrous Let Your Dim Light Shine, which was dogged by such embarrassments as "Misery." Nothing on Candy is as bad as "Misery," but there's another problem -- not many songs make an impression, either."
He hated "Dim Light" so much, he basically said anything, including the weak follow-up "Candy From A Stranger" was better. And he made mention of my favorite Soul Asylum track, not once, but TWICE. THAT is how much he hates it.
I am not really that surprised, as I never was a Soul Asylum fan prior to "Grave Dancers Union," and even then, it was of the time. I listened to "Somebody To Shove" and "Runaway Train" this weekend, and they did not age well to my ears. While the idea for Mic Drop may still work out, I am now more interested in something else.
Why are rock and roll fans so adverse to cleaning things up? Or to put it another way, why are bands who sing and play well, and spend time in the studio, crafting their songs, mixing and producing until things are just right, less interesting than say, a bunch of sloppy players who can barely tune their guitars but bash out 3 minute tunes that are slightly more accomplished than The Shaggs?
Everyone loved The Replacements. I love The Replacements. But I never found it particularly "fun" to watch them self-destruct on stage. And quite frankly, both "Don't Tell A Soul" and "All Shook Down" aged a hell of a lot better than "Stink," even if they aren't true 'Mats records.
I get it. Stephen Erlewine is a fan of the early, raunchy punk feel Soul Asylum, and not the mainstream, "successful" records. But are they really terrible records?
I see this phenomenon far more than I should. Gimmicky bands, throwbacks, retro rockabilly trios with pompadours and upright bass players, neo-soul bands who try to sound like Otis Redding, but barely write songs as good as Noel Redding. Why is this more appealing than the real thing? Why is it cooler to be mediocre?
Mainstream rock and roll is not a bad thing. Some doing it are better than others. Some are out and out horrible. But doing it is NOT a crime. And neither is being an accomplished player. Rooting for the underdog is one thing. But having no interest in a band because they play well and their records sound good is something else completely.
20 comments:
I don't view it as a competence vs amateurism dichotomy, but more like your relationship with the Stones. Fans of bands in their early stages get to see them eventually catch lightning in a bottle (which was Bob Stinson's specialty; believe me, Slim Dunlap never caught so much as a lightning bug). Those fans can also tell when the band starts treating it as a contract obligation. The band are better musicians by then, but the magic is gone for the long time fan. They will buy every release, but the later ones will either get traded or pity listened. That said, just as often that "long time fan" is a poser and lying about their history with the band to look cool.
personal mic drops: UFO post-"Nowhere to Run," Genesis post-Steve Hackett, Procol Harum post-Robin Trower, EWF post-"Gratitude", Fleetwood Mac post-"Mirage"
"I don't view it as a competence vs amateurism dichotomy"
You're right. This was poor execution on my part, written in haste to get the post up while it was still hot in my mind.
To be clear, I don't think people seek out incompetence, but I do think people find polish offputting.
I had to laugh when you wrote about liking "Misery" by Soul Asylum. I, too, thought that was a killer tune, a high water mark for them. But I have read the harsh reviews in the past, and so I thought I was maybe the only one who liked that track. Glad to know I'm not alone.
BTW, I saw them at a local fair last year, and thought they sounded dreadful.
I too liked Misery and LYDLS and Runaway Train aside, liked Grave Dancers Union (still own them both). I thought LYDLS struck a nice balance between polish and indie harshness/weirdness (Caged Rat, Pearls On A String) that was missing on subsequent records. Candy From a Stranger and its followups were awful and I can't remember a single tune from any of them, so IMO Dave Pirner really lost the plot at this point. I do enjoy the Grand Forks prom album but there was no new material on it.
So, mic drop for me after LYDLS, but not because of being on a major or too much polish. I think Pirner just ran out of ideas/hooks. There were also some personnel changes in the band too which probably contributed.
>but I do think people find polish offputting
this reminded me of 2 friends who had this exact conversation:
Friend 1: "This Pussy Galore album is so fucked up it's genius."
Friend 2: "Why can't you like anything that sounds good?"
Mediocrity is often mistaken for Authenticity, I think. I require some measure of authenticity to enjoy a band/song/record, myself, but ... ugh. A friend played Guided By Voices for me once. I couldn't stop laughing; sure, it was "Lo-Fi", but it was also the absolute worst thing I've ever heard in my life.
*shrug*
-Xtm
Two words, Del Amitri.
One of Erlwine’s favorite bands progressed, and he doesn’t like it. No surprise, really, I might have felt the same way. Maybe he should have passed on reviewing those. I was happy to hear the Ramones clean up their production after the first album, which wasn’t really horrible, just muddy. Their musical direction didn’t change, like Soul Asylum’s had. I doubt very much that I would have enjoying seeing the drunk Replacements.
I always prefer a good clean recording, whether it’s punk or mainstream, and the songwriting still has to be there, or it’s no good at all. The retro/neo bands have a tough row to hoe, very few of them even come close to the originals they’re copying. For me, again, it’s the songwriting. JD MacPherson is a standout because he’s not a slavish imitator and can write rings around everyone else.
