I guess I understand the fascination with Amy Winehouse – she's a phenomenal voice paired with an interesting story, and her album has a couple songs that bear out her talent. Back to Black is an odd kind of concept album, one where Winehouse's angst is set to a Motown soundtrack – to varying results. On some songs, she carries it off well, such as her ubiquitous “Rehab,” a song that's been making the rounds for practically a year now (yes, I know – I'm reviewing an old album – I never said anything about the timeliness of my criticisms, so there). Her whiskey-dark voice throbs when necessary, and the rather somber (sober . . . anyone?) message is juxtaposed nicely with the slightly upbeat music. Better yet, though is the song that more clearly works as a throwback to Motown, “Tears Dry on Their Own.” Part of it's success for me is the the chorus: the way she sings it with a slight catch right at the apex brings the message home. And, of course, the sampling/re-appropriation of “Ain't No Mountain High Enough” -- the classic Marvin Gaye/Tammi Terrel song – gives a melody that is both catchy and familiar.
And, yet, that's about all I have to recommend for this album. The gimmick gets old, which is why when Lauryn Hill put “Doo Wop (That Thing)” on The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill, the success was in the fact that it was unique – just like every song on that album. Soul-singers, R&B singers, blues singers – take note: Seminal albums rarely, if ever, try to do the same thing over and over again. Winehouse, who's voice must draw comparisons to Hill's (and rightly so), is asked to do the same thing over and over again, and too often, what you get is mediocrity instead of great music. The album isn't terrible, but I don't get what people were in such a hizzy about.
Tizzy?
On the other end of the spectrum, I was surprised by how much I enjoyed (enjoy) Paramore's album Riot!. Surprised not so much because I thought they would make bad music, but more because I would have thought more people would have been talking about just how good the album is.
Certainly one needs to acknowledge that they are coming from a musical tradition (if you can call something that's essentially only a few years old a “tradition”) which isn't really known to get a great deal of respect from music critics: emo. But, then again, this really isn't truly emo anyway, so what's that say about music critics?
Sure, there is something that seems to scream out “emo!,” but as I've discussed numerous times on this site, what comes out for me is not sub-genre, but simply great rock music. From the beginning, we are drawn in with a driving guitar and a voice that, like Winehouse, knows how to sing with emotions. Unlike Winehouse, though, almost every song has a catchy hook, thanks to the voice of singer Hayley Williams and her and guitarists Josh Farro's songwriting ability. Together, they put together “poppy” music that you can dance to, sing along with, and basically feel good about listening to. While I can see the artistic merits in downer music – and Riot! is not all sunshine and rainbows – I generally listen to enjoy myself.
I enjoy Paramore.
As is often the case, the singles chosen are good, but not really the best songs on the album. “Misery Business,” the first U.S. Single, is excellent, and I still haven't sickened of it. Even the second single, “Crushcrushcrush” is pretty decent, but it doesn't bring the emotional resonance (it doesn't touch me in a non-creepy-uncle-way) like some of the other songs. In particular, “Hallelujah,” “Miracle,” and incredibly Fall Out Boy-ishly titled “For a Pessimist I'm Pretty Optimistic” stand out – and this is only a 12 song album.
And really, all the songs are good.
Save yourself the time and money, and leave Ms. Winehouse on the shelf. Download “Rehab” and “Tears Dry on Their Own,” (if you haven't already) and count yourself finished. On the other hand, invest in Riot!. I can't promise you'll love it, but I can assure you will be buying a complete album made up of songs -- you know, the combination of musicality, lyrics, and singing that make you enjoy popular music in the first place.
In a completely different medium, allow me to not recommend Matthew Pearl's The Poe Shadow.
You may recognize Pearl as being the author of The Dante Club, a book in which some of America's greatest poets solve a series of post-Civil War murders by interpreting Dante's Inferno. For all the highfalutin' literary pretensions, Pearl delivered the goods in that one, because he could bring his historical, in-depth knowledge of Dante to create a unique and creative mystery. The main characters are all people we should probably know (and even if we aren't familiar with their works, per se, we are familiar with their names), and this connection, combined with an equally familiar poem and a particularly gruesome serial killer made an interesting and enjoyable read.
