Christopher Cross - "Christopher Cross" (1979)

Rating: 4
Verdict: Blue Bin

I read enough about music that I sort of knew what to expect from this album, even though I don't think I'd heard any songs from it besides "Sailing." Quiet soft-rock with pianos, strings and horns that apparently dominated the radio in 1979 and won five Grammies (I will resist the obligatory potshot at the Grammies since I'm sure my target audience shares my opinion on them). Unsurprisingly, Cross has faded into obscurity given that there is little of lasting musical value here.

Still, this record does boast a 4.5 star rating on allmusic.com so probably deserves a dismissal that is longer than one paragraph. Thus, I'll give it two! Stephen Thomas Erlewine writes that this "was a hell of a record -- it just was a hell of a soft rock record, something that doesn't carry a lot of weight among most audiences." His general point is the album is consistent, well-crafted, and has strength beyond the singles. And at some level, I don't think he's incorrect. The songs do have hooks, are mostly memorable, and there's no particular drop in quality to be found. But they're also so limp and languid that there's just no way I can imagine myself feeling emotional stimulation from this music. My reward to Mr. Cross for his craftsmanship is giving this record a 4 out of 10 instead of a 1 or a 2, and I have a strong feeling that his later albums would be in that range for me, considering this is supposed to be his best. But it's still a no doubt blue bin record.

James Taylor - "Sweet Baby James" (1969)

Rating: 6

Verdict: Keeper

I have long professed to hate James Taylor, but I am well conditioned to the idea that nearly every musical artist looks bad if you let them keep recording long enough. In the case of Taylor, a fairly mediocre singer/songwriter in the scheme of things, but one who has released a long series of albums, it should be no surprise that most of them are bad, at least if my blue bin is any indication. My point is that despite having tried several Taylor albums and having liked none of them, it's not completely fair to judge an artist by their dregs rather than their prime. Because of this, I was willing to give Sweet Baby James a listen as it is commonly regarded as the best JT album. If I didn't like this one, then I could probably safely conclude that Taylor never made a good album.

Well, this record is proof that he did make a good album, and against my better judgment, I am somewhat impressed by this record. I still don't care for his bland voice ('easygoing' being the word that people that like him use), but this is the only James Taylor album I've heard where he wasn't content to simply strum on his guitar and sing the first melody that came to mind for the lyrics he wrote. Yes, there are actual points of musical interest here. He was never a revolutionary in this regard, being firmly grounded in folk, country and blues (mostly folk), but it's quite refreshing to hear him play acoustic guitar parts that are actually interesting to hear on their own rather than simply acting as accompaniment. He switches style and tempo enough that there's diversity as well and best of all, genuine care put into developing his melodies. Witness the jazzy, off-hand end of "Fire and Rain" - the later Taylor would have deemed the chorus good enough and probably omitted the descending hook in the verses too ("I just can't remember who to send it to").

Now I didn't love this album, and part of my reflexive disdain for Taylor stems from those who try to elevate him to the position of an all-time great. For example, this album ranked 103rd on Rolling Stone's Top 500 albums of all time. It might make my top 500 by default as of this writing (I doubt the number of albums I have heard is significantly larger than that) but I seriously doubt it would come anywhere near it if I had heard all the albums that Rolling Stone presumably considered. Instead, Sweet Baby James completes my understanding of Taylor's ultimate importance - at least, to my own imaginary musical pantheon. At one time, he was capable of making nice music so he can't be completely dismissed. But if this is the best he could offer, then it's not surprising that I don't like much else by him. 

Rating: 7/10

The Smashing Pumpkins - "MACHINA/The Machines of God"

Rating: 6

You may know it as the notorious album that precipitated the Smashing Pumpkins' breakup. But is MACHINA/The Machines of God as terrible as its title would indicate? Perhaps I have my head so far up Billy Corgan's bald ass that I can't tell what good music is anymore, but I say no. But mediocre, most definitely!

For although Corgan's songwriting declined as we entered our third millennium, it hadn't completely gone to shit either. However, this album is filled with bad artistic decisions. Let's take a quick run-through of the decision-making of Mr. Corgan:

Wrote a set of spiritual, soaring mid-tempo ballads? Make sure that every song is produced with a deafening, buzzing wall of sound that makes Phil Spector want to kill again.

Need a lead single? Re-write "Zero" from Mellon Collie, give it a meaningless title ("The Everlasting Gaze") and make sure to include an a cappella section where you sing the line "But underneath the wheels lie the skulls of every cog" with a hard G so that everyone wonders if they just heard you scream 'skulls of every cock'.*

Find yourself with 25-30 minutes of top-notch material and no more? Make the album 73 minutes long and then release a companion album called MACHINA II with 90 minutes of OUTTAKES from the recording sessions.

