| NOT SAYING THAT I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING SAID | |
|
Posted by: |
steven_stuart 02:34 am UTC 09/21/16 |
| In reply to: | THE LONGEST AND MOST SCHOLARLY REVIEW OF A MEAT LOAF ALBUM EVER FROM JIM STEINMAN FOREVER FB PAGE - ... - steven_stuart 02:31 am UTC 09/21/16 |
| But it's very interesting. Hee hee. > At long last, I’ve heard as much of the Braver Than We Are > album as is currently available (which is to say, the > whole bloody thing save one track), wherever one can find > it, to the public. Everybody’s chiming in with reviews, so > I suppose it’s my turn. Two warnings before we proceed, > though: > I tend to get long-winded about what I like and didn’t > like song-wise, which is why I didn’t make this a > conventional group post in and of itself. If you’re > willing to stick with me all the way through, then more > power to you! If you’re not, then just don’t leave a > comment. To comment on this, you really need to read the > whole thing with an open mind. (Having said that, I did > include a section before the track-by-track breakdown with > my overall review if you still want to know my general > impressions.) > If you’re the kind of person who only wants to hear praise > for the album, this review might not be for you. I will > simply say up-front that while I love Meat and Jim, I > don’t have to out-and-out love everything they do > together. There were a lot of bright spots, but I saw weak > ones as well, and I’m not going to beat around the bush > with regard to them. If you don’t like an even remotely > critical eye, don’t read this. Saves me having to deal > with bashing. > OVERALL: > MEAT’S VOICE: This has been the big question for many > curious fans, especially those watching his live material > of late, where Meat (let’s be honest) hasn’t so much sung > his and Jim’s classic material as he has alternated > shouting and muttering it over a safety track and a bevy > of background vocalists that vainly attempt to camouflage > his shortcomings. Like him for what he used to do or hate > him for what he is now, he really shouldn’t be performing > any of the material he and Jim created, old or “new,” in a > live format anymore. In a studio, however, it is much > easier to compensate for what isn’t there, so this album > was always going to be a toss-up. As recently as 2011, > Paul Crook, who handled the lion’s share of production on > Braver, managed to make Meat sound halfway pleasant on > Hell in a Handbasket, so it was possible he could pull off > something. Well, this album shows what a difference five > years makes. I won’t mince words: Meat’s voice is totally > shot, and in most cases, not even the (clearly present) > AutoTune covers for it. (It becomes especially obvious > considering that when the same thing was done on > Handbasket, they processed everybody’s vocals so Meat > didn’t sound otherworldly or out-of-place; on this album, > maybe because of the rush to finish things up, the mixers > threw caution to the wind and didn’t give the other vocals > the same attention, because Meat sticks out like a sore > thumb on an album of otherwise strong, minimally processed > voices, almost like Pierce Brosnan compared to the rest of > the cast of Mamma Mia!.) With that in mind, I won’t be > covering Meat’s vocals unless it’s necessary to point them > out anywhere else in the review; once the obvious is > stated, there’s really not a lot more to say. Having said > that... > MATERIAL: For being entirely recycled material with new > bits and bobs stitched on, it’s a surprisingly good > collection of tracks. The songs I loved, I really loved; > the songs I liked, they were alright but I wouldn’t miss > them. There’s only one song I absolutely didn’t care for > out of the bunch that are currently available, and I’ll > get to that down the way a bit. (Do I particularly care > for the order they appear in? Not necessarily, but I > haven’t tried re-arranging them yet. Gonna wait for the > full album to do that.) Most of my love for the songs is > owed to... > ARRANGEMENTS: Meat made a lot of noise on mlukfc.com in > the months of production leading up to completion about > how this album was going to boast a lot of new sounds in > terms of arrangements, and that it would sound more > “current” and not like the material he and Jim used to cut > (a word used here to mean “record” :P). Naturally, having > heard with dismay -- like everyone else -- what Meat and > Desmond Child at one point considered “the future of Bat > Out of Hell” (Desmond’s words, to be fair, not Meat’s), I > was skeptical as to how well this could be pulled off by > Meat and anybody