Well, now it looks like this:
That's better, no?
Kind of beachy, no? It's hot and I still have to do something about the grass. But, for the time being, lovely. Already had someone inquire about renting it. Too bad there's already someone in there.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
the Guest House Part 2
Remember this?
Well, now it looks like this:
That's better, no?
Kind of beachy, no? It's hot and I still have to do something about the grass. But, for the time being, lovely. Already had someone inquire about renting it. Too bad there's already someone in there.
Well, now it looks like this:
That's better, no?
Kind of beachy, no? It's hot and I still have to do something about the grass. But, for the time being, lovely. Already had someone inquire about renting it. Too bad there's already someone in there.
Friday, June 27, 2008
The Guest House
Oy.
We are finally getting the guest house painted.
It's been a long time coming, but the change is gonna come.
Beth's dad and her nephews, Tommy and Aaron are coming out in a few weeks to do the back yard. Decking, grass, drip system, trees, a little oasis in the back.
It seems a shame to have to stare at this the whole time.
Here is the front. The look of desiccation. The guest house is about 90 years old. It was built 10 years after our house, in 1922. The side door with the steps no doubt was access for the housekeeper, maid, slave, wife, husband, who knows? We had a toilet on the porch, that was for that person as well.
It is currently housing a sweet older church deacon and his 30-something son. They fell on hard times and have to live together in this...thing.
We inherited them with the house, they had been living there for 7 years before we bought it.
The inside needs a lot, A LOT of love but that would entail them leaving and, truth be told, if they go for the amount of time I need to make it nice, then they won't be back.
Most of what makes the inside so bad is their stuff. They have enough crap to fill a 1000 foot storage space and they are living in a 600 sq foot house. Do the math.
Anywho. It's getting the much needed and much deserved paint job.
This will be the view from Zoe's room and the kitchen.
I will post the new pics when the coats are done.
This will be dual posted in Life of Zoe.
Listening Post: U2 Wrap up
So, thanks for sticking around, those of you that did. I hope I did it justice. It was a really interesting experience, rolling out records by a band that I had listened to but never really listened to.
I tried to add video to the posts but, as you get later and later in the band's career, they disallow embedding of video so, fuck it.
All in all, missteps aside (Zooropa, Pop) I have to say that U2 deserves the recognition that they get. They belong in the pantheon of great rock bands of all time. Longevity doesn't just make for greatness but consistently changing, inventing, reinventing, creating and destroying and building does count for a lot.
They aren't just an epic singles band, as I once thought. They are so much more.
I am, I am proud to say, a fan.
Someone suggested R.E.M. next.
I will consider it. I'm a little too close to the material. Okay, the truth is I just don't want to listen to Up, Reveal and Around the Sun ever again. And that's what waits at the end of the tunnel, but the glimmer of Accelerate shines like a beacon that says, maybe, just maybe.........
I tried to add video to the posts but, as you get later and later in the band's career, they disallow embedding of video so, fuck it.
All in all, missteps aside (Zooropa, Pop) I have to say that U2 deserves the recognition that they get. They belong in the pantheon of great rock bands of all time. Longevity doesn't just make for greatness but consistently changing, inventing, reinventing, creating and destroying and building does count for a lot.
They aren't just an epic singles band, as I once thought. They are so much more.
I am, I am proud to say, a fan.
Someone suggested R.E.M. next.
I will consider it. I'm a little too close to the material. Okay, the truth is I just don't want to listen to Up, Reveal and Around the Sun ever again. And that's what waits at the end of the tunnel, but the glimmer of Accelerate shines like a beacon that says, maybe, just maybe.........
listening Post: U2 How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb
And so we reach the end of the U2 listening retrospective.
.
U2 - How To Dismantle an Atomic Bomb - 2004
The more I played this album the more I felt like turning the volume up, up, UP. This is a crunchy album. It rocks and pounds and you know the reason?
The Edge.
The fucking Edge.
The guy they dialed back wayyyyyyy back in the 80s. He's front and center and shredding and chopping and crunching and ripping the sonic landscape to shreds. It's really all everyone else can do to keep up. I mean, a U2 album with some songs UNDER 4 minutes?? That's just crazy talk.
Bono is a little hoarse. He should be, shouting and yelping for 25 years. Welcome to your forties, dude.
If "All that You...." was a gentle reminder of a supergroup that lost it's way, they have definitely found it here.
We could go song by song, but that isn't the point. It's to take the album as a whole, if I can and it just swells and grows like a monster.
So, how do you reinvent yourselves if you are U2? Crank UP the guitars and give the world what you haven't in almost a decade and a half: A true, epic rock album. Nice
Grade B+
A Side: Vertigo & City of Blinding Lights
Blindside: Peace on Earth & All Because of You
DownSide: You know what? Let's give them a break. Nothing really falls flat and, hell, they're old. Give em a break.
.
U2 - How To Dismantle an Atomic Bomb - 2004
The more I played this album the more I felt like turning the volume up, up, UP. This is a crunchy album. It rocks and pounds and you know the reason?
The Edge.
The fucking Edge.
The guy they dialed back wayyyyyyy back in the 80s. He's front and center and shredding and chopping and crunching and ripping the sonic landscape to shreds. It's really all everyone else can do to keep up. I mean, a U2 album with some songs UNDER 4 minutes?? That's just crazy talk.
Bono is a little hoarse. He should be, shouting and yelping for 25 years. Welcome to your forties, dude.
If "All that You...." was a gentle reminder of a supergroup that lost it's way, they have definitely found it here.
We could go song by song, but that isn't the point. It's to take the album as a whole, if I can and it just swells and grows like a monster.
So, how do you reinvent yourselves if you are U2? Crank UP the guitars and give the world what you haven't in almost a decade and a half: A true, epic rock album. Nice
Grade B+
A Side: Vertigo & City of Blinding Lights
Blindside: Peace on Earth & All Because of You
DownSide: You know what? Let's give them a break. Nothing really falls flat and, hell, they're old. Give em a break.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
listening Post: U2 All That You Can't Leave Behind
Almost at the end of the U2 retrospective....
U2 - All That You Can't Leave Behind - 2000 (buy it)
U2 crashes into it's THIRD DECADE of releasing music with this cd. Think about that. Their first four major releases were on vinyl. They have been making (somewhat) relevant music for almost 30 years at this writing. Not bad for a bunch of teenagers who answered an ad posted by a drummer looking for a band.