Shit, I've almost convinced myself that I shouldn't give this album three stars which is what I'm going to do at the end of this review. But despite the flaws, I do think there is 25-30 minutes of top-notch material here, which is enough for a borderline positive rating. The stretch from "Stand Inside Your Love" through "This Time" is good enough that I can almost forgive the stretch of bad songs from the needlessly 10-minute "Glass and the Ghost Children" (solid at 3 minutes, bad at 10), through the tedious "Blue Skings Bring Tears." I wouldn't say there's a great album buried here, but there is a good album at 10 or 11 songs, especially with sparser production. And what pushes me over into positive territory is that "Stand Inside Your Love" is a truly great single, the one vestige of classic Pumpkins.

So if you're a Pumpkins fan, you should still listen to this album. If you aren't, don't. And no, there is no fucking way I am ever going to listen to MACHINA II.

Rating: *** out of *****

* There is one other example of this that I can think of in the annals of rock: Manfred Mann's "Blinded by the Light" where the singer clearly sings "Wrapped up like a douche" when the line is "Wrapped up like a deuce." I'm not sure I can say why, but both songs make my skin crawl.

The Smashing Pumpkins - "Pisces Iscariot" (1994)

Rating: 8

Sure, he brought it on himself, but I find it a shame that Billy Corgan is mostly known as a crackpot, or worse, the bald guy with the shitty voice. I don't think he is (or was) quite a genius, but perhaps the Smashing Pumpkins' relatively disappointing fade-out post Mellon Collie shouldn't have been such a surprise. Consider the lengths of their first three albums:

Gish: 45:45

Siamese Dream: 62:17

Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness: 121:39

Then throw in this album, an excellent 57-minute collection of B-sides and outtakes and you've got over 4 hours and 45 minutes of quality Pumpkins, or seven normal-length vinyl records. So where a non-fan might see the lukewarm reception to their fourth and fifth albums (and subsequent breakup) and think they were some flash in the pan, they were really just victims of hanging around too long and letting Corgan make an ass of himself in the media one too many times. His prime may have been relatively short, but he wrote 10 or 15 years worth of music for some bands in four years.

Oh yeah, Pisces Iscariot. It has the best reputation of the various compilations of the band's unreleased tracks (yes, there are several) but I was a bit skeptical that they really had another full album's worth of good material considering it only draws on the recording sessions for two albums (Gish and Siamese Dream). And yet, I find this better than Gish and their third-best 'album' overall. It has a surprisingly good flow for a compilation, alternating between typical Pumpkins rockers and lighter, more evocative material. Corgan not only doesn't embarrass himself covering "Landslide," he does almost as good a job as Fleetwood Mac!

What I find particularly refreshing is that it largely lacks the epic ambitions of their first three studio albums and instead most of the tracks clock in between 2.5 and 4 minutes. Though this ambition is what made the group great at their best, it could be their downfall as well, so the result is that Pisces Iscariot is much more consistent, if lacking the stunning high points of Siamese Dream or Mellon Collie. 

That said, I would be remiss if I didn't mention that there is one major exception here to the previous paragraph - the 11-minute "Starla" which definitely qualifies as a stunning high point in my book. As this album demonstrates quite well, there are two major components to the group's sound: loud, distorted alternative rock meets heavy metal and lush, dreamy soft pop. I find they are at their most compelling when they combine the two in the same song, and "Starla" is a great example of this. Beginning with a quiet arpeggiated opening, they bring in a gruff riff, slowly building the song to a crescendo before dropping to a quiet fadeout five minutes in, seemingly the end of the song. Not so! Instead, Corgan comes to the fore with nearly six minutes of Hendrix-esque guitar soloing as he scrapes every bit of unearthly noise he can get out of his instrument. It's ridiculous and should be terrible, and yet somehow, it's the best thing here. And that is the essence of the Smashing Pumpkins.

The Clarke/Duke Project - "II" (1983)

Rating: 4

Verdict: Blue Bin

Although I have still been making my way through my album collection and merrily blue-binning records, it has come to my attention that I haven't actually been reviewing them. So I'm back to review the Clarke/Duke  Project!

I actually own three records by Stanley Clarke, who for those who don't know (I didn't), is best known for his bass playing on his own solo fusion records in the 70s as well as those of various jazz supergroups. The other two records I own, Journey to Love and School Days, I rather enjoyed and showcased a surprising level of diversity and inventiveness on Clarke's part in addition to the expected hyperactive bass playing (also worthwhile). And yet, prior to listening to this record, released just seven years after School Days, I looked up the allmusic.com rating and saw a 1.5 star rating. I doubted the veracity of such a low mark but really shouldn't have.