The Poe Shadow doesn't quite make it.
To begin, the main character, instead of being a historical figure, is a completely fictional one, already taking away some of the interest we might have in the book. Yes, the mystery might be real, but that's not exactly the point in fiction: I'd rather have a boring but real character solve a fantastic crime than a relatively boring fictional character solve a relatively boring real crime. But that's what we get in Pearl's last book.
Part of what makes it boring is that it's a bit muddled. Intent on saving Edgar Poe's (the book makes a point of dropping the Allan, as apparently Poe was estranged from Mr. Allan, his guardian) name after an ignoble death, the protagonist, Quentin, goes to France to find the real-life inspiration for Poe's great detective, Dupin. Instead, he finds two: the burnt-out detective Duponte and the shady Baron Dupin. Quentin decides that Duponte must be the real Dupin, and gets him to come back to Baltimore.
What follows isn't entirely clear. Quentin, despite his acknowledgment of Duponte's abilities, continues to ruin his own life while searching for the truth. The Baron, seeing an opportunity to regain stature and money (and therefore return from Paris, no longer an outcast), comes to Baltimore too, in order to “find the truth” -- basically, make a buck with a convincing story. I guess along the way there are some elements of danger, but nothing incredibly ominous. And then . . .
But what's the point? It just keeps going on and on, getting more and more convoluted, until eventually Quentin's aunt sues to declare him incompetent of handling his own inheritence, to which he has to defend Poe and prove his search wasn't in vain.
And yet, it was.
Because, at the end of the book (HUGE FRICKIN' SPOILER ALERT), the mystery isn't solved. Oh, there are theories. There is conjecture and logical thinking – but there's NO PROOF. And so, the main thing I got from the book was big serving of “what a gyp.”
What didn't help, either, is that Pearl, while technically a good writer, must have the driest voice of any popular novelist. It's as if he can't escape the “historical” part of historical fiction, and what we get is a possibly good idea mired in dusty prose. And then the idea didn't turn out to be that good.
Surprisingly, I won't even make a pun with Pearl's name. I could, rather easily, you know. This book simply isn't pun-worthy.
If that's not a telling statement, I don't know what is.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Friday, November 2, 2007
The Industry is Not Static
And yet sometimes you wish it were.
As we get to the point of no-return for most television studios, the haves and have-nots are being sorted at a prodigious rate. Granted, I simply don’t have time to watch every new show that comes out, but there are also usually pretty strong indicators as to how a show is going to do or not.
For example, any show with a caveman that isn’t a “Captain,” a “Honeymooners” rip-off, or a solitary, once-and-done joke probably isn’t going to last that long. Couple that with the fact that this is essentially free advertising for Geico (a company, by the way, that is owned by Berkshire-Hathaway – Warren Buffett’s company), and what you get is the merger of corporations and the arts that is at once bourgeois and craptacular. If I was the proletariat, I’d just let this show run its course and let the Revolution handle itself.
But it’s not just about blatantly bad ideas being shown for what they are: One might think that the combination of Kelsey Grammer, Patricia Heaton, and Fred Willard would have enough star-power and genuinely funny people to make “Back to You” work. And yet . . . not. Instead of being funny, it’s either mean or stupid. There’s nothing necessarily funny about awful people being awful to each other – you need a connection of some sort to make you sympathize on some level with the characters. Hence, while “Everybody Loves Raymond” made me cringe (because Raymond was a coward and yet Debra put up with it – both his cowardice and his truly reprehensible mother), at least there were moments when you understood that, deep down, these people truly do love each other. “Back to You” fails in this regard.
So, while these shows are still on the air, it’s only a matter of time before the ratings point out that businessmen don’t understand comedy.
Someone, however, does understand good television over at NBC. Two new shows, “Chuck” and “Life,” are quite good (with “Life” struggling to find its way into Excellent). They both have interesting premises, charming lead actors, decent supporting casts, and good writing.