All That you Can't Leave Behind is just....well, it's just right. It's not overwhelming. It's not brilliant. It's highly enjoyable. There are some great tracks (front loaded as always). It's extremely well produced. It sounds like what I imagine are a bunch of guys who were staring down the barrel of their forties and realized they were nothing without each other. Together they are u2. Seperately they are a bunch of rich Irish musicians. The trouble with Zooropa and Pop is they sounded like some members of the band were being dragged behind the "I want to do disco" bus. I have no idea whose idea it was, maybe it sounded like a good idea at the time, but it wasn't. And they did what they have done over and over in their career: They reinvented themselves while never straying from themselves.
Part of this album seems like it was meant to sound underwater. Specifically the first track, Beautiful Day. Which works for when Bono sings about seeing the tuna fleets clearing the sea out. There is some really pretty stuff here. It's a gentle album, a far cry from War and ...Fire. It's a little precious, almost like a perfect cover band putting out a mature, inoffensive album of originals.
It's not agressive, or dangerous but it is heartfelt and sometimes sad. Specifically, "Stuck in a moment" which Bono has said is based on the conversation he WISHED he had with Michael Hutchence before he killed himself.
Knowing that only makes the song deeper and richer but never maudlin. It's touching and that's it.
The production is bold and layered. The band has learned something from their forays into Disco and House and they have let their producers play with that stuff and pulled back where need be. I don't know where Evans is on this album, probably at the keys or something, but Clayton and Mullen are at their best.
It's a treat, this, after almost a decade of crap.
Grade B
A Side: Stuck in a Moment....
Blindside: (tie) Wild Honey & When I look at the World or Peace on Earth.
Downside: New York. (Bono! Stop writing songs about cities. They suck.) And Grace. (Bad bad bad lyrics, man)
U2 - All That You Can't Leave Behind - 2000 (buy it)
U2 crashes into it's THIRD DECADE of releasing music with this cd. Think about that. Their first four major releases were on vinyl. They have been making (somewhat) relevant music for almost 30 years at this writing. Not bad for a bunch of teenagers who answered an ad posted by a drummer looking for a band.
All That you Can't Leave Behind is just....well, it's just right. It's not overwhelming. It's not brilliant. It's highly enjoyable. There are some great tracks (front loaded as always). It's extremely well produced. It sounds like what I imagine are a bunch of guys who were staring down the barrel of their forties and realized they were nothing without each other. Together they are u2. Seperately they are a bunch of rich Irish musicians. The trouble with Zooropa and Pop is they sounded like some members of the band were being dragged behind the "I want to do disco" bus. I have no idea whose idea it was, maybe it sounded like a good idea at the time, but it wasn't. And they did what they have done over and over in their career: They reinvented themselves while never straying from themselves.
Part of this album seems like it was meant to sound underwater. Specifically the first track, Beautiful Day. Which works for when Bono sings about seeing the tuna fleets clearing the sea out. There is some really pretty stuff here. It's a gentle album, a far cry from War and ...Fire. It's a little precious, almost like a perfect cover band putting out a mature, inoffensive album of originals.
It's not agressive, or dangerous but it is heartfelt and sometimes sad. Specifically, "Stuck in a moment" which Bono has said is based on the conversation he WISHED he had with Michael Hutchence before he killed himself.
Knowing that only makes the song deeper and richer but never maudlin. It's touching and that's it.
The production is bold and layered. The band has learned something from their forays into Disco and House and they have let their producers play with that stuff and pulled back where need be. I don't know where Evans is on this album, probably at the keys or something, but Clayton and Mullen are at their best.
It's a treat, this, after almost a decade of crap.
Grade B
A Side: Stuck in a Moment....
Blindside: (tie) Wild Honey & When I look at the World or Peace on Earth.
Downside: New York. (Bono! Stop writing songs about cities. They suck.) And Grace. (Bad bad bad lyrics, man)
listening Post: U2 Pop
The retrospective continues...
U2 - Pop - 1997 (Buy it...if you dare)
In 1982, two years after their monster hit, The Game, Queen, following the logic that "If something worked on one song, might as well devote a whole album to it, took their cue from the success of "Another One Bites the Dust" and put out "Hot Space". An album so bereft of originality and desperate to be hip, and so laden with disco and nightclub motifs that it was already too late and many dollars short.
Interestingly, U2 sort of did the same thing following, not their biggest hit, but shortly thereafter. And since, Zooropa did sell a lot of copies, they seemed buoyed by it's success to continue to explore the dance rhythms and electronica that they were so well known for.
Here's what fascinates me. Scroll back up and look at that album cover.
Now, look at this:
What do you see? It's kind of uncanny, no?
Okay, let's get past that and delve into this album.
Let's see:
I Will Follow. Gloria. Sunday Bloody Sunday. Bad. Streets have No Name. Bullet the Blue Sky. One. Mysterious Ways.
Discotheque.
Why are a bunch of 37 year olds clubbing for god's sake?? Why are they trying to be hip and cool? For their entire career Paul, Dave, Adam and Larry have all been the leaders, on the cutting edge of experimentation, the razor's edge of rock and roll.
Discotheque.
And it really doesn't get any better.
The anthemic U2, the one we have come to miss, with the lush melodies and wistful hope doesn't begin to show up until Staring at the Sun, halfway in and even then, it just barely peeks through.
Bono isn't all that great at writing about people, unless they are icons. He's better suited to fist pumping, flag waving anthems. So, what the hell is he doing writing shit like "Last Night on Earth"? His social commentary on songs like The Playboy Mansion, fall so short and is so "on the nose" I have to wonder what bubble of headline news Bono lives in?
And this collection of haphazardly recorded notes is one big bloated mess. Not a single song clocks in under 4 minutes. Because whatever remnants of angular rock (Like the decade old, The Refugee, for instance) is gone for pseudo-sexy mid-tempo grooves. Dischoteque and Mofo TRY but they are so bad they just crumble.
So, it's not just 12 boring tunes. It's 58 minutes of boring tunes. Wait, it's just an hour? Man, it feels sooooo much longer.
The funny thing is this is the same year that Radiohead's Ok Computer came out. Glitch, rave, techno, house, was all over the place and some rockers got it (Radiohead) and others didn't (U2). I wasn't too keen on OK or Kid A, at first, but I did come to realize that they are inspired works of genius over the years.
Not so, this album.
Dull. Uninspired. And a bit of a legacy wrecker, I should think.
Grade D-
A Side: Staring at the Sun
Blindside: Please (But, really, it's just that by this time you've been so beaten up, anything resembling listenable could sound like genius)
Downside: Miami (Just terrible.)