Indeed, Clarke was a victim of the same mass loss of taste in the 1980s that affected so many other musicians who released excellent music in the 60s and 70s. Having released several seminal jazz albums, he performed some inscrutable calculus that led him to the conclusion that the next way to proceed as an artist was to release albums of poorly sung dance-pop backed by drum machines and synthesizers. There are occasional glimpses on this record of Clarke's stupendous bass playing as well as a jazz-informed sense of melody. But I believe that these aspects may well make this particular album worse instead of better since they obscure whatever hooks there may well be. I will admit that the record isn't totally abysmal, but what it is is pointless and a disappointment compared to what came before. Blue bin!

Bob Dylan - "New Morning" (1970)

Rating: 8

Although it is my opinion that Dylan would never again reach the astounding heights of Highway 61 Revisited and Blonde on Blonde (and that includes Blood on the Tracks, which although it would probably make my purely hypothetical Hall of Fame Album Pyramid, wouldn't make the Pantheon), my recent listening to his immediate post-Blonde oeuvre certainly hasn't been unrewarding. Although I agree with the critical masses that his infamous Self-Portrait was a misfire, I also don't think it deserves infamy. Yet he released several good to great albums during this stretch, including John Wesley Harding, Nashville Skyline, and New Morning, released just four months after Self-Portrait. My main criticism of him during this stretch is not that he lost his genius, but that his genius was unfocused, manifesting itself on a handful of songs per album only. This is somewhat the case on New Morning, but there is enough strong material to recommend it.

On this album, Bob largely ditches the guitar and focuses primarily on rambling piano ballads. Being Dylan, his piano-playing is unpolished, his vocals are abrasive at times, and especially due to the short length (35 minutes), it isn't hard to imagine it being knocked off in four months. Yet he is also more direct and heartfelt on this album than he had really ever been until this point, and he conveys a genuine warmth and sweetness. Although this is nowhere near as momentous a record as his earlier stuff and has too much filler for me to call it a masterpiece (witness the awful beatnik spoken-word "When Dogs Run Free"), the best songs here are also spiritually akin in that Dylan's humanity shines through like almost no other rock songwriter can manage.

For example, I was already familiar with the opening track "If Not For You," as covered by George Harrison on All Things Must Pass. After hearing Harrison's glorious Phil Spector-ized version with its wall of acoustic guitars, the much more low-key Dylan version with its significantly dinkier organ part and ramshackle feel passed me by on the first listen. And yet now, I am overwhelmed by the homely charm of the Dylan rendition and although the Harrison version is hard to beat, it's much closer than I ever would have thought.

The other major highlight for me is "Sign On the Window" which has the closing verse:

Built me a cabin in Utah

Marry me a wife, catch a rainbow trout

Have a bunch of kids who call me Pa

That must be what it's all about

Out of context, these lyrics seem almost embarrassingly naive. But in the context of the rest of the lyrics. ("Sign on a porch says, 'Three's a crowd'"), the tone is much more wistful. And in the context of the music, when you hear his rueful vocals in conjunction with his piano, it's deeply moving. Although Dylan is about the lyrics first and foremost (contrary to what the contrarians will have you believe), the way he sings the lyrics is just as important as how they are written down on paper, which is what nearly all the singer-songwriters who followed in his footsteps forgot. Keeper!

Crystal Gayle - "We Must Believe In Magic" (1977)

Rating: 5

I own two records by Crystal Gayle, who I had never heard of prior to that fateful day when I bought four boxes of records for $70. Apparently she was a somewhat popular country singer in the late 70s and early 80s but has faded into obscurity today, being most notable for being the younger singer of Loretta Lynn and having recorded a soundtrack album with Tom Waits. Both of these facts give her some credibility in my eyes, and although I am not exactly a country buff, I did find the pure country songs on We Must Believe in Magic to be tolerable. Gayle has a nice, though not exceptional voice and she's preferable to most modern country for sure.

The problem with this record is that the notion of trying to have a crossover hit had already seeped its way into Nashville, and several tracks here are misguided attempts to blend the horn section and rhythm of a disco song with the steel guitars of a country song (well, it was 1977). The main offenders are the disco-country cover of Cole Porter's "It's All Right with Me" (as awful as it sounds) and the closing title track, a synthesizer-led adult contemporary ballad that really isn't country at all and featuring lyrics about Alpha Centauri, ensuring that it would be dated by 1978.

So apart from the efforts to be modern, the country songs here are decent. But I'm not a country buff, so those songs aren't enough for me to rate this as a good album. They're decent, but they're not George Jones. Blue bin!