My own reviews, pt. 4

Flyleaf: Flyleaf (A&M/Octone, 2005)
Clean, melodic, Christian-themed metal with unusual chord progressions -- seems like a pretty weird combination. But the band has also figured out how to convey Christian messages without coming off as moralizing or cheesy: focus on suffering and specific personal stories, rather than merely singing abstractly about God's positive qualities. Lacey Sturm's personal struggles definitely help her and her band pull this off better than they would've been able to otherwise, giving the music a valuable degree of authenticity. Combining the positive and uplifting message seemingly baked into Christian rock -- if not Christianity itself -- with these raw, scary, stories of personal suffering is hard enough, but throw in Sturm's attempt to combine weirdly complex melodies with intermittent screaming of the sort one would expect in more conventional metal, and it becomes a truly formidable balancing act. It's impressive that Sturm and her bandmates are attempting it at all, and they are clearly successful to some extent, so that the combination of the band's noisy power chords, enthusiastic vocals, and sincere lyrics ends up rendering the entire album perfectly listenable. I remember when "All Around Me" was at or near the top of the iTunes charts back in 2008, and I am partial to its chorus, as well as those of "Breathe Today" and "So I Thought". But the strangely written, inaccessible, meandering melodies that pervade each of the album's tracks to some extent or another ultimately prevent the music from becoming truly enjoyable or engaging listening. And while the music isn't as cloying as more positive Christian rock music sometimes is, the downside of the more raw, suffering-based lyrics here is that it makes the songs come off as too heavy-handed and somber to really effectively reach out and grab the listener. You can tell the band's going for a vibe of overcoming adversity through God, but this intended positivity ultimately gets overwhelmed by the emphasis on the negative. It seems like the minor-key melodies and screaming indicate a message of pessimism fundamentally at odds with the intended message of inspiration evident in the lyrics, and this contradiction drags the album down. C PLUS

Muse: Black Holes and Revelations (Warner Bros., 2006)
Something about this band has always struck me as weirdly vapid, like the substance underlying their fancy, grandiose songwriting hasn't been there. Here they come off as a manlier Coldplay, with much more guitar noise, weird lyrics, ear-catching sound effects of various types, and, as mentioned before, grandiose songwriting. The flip side of that is that they also come off as a diet Radiohead, with a lot of the rougher, weirder edges shaved off. Hard to pigeonhole the genre of this music, but "arena-prog-power-pop-rock" seems fairly close. It's a sort of punk rock for people who don't like the scary, rebellious aspects of real punk rock and want the rebellious message watered down somewhat so they can handle it, but not so much that it's no longer noticeable. This shows up in the recurring anti-authoritarian/dictator/war themes in the lyrics. Pretty good melodies throughout, and the band shows a notable mastery of the crucial art of appealing rhythmic structure. Lots of passion in the vocals and tons of complicated arrangements. In short, this album is enjoyable to listen to in much the same way that it is "fun" to watch an action movie, with its rapid pace, in-your-face action, and myriad special effects. But the necessary distancing between real musicians and abstract, fictional subject matter serves as an obstacle that can only be overcome by deep investment in songwriting and lyrical delivery. The consequences of this obstacle in the music include a general feeling that the singer, despite his obvious energy, does not really believe what he is singing, in part because any larger political message to be found here has been watered down to avoid pointing to anyone specific. It's as though the soul and sincerity in the music, assuming it was ever there in the first place, was sanded away so that the glimmering melodies and showy instrumentation would be easier for listeners to hear. Another consequence is that trying to transmute epic action movies into music, especially when any "plot" of the movie is shredded into tiny, unrecognizable pieces in the album's lyrics, is inherently doomed to less-than-complete success, because the two media are fundamentally different in how they entertain. This was an obstacle for 30 Seconds to Mars as well, though here the songwriting and general musicianship is better able to help to overcome that obstacle. Well worth a listen, however, if only for the fun of the (inconsistently) catchy melodies and (consistently) engaging arrangements. B