U2 - Pop - 1997 (Buy it...if you dare)
In 1982, two years after their monster hit, The Game, Queen, following the logic that "If something worked on one song, might as well devote a whole album to it, took their cue from the success of "Another One Bites the Dust" and put out "Hot Space". An album so bereft of originality and desperate to be hip, and so laden with disco and nightclub motifs that it was already too late and many dollars short.
Interestingly, U2 sort of did the same thing following, not their biggest hit, but shortly thereafter. And since, Zooropa did sell a lot of copies, they seemed buoyed by it's success to continue to explore the dance rhythms and electronica that they were so well known for.
Here's what fascinates me. Scroll back up and look at that album cover.
Now, look at this:
What do you see? It's kind of uncanny, no?
Okay, let's get past that and delve into this album.
Let's see:
I Will Follow. Gloria. Sunday Bloody Sunday. Bad. Streets have No Name. Bullet the Blue Sky. One. Mysterious Ways.
Discotheque.
Why are a bunch of 37 year olds clubbing for god's sake?? Why are they trying to be hip and cool? For their entire career Paul, Dave, Adam and Larry have all been the leaders, on the cutting edge of experimentation, the razor's edge of rock and roll.
Discotheque.
And it really doesn't get any better.
The anthemic U2, the one we have come to miss, with the lush melodies and wistful hope doesn't begin to show up until Staring at the Sun, halfway in and even then, it just barely peeks through.
Bono isn't all that great at writing about people, unless they are icons. He's better suited to fist pumping, flag waving anthems. So, what the hell is he doing writing shit like "Last Night on Earth"? His social commentary on songs like The Playboy Mansion, fall so short and is so "on the nose" I have to wonder what bubble of headline news Bono lives in?
And this collection of haphazardly recorded notes is one big bloated mess. Not a single song clocks in under 4 minutes. Because whatever remnants of angular rock (Like the decade old, The Refugee, for instance) is gone for pseudo-sexy mid-tempo grooves. Dischoteque and Mofo TRY but they are so bad they just crumble.
So, it's not just 12 boring tunes. It's 58 minutes of boring tunes. Wait, it's just an hour? Man, it feels sooooo much longer.
The funny thing is this is the same year that Radiohead's Ok Computer came out. Glitch, rave, techno, house, was all over the place and some rockers got it (Radiohead) and others didn't (U2). I wasn't too keen on OK or Kid A, at first, but I did come to realize that they are inspired works of genius over the years.
Not so, this album.
Dull. Uninspired. And a bit of a legacy wrecker, I should think.
Grade D-
A Side: Staring at the Sun
Blindside: Please (But, really, it's just that by this time you've been so beaten up, anything resembling listenable could sound like genius)
Downside: Miami (Just terrible.)
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Listening Post: U2 Zooropa
Like most people, I imagine, I am very well versed in the well known songs of U2. How could I not be? During the 80s they were ubiquitous. U2 and R.E.M. (possibly the subject of a later listening post) came out at the same time, have lasted the same amount of time and had roughly the same number of hits.
The difference is that, while Stipe and Co. soldiered on after a key member left (after saying that they wouldn't ever do such a thing) U2 has been comprised of the same 4 Irish lads since 1980.
1980! If Rock and Roll began in 1955, which is the accepted norm, then u2 has been around for more than HALF of the history of Rock.
What really surprised me as I began to research this retrospective is just how young they all are. Three of the members were born in 1961 and the other is even younger. I was born in 1965 which makes Bono and the gang close to being contemporaries.
The thing is, I have never heard the entire albums. I own them, in various forms, but after the big hit songs it just all sounds the same to me, so I would turn the record, CD, mp3, off.
Who among us doesn't own "The Joshua Tree"? And who has really listened beyond the first four tracks? (U2 notoriously front loads their albums with the hit singles starting off with a bang but giving us little reason to keep listening sometimes)
So, an end shall be put to that for me. I have begun the great U2 retrospective of 2008. And here's what I think:
U2 - Zooropa - 1993 (buy it...I guess)
Oh, dear.
I don't even know where to start.
This is bad.
It's not just bad. It's unlistenable bad.
There are no melodies to speak of. No songs, per se. Just tired balladic construction and dance grooves.
Clayton is so muted that you wonder if there is a bass there or is it a keytar.
Bono is uninspired.
The band sounds lazy and like they don't give a shit.
I suppose it was to be expected. They had a good run.
But, this. This is unacceptable.
Don't, I repeat, Don't listen to this unless you absolutely HAVE TO.
Grade D-
A Side: I dunno. Stay (Faraway, So Close), I guess.
Blindside: Nothing. This is crap
Downside: Zooropa (the album. not just the song)
The difference is that, while Stipe and Co. soldiered on after a key member left (after saying that they wouldn't ever do such a thing) U2 has been comprised of the same 4 Irish lads since 1980.
1980! If Rock and Roll began in 1955, which is the accepted norm, then u2 has been around for more than HALF of the history of Rock.
What really surprised me as I began to research this retrospective is just how young they all are. Three of the members were born in 1961 and the other is even younger. I was born in 1965 which makes Bono and the gang close to being contemporaries.
The thing is, I have never heard the entire albums. I own them, in various forms, but after the big hit songs it just all sounds the same to me, so I would turn the record, CD, mp3, off.
Who among us doesn't own "The Joshua Tree"? And who has really listened beyond the first four tracks? (U2 notoriously front loads their albums with the hit singles starting off with a bang but giving us little reason to keep listening sometimes)
So, an end shall be put to that for me. I have begun the great U2 retrospective of 2008. And here's what I think:
U2 - Zooropa - 1993 (buy it...I guess)
Oh, dear.
I don't even know where to start.
This is bad.
It's not just bad. It's unlistenable bad.
There are no melodies to speak of. No songs, per se. Just tired balladic construction and dance grooves.
Clayton is so muted that you wonder if there is a bass there or is it a keytar.
Bono is uninspired.
The band sounds lazy and like they don't give a shit.
I suppose it was to be expected. They had a good run.
But, this. This is unacceptable.
Don't, I repeat, Don't listen to this unless you absolutely HAVE TO.
Grade D-
A Side: I dunno. Stay (Faraway, So Close), I guess.
