Dan Fogelberg & Tim Weisberg - "Twin Sons of Different Mothers" (1978)

Well, I enjoyed this record much more than I thought I would. I have previously blue-binned records by each of these mustachioed gentlemen, so I didn't think there was any reason to expect better results when the two of them joined forces. Indeed, Weisberg's High Risk may well be one of the most laughable albums I've ever heard (think jazz flute solos over drum machines and synthesizers circa 1985), so I really didn't expect much from this record. 

Okay, it's no masterpiece. But it does do a nice job playing up the duo's relative strengths and staying away from their weaknesses. It's not that I thought Weisberg was necessarily a bad flautist (not that I have any idea what a good flautist would sound like), but that the premise of jazz flute solos in a very 80s context was just such a terrible one. So without the corny electronics, his flute parts immediately sound much, much better. As for Fogelberg, I'm not really a fan of his mushy soft-rock singer-songwriter approach, but most of these songs are instrumental compositions, and the few vocal numbers at least have hooks, which were lacking on the other record I've heard by him (Home Free). Overall, I would say that this record is more pleasant than thrilling, but there is a nice diversity of style, nothing too offensive, and it's rarely boring. So apparently two mediocre musicians is indeed better than one.

Linda Ronstadt - "Mad Love" (1980)

Once again, Linda Ronstadt defies my expectations. The opening line odds of this one making the blue bin at -191/+181 but I have to say, this is a keeper. It's hard for me to exactly explain why. These are all covers of new wave songs (three by Elvis Costello!), a genre in which Ronstadt didn't exactly make her name. She is a pleasant, but not outstanding singer, so I'm rarely riveted by her vocal performances. Her backing band is professional, but they never tear the listener a new asshole (bad analogy?). But what she does have is an unerring sense of tastefulness, both in choice of songs to cover, and then in performing them. The songs aren't flashy, but they aren't generic either. It would be easy to fall back upon commercial tropes, but even if her band doesn't rip it up, they still play with spirit. So I found the first side enjoyable all the way through, and if the second side drops off a bit, so be it.

Squeeze - "Squeeze" (1978)

Despite the awful album art (the back cover showcases the band all wearing nothing but black briefs in some sort of dated effort to raise shock value, but much like similar Prince covers, it just seems ridiculous today), I call this a successful debut for new wave/power-pop band Squeeze. I own a handful of Squeeze records, and rather enjoy their third album Argybargy. Although they fail to reach the pop bliss of singles like "Pulling Mussels (From the Shell)" here, they show their potential and signs of what was to come later. Squeeze has a nervous energy unique to early new wave and combine a gift for pop hooks with almost-punk sensibilities. One odd thing about this album was that it was produced by John Cale of the Velvet Underground, who at least according to allmusic.com, pushed the band in an uncomfortable direction, resulting in an inauspicious debut. But while I wouldn't argue that they got better (and more diverse), I find that their debut is still a worthy chapter in the Squeeze story. 

Loverboy - "Loverboy" (1980)

I admit that it's a bit hard to take a band called Loverboy very seriously, especially when their most notable single is "Workin' for the Weekend" and their trademark is poppy hard rock. Still, I have no problem calling this a good mediocre album. Though I'm not sure it was much of an accomplishment, this album foreshadowed bands like Def Leppard and Bon Jovi with its combination of glossy production and hard rock guitars. Indeed, producer Bruce Fairbairn was later known for his work with exactly those kinds of bands (and producing Aerosmith's 'holy trinity' of terrible albums in the late 80s/early 90s. 

Although this style later paved the way for hair metal and lurid videos with Steven Tyler and Alicia Silverstone, there is nothing inherently wrong with it. The first side of this record consists of pretty much all winners, showcasing catchy and exciting pop choruses, histrionic but not unendearing singing, and a lot of verve and energy in the playing. The instrumentation is energetic enough throughout the record that the cheesiness can be forgiven, and their hard rock influences not forgotten, thus ensuring that this record is a lot better than much of the dreck that it spawned. I can't give a resounding endorsement because even the best songs here are still cheesy and the second side really adds nothing to the first, repeating in the same style with weaker hooks. But it's definitely a keeper.

The Who - "Face Dances" (1981)

I should start this review by saying that I think The Who are either the third or fourth best musical act of the rock era, period. Quadrophenia is in my top ten albums of all time and Live at Leeds is by far, the best live rock album that I know of. But good things don't last forever, and by 1981, Keith Moon was no longer alive and the Who were largely washed up. Still, with expectations appropriately set, I (mostly) enjoyed Face Dances. There are a lot of flaws with the album, undoubtedly. The production fails to distinguish the instruments, so the guitar, bass and drums all blend together, a travesty for a band like the Who. Even worse, Roger Daltrey's singing is horrible throughout, lacking the raw power that he was known for in the 70s.