My own reviews, pt. 3

Snow Patrol: A Hundred Million Suns [Geffen, 2008]
Good, but is it great? I've never really known just how to describe these guys' seemingly boring, generic pop-rock sound--kind of like Coldplay, but more upbeat, and faster, and with a slightly larger dose of rock, and also they're Irish and Scottish, not British, so that's different. But there seems to be another difference that is perhaps even more any important than any of these: Snow Patrol's music, both within and between songs, seems to have a lot more variability- in terms of volume, tempo, and pretty much everything else- than Coldplay's does. It's also much more guitar-centric, and less piano-centric, which makes this album's music typical sounding pop rock, at least for the most part. This willingness to explore unusual and atypical song structures and such gives this album a distinct edge over most other pop rock albums, partly because it helps it avoid the classic trap of becoming boring. Their ability to rock out effectively (like on "Please Just Take These Photos From My    Hands") and to avoid reusing the same melodies on different songs, however tempting that may be, are 
also major pluses. This album manages to be positive and emotional, often romantic, without appearing
cliche or insincere, which is not as easy as you might think. Not only that, it's engaging, its songs are 
carefully crafted, with big, enjoyable, noisy choruses, and lyrics that seem relatable and interesting, 
without being too hard to understand. And yet, it seems a bit formulaic, like it's not better than simply being enjoyable to listen to,
like something's missing--what might that thing be? Not passion or 
enthusiasm, that's for sure; instead, it seems like the problem is deficiency in the catchy, well-written
melodies department. Intriguingly, a BBC review of this album described it as "...so close to being brilliant, it ends up being more grating than if it had been awful." This seems to be a little off to me: I would say this album is better described as a little below "so close to being brilliant", and that it's still pretty good despite this. A bit boring because the songs start seeming kinda similar if you listen to them enough times, but still worth a listen. Best track: "Take Back the City", which, not coincidentally, is also the catchiest. B PLUS

Muse
The 2nd Law [Warner Bros., 2012]
Having long thought this band was overrated and (some of) their song titles ridiculously pretentious, I recently decided that they were nevertheless good enough to still give another chance. I figured that though I generally liked their music, perhaps if I listened to more of it in detail, I would really love it. Perhaps I would change my mind about thinking these guys had always been about style way more than substance. I remember when "Madness" came out as a single and you couldn't stop hearing it on the radio--would I have warmed to it in the 6 years or so since then? This album seems to suffer from an unfortunate drawback that I also detected when I reviewed 30 Seconds to Mars' A Beautiful Lie on this blog: specifically, it is a half-assed concept album apparently written by someone who wanted to make his band the next Pink Floyd, but didn't want to put the effort into either writing well-organized, engaging songs with enjoyable melodies or into constructing anything resembling a coherent plot. (Admittedly the latter problem isn't necessarily a major issue with concept albums, though.) Maundering, goopy, poorly structured concepts on a concept album aren't necessarily an issue as mentioned earlier, but when the music is also maundering, goopy, and poorly structured, and the songwriter(s) apparently can't decide if they want to go for a chill, laid-back album, electronic/orchestral rock, or an epic concept album about...uh...something about tyranny and oppression, I guess, one cannot help but leave at least slightly disappointed. The spoken-word bits on the last two tracks further bolster one's sense that the makers of this album weren't really sure what they were doing--they apparently tried to create an ominous vibe but all the stuff about entropy and low-income housing (?) just comes off as boring. The piano and classical arrangements are pretty good and worth listening to if you're into that stuff; there's certainly nothing overtly bad about this album. The handful of somewhat/very good tracks here (like "Supremacy" and "Panic Station") are those that show a real commitment to a theme and match the music to that theme, and sprinkle in some catchy melodies to boot, rather than stay in a sluggish rut. But like A Beautiful Lie, this album seems to be far too full of slow, sterile, and boring songs bereft of many engaging features (especially melodies), and with far more moments where the band was often apparently just trying to kill time than where one is engaged in any kind of concept.  C PLUS 