Blindside: Nothing. This is crap
Downside: Zooropa (the album. not just the song)
listening Post: U2 Achtung Baby
Like most people, I imagine, I am very well versed in the well known songs of U2. How could I not be? During the 80s they were ubiquitous. U2 and R.E.M. (possibly the subject of a later listening post) came out at the same time, have lasted the same amount of time and had roughly the same number of hits.
The difference is that, while Stipe and Co. soldiered on after a key member left (after saying that they wouldn't ever do such a thing) U2 has been comprised of the same 4 Irish lads since 1980.
1980! If Rock and Roll began in 1955, which is the accepted norm, then u2 has been around for more than HALF of the history of Rock.
What really surprised me as I began to research this retrospective is just how young they all are. Three of the members were born in 1961 and the other is even younger. I was born in 1965 which makes Bono and the gang close to being contemporaries.
The thing is, I have never heard the entire albums. I own them, in various forms, but after the big hit songs it just all sounds the same to me, so I would turn the record, CD, mp3, off.
Who among us doesn't own "The Joshua Tree"? And who has really listened beyond the first four tracks? (U2 notoriously front loads their albums with the hit singles starting off with a bang but giving us little reason to keep listening sometimes)
So, an end shall be put to that for me. I have begun the great U2 retrospective of 2008. And here's what I think:
U2 - Achtung Baby - 1991 (Buy it)
Well, this is awkward, isn't it? I mean, I had eschewed and poo-pooed the dublin lads for so many years...Bono is too messianic and self important. The Edge is overbearing. They're a one note band, they do one thing very well and that's it.
Screw me. I'm a wanker.
Achtung Baby is remarkable in a few ways. First off, it continues a remarkable streak of brilliance. After the stumble of October came the 1-2-3 punch of War, Unforgettable Fire and Joshua Tree. That should be enough, right? How long could the brilliance last? Turns out, long enough for at least one more CD.
Achtung Baby was a lot like Joshua Tree for me when it came out. I mean, we all had it, right? If you belonged to Columbia House or BMG then they sort of sent it to you automatically.
You HAD to have "One", a song so great it transcends it's overexposure. So, I had Achtung Baby but for some reason I just listened to the hits and moved on. Grunge was more interesting at the time. To me, at least.
I'm older now and the time might be perfect to reevaluate this album because, well, I'm more mature and less patient. I have a one year old, a career, a book I'm working on, Rock Band to play and to really give a listen takes time, you know?
Achtung Baby is a crowning achievement. In a word? It's Brilliant.
The U2 "sound" is now so far in the past that this almost sounds like a different group. And yet, it doesn't. The rhythms are sexy, groovy, dangerous and powerful. This is not a wistful evocation of need and desire the way so much of their past work has been. This album cuts with understanding. The kind of worldview that only comes with age. With disappointment. With broken hearts and broken bodies.
It is the album that only U2 and their producers could have made.
I think it says something that U2 turned their back on America after obsessing over it on "Unforgettable Fire" and "Joshua Tree". Perhaps the lambasting they took after Rattle And Hum showed them failing at Blues Rock took it's toll. Whatever the case, they anticipated the emergence of dance rock influences well before it would take hold stateside and they are the better for it.
Evans' guitars SOUND angry on this album. He sounds furious. That self-righteous veneer no doubt cracked over the break up of his marriage, why wouldn't he be pissed? It shows on the record. And it affected Bono's lyrics as well.
When Achtung Baby is finally over, the listener is left breathless, exuberant, sad, exhilarated, pumped and exhausted.
Grade A+
A Side: One
Blindside: So Cruel & Acrobat
Downside: Tryin' to Throw Your Arms Around the World (but that's nitpicking)
The difference is that, while Stipe and Co. soldiered on after a key member left (after saying that they wouldn't ever do such a thing) U2 has been comprised of the same 4 Irish lads since 1980.
1980! If Rock and Roll began in 1955, which is the accepted norm, then u2 has been around for more than HALF of the history of Rock.
What really surprised me as I began to research this retrospective is just how young they all are. Three of the members were born in 1961 and the other is even younger. I was born in 1965 which makes Bono and the gang close to being contemporaries.
The thing is, I have never heard the entire albums. I own them, in various forms, but after the big hit songs it just all sounds the same to me, so I would turn the record, CD, mp3, off.
Who among us doesn't own "The Joshua Tree"? And who has really listened beyond the first four tracks? (U2 notoriously front loads their albums with the hit singles starting off with a bang but giving us little reason to keep listening sometimes)
So, an end shall be put to that for me. I have begun the great U2 retrospective of 2008. And here's what I think:
U2 - Achtung Baby - 1991 (Buy it)
Well, this is awkward, isn't it? I mean, I had eschewed and poo-pooed the dublin lads for so many years...Bono is too messianic and self important. The Edge is overbearing. They're a one note band, they do one thing very well and that's it.
Screw me. I'm a wanker.
Achtung Baby is remarkable in a few ways. First off, it continues a remarkable streak of brilliance. After the stumble of October came the 1-2-3 punch of War, Unforgettable Fire and Joshua Tree. That should be enough, right? How long could the brilliance last? Turns out, long enough for at least one more CD.
Achtung Baby was a lot like Joshua Tree for me when it came out. I mean, we all had it, right? If you belonged to Columbia House or BMG then they sort of sent it to you automatically.
You HAD to have "One", a song so great it transcends it's overexposure. So, I had Achtung Baby but for some reason I just listened to the hits and moved on. Grunge was more interesting at the time. To me, at least.
I'm older now and the time might be perfect to reevaluate this album because, well, I'm more mature and less patient. I have a one year old, a career, a book I'm working on, Rock Band to play and to really give a listen takes time, you know?
Achtung Baby is a crowning achievement. In a word? It's Brilliant.
The U2 "sound" is now so far in the past that this almost sounds like a different group. And yet, it doesn't. The rhythms are sexy, groovy, dangerous and powerful. This is not a wistful evocation of need and desire the way so much of their past work has been. This album cuts with understanding. The kind of worldview that only comes with age. With disappointment. With broken hearts and broken bodies.
It is the album that only U2 and their producers could have made.
I think it says something that U2 turned their back on America after obsessing over it on "Unforgettable Fire" and "Joshua Tree". Perhaps the lambasting they took after Rattle And Hum showed them failing at Blues Rock took it's toll. Whatever the case, they anticipated the emergence of dance rock influences well before it would take hold stateside and they are the better for it.
Evans' guitars SOUND angry on this album. He sounds furious. That self-righteous veneer no doubt cracked over the break up of his marriage, why wouldn't he be pissed? It shows on the record. And it affected Bono's lyrics as well.