without Jim’s direct presence and firm > hand. For the most part, however, upon hearing the album, > I’ve been surprised and pleased by what I’ve heard. If > Justin Avery Music is the one responsible for these > arrangements, color me impressed! I’d love to hear what he > could do with more of Jim’s offbeat oeuvre. I didn’t > always feel the “background vocals as co-lead chorus” > effect was necessary, or as effective in the studio as it > is live for covering Meat’s (admittedly ample) ass, but, > as Jim’s body of work proves, there’s nothing wrong with > sticking to what you know. > TRACK BY TRACK: > 1. Who Needs The Young > This was a track I was particularly concerned about. Meat > has always said he wanted to include this on an album, but > I had always felt there was an obvious reason it never > turned up until Braver. That obvious reason, of course, is > simply that it had never been a rock number. Every > iteration of the song we are aware of from past projects > of Jim’s which included it basically presents the song as > a wacky, ghoulish cabaret tune -- “Das Chicago Song” gone > violent and turned up to 11, Brecht and Weill if they let > a high schooler with a leaning toward scatological humor > contribute to the lyrics. Whatever the song’s relative > merits, it did not sound in demo (or other) form like a > “typical Meat and Jim track.” Meat has always emphasized > that his music is rock with theatrical elements, as > opposed to theater with rock elements; whatever the blend > of the two may have been, “Who Needs The Young” has never > sounded like it would fit in on a Meat Loaf album > (especially after Meat reportedly rejected some of Jim’s > demos for Bat III, as per Jim’s old blog, for sounding > “too theatrical”), and without Jim directly helping to > massage the arrangement, I was unsure of how well it would > turn out. > Until now! MY GOD, I was SURPRISED and PLEASED by what > happened here!! The arrangements really make this track. > The best way to put it for those who haven’t heard more > than a sample is that it sounds like a wonderfully > demented outtake from Repo: The Genetic Opera (or the > Devil’s Carnival series of films by the creators of Repo). > Asked to sum it up in a phrase, I’d call it “The > Pandemonium Shadow Show gone rock sets up shop in Berlin > during an economic depression, 1930.” I came in doubting > it would work, and came out feeling it’s one of the best > tracks on the album! Works surprisingly well as an opener, > setting the tone for much of what follows (especially with > the “My voice just isn’t what it was” lyric, where Meat > sounds positively frantic, almost as though he’s > reluctantly admitting defeat even as he shouts down the > world), and I couldn’t love it more. > 2. Going All The Way Is Just The Start (A Song In Six > Movements) > Well, I’ve already aired these feelings, but it’s worth > noting that I don’t care for the new title for two > reasons: > Nothing major has changed materially, in my opinion, to > justify changing the main title. > The subtitle makes no damn sense because the six movements > are never delineated at all, and it doesn’t sound like the > song has six movements. For example, “Paradise By The > Dashboard Light” had “Paradise,” “Let Me Sleep On It,” and > “Praying For The End Of Time” -- there was a clearly > delineated three-act structure, and you could tell which > part of the song was which. It sounded like a tri-fold > number. By comparison, “Going All The Way...” has no such > delineated structure (at least until we get liner notes > indicating otherwise) and sounds like a single whole, or > -- to be generous -- two movements, like it is in Tanz der > Vampire. Maybe three, if you want to push the long ending > from the Karine Hannah demo (which gives the song its new > title) as a separate entity. (Certainly not six, whatever > way you slice it.) > The whole thing stinks of trying to disguise the fact that > this is money for old rope. Sorry, but I’m not drinking > the Kool-Aid on this one. Were I in charge, especially > with the album’s release so far in the future, I’d veto > the title change (yes, even with the single and early > promo materials already available) and call a spade a > spade. But, as I am frequently reminded in a public venue > by at least one creator of this album, I’m not in charge, > so I have to be content with airing my feelings here. > With that out of the way... > I really love Karla and Ellen’s guest vocals; it was a > wise choice to let them do most of the singing, and they > easily come away the stars of this tune. (Having said > that, I can’t help feeling that some of those previously > named for the track, like Bonnie Tyler, Lorraine Crosby, > or even Patti, might have been good to include as a > contrasting timbre rather than including both Karla and > Ellen, who sounded so similar that until I heard Ellen’s > vowel sounds, which are very distinctive [pay attention to > how she sings any vowel sound with an “r” on the end, for > example], I couldn’t tell when the switch occurred, though > it got easier as the song went on. I admit that for a half > second I even thought to myself, “No wonder it was so > easy to replace Ellen in 1978, you can barely tell the > difference unless it’s visual.” I know, I know... in the > words of Larry the Cable Guy, “Lord, I apologize for that > right there. Be there with the starving pygmies in New > Guinea, amen.”) > The new lyrics aren’t horrible. They’re not all that, but > they’re not egregiously bad. Having seen some of Jim’s > rough drafts lately (“Devil’s Playground” anyone?), I feel > I had good reason to worry. After hearing them, I see no > reason to worry, although I admit to a little > disappointment; the new lyrics sound like the kind of > stuff Jim came up with and abandoned as he first developed > the song, and then when Meat asked for some new words, he > just went over the old pile of papers and chucked verses > in where he felt they were appropriate. They don’t sound > classic Jim, or even new-wave Jim... they just sound > generic. They’re not amazing. But they were okay. > I agree with Jim that listening to either of the two > four-and-some-odd-minute variants of the single edit does > not do this track justice. I can understand why Jim > doesn’t like them; they sound like they were made by a > monkey reading a copy of ProTools for Dummies. With whole > chunks of the song missing, it sounds like only half a > thought, and you entirely miss the new lyrics, which are > included in one of the segments that was edited out, so > anything new or distinctive about the song is not there. > Listen to the full version if you can get your hands on > it. Whatever else you think about the song, you will agree > the full version is best. > This track managed to stick fairly close to the > arrangement we all know, while giving it more of the rock > edge we’ve come to expect from a Meat record. It didn’t > sound like something Jim wouldn’t do, so kudos for that. > On this track, however, the gossip grapevine suggests we > don’t have Justin Avery to thank for this; allegedly this > and the next track were produced by Jim and his usual > crew, and handed to Meat’s team to slap vocals -- and > possibly a few instrumental overdubs -- on. (Shades of the > Dead Ringer days.) I feel like this isn’t a big reveal, > because a) so far it’s gossip, so until the album comes > out with distinct credits who knows what’s true, and b) > listening to “Going All The Way...” and “Speaking In > Tongues,” you can just tell that Jim put his fingers in > the pie more on those than anywhere else on the album. > While they sound consistent with the rest of the album’s > arrangements, there’s something distinctly Jim about them. > (Perhaps on “Going All The Way...” it’s the obvious > reliance on Bova’s programming going into “Sometimes it’s > the flesh...” :P) > 3. Speaking In Tongues > Far and away one of my favorite tracks on the album. This > is easily the biggest transformation of any that the songs > on the album have undergone; this went from a throwaway > boner joke to something like a hymn. The new bridge in > particular makes the whole shift in tone work. When Meat > said he was trying to get Jim to add another verse in an > interview, I thought that Jim would just use both of the > previously existing verses from the two Over the Top/Dream > Engine variants and call it a day, but he exceeded my > expectations and went above and beyond the call of duty to > deliver a track that sits easily alongside “Read ‘Em And > Weep” and “Everything Is Permitted” as an underrated > classic Meat Loaf ballad. > Arrangement-wise, this is one of the tracks where I feel > the co-lead chorus of background vocals was unnecessary; > while Meat’s voice sounds obviously processed, it also > sounds strong enough to carry most of the song without > needing help. If the chorus really needed to be there, it > could be used on the repeat of the first verse which > closes the song, but I don’t see the point in using it for > more than that -- it only draws further attention to > Meat’s vocal state. (While I’m talking about the vocals, > aside from the female lead, they sound like they were > ported in from another place and plopped into the track > without caring about their