My own reviews, pt. 2

30 Seconds to Mars: A Beautiful Lie [Virgin, 2005]
At first, I had a hard time figuring out why I didn't like this much more than I actually did--there weren't any obvious, glaring flaws anywhere I could notice. Slick, dramatic, flashy, clean, with lots of action and plot turns all over the place--a little weird, maybe, but what else would you expect from a Hollywood actor who became a rock musician? But as I kept listening it became apparent that there are a couple issues here: first, the music clearly lacks gripping melodies of the sort needed to make melodic rock like this really great. Second, it is obvious that many people involved in this album had previous movie industry experience, given that they apparently dumped all the complex plot twists one would expect in a typical action movie into a blender.  The result is all sorts of stylistic changes jumbled throughout the album--tempo shifts, quiet ballads suddenly changing to loud, pseudo-"crazy" rockers, everything. The problem is that the elements of what would be the "plot" on the big screen don't form any apparent "whole" that could be considered better or even equal to the sum of its parts, and the drama also makes it seem like they're trying to compensate for the lack of songwriting substance by turning the style and bombast up to 11. Not only that, but entertainment only goes so far when you're working entirely in the auditory realm, as here, rather than on the big screen. As a result, despite intermittent bits and pieces that do reach out and grip you (especially "The Kill (Bury Me)"), the album as a whole is ultimately hindered by hollow, lethargic, and aimless vibes-as though Leto were trying to act like a good musician rather than actually trying to be one. Or, to put it another way, it is as if he were trying to sing songs he pretended to care about rather than those he genuinely cared about, and could invest with a sincere and affecting meaning. B MINUS

30 Seconds to Mars: This Is War [Virgin/EMI, 2009]
There's still a certain vapidity in the background choruses sprinkled throughout these tracks, as there was on A Beautiful Lie, but Leto's songwriting skills seem to have improved a great deal in the four years since then. Perhaps the most obvious ways in which this has occurred is the improvement of these songs' melodies and timing compared to those on Lie. The title track and "Vox Populi" both seem to be pretty good examples of the band, intentionally or not, avoiding their past mistakes of throwing too many stylistic tricks (tempo/volume/etc. changes), and instead just trying to write songs that stand reasonably well without being "masked" by such tricks. The result is for the listener to be drawn into these songs significantly more than last time. Nevertheless, this album, like its predecessor, still seems to be hindered by an inherent limitation of the band's mainstream-yet-weird combination of classical orchestra backgrounds, anthemic pop rock, military themes, and to top it off, trying to convert all this into something profound and sublime. (I thought there was something more specific holding it back at first, but I couldn't figure out what it was.) Still, some of the over-the-top conceptual fight-against-the-oppressive-government stuff from last time has also been tweaked a bit, to make it less gloomy and more uplifting. This turns out to be a big improvement, because it turns out poppy, concept-laden arena-rock mixes much better with major keys than with minor ones. An enjoyable diversion--almost as much fun as a good action movie, though not in the same overarching way. B PLUS

Flobots: Fight With Tools [Universal Republic, 2008]
You've gotta admire the Flobots' willingness to throw in "everything and the kitchen sink" here, as AllMusic's David Jeffries noted in his review of this album. It contains varying amounts of "normal" rap, gentle, blue-eyed soul-esque background singers, jazz instrumentation, bits and pieces of spoken word, it's all there. Not only that, the optimism of Obama's 2008 campaign is unmistakable throughout this album, and the vocalists demonstrate remarkable verbal dexterity in conveying their political views in hip-hop form. All in all, the album certainly seems pretty well-made on the surface, with the instruments being played well and the songs written carefully and uniquely. All the lyrics and rhythms are highly complex in their arrangements, and they're arranged in the repetitive-but-not-too-repetitive manner of a band trying pro forma not to bore their audience too much, while also giving them hooks they can enjoy in each song. These guys, in short, clearly have no shortage of interesting ideas. It's also refreshing that they're so willing to push rap-rock away from RATM's political metal angle, and towards their own political jazz/rock fusion angle. But if Arrested Development have taught us anything, it's that otherwise good alternative hip hop can shoot itself in the foot by being too sanctimonious. These guys' pacifist messages seem relatable and engaging enough, but they seem to have fallen into the AD trap of being too sanctimonious, and of trying too hard to educate their audience, as exemplified by "Anne Braden", a tribute to a white Southern civil rights activist (featuring spoken word passages spoken by Braden herself!). This song provides a depressingly clear example of how carefully, sincerely, and virtuously written music can ultimately be hindered by a combination of sententiousness and didactism. Not only that, but their ideas are so numerous and variegated that they end up being disorienting, as if one was on a roller coaster pulling and pushing you in so many different directions it limits one's ability to enjoy what you're trying to. In short, when you think an album's lyricists would be better at being community organizers instead, there's a problem. Still, there's no need to write this album off entirely, as it contains more impressive displays of flexibility and creativity than most circus acts. B MINUS