When Achtung Baby is finally over, the listener is left breathless, exuberant, sad, exhilarated, pumped and exhausted.
Grade A+
A Side: One
Blindside: So Cruel & Acrobat
Downside: Tryin' to Throw Your Arms Around the World (but that's nitpicking)
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
listening Post: U2 The Joshua Tree
Like most people, I imagine, I am very well versed in the well known songs of U2. How could I not be? During the 80s they were ubiquitous. U2 and R.E.M. (possibly the subject of a later listening post) came out at the same time, have lasted the same amount of time and had roughly the same number of hits.
The difference is that, while Stipe and Co. soldiered on after a key member left (after saying that they wouldn't ever do such a thing) U2 has been comprised of the same 4 Irish lads since 1980.
1980! If Rock and Roll began in 1955, which is the accepted norm, then u2 has been around for more than HALF of the history of Rock.
What really surprised me as I began to research this retrospective is just how young they all are. Three of the members were born in 1961 and the other is even younger. I was born in 1965 which makes Bono and the gang close to being contemporaries.
The thing is, I have never heard the entire albums. I own them, in various forms, but after the big hit songs it just all sounds the same to me, so I would turn the record, CD, mp3, off.
Who among us doesn't own "The Joshua Tree"? And who has really listened beyond the first four tracks? (U2 notoriously front loads their albums with the hit singles starting off with a bang but giving us little reason to keep listening sometimes)
So, an end shall be put to that for me. I have begun the great U2 retrospective of 2008. And here's what I think:
U2 - The Joshua Tree - 1987 (buy it)
Hey! What's that sound? Harmonicas???? Acoustic Guitar??! What the hell? What is this?
Oh, hey. It's The Joshua Tree. The uber-iconic u2 album. THE album from the sky, as a friend likes to put things. To my friend, there are some songs that are "songs from the sky", they just floated down and landed in the hands of someone who knew what to do with them. This album is loaded, LOADED with them. And melody. And a peripheral Dave Evans. Like a spice or a flavor, that is his guitars on Joshua.
I'm being inordinately hard on The Edge but that's just because he's always been the Spock to Bono's Kirk. He gets more credit than I think he deserves. He's methodical and KNOWS how important he is to the sound, but, dammit, I just wish there was less of him. Apparently, Lanois and company agree and are able to reign him in and because of that he soars in simplicity on songs like the gorgeous "Mothers of the Disappeared".
On this album there is less. Of everything. There is space. between the notes, in the songs, in the harmonies. even as the room fills with sound the songs breath and lift themselves up through the minimalism. It all amounts to so much more. These songs don't just fall from the sky. They crash to the earth with such a resounding import that they demand to be heard. And once they are, "With or Without You", "Where the Streets Have No Name", "In God's Country", "Bullet the Blue Sky", "I still Haven't Found What I am Looking For", they never leave you.
While the layers of "U2" are indelible here, I can't help but think that, hey, this album would be just as good without them.
Now, I've never made it past the first half of the cd so imagine what a treat it was to hear "One Tree Hill" for the first time." And "Running to Stand Still". And the weeping beauty of the aforementioed "Mothers of the Disappeared". Bliss.
Of course there is the inevitable mood piece (Exit) and weak posturing (Red Hill Mining Town) but we shall forgive the transgressions in the light of all which has come before, after and around. If "The Unforgettable Fire" was their mainstream breakthrough, this is the succulent dessert. Decadent, extreme, filling that it leaves you not so sated that you don't want more, but full enough that you know you have digested something great.
Grade A+
A Side: Really? Ok. "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For"
Blindside: Tie: Running to Stand Still & One Tree Hill
Downside: Red Hill Mining Town
Ratings explained:
A Sides are the hit you should own.
Blindsides are the songs you probably never heard but would enjoy
Downsides are the worst track on the album.
The difference is that, while Stipe and Co. soldiered on after a key member left (after saying that they wouldn't ever do such a thing) U2 has been comprised of the same 4 Irish lads since 1980.
1980! If Rock and Roll began in 1955, which is the accepted norm, then u2 has been around for more than HALF of the history of Rock.
What really surprised me as I began to research this retrospective is just how young they all are. Three of the members were born in 1961 and the other is even younger. I was born in 1965 which makes Bono and the gang close to being contemporaries.
The thing is, I have never heard the entire albums. I own them, in various forms, but after the big hit songs it just all sounds the same to me, so I would turn the record, CD, mp3, off.
Who among us doesn't own "The Joshua Tree"? And who has really listened beyond the first four tracks? (U2 notoriously front loads their albums with the hit singles starting off with a bang but giving us little reason to keep listening sometimes)
So, an end shall be put to that for me. I have begun the great U2 retrospective of 2008. And here's what I think:
U2 - The Joshua Tree - 1987 (buy it)
Hey! What's that sound? Harmonicas???? Acoustic Guitar??! What the hell? What is this?
Oh, hey. It's The Joshua Tree. The uber-iconic u2 album. THE album from the sky, as a friend likes to put things. To my friend, there are some songs that are "songs from the sky", they just floated down and landed in the hands of someone who knew what to do with them. This album is loaded, LOADED with them. And melody. And a peripheral Dave Evans. Like a spice or a flavor, that is his guitars on Joshua.
I'm being inordinately hard on The Edge but that's just because he's always been the Spock to Bono's Kirk. He gets more credit than I think he deserves. He's methodical and KNOWS how important he is to the sound, but, dammit, I just wish there was less of him. Apparently, Lanois and company agree and are able to reign him in and because of that he soars in simplicity on songs like the gorgeous "Mothers of the Disappeared".
On this album there is less. Of everything. There is space. between the notes, in the songs, in the harmonies. even as the room fills with sound the songs breath and lift themselves up through the minimalism. It all amounts to so much more. These songs don't just fall from the sky. They crash to the earth with such a resounding import that they demand to be heard. And once they are, "With or Without You", "Where the Streets Have No Name", "In God's Country", "Bullet the Blue Sky", "I still Haven't Found What I am Looking For", they never leave you.
While the layers of "U2" are indelible here, I can't help but think that, hey, this album would be just as good without them.
Now, I've never made it past the first half of the cd so imagine what a treat it was to hear "One Tree Hill" for the first time." And "Running to Stand Still". And the weeping beauty of the aforementioed "Mothers of the Disappeared". Bliss.