When GBV Bee Thousand came out, my business partner and quite frankly a lot of people, thought it was the bees knees. One review I read referenced the Hollies. I took that as a personal offense. It all sounded like garbage to me, like they purposely bought shitty amps and shitty guitars and a shitty tape recorder.
Meaning what? Not cool to like them? I think they’re pretty great.
I second your JD Mc emotion!
Hey, I love "Exile In Guyville". But I also really like the highly-polished "Liz Phair".
Some of REM's cleaned up-vocals albums are as strong as their first two.
On the opposite spectrum, was Kiss better without Ace and Peter? Probably not (with a few exceptions).
If the material is strong, being "polished" doesn't turn me off. I'm actually coming up blank thinking of somebody I stopped listening to because they became more polished/professional vs the material just not appealing to me. The Ramones were mentioned above. I liked their entire career.
Maybe it's just the "punk" bands that people pigeonhole when they get older and stop being as "punk"?
I've always been able to take or leave Del Amitri. Funnily, though, the one of theirs I like best is the late-period "Not Where It's At." Solid contender for The Great Lost Badfinger Song. If I get a vote, DA gets into heaven for that number alone.
I think all of DA’s “Some Other Suckers Parade” is fantastic, especially “Not Where It’s At.” Pop brilliance.
I don't fetishize incompetence, or dislike records because they're well made. But I am far more willing to listen to a great songwriter with a questionable singing voice, than a great singer with nothing to say. I mean, Shane MacGowan is not a good singer, but I still love The Pogues because the songs are great. I think the whole phenomenon you're talking about dates to the '70s, when a lot of people felt they had to choose sides between immaculately played and produced prog rock, or bands like Steely Dan, and the energy and attitude of punk. Critics like Lester Bangs probably had a lot to do with it.
Marc
First impressions are everything! For those new bands with that rough, almost unprofessionally produced sound, that attract a following specifically because of that sound, they tend to not attract mainstream listeners. As they mature, and their record company wants more sales, they clean up their sound. By that time, they may lose their base, while not getting the fans that have turned up their noses at them and probably won't drop the money on their latest and greatest.
As mentioned by others, that sound is mostly what they have. Think some of the forgotten grunge bands. Maybe even Hole or Garbage. A different sound would attract a different audience. Some of these bands just would not be the same as mainstream pop-rockers, with cleaned up harmonies, perfect backing vocals and all their instruments sounding like an orchestra.
Though, sometimes that clean-up is required for a band to move forward. Think Judas Priest. Their first album and some of their second, were just so poorly produced and had such horrible sound, they had to clean it up. Luckily for all of us, they did.
My mic-droppers would be Boston and Collective Soul.
A band that comes to mind is the J. Geils Band. I loved their first few records, liked a couple more after that. I thought they made a good transition from a straight-up blues band to a more polished rock group.
But once they became an MTV staple — "Freeze Frame," "Centerfold," etc. — I lost interest. I mean, good of its kind. But not music I'm all that interested in...
Peter Wolf is still making very fine records, though.
So many of my favorite records are those where the band is just finding its feet, reaching, going for something that's still slightly beyond their grasp, but somehow, in the process, they come up with something entirely unique. Subsequently, after some success, they reach a point where they codify their sound, usually pushed by commercial concerns. Professionalism inevitably creeps in.
I'm likely to get killed for this, but my mike drop would be 'Born to Run'. I loved the sheer audacity of Springsteen's early stuff, with the E Street Band pushing and challenging Bruce ever forward. Then Jon Landau got a hold of him, and the music behind Bruce just got tamer and tamer. You could say that this transition was in service to his songs, and that's probably true, but 'The Wild and the Innocent' remains my favorite.
I weirdly have the exact same relationship that you do to Soul Asylum. Exact same. I really like "Dim Light..", but they came to prominence when the idea of a "sellout" was the worst thing a band could be called. And having a few mid-tempo hits got them painted as "sellouts" big time.
I, personally, get bored with the argument that a band is not allowed to evolve. Elvis Costello was brilliant on "This Year's Model", of course. But he's done TONS of brilliant work that is miles away from that. I don't see why that's a problem. Never did.
1. I think Marc has a point about a particular era (the 70s) when people felt they had to choose a side between punk's authenticity versus pop's polish. To me, it doesn't seem as much an issue anymore.
2. Few bands are lucky enough to have a great song or album in them. Those usually come first. So after the first two albums, the band may continue and even be popular and even be more commercial sounding, but they've run out of ideas. Rejecting them as just repeating themselves is just the cold hard truth for 90% of all acts. Few artists have more than one important album/novel/TV show/movie/play, if that. So it's just good taste on the fan's part.
3. You want the band to be yours -- you love a band, they become popular and suddenly everyone loves your band and it's just not as fun. People aren't rejecting polish per se, just the feeling that "their" band has become so big that it's not special anymore. Plus, you have to go see them in big spaces for more money rather than small bars. Band becomes popular and their first fervent fans get bummed.
4. All of the above!
Post a Comment