(Note – good writing may be in very short supply soon)
For “Chuck,” Zachary Levi is a perfect balance between shyly-charming, intelligent, and nerd-core to the extreme. It’s one of those things where you have to believe that the hot girl wouldn’t be out of her mind for going out with him – and you don’t. While I’m not sure exactly how long they can maintain the double-life story (or how many terrorists or international criminals can realistically frequent the Los Angeles area) and I wish there was actually more “geek,” the show is highly amusing.
“Life,” while also incredibly amusing, is more of a straight drama. About a cop who was falsely accused of murder, and, upon his release, reaches a settlement in which he is given an undisclosed (but clearly huge) sum of money and a job back on the force. The interplay between the re-acclimation to the world, between Charlie (the lead, played fantastically by Damian Lewis, who you might remember from “Band of Brothers”) and his partner Dani, and the tension of being a cop surrounded by people you think have betrayed you, is gripping. Everyone has demons on this show, and yet Charlie’s quirky nature – his annoying philosophical ideas and his idiosyncratic tendencies – are a joy to watch. The one flaw I have noticed early is that the cut-scenes – in which an unseen documentary film-maker/journalist is interviewing people in regards to Charlie’s murder case – have already become repetitious. Sure, I understand the desire to drill certain facts home, and during a particular episode it can be an effective and powerful device, but to repeat things from show to show is a bit of a cop-out as far as writing goes.
Couple of other notes:
I read a review of “Shot of Love with Tila Tequila” that read: “Pour this shot down the drain and get yourself a real drink – you’re gonna need it.”
Okay, I wrote that.
The show sucks. Whereas at least other dating/reality shows have some sort of theme, this show is all over the place – her tokens should be shot glasses, but they’re keys. Winners go to “heaven” and losers to “hell.” It just is poorly executed. Couple that with the fact that she’s a celebrity because she hyped herself up on MySpace and is (maybe) a bi-sexual makes me question if this is the sort of person who we need to encounter on a weekly basis.
On the good side, the new season of “South Park” has started, and, as usual, they are hilarious. They just wrapped up a three-part episode in which terrorists attack our imagination (they suicide bomb Imagination Land), Cartman is trying to enforce a court-ruling saying Kyle has to suck his balls, and Butters turns out to be the Neo of the Imagination Land-Matrix, and it was so incredibly money.
A fun game would be to try to name all the imaginary characters – it’s like a who’s who of pop-culture from the past 25 years.
Some quick hits:
“My Name is Earl” is still very good.
I have no desire to watch “Lost” when it finally decides to come back – I can’t watch a show that doesn’t do anything.
I don’t understand the appeal of “Grey’s Anatomy.” I think I might need a vagina for that.
I’ve heard “Pushing Daisies” is very good, I just have too much on my plate at the moment.
Please let the rumors about new “Futurama” episodes be true. “South Park” aside, “Futurama” was the most consistently excellent adult cartoon after “The Simpsons” (and shouldn’t they have bowed out after the movie? Wasn’t that the point?) started sucking – at least 9 years ago.
I think that’s about it for now. I actually don’t get to watch a lot of TV anymore, but I am a firm believer of bowing at the altar of TiVo (although I now just have a cable-box DVR) – so I tend to catch up slowly but surely.
Remember: Television is not a passive activity. If you don’t like something, turn it off!
As we get to the point of no-return for most television studios, the haves and have-nots are being sorted at a prodigious rate. Granted, I simply don’t have time to watch every new show that comes out, but there are also usually pretty strong indicators as to how a show is going to do or not.
For example, any show with a caveman that isn’t a “Captain,” a “Honeymooners” rip-off, or a solitary, once-and-done joke probably isn’t going to last that long. Couple that with the fact that this is essentially free advertising for Geico (a company, by the way, that is owned by Berkshire-Hathaway – Warren Buffett’s company), and what you get is the merger of corporations and the arts that is at once bourgeois and craptacular. If I was the proletariat, I’d just let this show run its course and let the Revolution handle itself.