Still, I will keep this album in my collection because although they could have been performed and arranged better, most of the songs here are good, at least in an embryonic state. Pete Townshend's songwriting abilities had declined, but he hadn't completely lost his mastery of hooks. Plus, there is one Who classic in opening track "You Better You Bet," which although somewhat dorky, can't help but bring a smile to my face. I definitely wouldn't blame someone for giving this record a thumbs down rating, but for me, the positives ever so slightly outweigh the negatives. That said, this one sure doesn't make me excited to listen to It's Hard, their last studio album, and by all accounts, an even weaker effort.

Van Morrison - "No Guru No Method No Teacher" (1986)

I still am not entirely sure if I like this record or not. On the plus side, considering the long, sordid history of artists who got their start in the 60s succumbing to 80s production trends, it was pleasant to turn the record on and not hear any synthesizers or drum machines. Instead, the music is a tasteful, classy mix of folk, Celtic, and rock music, complementing Van Morrison's impressive vocals and lyrics. Indeed, I am not extremely familiar with Morrison's discography, but based on what I have heard and read, the sound of this album is very similar to his work at his artistic peak, and I have to credit the man for staying true to his principles in the dark times of 1986.

But! (And you knew there was a but.) This record may also be the least melodic record I have ever heard. Every single song, without fail, is delivered in a rambling, hookless style that sounds as if the vocal notes were improvised on the spot. I am a lover of vocal melody first and foremost, so despite all the plusses of this album, I largely found it very boring to actually listen to. Morrison's backing band does provide instrumental hooks, but their task is to provide background accompaniment, not to be the central focus. One advantage that Van does have over most of his singer-songwriter ilk is that he is a legitimately great singer, with a powerful, belting voice, but most of the songs here range over five minutes in length, while saying all that they need to say in the first 90 seconds.

Ultimately, there were two main factors that made me decide to keep this record. One is that given the high level of artistic integrity that is apparent on the record, it is quite possible that it is one of those albums that simply can't be fully appreciated on first listen, especially for someone not familiar with Morrison's albums. The other is that although I am rarely moved by above-average lyrics, there are exceptions where the lyrics are so good that I can't help but be drawn in, regardless of the quality of the music. The centerpiece track of this album, "In the Garden," is one of those examples. As Van growls "no guru, no method, no teacher" and makes an excellent track based solely on atmosphere and dynamics, I begin to believe that this amelodic approach can work.  And indeed, the greatness of "In the Garden" has a lot to do with hearing the lyrics sung (especially since I could only digest such an openly religious song because of the passionate vocals). In conclusion, I've convinced myself over the course of this rambling review that this may be an even better album than I gave it credit for.

Elton John - "Breaking Hearts" (1984)

Believe it or not, Sir Elton still did possess some of his mojo in 1984. He was no longer innovating, and the 80s production values feel stifling compared to his 70s work, but Breaking Hearts is overall a decent album. For a lot of the record, I wasn't sure if it would wind up being one that I would keep. Although opening track "Restless" has a catchy riff and chorus, it is also terribly generic. Some of the lyrics are embarrassing and sexist (see "Slow Down Georgie (She's Poison)" with its admonitions to stay away from divorcees) and a couple songs come off flat. But ultimately, the consistency of the record won out on me, with the last three tracks ("Burning Buildings," "Did He Shoot Her?" and "Sad Songs (Say So Much") being arguably the best on the album, and reminding of Elton's ability to thrive with both ballads and rock songs. Setting the flaws aside, most of the material is good, and I can't really quibble with that.

Harry Nilsson - "Sandman" (1975)

Harry Nilsson's Sandman is a record that is moderately out of my comfort zone. I have been known to rail against singer-songwriters because of the near-inevitable focus on lyrics over melody. At least this late in his career, that maxim certainly holds true for Nilsson. Although the first few tracks hold melodic interest, the second side deteriorates in this regard, with the lowlight (at least from a musical perspective) being the near seven-minute "The Flying Saucer Song," the premise of which is a spoken-word conversation between two drunks in a bar (both voiced by Nilsson, of course) who narrate the tale of a flying saucer encounter. Although the lyrics are undeniably witty and even poetic in sections, seven minutes of dialogue over static instrumentation is a bit much for me to handle when I am primarily engaging with records for their musical value.

All that said, this album still rates as one to keep for me because of the overall diversity of his approach as well as some standout tracks (the string-led "Something True" makes excellent use of a crack backing band including Jim Keltner of Derek and the Dominoes fame and Klaus Voormann [the bassist on Plastic Ono Band AND the designer of the cover for Revolver]). (This section could really use some footnotes). I wouldn't recommend it highly, but I would recommend it, and if you are a fan of witty, literate singer-songwriting, this album would probably warrant a higher rating from you than it does for me.

Rickie Lee Jones - "Pirates" (1981)

On second thought, perhaps I was a bit too hasty. After originally consigning this record to the blue bin, I then read some glowing reviews from sources that I generally trust. I like to tell myself that I'm enough of my own man not to assume that other people's opinions are superior to mine, but if music critics I trust are giving a record five stars and I'm saying it's not even good enough to keep, that's a pretty wide chasm to cross. So I did the honorable thing and listened to the record again, and indeed I changed my mind, at least enough to say that I will keep it.