effect on the overall sound; > the band and the singers sound like they’re in two > entirely different worlds, which, owing to the rumor > discussed above, may well have been the case. But still, > you couldn’t mix it so they sounded like more of a whole? > A little reverb, perhaps? No? It sounds like a rough > track.) > Also, I admit to missing the “Christmas tree” verse, even > though it doesn’t really fit with this arrangement; maybe > Meat can record a version of the song as a novelty track, > with that verse replacing the repeat of the first verse, > if he ever gets that Christmas duets album he’s talked > about over the past few years onto the market. :P > 4. Loving You’s A Dirty Job But Somebody’s Gotta Do It > I hate to be “that guy,” but I’m gonna say it. Let’s tick > all the boxes: cover of a previously released Jim song > made popular by a female artist? Check. Meat singing most > of the female’s part of the song? Check. Decent but > unexciting new arrangement? Check. All this needs is a > not-so-carefully-chosen female celebrity in place of Stacy > Michelle (who, I might add, is one hell of a singer), and > an ostentatious unnecessary string arrangement (though in > this case I think it would have helped), and this could be > a Bat III outtake. It sounds for all the world like “It’s > All Coming Back To Me Now” and “Cry Over Me.” (And more > than that, it sounds like Meat and his team playing a game > of “Anything You Can Do (I Can Do Better)” with Desmond > and his crew.) I’m sorry, but it does. If you like this > track and not those, opinion is subjective, and my > subjective opinion is you’re a fuckin’ hypocrite, ‘cause > this sounds exactly the same stylistically. > With that note out of the way... it’s fine. It’s not > Bonnie’s, but it’s fine. For all the Eighties production > and the gobs of Todd Rundgren-arranged background vocals, > I vastly prefer her version, which at least was exciting > and had some movement to it. Like the Bat III tracks I > compare this to, this version sort of plods along, and it > doesn’t do anything particularly new. Unlike them, it > seems to go out of its way not to sound like previous > versions. I can see what Meat was trying to do, but it > just doesn’t work for me. The intro is epic, very > guitar-driven, but after that, it’s just confusing, and it > takes a moment for you to realize that it is Bonnie’s song > and not something new with the same title; there’s nothing > familiar to latch onto until Meat starts singing. I’m not > his biggest defender at times, as many will attest, but > Jim picked those intro chords for a reason -- change > whatever you want to about the arrangement, but leave the > basic chords there so we know what the hell we’re > listening to. We shouldn’t be waiting for the first verse > to start in order to know what we’re hearing. (Also, I > know Meat has said they were deliberately trying to step > away from the traditional Rundgren-ized Steinman sound, > but I miss the long fade with “There were times we had it > all...”/“It’s a dirty job...” playing off of each other. > The way it ends, it sounds just like the ending of the > “All Coming Back” single edit. I thought this album wasn’t > supposed to remind us of Bat III.) > 5. Souvenirs > This one was the first I heard (along with “Train Of > Love”) before the rest of the album leaked, so it had a > lot of time to grow on me. It’s alright, but it’s not > remarkable. I can see why Jim purportedly doesn’t really > care for this track, but I do like it for what it is. > Arrangement-wise, I liked the horn section, very > Springsteen or even Billy Joel (a comparison that would > make Chris Clark very happy), but it could not have > sounded more synthesized and fake. I mean, you’ve got a > sax player in the band, let him do more solo sax like the > demo; it won’t kill you. (Dave Luther sounds great on the > rest of the song, for Christ’s sake!) Also, I really, > really missed Jim’s piano from the Seventies demo, which > was not just filler like it is here. Jim’s piano pulsed. > It moved with the track. (In fact, I’d argue it’s some of > the best rock ivory-tickling, in terms of normal rock > piano and not traditional Steinman sound anyway, that Jim > has ever recorded.) This just lays there. > Also... who the fuck made it a rule that we can’t fade out > a song on record anymore? This is noticeable on other > songs on this album, but especially so on “Souvenirs.” Why > are we circling back to earlier in the song to give it a > strictly defined ending? We can totally fade into the > distance! It’s okay to do that! As if you needed a reason, > the demo has already set the precedent. The