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-).
Wednesday, December 21, 2016
Tuesday, December 13, 2016
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.
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.
Monday, October 17, 2016
Honorable Mentions
So, since 1990, Christgau has used a set of three ratings called "honorable mentions", denoted by either 1, 2, or 3 asterisks. Unsurprisingly, the *** rating is the best, followed by the ** rating and then the lowly * rating. So what do these ratings mean? In short, each of them corresponds to some degree of listenability. Before I go into more detail, I should note that there's some variation between the best and worst albums in each rating category.
The * rating, I have concluded, denotes an album that is "barely enjoyable", meaning it is only pleasant to listen to in a very minimal, basic way. Often there is some palpable limitation to one of these albums that prevents it from being much better; take, for example, Babybird's "The Greatest Hits", which Christgau wrote "needs a whole lot less of Jesus and a lot more rock and roll". Another example is The Battle of Los Angeles by RATM, of which Christgau wrote, "If only it promised as much for the future of rock leftism as for the future of rock guitar." Over time, a * album usually becomes less "barely enjoyable" and more "barely listenable," which it does much faster than albums w/more favorable ratings.
The ** rating denotes an OK album; neither particularly engaging or enjoyable nor, like a * album, "barely enjoyable". Such an album has more substance than a * album does, and so can be enjoyed more deeply and less superficially than a * album can. Note that Christgau himself distinguishes ** albums from * albums by saying that people may well "enjoy" the former but will, at best, only "like" the latter.
Lastly there is the *** rating. This is the highest grade in this category, but it's still less than even an A- (as well as, of course, an A or A+). I've always perceived all three of these grades to be on a separate scale from, and therefore not really comparable to, letter grades. Fundamentally, even a *** album, although it is certainly enjoyable to listen to and doesn't get old nearly as fast as a *, is fundamentally "less" than an A- album, even if only by a little. By "less" I mean less fun to listen to, and, to a certain extent, less ambitious and less musically diverse, than an A- album. That said, *** albums are still very fun and rewarding to listen to; among my favorites are (and have been for years) Blink-182's self-titled album and QOTSA's Rated R.
The * rating, I have concluded, denotes an album that is "barely enjoyable", meaning it is only pleasant to listen to in a very minimal, basic way. Often there is some palpable limitation to one of these albums that prevents it from being much better; take, for example, Babybird's "The Greatest Hits", which Christgau wrote "needs a whole lot less of Jesus and a lot more rock and roll". Another example is The Battle of Los Angeles by RATM, of which Christgau wrote, "If only it promised as much for the future of rock leftism as for the future of rock guitar." Over time, a * album usually becomes less "barely enjoyable" and more "barely listenable," which it does much faster than albums w/more favorable ratings.
The ** rating denotes an OK album; neither particularly engaging or enjoyable nor, like a * album, "barely enjoyable". Such an album has more substance than a * album does, and so can be enjoyed more deeply and less superficially than a * album can. Note that Christgau himself distinguishes ** albums from * albums by saying that people may well "enjoy" the former but will, at best, only "like" the latter.
Lastly there is the *** rating. This is the highest grade in this category, but it's still less than even an A- (as well as, of course, an A or A+). I've always perceived all three of these grades to be on a separate scale from, and therefore not really comparable to, letter grades. Fundamentally, even a *** album, although it is certainly enjoyable to listen to and doesn't get old nearly as fast as a *, is fundamentally "less" than an A- album, even if only by a little. By "less" I mean less fun to listen to, and, to a certain extent, less ambitious and less musically diverse, than an A- album. That said, *** albums are still very fun and rewarding to listen to; among my favorites are (and have been for years) Blink-182's self-titled album and QOTSA's Rated R.
Saturday, September 3, 2016
Introductory post
This blog will be dedicated to understanding and analyzing Robert Christgau's music reviews. I am starting this blog because it is often surprisingly difficult to understand what Christgau means in his reviews, so for those who don't "get" his reviews he simply seems like an out-of-touch egotistical snob. I have been reading his reviews regularly for >7 years so I think I know a thing or two about what a given one means.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)