My own reviews

I have decided to review albums myself that Christgau has, for whatever reason, not reviewed. The albums I'm going to focus on are those that you'd think he'd have reviewed given how successful and well-known they are, but that he hasn't (and probably never will). To avoid albums he might review in the future I'm limiting myself to ones released at least five years ago (i.e. 2012 or earlier), but still recently enough that I am familiar with them already. In many cases these albums are those I have been at least a little familiar with for many years, e.g. because I heard one song from it on the radio many times growing up, or remember seeing it when it was just released on iTunes.

I'll start with this review I've been sitting on for a while already:

Arctic Monkeys: Suck it and See (Domino, 2011) On the heels of Humbug comes another album that is clearly less upbeat and fun than the Monkeys' early albums. But that's not to say it's no different from the notoriously dark Humbug--this one gets off to a noticeably more positive start. Importantly, this demonstrates that Alex Turner is now better at breaking out of his funk than he was an album ago. Why is this important? Because his addition of a dash of positivity and high speed to the pensive and bizarre lyrics of Humbug helps cancel out the major problem with the latter--namely, that it wallowed too much in its own slow-burning depression to go anywhere. Take "Library Pictures", which, though it is in a minor key, is clearly faster, louder, and more upbeat than anything on Humbug--except in the (relatively) slow bridge. The fun the band has from singing about specific subjects is clearly here when it was lacking in Humbug, and this translates into more fun for the listener as well, rendering each track significantly more engaging and interesting listening. This is never more apparent than on the title track, with its upbeat chorus and clear human object of affection who nevertheless appears, by her face, to have been "made to break your heart". In short, if Humbug was the valley, this one is the plateau at which you arrive after making it out of the valley. B+ 

How often does he change his grades?

It is evident to anyone who has read enough of Christgau's old CG columns that he sometimes changes the grades he gives albums. Albums he has changed the grade of from when he first reviewed it in a column can be identified by the "[Later: (new grade)]" displayed after the old review on the column page. For instance, this column shows that he originally gave Icky Mettle, the Archers of Loaf's debut album, an A- grade, but that he later raised this to an A. So I wondered, how often does he change grades of albums like this? I'll only look at 1990-1997 because I don't feel like looking back earlier, or further, than that.

I'm also not counting when a "dud" grade is changed to a letter grade lower than B+.


1990: 19/367

1991: 14/402

1992: 12/373 (incl. American Music Club's Everclear, which is not marked as changed (NMAC))

1993: 16/445 (incl. J.'s We are the Majority (NMAC))

1994: 15/462 (incl. Ass Ponys' Grim (NMAC))

1995: 19/430

1996: 15/463

1997: 9/450 (incl. Fountains of Wayne's self-titled album (NMAC))

So we see that he doesn't change his grades very often--during the time period, he never changed so much as 5% of his reviews in a given year. The most he changed in one year was in 1990 and in 1995, when he changed 19 reviews in each year. (But he changed a higher % in 1990 because he reviewed fewer albums that year).