Of course there is the inevitable mood piece (Exit) and weak posturing (Red Hill Mining Town) but we shall forgive the transgressions in the light of all which has come before, after and around. If "The Unforgettable Fire" was their mainstream breakthrough, this is the succulent dessert. Decadent, extreme, filling that it leaves you not so sated that you don't want more, but full enough that you know you have digested something great.
Grade A+
A Side: Really? Ok. "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For"
Blindside: Tie: Running to Stand Still & One Tree Hill
Downside: Red Hill Mining Town
Ratings explained:
A Sides are the hit you should own.
Blindsides are the songs you probably never heard but would enjoy
Downsides are the worst track on the album.
listening Post: U2 The Unforgettable Fire
Like most people, I imagine, I am very well versed in the well known songs of U2. How could I not be? During the 80s they were ubiquitous. U2 and R.E.M. (possibly the subject of a later listening post) came out at the same time, have lasted the same amount of time and had roughly the same number of hits.
The difference is that, while Stipe and Co. soldiered on after a key member left (after saying that they wouldn't ever do such a thing) U2 has been comprised of the same 4 Irish lads since 1980.
1980! If Rock and Roll began in 1955, which is the accepted norm, then u2 has been around for more than HALF of the history of Rock.
What really surprised me as I began to research this retrospective is just how young they all are. Three of the members were born in 1961 and the other is even younger. I was born in 1965 which makes Bono and the gang close to being contemporaries.
The thing is, I have never heard the entire albums. I own them, in various forms, but after the big hit songs it just all sounds the same to me, so I would turn the record, CD, mp3, off.
Who among us doesn't own "The Joshua Tree"? And who has really listened beyond the first four tracks? (U2 notoriously front loads their albums with the hit singles starting off with a bang but giving us little reason to keep listening sometimes)
So, an end shall be put to that for me. I have begun the great U2 retrospective of 2008. And here's what I think:
U2 - The Unforgettable Fire - 1984 (buy it)
Eno and Lanois. They are responsible. It's because of them that this album is the shit.
The first 4 tracks cut like glass before it settles into a more ponderous experimentation. Instead of just being angry men waving a flag of freedom or christianity, they have chosen America, racism and hate as their tapestry and weave greatness through the fabric.
Eno and the gang recognize the true secret weapon and it's not chk-chk-chk Edge guitars. It's not Bono's messianic posing. It's Larry Mullen's drums. This album pounds like a freight train. And Mullen elevates everybody else.
One can even forgive the lesser tracks for the genius that is the elegiac "Bad".
U2 played Bad at the Concert for Life and, besides Queen's performace, it was easily the highlight of the day. They were about to become megastars and write one of the most powerful and enduring albums of the decade but had they just given us The Unforgettable Fire, Dyenu. It would have been enough.
Grade A
A Side: Bad
BlindSide: Wire
Downside: Elvis Presley and America
The difference is that, while Stipe and Co. soldiered on after a key member left (after saying that they wouldn't ever do such a thing) U2 has been comprised of the same 4 Irish lads since 1980.
1980! If Rock and Roll began in 1955, which is the accepted norm, then u2 has been around for more than HALF of the history of Rock.
What really surprised me as I began to research this retrospective is just how young they all are. Three of the members were born in 1961 and the other is even younger. I was born in 1965 which makes Bono and the gang close to being contemporaries.
The thing is, I have never heard the entire albums. I own them, in various forms, but after the big hit songs it just all sounds the same to me, so I would turn the record, CD, mp3, off.
Who among us doesn't own "The Joshua Tree"? And who has really listened beyond the first four tracks? (U2 notoriously front loads their albums with the hit singles starting off with a bang but giving us little reason to keep listening sometimes)
So, an end shall be put to that for me. I have begun the great U2 retrospective of 2008. And here's what I think:
U2 - The Unforgettable Fire - 1984 (buy it)
Eno and Lanois. They are responsible. It's because of them that this album is the shit.
The first 4 tracks cut like glass before it settles into a more ponderous experimentation. Instead of just being angry men waving a flag of freedom or christianity, they have chosen America, racism and hate as their tapestry and weave greatness through the fabric.
Eno and the gang recognize the true secret weapon and it's not chk-chk-chk Edge guitars. It's not Bono's messianic posing. It's Larry Mullen's drums. This album pounds like a freight train. And Mullen elevates everybody else.
One can even forgive the lesser tracks for the genius that is the elegiac "Bad".
U2 played Bad at the Concert for Life and, besides Queen's performace, it was easily the highlight of the day. They were about to become megastars and write one of the most powerful and enduring albums of the decade but had they just given us The Unforgettable Fire, Dyenu. It would have been enough.
Grade A
A Side: Bad
BlindSide: Wire
Downside: Elvis Presley and America
listening Post: U2 War
Like most people, I imagine, I am very well versed in the well known songs of U2. How could I not be? During the 80s they were ubiquitous. U2 and R.E.M. (possibly the subject of a later listening post) came out at the same time, have lasted the same amount of time and had roughly the same number of hits.
The difference is that, while Stipe and Co. soldiered on after a key member left (after saying that they wouldn't ever do such a thing) U2 has been comprised of the same 4 Irish lads since 1980.
1980! If Rock and Roll began in 1955, which is the accepted norm, then u2 has been around for more than HALF of the history of Rock.
What really surprised me as I began to research this retrospective is just how young they all are. Three of the members were born in 1961 and the other is even younger. I was born in 1965 which makes Bono and the gang close to being contemporaries.
The thing is, I have never heard the entire albums. I own them, in various forms, but after the big hit songs it just all sounds the same to me, so I would turn the record, CD, mp3, off.
Who among us doesn't own "The Joshua Tree"? And who has really listened beyond the first four tracks? (U2 notoriously front loads their albums with the hit singles starting off with a bang but giving us little reason to keep listening sometimes)
So, an end shall be put to that for me. I have begun the great U2 retrospective of 2008. And here's what I think:
U2 - War - 1983 (buy it)
Okay. This is more like it. I think I get it a little more now. What makes War different from the previous U2 albums? I mean, there's still a preponderance of pomposity (and that will only just get more and more prevalent) so, what makes this different?
The first song as single is still there. Sunday Bloody Sunday is a perennial favorite to this day. Two tracks later New Year's Day explodes with condemnation enough to fill an arena.
What is it about War, then?
Two things as far as I can figure:
Bono is more mature (at 22!) and less prone to wailing through the entire song. He has found and fallen in love with melody and someone has worked with him on lyrics because they cut to the bone.