song is over > at the thought that the vocalist “[doesn’t] want to play > with you no more” -- we don’t need to go back and > reiterate what they’ve already said. (Maybe that’s just > me.) > 6. Only When I Feel > Remember how I said at the top of this (already way too > long, sorry!) review that “[t]here’s only one song I > absolutely didn’t care for out of the bunch that are > currently available”? You’ve guessed it. Everyone’s > talking about how “real” this is, and as “real” is a term > with a very flexible definition, I can swallow that if I > must. Meat himself is saying that he had a perfect vocal > for this track, but he sacrificed it because, presumably > speaking as a method actor, he wanted a vocal that > reflected the pain this character was in. > Boy, does this vocal reflect pain! Specifically, my pain > at having to listen to it. If this is how the other songs > sounded without tuning, then Meat needs it, and should > stop pretending that it’s a crutch other artists use but > he doesn’t rely on. If you as a listener like this track > for any reason, fine, but in my book it’s not art, unless > you consider the sound of a man on his last legs trying in > vain to shit out anything that sounds like a note to be > art. (And some people willingly listen to Yoko Ono, so I’m > fully prepared for people to defend this track.) If this > were a live show, maybe, if I really tried, I could > justify it, buying the standard Loafer line that it’s not > about the vocals but about the experience and the > showmanship. But this is an album, where everything is > under a microscope and can be tweaked to absolute > perfection. And I came to hear singing, not... this. > As if that weren’t enough, I agree with Jim that it’s only > half a song. Without “If It Ain’t Broke (Break It)” > attached, this is a trifle, and I say that not even > necessarily agreeing that those two movements, if you > will, belong in one song. It’s a nicely produced and > arranged (except for the vocals) trifle, but it’s still a > trifle. It doesn’t work as a standalone piece, and if it’s > meant to be an intro or segue to “More,” it’s unnecessary. > (I’d like to do as someone on the Rockman has done and > cobble together a mix of this and “If It Ain’t Broke” from > Bat III, and see how it sounds. Maybe I might like it more > then.) > My honest vote, and this is going to be a couple of really > unpopular opinions in a row, so bear with me: > If one is not going to replace the current take with the > tuned vocal in the can (if it exists) before release, they > should just drop this song from the album. It doesn’t add > anything when it’s there, and it subtracts nothing when > it’s not there, as listens where I skip the song have > proved. > If they absolutely feel the need for ten or more songs, > they can do one of two things -- they can elevate the > Imelda May duet bonus tracks, which at least are Steinman > even if they are covers of previously released Meat > material, into the album proper, or they can take the two > non-Steinman bonus tracks (which I fully admit not having > heard) and slot them in where appropriate. “Prize Fight > Lover” alone, if it bears any resemblance to the Hang Cool > Teddy Bear bonus track of the same name, is good enough in > my opinion to stand alongside any Steinman song on this > album. (I may be alone in this, but I will gladly > sacrifice the “All Songs by Jim Steinman” billing -- which > is erroneous anyway, as Michael Weller contributed to the > lyrics of “Souvenirs” and changing a couple of lines in > “More” doesn’t eliminate Andrew Eldritch’s part in shaping > it -- if it means the album is made up of consistently > produced and performed material.) > 7. More > If you’ve heard “More” once, by either The Sisters of > Mercy or on the Wuthering Heights EP, you’ve heard this > track done just fine, and arguably with better > arrangements in either case. (Of the two previously > released versions, I would say, programming aside, that > Meat’s arrangement hearkens more to the Wuthering Heights > version than The Sisters’ -- small surprise, as I > understand the Wuthering Heights version was one of the > tracks played over the tannoy before Meat took the stage > on his pre-Bat III tour in 2005.) > Nothing revolutionary goes on here. The two new lines Jim > drops in to replace what is presumably Eldritch’s > political ranting are not particularly creative, and as a > “delightful” bonus, we get to hear more of those moments > where Meat either couldn’t clearly discern the lyrics on > whatever previous version of the song he listened to for > reference (a la “Rise above yourself”/”cell” on “Cry To > Heaven”) or changed a word or two, like he says he often > does, for reasons that only make sense to him. Not bad, > but not great. > 8. Godz > The arrangement on this track is garden variety “new-wave > Meat” (lots of heavy guitars, pounding drumbeat, > relentless pace), but on the plus side, it’s not > particularly rangy, Meat’s vocals don’t sound so obviously > AutoTuned (arguably the most consistent on the album), for > once the co-lead vocals of the chorus work (in any > incarnation of the song, it’s a number for a group > anyway), and the unintentional message of the lyrics give > this song a real resonance with the current political > climate in America. I actually think “Godz” might be the > sleeper hit of the album, especially if they play it on > any alternative stations. > The one drawback is the spoken word section (which, I > might add, comes at kind of a weird spot in the song > instead of being the intro like it was in the Neverland > version -- whoever rearranged the structure of this song > to make it sound more “conventional” should be slapped). > It’s an album where Meat and Jim purport to really be > working together, so spoken word was always going to be a > part of that. But it’s usually Jim doing it, not Meat. > Granted, for a variety of reasons, Jim’s probably in no > condition to record it now, but you mean to tell me he > hasn’t done countless demos of this song in better shape > over the years, like he does every other damn song he’s > ever written, from which he could drop in a sample of his > voice, maybe even add effects to it so he sounds like the > dictator addressing the goose-stepping troops through a > bullhorn or something? > Don’t get me wrong, Meat handles it well enough, but for > continuity with the rest of the work they’ve done > together, and to at least make it seem like Jim cared and > was more involved than “consulting” (whatever that > actually means), tossing in some new lines, changing a > song title, and allegedly producing a couple of band > tracks, it wouldn’t have hurt to use Jim (or at least his > presence) here. Just my two cents. > 9. Skull Of Your Country > Don’t know, haven’t heard it yet (aside from the sample at > the 429 Records site, which certainly sounds interesting, > to say the least), and will be just as surprised as you > guys! > 10. Train Of Love > Some people (looking at you, AG Fad) don’t like this song > to begin with. I do. The demo sounded sparsely produced -- > which it probably was owing to Jim’s financial resources > at the time; especially in theater, you work with what you > can get -- but it’s a really great uptempo shouter, almost > in the tradition of Stax or Motown or even Northern soul, > with Jim’s typical lyrics with twists worthy of a Möbius > strip. I would even argue that, properly produced and > arranged, with the music industry in a different state of > being, this could have been a desperately needed radio hit > (it’s even already of somewhat appropriate length, > edit-wise) for Meat. > This version, however, just sits there. The arrangement > isn’t horrible; I like the background vocals, that slide > guitar work is impressive, Meat’s voice even manages to > sound great in spite of the tuning. But the track is just > not terribly exciting, and it definitely doesn’t feel like > an album closer. > It also suffers from the same problem “Souvenirs” and, to > a certain extent, “...Dirty Job...” did -- there are > elements from the previously recorded version (in this > case, the three chord pattern twanged on guitar in the > intro that could have become a powerful booming > foot-stomper for multiple guitars or horns, the pulsing > piano or synth riff that I think is played on organ or > electric piano in the demo, and some of the background > vocals) that aren’t there which would give it some extra > juice with the proper treatment. Icing on the cake, if you > will. And without them, the track is sort of lifeless. > The Allmusic reviewer once said of Dead Ringer that “Meat > Loaf often sounded only warmed over” compared to the > “fiery listening experience” of Bat Out of Hell. I would > say the same about Meat’s version of this song compared to > what the demo suggests could have gone into it. > CONCLUSION > As Emperor Joseph frequently says in Amadeus, “Well, there > it is.” Like it or hate it, I’ve said my piece. Comments > welcome! | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: THE LONGEST AND MOST SCHOLARLY REVIEW OF A MEAT LOAF ALBUM EVER FROM JIM STEINMAN FOREVER FB PAG ... - jeffw_00 03:21 pm UTC 09/27/16 |
| Next: | Braver thoughts.. - jeffw_00 05:09 pm UTC 09/20/16 |
| Thread: | |