"Silent" CC changes: when the grade (Choice cuts) itself doesn't change but the tracks selected as CCs do. Examples:
1. Yo La Tengo's Fakebook originally had "Barnaby, Hardly Waiting" and "Emulsified" as choice cuts. But he later replaced "Barnaby, Hardly Waiting" with "Speeding Motorcycle" and "The Summer".
2. John Forster's Entering Marion originally included "Whole" as a choice cut, but it was later removed.
3. Todd Snider's Songs for the Daily Planet originally included "Alright Guy" as a choice cut, but it was later removed as well.
4. Will Smith's Big Willie Style originally only listed "Gettin' Jiggy With It" as a choice cut, but he later added "Just the Two of Us" and "Miami".
5. Black Sheep's A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing originally only listed "U Mean I'm Not" as a choice cut, but "The Choice is Yours" was later added.

Predicting grades based on physical album characteristics

What are "physical characteristics" in this case? Basically, anything about an album you can deduce by looking at it, as opposed to listening to it. This includes its title, the titles of its songs, or its cover art. As with the post about template albums, this is an idea I have been mulling over in my head for years but am just now deciding to post online. For example:
•"Neither"☹albums tend to have "outrageous" titles. By "outrageous" I mean that, in the case of titles, they are words or phrases that people don't usually use, often because they aren't real words at all. (Ex. Willennium by Will Smith, Screamadelica by Primal Scream) This often also involves relatively long album titles. (Ex. White Light White Heat White Trash by Social Distortion, One Eye on the Future One Eye on the Past by Rossy, All Balls Don't Bounce by Aceyalone) 
•Sometimes the track names on an album will seem to "fit" the grade Christgau gives it for reasons that are easily felt, at least to me, but a lot harder to explain in detail. Let's just say that when I look at the tracklist of an album like this, knowing the grade Christgau gave it, I intrinsically think the grade fits perfectly. Examples: Chinese Democracy by Guns 'n' Roses (B+), Folie a Deux by Fall Out Boy (B-), Humbug by the Arctic Monkeys (B), and Them Crooked Vultures' self-titled 2009 album (also B-). 

What is a "template album"?

Back in 2010, I coined the phrase "template album" in the context of Christgau's reviews, but I never told anyone about it (until now). A "template album" is one where the music has the potential to be good, if it is accompanied by good lyrics, but the lyrics actually on the album suck, which results in the album being much worse than it could be. These albums can be identified because in Christgau's reviews of them (which are always negative, of course), he does not discuss the melodic/rhythmic/etc. aspects of the songs on these albums; instead, he only ever discusses the lyrics. I have long thought that the two best examples of template albums are:
1. Grace by Jeff Buckley (grade: C, review here)
2. 21st Century Breakdown (grade: C, review here)

Note that the review to 21st Century Breakdown seems to contain an exception to the rule I noted above that Christgau doesn't discuss non-lyrical aspects of template albums in his reviews of them. Specifically, he criticizes "the slow ones that set up the fast ones within the same song, a hotcha-gotcha device with which the Broadway-bound ex-punk is deeply smitten." That's speed, that's not lyrics--which is true, but I still don't think it really counts, because the problem of slow songs that suddenly become much faster is a manifestation of the underlying problem with the album. This problem has nothing to do with its melodies or the sounds of any of the instruments, including Billie Joe's voice: instead, it's the pretentiousness with which Billie Joe wrote the songs on the album combined with the fact that he doesn't know jack shit about the subjects the album's songs are about. Or, as Christgau himself put it in that same review, "I don't like right-wing Christianists either. But as every oppressed teen in the right-wing orbit knows full well, they're not as garbled and simplistic as Armstrong's anthems insist."

Other albums that I have concluded might also be template albums include the following:
• Blood Sugar Sex Magic by the Red Hot Chili Peppers
• Bat out of Hell by Meat Loaf
• The Battle of Los Angeles by Rage Against the Machine

I am less sure about Bat out of Hell than about the other two above, partly because Christgau's review of it specifically slams the ridiculously overwrought, pretentious music, writing that it "pulls out the stops quite knowingly." In the past, I have also been turned off by this aspect of the album's songs when I have listened to them.