The other thing is:
The Edge is no longer treated like the guiding force of the band. Which is a little odd because it his style that really sets the band apart from others of their class. What they have learned is a little edge goes a LONG way. Pulling him out, reigning him in allows for the rhythm section to show that they are, indeed, the driving force of this group. Mullen and Clayton really show their chops here. They have been flourishing for 3 years on record but now they take more of a center stage as the band is shown to be more rhythm oriented than traditional blues rock (which will prove odd on Rattle and Hum a few years later) and that is a very good thing.
This really feels like the best place to start listening to U2. Where Boy was an amuse bouche and October was the ginger or kimchee, War is a great appetizer. The main course is yet to come.
Grade A
A Side: Sunday Bloody Sunday
Blindside: The Refugee
Downside: None. This album is terrific all the way through
The difference is that, while Stipe and Co. soldiered on after a key member left (after saying that they wouldn't ever do such a thing) U2 has been comprised of the same 4 Irish lads since 1980.
1980! If Rock and Roll began in 1955, which is the accepted norm, then u2 has been around for more than HALF of the history of Rock.
What really surprised me as I began to research this retrospective is just how young they all are. Three of the members were born in 1961 and the other is even younger. I was born in 1965 which makes Bono and the gang close to being contemporaries.
The thing is, I have never heard the entire albums. I own them, in various forms, but after the big hit songs it just all sounds the same to me, so I would turn the record, CD, mp3, off.
Who among us doesn't own "The Joshua Tree"? And who has really listened beyond the first four tracks? (U2 notoriously front loads their albums with the hit singles starting off with a bang but giving us little reason to keep listening sometimes)
So, an end shall be put to that for me. I have begun the great U2 retrospective of 2008. And here's what I think:
U2 - War - 1983 (buy it)
Okay. This is more like it. I think I get it a little more now. What makes War different from the previous U2 albums? I mean, there's still a preponderance of pomposity (and that will only just get more and more prevalent) so, what makes this different?
The first song as single is still there. Sunday Bloody Sunday is a perennial favorite to this day. Two tracks later New Year's Day explodes with condemnation enough to fill an arena.
What is it about War, then?
Two things as far as I can figure:
Bono is more mature (at 22!) and less prone to wailing through the entire song. He has found and fallen in love with melody and someone has worked with him on lyrics because they cut to the bone.
The other thing is:
The Edge is no longer treated like the guiding force of the band. Which is a little odd because it his style that really sets the band apart from others of their class. What they have learned is a little edge goes a LONG way. Pulling him out, reigning him in allows for the rhythm section to show that they are, indeed, the driving force of this group. Mullen and Clayton really show their chops here. They have been flourishing for 3 years on record but now they take more of a center stage as the band is shown to be more rhythm oriented than traditional blues rock (which will prove odd on Rattle and Hum a few years later) and that is a very good thing.
This really feels like the best place to start listening to U2. Where Boy was an amuse bouche and October was the ginger or kimchee, War is a great appetizer. The main course is yet to come.
Grade A
A Side: Sunday Bloody Sunday
Blindside: The Refugee
Downside: None. This album is terrific all the way through
Listening Post: U2 October
Like most people, I imagine, I am very well versed in the well known songs of U2. How could I not be? During the 80s they were ubiquitous. U2 and R.E.M. (possibly the subject of a later listening post) came out at the same time, have lasted the same amount of time and had roughly the same number of hits.
The difference is that, while Stipe and Co. soldiered on after a key member left (after saying that they wouldn't ever do such a thing) U2 has been comprised of the same 4 Irish lads since 1980.
1980! If Rock and Roll began in 1955, which is the accepted norm, then u2 has been around for more than HALF of the history of Rock.
What really surprised me as I began to research this retrospective is just how young they all are. Three of the members were born in 1961 and the other is even younger. I was born in 1965 which makes Bono and the gang close to being contemporaries.
The thing is, I have never heard the entire albums. I own them, in various forms, but after the big hit songs it just all sounds the same to me, so I would turn the record, CD, mp3, off.
Who among us doesn't own "The Joshua Tree"? And who has really listened beyond the first four tracks? (U2 notoriously front loads their albums with the hit singles starting off with a bang but giving us little reason to keep listening sometimes)
So, an end shall be put to that for me. I have begun the great U2 retrospective of 2008. And here's what I think:
U2 - October - 1981 (Buy it)
Okay. What can be said about October?
Is it Boy II? No, not really?
Is The Edge all over this thing? yes. And how do you talk to him? "Hey, THE Edge, could hand me a soda?" "What did you think of the last epsiode of Lost, The Edge?" Annoying.
Is it Christian Rock? Um....yeah.
But is it good?
No.
In fact, I would hazard a guess that, if a band today, like Jet or The Darkness or Ima Robot, who had moderately successful debuts were to put out a record this bad as their sophomore work they would be dropped by their label? Oh, wait. Hmmmm.....
October opens with the patented U2 fade in only this feels like they wanted it to sound like a continuation of Boy. Gloria is the first track, the only single, the only song you know and, all I can say is, Thank God for MTV, right, boys?
October is pretentious. October is Self-righteous. October is a waste of our time.
Grade D
A Side: Gloria
Blindside: Is That All? (or nothing, there really isn't much to recommend this album.)
Downside: Tomorrow (a great example of an album crushing itself under he weight of it's own importance)
Ratings explained:
A Sides are the hit you should own.
Blindsides are the songs you probably never heard but would enjoy
Downsides are the worst track on the album.
The difference is that, while Stipe and Co. soldiered on after a key member left (after saying that they wouldn't ever do such a thing) U2 has been comprised of the same 4 Irish lads since 1980.
1980! If Rock and Roll began in 1955, which is the accepted norm, then u2 has been around for more than HALF of the history of Rock.
What really surprised me as I began to research this retrospective is just how young they all are. Three of the members were born in 1961 and the other is even younger. I was born in 1965 which makes Bono and the gang close to being contemporaries.
The thing is, I have never heard the entire albums. I own them, in various forms, but after the big hit songs it just all sounds the same to me, so I would turn the record, CD, mp3, off.
Who among us doesn't own "The Joshua Tree"? And who has really listened beyond the first four tracks? (U2 notoriously front loads their albums with the hit singles starting off with a bang but giving us little reason to keep listening sometimes)
So, an end shall be put to that for me. I have begun the great U2 retrospective of 2008. And here's what I think:
U2 - October - 1981 (Buy it)
Okay. What can be said about October?
Is it Boy II? No, not really?