But it’s not just about blatantly bad ideas being shown for what they are: One might think that the combination of Kelsey Grammer, Patricia Heaton, and Fred Willard would have enough star-power and genuinely funny people to make “Back to You” work. And yet . . . not. Instead of being funny, it’s either mean or stupid. There’s nothing necessarily funny about awful people being awful to each other – you need a connection of some sort to make you sympathize on some level with the characters. Hence, while “Everybody Loves Raymond” made me cringe (because Raymond was a coward and yet Debra put up with it – both his cowardice and his truly reprehensible mother), at least there were moments when you understood that, deep down, these people truly do love each other. “Back to You” fails in this regard.
So, while these shows are still on the air, it’s only a matter of time before the ratings point out that businessmen don’t understand comedy.
Someone, however, does understand good television over at NBC. Two new shows, “Chuck” and “Life,” are quite good (with “Life” struggling to find its way into Excellent). They both have interesting premises, charming lead actors, decent supporting casts, and good writing.
(Note – good writing may be in very short supply soon)
For “Chuck,” Zachary Levi is a perfect balance between shyly-charming, intelligent, and nerd-core to the extreme. It’s one of those things where you have to believe that the hot girl wouldn’t be out of her mind for going out with him – and you don’t. While I’m not sure exactly how long they can maintain the double-life story (or how many terrorists or international criminals can realistically frequent the Los Angeles area) and I wish there was actually more “geek,” the show is highly amusing.
“Life,” while also incredibly amusing, is more of a straight drama. About a cop who was falsely accused of murder, and, upon his release, reaches a settlement in which he is given an undisclosed (but clearly huge) sum of money and a job back on the force. The interplay between the re-acclimation to the world, between Charlie (the lead, played fantastically by Damian Lewis, who you might remember from “Band of Brothers”) and his partner Dani, and the tension of being a cop surrounded by people you think have betrayed you, is gripping. Everyone has demons on this show, and yet Charlie’s quirky nature – his annoying philosophical ideas and his idiosyncratic tendencies – are a joy to watch. The one flaw I have noticed early is that the cut-scenes – in which an unseen documentary film-maker/journalist is interviewing people in regards to Charlie’s murder case – have already become repetitious. Sure, I understand the desire to drill certain facts home, and during a particular episode it can be an effective and powerful device, but to repeat things from show to show is a bit of a cop-out as far as writing goes.
Couple of other notes:
I read a review of “Shot of Love with Tila Tequila” that read: “Pour this shot down the drain and get yourself a real drink – you’re gonna need it.”
Okay, I wrote that.
The show sucks. Whereas at least other dating/reality shows have some sort of theme, this show is all over the place – her tokens should be shot glasses, but they’re keys. Winners go to “heaven” and losers to “hell.” It just is poorly executed. Couple that with the fact that she’s a celebrity because she hyped herself up on MySpace and is (maybe) a bi-sexual makes me question if this is the sort of person who we need to encounter on a weekly basis.
On the good side, the new season of “South Park” has started, and, as usual, they are hilarious. They just wrapped up a three-part episode in which terrorists attack our imagination (they suicide bomb Imagination Land), Cartman is trying to enforce a court-ruling saying Kyle has to suck his balls, and Butters turns out to be the Neo of the Imagination Land-Matrix, and it was so incredibly money.
A fun game would be to try to name all the imaginary characters – it’s like a who’s who of pop-culture from the past 25 years.
Some quick hits:
“My Name is Earl” is still very good.
I have no desire to watch “Lost” when it finally decides to come back – I can’t watch a show that doesn’t do anything.
I don’t understand the appeal of “Grey’s Anatomy.” I think I might need a vagina for that.
I’ve heard “Pushing Daisies” is very good, I just have too much on my plate at the moment.
Please let the rumors about new “Futurama” episodes be true. “South Park” aside, “Futurama” was the most consistently excellent adult cartoon after “The Simpsons” (and shouldn’t they have bowed out after the movie? Wasn’t that the point?) started sucking – at least 9 years ago.
I think that’s about it for now. I actually don’t get to watch a lot of TV anymore, but I am a firm believer of bowing at the altar of TiVo (although I now just have a cable-box DVR) – so I tend to catch up slowly but surely.
Remember: Television is not a passive activity. If you don’t like something, turn it off!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)