I still wouldn't give the record anything close to five stars, but am willing to admit that there is some melody, just obscured by Jones' vocal phrasing, and that there are definitely instrumental hooks and mood shifts that keep things interesting. I erred in my judgment of the record, because although I absolutely didn't enjoy it on first listen, I probably should have guessed that it was one of those albums that demands more time to absorb, especially being unfamiliar with Jones' jazzy, meandering style which is way less accessible than Joni Mitchell's. The second listen was definitely more rewarding and I understood the music better, even if it is still not exactly my new favorite record. For the sake of posterity, my original, now redacted review is still included below:

This record is a great example of why I am always suspicious of singer-songwriters. Obviously, there are plenty of examples of astounding solo performers who can dazzle with just an acoustic guitar. But for every Bob Dylan, there are ten James Taylors who commit the greatest musical sin of all: being boring. On Pirates, Rickie Lee Jones actually has a full backing band behind her and does try her hand at some complex song structures. The problem is that the emphasis is solely on her lyrics and vocal delivery, and melody is all but forgotten. It's not that her lyrics are bad, although her storytelling style with constant references to Eddies and Louies and Joeys is a bit contrived. It's just that I am of the opinion that with rare exceptions, rock lyrics will do no more than raise or lower an album's score by half a point (again: the obvious exception being Dylan). If the music is boring, I'm not going to take the time to delve into the lyrical themes of the record. And this music is most definitely boring.

Stanley Turrentine - "Everybody Come On Out" (1976)

I was somewhat hesitant to include jazz records on this blog, since I find it hard to heap withering scorn on saxophone solos. More accurately, I was concerned that my ears aren't cultivated enough to distinguish between jazz as background music and jazz as art. Fortunately, I came to my senses and realized that it doesn't have to be that difficult. The only question I'm trying to answer is "Do I reasonably expect that I would ever want to listen to this album again?"

For Stanley Turrentine, the answer is, barely, a yes, although this is most definitely an example of jazz as background music. Turrentine brought in a large group ensemble for this record but they mostly play string-backed ballads, are rarely adventurous, and cover a song called "Stairway to Heaven," that is NOT the one written by Robert Plant. Still, the title track is a decent jazz-funk fusion jam and most of the first side features soulful saxophone playing by Turrentine. The second side is quite a bit less tolerable, but if nothing else, has the advantage that instrumental music possesses of being difficult to give offense, at least to my virginal jazz ears. "Everybody Come On Out" is no landmark jazz record, but in my collection it shall remain.

Linda Ronstadt - "Greatest Hits, Vol. 2" (1980)

I found it somewhat difficult to evaluate this album, as Linda Ronstadt apparently writes no original material, so the tracklist consists exclusively of covers of songs by artists like Buddy Holly ("It's So Easy") and the Stones ("Tumbling Dice"). It'd be one thing if I knew all of the songs that were covered here, because then I could compare them to the originals. Under that method of evaluation, "Tumbling Dice" is passable, but lacks the swagger and charisma of the Stones' version. Yet I don't know the other songs well enough to make the same comparisons.

So really, what I am evaluating on is the choice of covers, and for the most part, Ronstadt gets that right, ensuring that this album will remain in my collection. She largely plays things straight, but is a solid singer with a good backing band. The songs I recognized - in addition to the other two mentioned, these include "Ooh Baby Baby" and "Just One Look" all came off fairly well to my ears. I don't know how much credit to apportion to Linda Ronstadt herself vs. the original writers/performers of the songs, but I will try not to lose sleep over it.

Foreigner - "Foreigner" (1977)

Foreigner is one of those bands that can't help but make an appearance when you buy hundreds of random records, 90% of which are from the 1970s. On an artistic level, it is no secret if you have heard any of their omnipresent singles on classic rock radio that this group has no taste. The lyrics are at best generic ("You're as cold as ice/You're willing to sacrifice our love") and at worst are banal and pretentious ("I would climb any mountain/Sail across a stormy sea"). They rip off a lot of better 70s bands and don't write particularly memorable riffs or choruses to make up for it. But as much as it sucks if looked at from a certain perspective, "Cold as Ice" at least is also kind of a great song. The combination of over-the-top vocal delivery, staccato piano riff, double-tracked choirs, and triumphant guitar fanfares turn what should be generic 70s rock into something surprisingly enjoyable.

So on the relative strength of "Cold as Ice" and the cock rock anthem "Feels Like the First Time," Foreigner's Foreigner avoids the blue bin. But I would be remiss if I said I didn't consider jettisoning it. For when they try to be Queen, they do alright, since Queen basically followed the same formula of adding a lot of bombast to classic rock material with shitty lyrics (of course, Queen had much more songwriting, playing and singing talent). But when they try to be Kansas and try their hand at plaintive, pseudo-progressive balladry (see "Starrider"), the results are nauseating. There is a fine line between being campy and just being shitty, and Foreigner, for me at least, falls right on the line.