Is The Edge all over this thing? yes. And how do you talk to him? "Hey, THE Edge, could hand me a soda?" "What did you think of the last epsiode of Lost, The Edge?" Annoying.
Is it Christian Rock? Um....yeah.
But is it good?
No.
In fact, I would hazard a guess that, if a band today, like Jet or The Darkness or Ima Robot, who had moderately successful debuts were to put out a record this bad as their sophomore work they would be dropped by their label? Oh, wait. Hmmmm.....
October opens with the patented U2 fade in only this feels like they wanted it to sound like a continuation of Boy. Gloria is the first track, the only single, the only song you know and, all I can say is, Thank God for MTV, right, boys?
October is pretentious. October is Self-righteous. October is a waste of our time.
Grade D
A Side: Gloria
Blindside: Is That All? (or nothing, there really isn't much to recommend this album.)
Downside: Tomorrow (a great example of an album crushing itself under he weight of it's own importance)
Ratings explained:
A Sides are the hit you should own.
Blindsides are the songs you probably never heard but would enjoy
Downsides are the worst track on the album.
Listening Post: U2 Boy
Like most people, I imagine, I am very well versed in the well known songs of U2. How could I not be? During the 80s they were ubiquitous. U2 and R.E.M. (possibly the subject of a later listening post) came out at the same time, have lasted the same amount of time and had roughly the same number of hits.
The difference is that, while Stipe and Co. soldiered on after a key member left (after saying that they wouldn't ever do such a thing) U2 has been comprised of the same 4 Irish lads since 1980.
1980! If Rock and Roll began in 1955, which is the accepted norm, then u2 has been around for more than HALF of the history of Rock.
What really surprised me as I began to research this retrospective is just how young they all are. Three of the members were born in 1961 and the other is even younger. I was born in 1965 which makes Bono and the gang close to being contemporaries.
The thing is, I have never heard the entire albums. I own them, in various forms, but after the big hit songs it just all sounds the same to me, so I would turn the record, CD, mp3, off.
Who among us doesn't own "The Joshua Tree"? And who has really listened beyond the first four tracks? (U2 notoriously front loads their albums with the hit singles starting off with a bang but giving us little reason to keep listening sometimes)
So, an end shall be put to that for me. I have begun the great U2 retrospective of 2008. And here's what I think:
U2 - Boy - 1980 (buy it)
The debut was exactly what I had expected. Which is not to say it's bad, it's not. It's quite good, and powerful, and, dare I say, redundant. "I WIll Follow" is a perfect example of what this band would be for the rest of their career: beholden to the producer. Lillywhite washes everything through his filters and layers sounds and guitars in a deft balance of cacophony leaving me not to wonder who the band is but, why is everyone so in love with Dave Evans (The Edge)'s guitars.
Edge is all over this album, and it's not necessarily a good thing. It serves the songs well, but after a bit you really get it. He's the sound. Bono's wail (for he had not yet begun to really trust himself beyond eunuched wailer) is present but borders on hair metal.
In fact, I could hear this album playing next to everything from Joy Division to Echo and the Bunnymen. But after 1982 what would you do with it? I, for one, will never listen to it again in it's entirety. Not because it's bad, but because it doesn't offer me much in the way of repeat listen songs.
Still, it's a great debut. And it portends of things to come. Some bad. Some good. Some great.
Grade B+
A Side: I Will Follow
Blindside: The Electric Co. (Energy and power make me wonder why it is so deep into the album)
Downside: Twilight (It sounds like Ratt. I'm not kidding. And the lyrics are poor)
Ratings explained:
A Sides are the hit you should own.
Blindsides are the songs you probably never heard but would enjoy
Downsides are the worst track on the album.
The difference is that, while Stipe and Co. soldiered on after a key member left (after saying that they wouldn't ever do such a thing) U2 has been comprised of the same 4 Irish lads since 1980.
1980! If Rock and Roll began in 1955, which is the accepted norm, then u2 has been around for more than HALF of the history of Rock.
What really surprised me as I began to research this retrospective is just how young they all are. Three of the members were born in 1961 and the other is even younger. I was born in 1965 which makes Bono and the gang close to being contemporaries.
The thing is, I have never heard the entire albums. I own them, in various forms, but after the big hit songs it just all sounds the same to me, so I would turn the record, CD, mp3, off.
Who among us doesn't own "The Joshua Tree"? And who has really listened beyond the first four tracks? (U2 notoriously front loads their albums with the hit singles starting off with a bang but giving us little reason to keep listening sometimes)
So, an end shall be put to that for me. I have begun the great U2 retrospective of 2008. And here's what I think:
U2 - Boy - 1980 (buy it)
The debut was exactly what I had expected. Which is not to say it's bad, it's not. It's quite good, and powerful, and, dare I say, redundant. "I WIll Follow" is a perfect example of what this band would be for the rest of their career: beholden to the producer. Lillywhite washes everything through his filters and layers sounds and guitars in a deft balance of cacophony leaving me not to wonder who the band is but, why is everyone so in love with Dave Evans (The Edge)'s guitars.
Edge is all over this album, and it's not necessarily a good thing. It serves the songs well, but after a bit you really get it. He's the sound. Bono's wail (for he had not yet begun to really trust himself beyond eunuched wailer) is present but borders on hair metal.
In fact, I could hear this album playing next to everything from Joy Division to Echo and the Bunnymen. But after 1982 what would you do with it? I, for one, will never listen to it again in it's entirety. Not because it's bad, but because it doesn't offer me much in the way of repeat listen songs.
Still, it's a great debut. And it portends of things to come. Some bad. Some good. Some great.
Grade B+
A Side: I Will Follow
Blindside: The Electric Co. (Energy and power make me wonder why it is so deep into the album)
Downside: Twilight (It sounds like Ratt. I'm not kidding. And the lyrics are poor)
Ratings explained:
A Sides are the hit you should own.
Blindsides are the songs you probably never heard but would enjoy
Downsides are the worst track on the album.
Saturday, June 7, 2008
All my friends are virtual.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Common People - William Shatner / ST:TAS mashup
I'm not really one for the whole Spock/Kirk gay thing, but this is really pretty funny and it is another excuse to listen to Shatner/Ben Folds/Joe Jackson version of "common people". And laugh.
Monday, June 2, 2008
Snapshot: Palm Springs
Just behind the jack in the Box on the 10 in Palm Springs is a fenced metal works shop.
This SpiderBug caught our eye.
This SpiderBug caught our eye.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)